Amazon

Thursday, August 29, 2013

Democrat talking points, from: Daily Glob

CONFEDERACY: The New Democrat Talking Point Has Been Issued

August 28, 2013


Democrats have a flair for whisper campaigns.
When they want to damage their opposition, they float a word or phrase that starts in the farthest reaches of the blogoshpere which then works its way into the mouths of activists, media allies, debate moderators and politicians.
It works like magic. Just ask any Obama voter where they first heard the term “war on women” and watch them struggle to answer. Hmm… was it the Huffington Post? The Daily Kos? ABC News? Obama?
The new whisper campaign aims to re-write history and paint conservatives as “Confederates” or “members of the confederacy.”
It doesn’t matter that the Republican Party was founded to end slavery which Democrats supported. Nor does it matter that the Civil Rights Act was overwhelmingly supported by Republicans, not Democrats.
It doesn’t matter that the last member of the KKK to serve in congress, Senator Robert Byrd was a Democrat. Nor does it matter that the only black member of the US senate, Tim Scott is a Republican.
All that matters is the new talking point. See if you can spot the trend…
August 16, 2013: MSNBC host uses the term Neo-Confederate to describe libertarians and conservatives.
August 20, 2013: MSNBC contributor uses the term Neo-Confederate to describe 2nd Amendment supporters.
August 27, 2013: Before MLK celebration, Jesse Jackson calls the Tea Party the new Confederacy.
August 28, 2013: MSNBC host asks – Are Conservatives the new Confederates?
This phrase or some variation of it will be repeated endlessly between now and the 2014 mid-term elections. It will eventually make its way into MSM television reports and onto the front page of various newspapers.
As I’m writing this post, liberal activists and bloggers are crafting posts and post comments that include the words “Confederates” and “Confederacy” to describe anyone who opposes Democrats. That’s how this works.
Keep your ears open.
I guarantee you we haven’t heard the last of the new “Confederacy” meme.

Tuesday, August 27, 2013

Why does Greenpeace want children to die, Hat tip: Instapundit

The True Story About Who Destroyed a Genetically Modified Rice Crop

Crowd breaking through fence in prior to destroying field of golden rice, Phillipines.
A crowd breaking through a fence to destroy an experimental field of genetically modified golden rice in the Philippines, Aug. 8. Photo courtesy Philippine Department of Agriculture Regional Field Unit 5
Did you hear that a group of 400 angry farmers attacked and destroyed a field trial of genetically modified rice in the Philippines this month? That, it turns out, was a lie. The crop was actually destroyed by a small number of activists while farmers who had been bussed in to attend the event looked on in dismay.
The nature of the attack was widely misreported, from the New York Times to New Scientist to BBC News, based on false claims by the activists. But then anti-GMO activists often lie. In support of the vandals, Greenpeace has claimed that there are health concerns about the genetically modified rice. In fact there is no evidence of risk, and the destruction of this field trial could lead to needless deaths.
The rice is genetically enhanced to produce the vitamin A precursor beta-carotene, giving it a golden color. This vital nutrient is missing from the diets of millions of rice-dependent people in poor countries, where vitamin A deficiency leads to preventable blindness and death on a massive scale.
The golden rice trial was being conducted by the government’s Philippine Rice Research Institute, the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), and other public sector partners—contrary to the activists’ accusations, there is no private corporate involvement.
In an exclusive interview at IRRI in Los Baños, I spoke to the golden rice project senior manager Raul Boncodin, who personally witnessed the attack on the morning of Aug. 8.* IRRI also provided photos of the attack; this is the first time they have been seen outside of the Philippines.
Boncodin had traveled to the field site because the researchers had been expecting a rally and a dialogue with activists, he told me. A band of more than 50 split away from the main group of 300 to 400 protestors and broke down the fence around the golden rice plot. They trampled and uprooted the young rice plants across the entire plot. "You could see they were angry—it was a mob," Boncodin said. The local police were outnumbered and did not intervene.
Crowd attacking golden rice field in the Phillipines.
The golden rice field being destroyed.
Photo courtesy Philippine Department of Agriculture Regional Field Unit 5
So who were these attackers? Did they look like farmers? "No," replied Boncodin. "Maybe two or three of them were farmers, but the rest of them were not real farmers. I could see that this was the first time they had stepped in mud or been to a farm. They were city boys, city girls. Two of them were even sporting dyed hair. ... Would you consider a farmer having dyed hair?"
There is additional evidence beyond the physical appearance of the activists. "Real farmers will not trash a living rice plant," said Boncodin, who is a native of the region where the vandalism took place. "They have this culture that it is unlucky to kill a living rice plant," even if plants are diseased and threaten to infect the rest of the crop.
This taboo on destroying green rice plants is widespread and even has a name: Bosung. Boncodin insists that the real farmers "stayed by the side, and didn't directly participate in the trashing of the trial site." When local people were informed, their reaction, he said, was that "no sane farmer would do that to a living rice plant."
When the news of the attack was related to local farmer leaders, they were aghast. According to Boncodin, one of them, a 50-year-old man, burst into tears at the thought that so many young rice plants had been destroyed.
The local office of the Department of Agriculture backs up this version of events. Their press statement also names names: "The surprise attack was staged by the group led by Wilfredo Marbella, deputy secretary of Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP) and Bert Auter, secretary general of KMP Bicol. Also identified were members of Anakpawis Partylist and MASIPAG."
So who are these groups? MASIPAG describes itself as a "farmer-led network of people's organizations." It has long been a mainstay of the anti-GMO scene in the Philippines and recently joined with Greenpeace in securing a court injunction against a genetically modified eggplant designed to reduce insecticide use.
KMP is an extreme-left organization that promotes a conspiracy theory that golden rice is being produced to facilitate a multinational takeover of the Filipino rice market. In reality, golden rice is being produced by public sector organizations and would be handed out free to farmers, who would be encouraged to save and replant seeds year after year with no technology fees or royalties. Such widespread, free distribution is central to the project’s plans for achieving its humanitarian goals.
The attack was rapidly condemned worldwide. A petition on the website change.org, written by a team of internationally renowned scientists, quickly gathered thousands of signatures. (You can add your name here.) Most of the signatories expressed moral outrage that the ideologues of the anti-GMO movement, including behemoths like Greenpeace, demonize golden rice despite its potential to prevent millions of premature deaths from vitamin A deficiency in the developing world.
Although some anti-GMO activists dismiss the public health problem of vitamin A deficiency to bolster their case, the medical community agrees that it is a major killer, comparable in scale to malaria, HIV/AIDS, or tuberculosis. The World Health Organization estimates that 250,000 to 500,000 children become blind each year because of a lack of vitamin A in their diets, and half of them die within 12 months.
Vitamin A deficiency also depresses the immune system, raising overall mortality from other causes such as diarrhea, measles, and pneumonia. For these diseases the additional toll is estimated at 1 million preventable deaths a year, or around 2,700 per day, mostly among children younger than 5.
Greenpeace, with its $335 million annual revenue, has nearly four times more funding than the entire International Rice Research Institute (most of whose work involves conventional plant breeding). Greenpeace has waged a decade-long campaign against golden rice because it involves transgenic technology. The scientists at IRRI insist that there was no other way to get genes for beta-carotene into rice.
Greenpeace's scaremongering includes the regular production of glossy reports spreading unscientific myths about golden rice. In China last year it successfully created a fake media scandal which landed some of the key Chinese project scientists in jail. Greenpeace Southeast Asia spokespeople took to the media to speak in support of the destruction of the golden rice trial in the Philippines.
The project's scientists are reluctant to battle Greenpeace directly over golden rice before results of their research come in. I didn't meet any experts at IRRI who claimed that their project would solve all or even a majority of the vitamin A deficiency problem worldwide. As the IRRI website makes clear, dietary diversification, capsule supplements, and food fortification are also important strategies.
Field of golden rice, Phillipines.
The golden rice field after the attack.
Photo courtesy Philippine Department of Agriculture Regional Field Unit 5
But these approaches have not worked on their own. Capsules need to be provided to children every three months, for example, presenting a major logistical challenge. Nina Fedoroff, former president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, told me via email: "Golden rice addresses a major nutritional problem in the most direct way imaginable, through a dietary staple."
Opponents claim that golden rice is "poison," to quote from a statement by a KMP spokesman. Fedoroff replies: "There is absolutely no evidence, repeat no evidence, that modifying plants by molecular techniques is dangerous. There is no evidence that rice expressing a compound that lots of plants make is dangerous." (The compound, beta-carotene, is what makes carrots orange—hardly very scary.)
Vitamin A deficiency is a disease of poverty. Golden rice network coordinator Gerard Barry told me it exists, "because hundreds of millions of people have access to rice in their diets, but little else." There is universal agreement that a long-term solution can only come through eliminating extreme poverty, but in the meantime, large numbers of deaths can be prevented. As Barry says: "Millions of children are dying senselessly and needlessly from common childhood diseases because their immune system is compromised."
How far does the attack set back the golden rice development program? The test that was destroyed is one of five currently underway in the Philippines. The other four can still yield useful data—if they survive to the end of the season.
IRRI project leaders have met government officials to discuss what new work may be necessary after the attack to complete of the project's environmental release dossier. It is still unclear whether the trial will need to be repeated. If so, then golden rice will be delayed for many months, or even longer if more vandalism is done or if the anti-GMO activists find other strategies to hamper and delay the scientists' work.
I asked Boncodin how he felt about the attack on his and his colleagues' potentially life-saving work. "It wasn't anger, it was more like a sense of loss. And grief for my fellow Biccolanos [natives of Bicol province]," Boncodin said. "Everyone shed a few tears."
The simple question now is this: If anti-GMO campaigners do manage to delay the launch of golden rice, how many more children will die? If all goes as planned—and if the activists stop trying to block the project—the life-saving rice could be made available within as little as two years in the Philippines, and soon after in Bangladesh and Indonesia.
Additional deaths resulting from further delay of the launch of golden rice will not be random; they will be largely restricted to children younger than 5—some of the poorest and most vulnerable young people in the world. The future success of the anti-GMO movement will be written on the gravestones of these children, who will die painfully but out of sight in remote poverty-stricken communities across South and East Asia.
Unlike some I am not accusing Greenpeace and its ideological allies in the Philippines of committing a crime against humanity. Not yet, at any rate.
Correction, Aug. 27, 2013: This article originally misstated the date of the attack on the golden rice test plot. (Return.)
Cornell University supported Mark Lynas’ travel costs for this research trip to the Philippines.
Mark Lynas is an environmentalist, a former anti-GMO activist, and the author of several books on climate change and the environment.

Sunday, August 25, 2013

Chris Lane Murder Suspect James Edward Danced, Twirled and Laughed During Booking Process

Chris Lane Murder Suspect James Edward Danced, Twirled and Laughed During Booking Process

Obama Flag Resurfaces at March on Washington

Obama Flag Resurfaces at March on Washington

Journalistic Malpractice

33 Shocking Facts About Obama's Economy Media Shamefully Ignore

Thursday, August 22, 2013

The apple didn't fall too far from the tree.

Meet Brenda Edwards, Mother of Accused ‘Bored’ Teen Killer James Edwards
Posted By Bryan Preston On August 21, 2013 @ 11:49 am In Politics | 90 Comments
Did “bored” teen James Edwards learn about crime from his mother? Edwards is the 15-year-old apparent gang member accused of shooting Australian baseball player Chris Lane in the back last Friday. He appeared in court Tuesday and reportedly made a mockery of the proceedings.
A search on Mugshots.com turns up one Brenda M. Edwards, 50, of Stephens County, Oklahoma. I called the Stephens County district attorney’s office today and confirmed that Brenda M. Edwards is James Edwards’ mother.

Edwards is currently incarcerated in the Oklahoma Department of Corrections. Her extensive rap sheet begins in 1994 with a conviction for larceny, and spans her son’s entire life. Click on the image to enlarge.

She has three known aliases. As things stand now, her relationship with Oklahoma’s criminal justice system won’t end for several decades. Her multiple convictions include distribution of cocaine. She was in court in Duncan, OK, as recently as May 2010, when she was found to have violated her parole by obtaining prescription drugs by fraud. Her probation was revoked.
If we’re going to blame a “culture” for James Edwards’ alleged part in Chris Lane’s murder, as some want to blame the so-called “gun culture,” shouldn’t the culture of recidivist criminality come under scrutiny?

Article printed from The PJ Tatler: http://pjmedia.com/tatler
URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/08/21/meet-brenda-edwards-mother-of-accused-bored-teen-killer-james-edwards/

Tuesday, August 20, 2013

Clinton's Sky High Travel Costs

Bill Clinton foundation has spent more than $50M on travel expenses

  • Last Updated: 10:12 AM, August 20, 2013
  • Posted: 12:10 AM, August 20, 2013
WASHINGTON – Bill Clinton’s foundation has spent more than $50 million on travel expenses since 2003, an analysis of the non-profit’s tax forms reveal.
The web of foundations run by the former president spent an eye-opening $12.1 million on travel in 2011 alone, according to an internal audit conducted by foundation accountants. That’s enough to by 12,000 air tickets costing $1,000 each, or 33 air tickets each day of the year.
That overall figure includes travel costs for the William J. Clinton Foundation (to which Hillary and Chelsea are now attached) of $4.2 million on travel in 2011, the most recent year where figures are available.
mpi98/MediaPunch Inc.
The Clinton Global Health Initiative spent another $730,000 on travel, while the Clinton Health Action Initiative (CHAI) spent $7.2 million on travel.
CHAI also spent $2.9 million on meetings and training, according to the report, conducted by the Little Rock, Ark. Accounting firm BDK CPA’s and Advisors. All three entities have global reach, while CHAI has the most staff.
It’s impossible to discern from tax filings how the total travel costs were reached, although the former president is known to rack up his personal miles on private jets.
Wealthy businessman John Catsimatitis has lent aircraft to Clinton and to the foundation multiple times for travel, including Clinton’s recent trip to Africa along with daughter, Chelsea.
Clinton sometimes uses Catsimatitis’ Boeing 727, opting on other flights to use a smaller Gulfstream jet.
“I don’t think it’s necessarily their go-to plane, because the 727 is a pretty big plane. It all depends where they’re going and what they’re doing,” said a Catsimatitis spokesman.
Sometimes Clinton uses the plane at a discount rate for the foundation, and sometimes Catsimatitis donates the flight time to the charitable foundation, which has a variety of programs to improve global health and improve conditions in Haiti and other far-flung locales.
According to previously undisclosed data provided by the Clinton Foundation, presidential trips accounted for 13 percent of the 2010 travel budget and 10 percent of the 2011 travel budget.
That puts Bill Clinton’s single-year travel tab for 2011 at more than $1 million. A foundation official wouldn’t say how many presidential trips occurred in that time frame.
The remaining travel paid for an array of foundation travel, with nearly 60 percent soaked up by the health access initiative, and about 5 percent going to the Clinton global health initiative, including flying students to attend Clinton Global Initiative University.
A Climate Change Initiative took up 12 percent of travel in 2010 and 11 percent in 2011, although the program accounts for a much smaller fraction of foundation revenues. A foundation official said that’s because the program employs many overseas staff and domestic staff doing transcontinental travel.
Clinton made reference to foundation overhead in an “open letter” posted on his foundation’s web site – mentioning an outside review that called for “stronger management staff” and blaming his own efforts to keep costs down.
“The review told us that my passion to keep overhead costs down – at about a low
8 percent for most of the last decade, rising only to above 11 percent in 2012 as we invested to support our growth – had gone on too long and that the Foundation needed better coordination without dampening the entrepreneurial spirit that infuses all our initiatives,” he wrote.
The sky-high travel costs come after a report revealed some of the foundation’s high-flying ways, including letting actress Natalie Portman fly first class with her pooch to a foundation event.

Saturday, August 17, 2013

CDC Study ordered by Obama contradicts "narrative"

CDC Study Ordered by Obama Contradicts White House Anti-gun Narrative

Written by  
  • font size decrease font size increase font size
CDC Study Ordered by Obama Contradicts White House Anti-gun Narrative
In January, following the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, President Obama issued a “Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence,” along with 22 other “initiatives.” That study, subcontracted out to the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, was completed in June and contained some surprises for the president.
Obama had announced at the beginning of the year his push for three major gun control initiatives — universal background checks, a ban on “assault weapons,” and a ban on “high-capacity” magazines — to prevent future mass shootings, no doubt hoping that the CDC study would oblige him by providing evidence that additional gun control measures were justified to reduce gun violence. On the contrary, that study refuted nearly all the standard anti-gun narrative and instead supported many of the positions taken by gun ownership supporters.
For example, the majority of gun-related deaths between 2000 and 2010 were due to suicide and not criminal violence:
Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States.
In addition, defensive use of guns “is a common occurrence,” according to the study:
Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.
Accidental deaths due to firearms has continued to fall as well, with “the number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents account[ing] for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”
Furthermore, the key finding the president was no doubt seeking — that more laws would result in less crime — was missing. The study said that “interventions,” such as background checks and restrictions on firearms and increased penalties for illegal gun use, showed “mixed” results, while “turn-in” programs “are ineffective” in reducing crime. The study noted that most criminals obtained their guns in the underground economy — from friends, family members, or gang members — well outside any influence from gun controls on legitimate gun owners.
Also, the report noted that mass shootings such as the one in Newtown, Connecticut, have declined and “account for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths.”
There was one startling conclusion which, taken at face value, seemed to give the president what he was looking for. The study reported that “the U.S. rate of firearm-related homicide is higher than that of any other industrialized country: 19.5 times higher than the rates in other high-income countries.” However, Zara Matheson of the Martin Prosperity Institute, produced a map that compared gun violence rates in the major metropolitan areas of the country to rates of foreign countries. As Graham Noble of Guardian Express noted, “If one were to exclude figures for Illinois, California, New Jersey and Washington, DC, the homicide rate in the United States would be in line with any other country.” These areas, of course, are noted for the most restrictive gun laws in the country, thus negating any opportunity for the president to celebrate the report’s findings.
The current report from the CDC echoed findings the CDC published back in 2003 that showed that suicides were responsible for 58 percent of all firearms-related deaths in 2000. Also noted is that back in 2003 Americans owned an estimated 192 million firearms, while today that number is estimated to be closer to 300 million, an increase of more than 55 percent.
Said the CDC back in 2003, “Evidence was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of any of these laws" (Emphasis added.):
Bans on specified firearms or ammunition,
Restrictions on firearm acquisition,
Waiting periods for firearm acquisition,
Firearm registration and licensing of owners, and
Zero tolerance for firearms in schools.
If the president was looking to the CDC report for support on how to reduce the threat of firearm-related violence through legislation restricting the rights of American citizens, he was sorely disappointed. Perhaps that’s why so few of the media have publicized the report. In fact, the only establishment media even to mention the report was the Washington Post, which criticized it for not answering questions that it wasn't asked to answer!

A graduate of Cornell University and a former investment advisor, Bob is a regular contributor to The New American magazine and blogs frequently atwww.LightFromTheRight.com, primarily on economics and politics. He can be reached at badelmann@thenewamerican.com


Liberal Rules for Racism

11 Liberal Rules for Racism in America

John Hawkins

8/13/2013 12:01:00 AM - John Hawkins
When America was a racist country, Democrats were primarily the ones engaged in racism. However, now that racism has been largely relegated to the fringes of American society (the KKK, the New Black Panthers, the Nation of Islam, La Raza, MEChA, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, American Nazi Party, etc.), the Democrats are constantly wagging their fingers about it. Of course naturally, given the racist history of the Democrat Party, liberals have managed to rig the rules in order to benefit themselves and hurt their political opponents. That's a pretty neat albeit despicable trick that they've managed to pull off.
1) Liberals aren't held to the same rules as Republicans: When liberals say racist things, it's just excused out of hand as if it's no big deal. If Dick Cheney had said, "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man" instead of Joe Biden, you'd read about it every time he criticized Barack Obama. When Christopher Dodd said“I do not think it is an exaggeration at all to say to my friend from West Virginia [Sen. Robert C. Byrd, a former Ku Klux Klan recruiter] that he would have been a great senator at any moment. . . . He would have been right during the great conflict of civil war in this nation,” it was shrugged off. On the other hand, Trent Lott ended up resigning from the GOP leadership for making very similar comments about Strom Thurmond.
2) Minority racism must be ignored:According to Rasmussen polling"Thirty-seven percent (37%) of American Adults think most black Americans are racist, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Just 15% consider most white Americans racist, while 18% say the same of most Hispanic Americans." This isn't coming out of the ether. Black Americans voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton because he was black. If George Zimmerman had been black and Trayvon Martin had been Hispanic, most black Americans would have been indifferent to the case or would have supported Zimmerman. This is one of the great ironies of the liberal obsession with racism. While they can turn practically anything into evidence of Republican racism, the most grotesque examples of racism from minorities are just shrugged off.
3) You pay no penalty for falsely accusing people of racism: False accusations of racism can do just as much damage as actual racism. People can be ostracized for it, lose endorsement deals or even lose their jobs over being falsely accused of racism. Yet, the only reason you've heard of people like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Touré, and Melissa Harris-Perry is because they're willing to accuse people of being racists on the flimsiest of pretexts. It's tempting to compare these race-hustling poverty pimps to the KKK, but the more appropriate analogy is the Spanish Inquisition. The attitude is, "So what if we unjustly accuse a lot of people as long as we get a few heretics in the process?"
4) Outrage matters more than facts: It doesn't matter what Bush actually did in New Orleans or that the local government failed the people of the city; it matters how people FEEL about it. It doesn't matter that Democrats have run Detroit since 1962; it matters that people FEEL Republicans are responsible. It doesn't matter that Trayvon Martin wasn't really a twelve year old kid and that he was slamming George Zimmerman's head into the pavement; it matters that Zimmerman's acquittal FEELS symbolic of law-abiding black Americans being profiled because so many other black Americans are criminals. Once an accusation of racism is made, facts are treated as if they're of secondary importance to FEELINGS.
5) It's okay to discriminate against white Americans: It's unbelievable that in 2013, we still have race-based discrimination in America and liberals are perfectly fine with it. The rationale for what should be an incredible violation of the equal protection clause in the Constitution? It's that whites are doing better than blacks are as a group. That's probably a cold comfort to the son of a white single mother making minimum wage whose son loses out to one of Obama's daughters because he happened to be Caucasian.
6) It's always the fifties and sixties: Comparing the United States of 2013, when we have a black President of the United States to a time when black Americans couldn't drink from the same water fountains as whites is so ridiculous that to do so should practically be considered a sign of mental illness. Yet, it happens all the time and it's not immediately met with laughter and eye rolls. It should be. The reason that it happens is because it benefits liberals politically to pretend that racism is still everywhere. After all, what else does the Democrat Party have to offer minorities in America other than protection from mostly non-existent racism? Crime-ridden neighborhoods? Joblessness? Poverty? Fighting mostly non-existent racism the Democrat Party can handle just fine, but actually helping people improve their lives is apparently way too tough to manage.
7) Past evidence must be ignored: Ironically, saying you have "black friends" is now considered to be something that a racist would say. That says much more about the sort of witch hunt allegations of racism have become in this country than the people who say it. Judge Charles Pickering put his life on the line to prosecute the Grand Dragon of the KKK in Mississippi in the early sixties; yet liberals falsely branded him a racist to stop his nomination to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. George Zimmerman tutored black children and fought to get justice for a black homeless man beaten by police and even voted for Obama, but he was still falsely portrayed as a racist. This can happen only because determining if someone is a racist has become a political tool that is completely disconnected from whether the person in question actually dislikes people because of the color of their skin.
8) Republicans secretly want to do things Democrats used to do: Conservative, moderate, and liberal Democrats were behind slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow laws, segregation, the Tuskegee Experiment, lynchings and every other racist horror inflicted on black Americans in this country. Republicans stood against the Democrats while they were doing all of those terrible things and while we congratulate them on now agreeing with us that they were wrong, it's disgusting to try to blame Democrat sins on the Republican Party. God willing, a hundred years from now Democrats will be wagging their fingers about the horrors of murdering children via abortion and claiming Republicans secretly want to abort children. If so, it would be the same sort of step forward we've seen from the Democrats on racism.
9) Minorities shouldn't be held to the same standards as whites:Walter Williams once said"During the first Reagan administration, I participated in a number of press conferences on either a book or article I’d written or as a panelist in a discussion of White House public policy. On occasion, when the question-and-answer session began, I’d tell the press, 'You can treat me like a white person. Ask hard, penetrating questions.' The remark often brought uncomfortable laughter, but I was dead serious. If there is one general characteristic of white liberals, it’s their condescending and demeaning attitude toward blacks." The soft bigotry of low expectations that liberals bring to the table encourages mediocrity, undercuts excellence and generally helps to hold minorities in America back.
10) When a white non-liberal disagrees with a liberal minority, it's probably because of racism: Republicans absolutely detested Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton; so what kind of moron would assume that their intense dislike of Barack Obama must be driven by race? Tea Partiers love black conservatives that agree with them, like Herman Cain and Allen West; so could there be a reason that they detest Barack Obama other than race? Do we really need the Scooby Gang to figure out why a group that's all about small government, low taxes, and cutting spending would dislike a socialist who's all about big government, higher taxes and increasing spending?
11) Only liberals get to decide what's racist: We've set up a system where the world's most easily offended people get to decide what's offensive and what's not and coincidentally, crying "racism" often helps them fund raise or hurts their political opponents. It's like starting up the Salem Witch Trials again and then giving Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the NAACP $10,000 every time they find a "witch" to burn. If we did that, what do you think the chances are they'd be finding witches EVERYWHERE? EXACTLY.

Wednesday, August 14, 2013

This is what I call Gun Control!


Politician Gun Free Zones

White House responds to “Gun Free Zone” petition – politicians need armed security
Posted By Guns and Gear On 2:56 PM 08/13/2013 In Guns and Gear | No Comments
By Dan Cannon, GunsSaveLives.net
A petition on the formal White House petitions website called for “gun free” zones to be extended to politicians, saying if it’s good enough for children in schools and other places where otherwise legal firearm carry by private citizens is prohibited, then it should be good enough for our country’s leaders, right?
Wrong.
Here is the original petition language:
Eliminate armed guards for the President, Vice-President, and their families, and establish Gun Free Zones around them
Gun Free Zones are supposed to protect our children, and some politicians wish to strip us of our right to keep and bear arms. Those same politicians and their families are currently under the protection of armed Secret Service agents. If Gun Free Zones are sufficient protection for our children, then Gun Free Zones should be good enough for politicians.
Here is the response of the White House:
Working to Keep Everyone Safe
Thanks for your petition.
We live in a world where our elected leaders and representatives are subject to serious, persistent, and credible threats on a daily basis. Even those who are mere candidates in a national election become symbols of our country, which makes them potential targets for those seeking to do harm to the United States and its interests. In 1901, after the third assassination of a sitting President, Congress mandated that the President receive full-time protection, and that law is still in effect today. Because of it, those who are the subject of ongoing threats must receive the necessary and appropriate protection.
At the same time, all of us deserve to live in safer communities, which is why we need to take responsible, commonsense steps to reduce gun violence, even while respecting individual freedom. And let’s be clear: President Obama believes that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. You can see him talk about that in a previous petition response.
But the common-sense steps the President has proposed don’t infringe in any way on our Second Amendment rights. We ought to be able to keep weapons of war off the streets. We ought to close the loopholes in the background check system that make it too easy for criminals and other dangerous people to buy guns — an idea that has the support of 90 percent of people in the United States.
That’s why the President and an overwhelming majority of Americans are calling on Congress to pass gun safety legislation that closes loopholes in the background check system and makes gun trafficking a federal crime.
A minority in the Senate is blocking this common-sense legislation to reduce gun violence, but President Obama is already taking action to protect our kids with executive actions. He is taking the steps available to him as President to strengthen the existing background check system, give law enforcement officials more tools to prevent gun violence, end the freeze on gun violence research, make schools safer, and improve access to mental health care.
You can learn more about the President’s positions on this issue at WhiteHouse.gov/NowIsTheTime.
So, there you go, the White House turned the petition into a chance to lobby for more gun control. Surprise, surprise.
So, just remember your children face no threat, which is why they’re protected by signs, but politicians face constant threats, which is why they’re protected by a heavily armed, technologically advanced police force.
—–
Thanks to Dan Cannon at GunsSaveLives.net for his ever vigilant watch for Second Amendment rights. Visit http://gunssavelives.net.
—–

Monday, August 12, 2013

First Dog Flies for Vacation

First dog Bo is airlifted to Obama holiday home

When President Barack Obama goes on holiday to the seaside things can get complicated.

Bo, the US First Family's waterdog, gets off the Marine helicopter at Martha's Vineyard Photo: EPA
Rooms have to be found for dozens of Secret Service agents, someone has to carry a selection of presidential basketballs, and of course the family dog needs his own state-of-the-art aircraft.
Arriving in the idyllic coastal retreat of Martha's Vineyard in Massachusetts, Mr Obama left behind him in Washington DC high profile debates over the budget, government surveillance and his health care reforms. Instead, he will spend the next eight days playing golf, going to the beach, and buying books from the Bunch of Grapes bookstore.
In the air he swapped his suit and tie for khakis and a blue shirt with rolled-up sleeves, while Mrs Obama wore a yellow-and-white summer dress.
Bo, the president's Portuguese Water Dog, arrived separately on one of two MV-22 Ospreys, a hybrid aircraft which takes off like a helicopter but flies like a plane.