The Howling About Separating Illegal Immigrants From Their Kids Is Just An Attack On Enforcing Immigration Laws

Leftist liars are treasonous and dishonest. And so are so many so called "Conservatives" here:

"The Trump administration is currently under attack by people from both sides of the political aisle for trying to actually administer federal law as written by Congress. The law, of course, is federal immigration law and the problem is that an alliance of administrations, Republican and Democrat, decided, for different reasons, that ignoring illegal immigration, or making a show of enforcing it for us rubes who are concerned about it, was preferable in every way to actually enforcing the law of the land.

Unfortunately, the Trump administration seems set on carrying out President Trump’s campaign promises and that is causing angst everywhere. And predictable hyperbole.
This is, as I see it, the situation. It really isn’t complicated. It is a very basic exercise is what in military operations is known as “branches and sequels.” (Keep in mind that persons following the law and presenting themselves at border crossing points and declaring they are seeking asylum are not separated from their children. This is solely about illegal immigrants.) Actions take place that lead to either alternative steps or next steps.

When people cross and they are apprehended, what do you do? Do you send them back across the border, if they are Mexican, and let them try again at some other place? If they are other than Mexican (OTM), do you detain them or do you cite them an let them go? Or do you, as has been our policy since April 18, detain all crossers, charge them with a misdemeanor offense, get a guilty plea, and deport them?

If you are asking why anyone would bother showing up for a hearing that will result in their deportation rather than simply disappearing, then you have just identified the key reason why we are unable to control illegal immigration.

If you want to detain illegals then you have to decide what to do with them. Unaccompanied adults isn’t a problem. Unaccompanied children, like those who swamped the border during the last couple of years of the Obama administration, really aren’t a problem either. The problem is minors accompanied by adults, who may or may not be related to them, which are classified as “families.”

When a “family” is apprehended crossing illegally you have a whole new range of problems. The adults are going to be charged and processed and deported. What do you do with the children while this happens? You have three options. You can parole the children to relatives already residing in the US legally. This brings with it another array of issues. Before the government can do that, it has to do at least a cursory background check on the “relatives” to ensure they are related to the children and that the home is suitable. So you still have the “what do we do with them now?” problem. You could, in theory, establish “family” detention centers. This, of course, brings its own difficulties.

We know a non-trivial number of the adult members of these family groups aren’t actually related to the children, they are smugglers. Statistically, a certain number of the adults will be criminals. How do you run a co-ed (“mothers” and “fathers” will be detained here) facility with children and protect the vulnerable from being assaulted, sexually or otherwise? What about those cases, which exist, of children being brought across in sex trafficking operations? Do you want to house them with their captor?

This leads us to the obvious solution in which the paramount concern is the safety of the child. Your options are either a pre-certified foster care facility or a more industrial scale mass detention facility. In both cases, “families are ripped apart.”

At one time, we conservatives mocked liberals for trying to make policy based on feelings. And yet, in this case, that is exactly what is happening. If you read Laura Bush’s op-ed today, it is a triumph of feelings over reality. At no point in the op-ed does Mrs. Bush pose a solution..other than returning to the status quo ante where crossing into the US with children was a get-out-of-jail-free card if you were apprehended. What the Trump administration is doing is correct. If Congress doesn’t like the optics, Congress should act. We should not make people who drag their kids across the border into martyrs of government oppression. These people have exactly one person to blame for their kids being taken away for a few days. Themselves.

Placing adults of unknown background and children in a detention facility together is going to lead to a lot of very bad things happening. This will lead to another outcry about the inhumanity of detaining “families” altogether. This will lead to the return of the catch-and-release policy. This creates more DREAMers. And makes crossing into the US with children the preferred method of travel. 

It is difficult to view this debate, and who is saying what, and not come to the conclusion that this is more of a reaction to the Trump administration’s attempt to be serious about protecting our borders than it is about anything to do with separating children from alleged parents. It is much more about preventing the Border Patrol and Immigration from doing their job than it is about any kind of humanitarian impulse."

Neil Cavuto, Pantywaist

Lest you think that Fox News is pro-Trump all the time, or even most of the time, along comes Neil Cavuto with his pearl clutching and myopic virtue signaling.

Go clutch your pearls, Neil. That you even dignify trivial tacky matters from over a dozen years ago, back when "The Donald" was a private citizen and had yet to enter politics, says so much.

We know about his messy private life past, and we don't care. It has nothing to do with his actions in the White House over the last year and a half.

The Clintons set that bar over two decades ago, and frankly The Donald has undeniably raised it from where they set it.

LA Times admits to "Bash Mobs Sweeping Through Southern California"....

....but it still can't acknowledge just who the bash mobs are.

Black goons attack White and Asian victims, and the LA Times just leaves the racism of the mobs utterly unmentioned, even when all the video camera evidence makes it obvious.

Congratualtions, LA Times. You've been encouraging this for weeks. Every since the Zimmerman trial started. Feel happy now that you got what you wanted?

Gee, I wonder if any of the "bash mob" participants look like President Obama did 35 years ago?
35 years ago Obama could have been part of a bash mob. 35 years ago President Obama WAS part of an academic communist cabal excusing the bash mobs.

It would be nice if these bash mobs would find their way to prison fast, as everything is recorded on video and can be reviewed frame by frame. The flash mob footage will be scrutinized down to the pixel.

However, given our Liberal Demunist Commiecrats in office, it is more likely they will find their way to a slap on the wrist, perhaps. They will be coddled and excused because after all, someone once thought their appeared to look like a criminal, so all their actions are justified. Just ask Obama, he will cry a tear for them right on camera.

So if I am attacked by these bash mobs, and I shoot them in self defense, will I be tried for attempted murder or murder for standing my ground? Given the libs who run this state, probably.

These aren't "bash mobs", they are feral black mobs rioting under the protection the media who call them "youths".

And God help any white person who is CCW (are there ANY in L.A.?) who takes out one or more while defending himself. Zinnerman verdict reaction redux.

Theser bash mobs are the result of a single parent Sub-Culture raised on anti-white animosity and envy. Triggered by their racist hatred and a righteous indignation instilled and encouraged by a Leftist Hollywood and Public School Victimist Propaganda. Empowered by Liberals and their Entitlement Mentality. Often Ignored and Protected by the National News Media, Political Correctness and a corrupt DOJ. Forgiven by an endless list of Affirmative Excuses and Lowered Expectations. Glorified beyond recognition by a fawning media on TV, on the Movie screen, and Gansta Rap.

This is the chaotic new social dis-order, void of personal safety, common decency, and civilized behavior that the multi-cultists have forced upon us, and until America wakes up out of its blind obedience to Political Correctness and recognizes this behavior for what it is, and admit that it is a serious problem, violent crimes like these will only get worse....much worse.

Although, in fairness, the LA Times won't admit when Latino criminal gangs are targeting African American victims either.



 

What needs to be said about tonight's debate

Todd Akin stays in--GOOD! Fight back,Todd!

Yes, you read that right--GOOD. May Todd Akin put his embarrassing and stupid gaffe behind him, and take on that liberal Claire McCaskill and focus on the *real* issues, like Claire McCaskill's slavish devotion to the Obamunist Ohministration--a business bashing Ohconomy, a foreign policy that is disastrous, and the growth of a governmental monstrosity.

Nope, I'm not "pro-life". I can't compel a woman to bear a child she does not want and moreover, I find that whole issue (a) too complicated for the simplistic slogans and (b) a sideshow from the very real economic and foreign policy disasters.

So why is it a good thing that Todd Akin stays in the fight, even if I don't agree with him on the abortion issue, and even if he loses in a landslide and goes down in flames?

1. Because it stops conceding the media narrative. We have got to stop dancing to the lamestream Dem-media drumbeat where theirs get away with murder and ours get crucified for gaffes. If Todd Akin makes his apologies, stays in the race, and most importantly gets back on track hammering away at Claire McCaskill's domestic economic and foreign policy disaster votes, he will have done something to dispell the all too familiar drill of the Republicans always groveling before the Liberal Media Narrative.

2. Because we don't have a clear alternative candidate waiting in the wings this late in the race. OK, so you want Todd Akin out. Who are we going to put in the slot, this late in the race? Remember how well the Jack Ryan / Alan Keyes fiasco vs. then Senator Barack Obama played out? Sometimes, it's so late in the game, that you just have to stick with who you have.

3. Because the Democrats will only come up with another gaffe and another smear anyway. What 11th hour "gotcha" will the Demunists play with whoever we try to put in the Senate campaign to replace Todd Akin? Because they will, no matter how contrived. And no matter how contrived, the media will cover for the Dems and give them a veneer of credibility.

4. Because the real issue is what a disaster a liberal Senator like Claire McCaskill has been. Why not just say "Sure, Todd Akin misspoke, and badly at that, but Claire McCaskill is still a wretched Obama stooge who must be replaced!" and get the real economic and security issues back on track. 

5. Because this whole issue is a sideshow. Why do we lend credibility to sideshows? Because no matter how badly Todd Akin misspoke--and his gaffe was a major flop--that issue is *still* a sideshow. You know it, and more importantly, the liberals know it, too.

6. Because at this point, switching candidates is just betraying weakness. Just hammer home what a bolshevik liberal McCaskill is and MOVE ON. 

7. Because Gaffes only matter when you *let* them matter. Remember the George Allen "Macaque" moment? What a phony "racial issue" that was!!!

8. Finally, in fairness, there is a legal distinction between forcible rape (yes, "legitimate" is a poor choice of words) and "statutory" rape, which is consensual sex with a minor. Yes, Akin still botched it, but all the lawyers out there ought to know what a cheap shot so much of this really is.

Jeff Goldstein at Protein Wisdom says it better than I can:

First, I am not supporting Akin in any specific way. What I’m doing is criticizing as deplorable, stupid, politically retarded, and all too frequent, the canned, PC, preemptive (and in many cases, I believe, if not ridiculously hyperbolic, then outright phony) outrage that came from the right in reaction to a impolitic phrase from a GOP candidate. I’m criticizing it for its cowardice and its cynicism. I’m criticizing it for its moral preening and its tacit acknowledgment that, because the left would doubtless make a stink about what has become, in our PC culture, a kind of social third rail — everything we know of rape is settled science — those on the right, or in the pro-life camp, who don’t wish to be tarred with the brush Akin wielded, had better get out front of it, fast, and distance themselves from his comments in the most forceful way they knew how. As if not doing so was an admission of some sort of guilt by association.

That is, I’m criticizing them for repeatedly being manipulated by the left, oftentimes before the left even has to spring into orchestrated action. That’s how scared many on the right are of being called anti-science or knuckle draggers, etc. Without stopping to tell themselves that those who are making these charges are doing so solely for political purposes — to try to shame you, to try to mock you, to try to fluster you and silence you. And that, no matter what you say — even if you’ve apologized, or you were one of the first to distance yourselves from the comment to show you aren’t “moronic” or “one of those kind of conservatives” — it doesn’t matter: they’ve determined merely to tie all Republicans to it any way, regardless of your very public protestations that you are nothing like that horrible horrible man who said horrible horrible things.

– When really, the proper response would have been, from the right, well, I don’t agree with Akin and I’d like to ask him on what, exactly, he’s basing certain assertions about rape and pregnancy, because I suspect he has his facts wrong — or at least, he’s relying on old theories. In which case, I’m happy to present him with my facts, and perhaps persuade him to change him opinion on the matter.

You know, treat it as an intellectual exercise, show voters that Republicans can speak intelligently about the finer points of their Party’s pro-life platform, that they are capable of intellectual growth, when the need arises, and that they don’t react to speech like the left does, instantly denouncing, shaming, and calling for excommunication so as not to run afoul of the cultural PC police — all so that they can assert their own moral and intellectual superiority in a way that is terrible ostentatious and entirely self-serving.

In fact, I find it rather odd that those who instantly called on Akin to leave the race for the good of the party and the cause — this race is, they keep reminding us, bigger than just one man, and so much is at stake! — didn’t themselves stop to think just how badly their very public shunning of Akin might hurt the party’s electoral chances, particularly if they failed in their efforts to chase Akin off the ballot and replace him. As is often said, if you’re going to kill the king, you’d better kill the king.

And so we are where we are: with the GOP now in full-on panic mode, coalescing around their hatred of the dastardly candidate who has RUINED their chances in Missouri, and perhaps cost our children and grandchildren their freedom. Which they are able to do, because they have pulled themselves into a large consensus group where they can reinforce for each other their relative righteousness and selflessness (we act for the good of the party!) — and decry Akin’s relative selfishness for daring to try to save his own political career, and for his refusal to disenfranchise those in Missouri who voted for in the first place. Not to mention whatever good name he may have secured for himself over a long and (from what I’ve read) honorable life.

My criticisms throughout this mess have been an attempt to show the GOP just how it is they themselves are culpable in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory — and to hopefully provide some insight into why they consistently do so, be the left’s scapegoat Rush Limbaugh or Todd Akin.

Jeff goes on:

It has become yet another self-fulfilling prophecy — and it is the kind of thing that many of us no longer accept. Yes, the stakes are high. Yes, we want to win the Senate. But no, we’ll no longer accept being told who we can have as a candidate and who we cannot have, nor will we stand by and watch jackals tear the flesh off a decent man so that they can get him replaced with a candidate of their choosing who couldn’t win the primary.

I’m not from Missouri. Looking at the candidates in the primary race, had I endorsed anyone it likely would not have been Akin. But that’s beside the point. He won, and we owed it to the people of Missouri, who we are asking to help us elect a Republican to take back the Senate, to defend their chosen candidate and in so doing, honor their choice.

Todd Akin didn’t rape Juanita Broderick. He didn’t drown Mary Jo Kopechne in his car. He didn’t engage in shady land deals, hang out with domestic and foreign terrorists and anti-semites, or stuff money in his freezer. He expressed a dubious claim about the frequency of pregnancy after rape — a claim that is based in part at least on well-known and frequently detailed barriers to conception, such as chronic stress.

Whether he was wrong or not was beside the point. The merits of his claim were never argued. He’d said something the left won’t allow to be discussed, and many on the right — just as they did with John Derbyshire and a host of others who have introduced “controversial” propositions — rushed to condemn him rather than to patiently correct him.

We witnessed gross anti-intellectualism and the insidious politically correct chilling of speech through an aggressive, Twitter-fueled pique of competitive outrage. It was disgusting to watch frankly — with people actively trying to one-up each other in their purported bother over a minor point on the pro life continuum. The reasons for this I can only speculate upon: a desire to be seen as a “thinking” conservative, set apart from those kind, whose godbothery social conservatism has always made them suspect to the cognoscenti; a cynical opportunism to replace one candidate with a preferred candidate; an ostentatious sanctimony that seems very important to a large portion of the online right.

Whether Akin should have stepped down or not was never my concern. My concern — and my criticism — has always been aimed at the those who placed our Senate chances in Missouri in jeopardy by reacting to a gaffe as they did. And it wasn’t Todd Akin — who did the perfunctory apology tour almost immediately. Or rather, his contribution was minor, and his recovery would have been easy had it not been for the reaction from the right — from online calls for his removal, to press releases sent by GOP officials, and so on. In the end, this is what sunk Missouri for the Republicans: if you are going to publicly call for the removal of a candidate as a show that you, too, are FOR WOMEN!, you’d better first make sure he’s willing to step aside to give you your moment of cheap grace and social posturing.

Editorial Cartoon from 1934, Still True Today

But what has the Chicago Tribune, and ever other major newspaper, since come to?

The other plan of action they had was to infiltrate and slowly take control of the newspapers. Thank goodness for blogging.

Hank Williams Jr. has a point

As caustic as he was, his apology is spot-on here:

Some of us have strong opinions and are often misunderstood. My analogy was extreme – but it was to make a point. I was simply trying to explain how stupid it seemed to me - how ludicrous that pairing {of John Boehner and Barack Obama} was. They’re polar opposites and it made no sense. They don’t see eye-to-eye and never will. I have always respected the office of the President.

Every time the media brings up the tea party it’s painted as racist and extremists – but there’s never a backlash – no outrage to those comparisons…. 

Hosts actually ON the payroll of ESPN laughed when Mike Tyson joked about raping Sarah Palin, and.........crickets. Nothing happened to them.

How can they deny a liberal media double standard when we turn on our televisions and see it daily?

Truth Still Hurts: At Least 70 Avowed Socialists In Democrat Party

Never mind Barack Obama and his commie pals. Congress has been crawling with communists for years....

In October 2009, the "Democratic Socialists of America" released in its newsletter a list of 70 members of the U.S. Congress who are members of the organization. And it is a Who's Who of Commiecrat Creeps:

Co-Chairs:
Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ-07)
Lynn Woolsey (CA-06)

Vice Chairs:
Mazie Hirono (HI-02)
Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)
Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18)
Diane Watson (CA-33)

Senate Members:
Bernie Sanders (VT) -- but at least he is honest

House Members:
Neil Abercrombie (HI-01)
Tammy Baldwin (WI-02)
Xavier Becerra (CA-31)
Robert Brady (PA-01)
Corrine Brown (FL-03)
Michael Capuano (MA-08)
André Carson (IN-07)--One of two Farrakhan followers in Congress. False claims of "Tea Party lynchings"
Donna Christensen (Virgin Islands delegate)--not such a big deal, but still there.
Yvette Clarke (NY-11)
William "Lacy" Clay (MO-01)
Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05)
Steve Cohen (TN-09)
John Conyers (MI-14)
Elijah Cummings (MD-07)
Danny Davis (IL-07)
Peter DeFazio (OR-04)
Rosa DeLauro (CT-03)
Donna F. Edwards (MD-04)
Keith Ellison (MN-05)--One of two Farrakhan followers in Congress
Sam Farr (CA-17)
Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
Bob Filner (CA-51)
Barney Frank (MA-04)
Marcia L. Fudge (OH-11)
Alan Grayson (FL-08)
Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)
John Hall (NY-19)
Phil Hare (IL-17)
Maurice Hinchey (NY-22)
Michael Honda (CA-15)
Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-02)
Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30)
Hank Johnson (GA-04)
Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13)
Barbara Lee (CA-09)
John Lewis (GA-05)
David Loebsack (IA-02)
Ben R. Lujan (NM-3)
Carolyn Maloney (NY-14)
Ed Markey (MA-07)
Jim McDermott (WA-07)
James McGovern (MA-03)
George Miller (CA-07)
Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Jerrold Nadler (NY-08)
Eleanor Holmes-Norton (DC delegate))--not such a big deal, but still there.
John Olver (MA-01)
Ed Pastor (AZ-04)
Donald Payne (NJ-10)
Chellie Pingree (ME-01)
Charles Rangel (NY-15)
Laura Richardson (CA-37)
Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34)
Bobby Rush (IL-01)
Linda Sánchez (CA-47)
Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
José Serrano (NY-16)
Louise Slaughter (NY-28)
Pete Stark (CA-13)--Pro-Illegal Alien Traitor.
Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
John Tierney (MA-06)
Nydia Velazquez (NY-12)
Maxine Waters (CA-35)--Burn LA Burn and Free OJ Simpson
Mel Watt (NC-12)
Henry Waxman (CA-30)
Peter Welch (Vermont)
Robert Wexler (FL-19)

The DSA is a political action committee and bills itself as the heir to the defunct Socialist Party of America. It's chief organizing objective is to work within the Democratic Party as the primary, but not sole, method of achieving public ownership of private property and the means of production.

"Stress our Democratic Party strategy and electoral work," explains an internal organizing document. "The Democratic Party is something the public understands, and association with it takes the edge off. Stressing our Democratic Party work will establish some distance from the radical subculture and help integrate you to the milieu of the young liberals."

But, actually, the number of those sympathetic to the socialist, in fact outright communist, goals of the DSA is substantially higher than 70. There is a close association between the DSA and the Congressional Progressive Caucus. At that time, the caucus website was actually hosted by the DSA. The Progressive Caucus website has since become an official U.S. government website as it remains today.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus website boasts 81 members as well as resource links to numerous pro-communist publications and organizations. Those links include Mother Jones magazine, Moveon.org, OneWorld, The Nation magazine, ACORN and the Institute for Policy Studies.

The DSA makes clear its preference for working within the Democratic Party for the change it seeks. "Many socialists have seen the Democratic Party, since at least the New Deal, as the key political arena in which to consolidate this coalition, because the Democratic Party held the allegiance of our natural allies," the group states in the "Where we stand" section of its website. "Through control of the government by the Democratic Party coalition, led by anti-corporate forces, a progressive program regulating the corporations, redistributing income, fostering economic growth and expanding social programs could be realized."

In addition to a national program of "massive redistribution of income from corporations and the wealthy to wage earners and the poor and the public sector," the DSA also calls for a breaking down the American-style notions of nationalism and national sovereignty.

"A program of global justice can unite opponents of transnational corporations across national boundaries around a common program to transform existing international institutions and invent new global organizations designed to ensure that wages, working conditions, environmental standards and social rights are 'leveled up' worldwide," the group says on its website. "The basis of cooperation for fighting the transnationals must be forged across borders from its inception. Economic nationalism and other forms of chauvinism will doom any expanded anti-corporate agenda."

It also states in the group's mission statement: "A democratic socialist politics for the 21st century must promote an international solidarity dedicated to raising living standards across the globe, rather than 'leveling down' in the name of maximizing profits and economic efficiency. Equality, solidarity, and democracy can only be achieved through international political and social cooperation aimed at ensuring that economic institutions benefit all people. Democratic socialists are dedicated to building truly international social movements – of unionists, environmentalists, feminists, and people of color – that together can elevate global justice over brutalizing global competition."

While the DSA tries to paint distinctions between its brand of socialism and communism, before scrubbing its website following the WND expose 12 years ago, the site included a song list that included:

--"The Internationale," the worldwide anthem of Communism and socialism.
--"Red Revolution" sung to the tune of "Red Robin," with these lyrics: "When the Red Revolution brings its solution along, along, there'll be no more lootin' when we start shootin' that Wall Street throng. ..."
--"Are You Sleeping, Bourgeoisie?" Lyrics included: "Are you sleeping? Are you sleeping? Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie. And when the revolution comes, We'll kill you all with knives and guns, Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is a longtime member of the Progressive Caucus and served on the executive committee. She was not, however, listed last year as a member of the DSA.

Truth Hurts

A really dumb editorial cartoon

Does this liberal dupe think he's being clever?

Gee, when Obamacare mandates more and more get covered, no matter how non-essential and routine, why are the skyrocketing insurance premiums such a surprise?

Liberal saps can't admit that skyrocketing premiums are a *consequence* of the Obamacare passage.

Q: What do we insure against? A: Major financial catastrophe.

NOT out of pocket routine costs.

Imagine what your car insurance would cost if routine oil changes were paid by insurers, rather than out of pocket. There would be $200 oil changes rather than $40 ones, too. That is what happens when 3rd parties and other indirect agents pay for something. All cost containment goes out the window.

Imagine what your car insurance would cost if every sap could go without it and then immediately sign up right after an accident. That is what all the caterwauling about "pre existing conditions" comes down to....

Routine and minor medical expenses *should not* be covered by Medi-Cal, or private insurance for that matter.

And please don't give me this nonsense about the out-of-pocket costs for birth control being too much. Young women spend far more each month on their cell phone bills.

Mentalities like this are precisely why medical insurance and medical costs skyrocket.

Contessa Brewer can't admit the truth

(audio)

I mean the thing is that- and I get frustrated and there was part of me that was hoping this was not going to be anybody with ties to any kind of Islamic country because there are a lot of people who want to use this terrorist intent to justify writing off people who believe in a certain way or come from certain countries or whose skin color is a certain way. I mean they use it as justification for really outdated bigotry. And so there was part of me was really hoping this would not be the case that here would be somebody who is not the defined. I mean he’s accused, he’s arrested you know I don’t want to convict him before it’s time to do so. He’s the guy authorities say is involved. But that being said, I mean, we know even in recent history you have the Hutaree militia from Michigan who have plans to, let’s face it, create terror. That’s what they were planning to do and they were doing so from far different backgrounds than what this guy is coming from. So, the threat is not just coming from people who decide that America is the place to be and you know come here and want to become citizens. And obviously this guy did.

The liberal media really is against Middle America. In their warped minds, they think *we* are secret terrorists, and not the Islamunists that their immigration policies import.

The Hutaree militia were oddballs, but Contessa Brewer doesn't acknowledge that the government's prosecution case against them fell apart and was dismissed. As wacky as some of them might have been, they had no plans to bomb a major city square.

Nor are the Hutaree militia Middle America, at least not until Contessa Brewer's liberal policies put Middle America on the same side of the Hutaree militia.

The "Epic Beard Man" of Oakland, and the Double Standard

An essay by Alexander Hart that bears repeating:

Americans fed up with black on white crime have found an unlikely hero in Thomas Bruso, who has been dubbed "Epic Beard Man". In a widely circulated YouTube video posted on February 16, Bruso defends himself against a black thug. [Bad language warning—YouTube may require you to sign in because of adult language or violence.]

Bruso is a 67 year-old Vietnam veteran, who apparently has some history of mental illness. While riding the bus in Oakland, he was talking to someone about getting his shoes shined for his mother's funeral and a black man named Michael—whose last name is unknown—managed to get offended because the words "shoe shine", "boy", and "brother" were used in the same sentence. He confronted Bruso, who initially misinterpreted the man as offering to shine his shoes. Michael yelled "Why a brotha gotta spit-shine yo' shoes?" and "Why a white man can't shine his shoes?"

Epic Beard Man responded by saying he wasn't into prejudice, [VDARE.com note: Proving that Mr. Bruso has totally missed the Political Correctness memo he expressed his unwillingness to discriminate on grounds forbidden by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by saying "It could be a Chinaman--it don't matter. I ain't prejudiced." ] to which Michael said "You take your a-- back up there and get the f--- out mah face right now."

Not wanting trouble, Bruso went to the front of the bus, but said "You ain't scaring this white boy. I'm 67 years old", as he walked away.

When Michael continues to harass Bruso, he tells him to "Sit your little black ass down."

Needless to say, Michael does not leave him alone. Iyanna Washington, a black female college student (!) who taped the incident, egged Michael on calling Epic Beard Man "pinky"—a racial slur for Whites—and yelling, "Beat his white a--! F--- this bitch!"

Michael went to the front of the bus and sucker punched Bruso who was sitting down. But Epic Beard Man rose up and scored several clean shots to Michel's face. He was knocked to the ground and covered with blood.

Bruso then storms off the bus, yelling "He f------ hit me first! He hit me in the face! It was self defense! Don't f--- with me boy! Don't f--- with me!"

(...)

Michael, who just got a bloody nose, is seen both whining to "call an amba-lamps [Ebonics for ambulance]" while at the same time saying "I will come back, I will kill dat n------[sic]"

Washington then videotapes herself going through Bruso's bag, which he had left on the bus, yelling "Go through dat sh--!"

She tells Michael, "We can press charges, I got it on videotape", apparently oblivious to the fact that Michael is clearly seen starting the fight and she videotaped herself stealing.

Later that day she posted the fight on YouTube, still oblivious to how bad it made her look. [Epic Beard Man, Encyclopedia Dramatica]

The video instantly became a hit. At one point, "Epic Beard Man" was the 16th most frequently searched term on Google. To date, over 3 million people have seen the original video entitled "AC TRANSIT BUS FIGHT I AM A MOTHERF*CKER." At least another million people have seen it posted under other names like "OLD WHITE MAN BEATS THE SHIT OUT OF A WANNABE THUG ON THE BUS!" and "Epic beard old white guy beats the s*it out of *sshole black guy."

The original video has over 50,000 comments. Virtually all of the comments praise Epic Beard Man, and many are even too politically incorrect for VDARE.COM. Some of the more sober ones include:

• when will the black girls that yelled "beat his white ass" be brought up on racial hate crimes?
  
• I try to see everyone as the same and not agree with stereotypes/ racist comments until they are proven by an individuals actions. But African Americans are always complaining that whites don't like or respect them......... Well... that stupid, ignorant man picking a fight with an old man is the reason we don't. So instead of getting angry at racist comments how about you try and prove us wrong.
  
• I love the part where the lady filming says, "I got it on tape. We can sue his *ss!!"…Mmmmmhmmm....only in America can you assault someone, get your ass beat and sue.

Meanwhile, thousands of video responses and parodies are made such as making the fight look like the videogame Mortal Kombat, or animated versions imagining that Epic Beard Man was having a Vietnam Flashback.

Many videos make light of Michael's Ebonic pronunciation of "ambulance" as either "amber lamps," "m and ms" and "ambalamps." There are even websites and videos devoted to an attractive girl who is sitting next to Michael on the bus, and is listening to music who manages to completely ignore the chaos a few feet away from her. She is dubbed "Amber Lamps."

Many websites are even selling shirts with slogans like "Mess with Epic Beard Man...Go Home In An Amber-Lamps."

What should we make out of this internet phenomenon? It is easy to dismiss it as just some silly incident between two crazy people caught on tape that brings out a few racial slurs from immature anonymous internet posters.

While the crazy banter and Bruso's colorful personality makes this video very amusing, and allows people to get away with more politically incorrect thoughts, it is the audacity of some blacks that really inspires most of the comments. It is not just that Michael picks a fight with an old man that makes people upset. It is that he starts it because he imagines a perfectly innocuous comment is racist. It is that after he starts the fight, both he and videotaper Iyanna Washington still think they are in the right. It is that the Washington thinks she can yell anti-white slurs and steal on tape without any repercussions.

They may have seen the video of a white student brutally beaten by blacks on a bus in Belleville, IL who does not even try to defend himself.

Americans are glad to see someone finally fight back.

Bruso clearly has a few screws loose. He had earlier been videotaped getting tasered by police at an Oakland A's game for being belligerent. But given how self-defense against blacks is often criminalized, as in the Rodney King and Bernie Goetz cases, you need to be a little insane to stand up to the abuse.

Many commenters noted that had the situation been reversed and a white attacked an elderly black man with other whites yelling "Beat his black ass," he would have been charged with a hate crime, which is obviously true. It is also true that had this not been caught on video tape, Epic Beard Man could very easily be charged with a hate crime himself--especially after staying "You ain't scaring this White Boy" and "Sit your little black ass down", even though he clearly was acting in self defense.

During the Rodney King trial, Lew Rockwell joked "Liberals talk about banning guns. As a libertarian, I can't agree. I am, however, beginning to wonder about video cameras."

But in 1992, no one could see videos that weren't on the evening or cable news. The Main Stream Media selectively showed the police subduing King without the context of King violently attacking them.

No doubt if this fight were caught on tape ten years ago, the MSM would splice a video together with Epic Beard Man yelling "sit your little black ass down" and then hitting Michael, without any of the context.

Thanks to the internet, I'm willing to drop the campaign against video cameras.

What "Climategate" reveals

It is revealing to see the Global Warming, I mean Climate Change, hoax imploding at the University of East Anglia. "Climategate" as some wags call it, refers to a series of emails "hacked"—as in leaked— from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University in the United Kingdom.

What they reveal is indisputable: the "science" of global warming has, at the very least, been compromised by the political ideology that drives it. Data has been manipulated or hidden from public view. Skeptical scientists have been marginalized along with academic journals that have printed their doubts, and the peer review process has been tainted by those who should know better.

The lessons of this scandal are instructive:

1. The manufacturing of "Overwhelming Consensus":

....the e-mails suggest that CRU scientists have been suppressing and misstating data and working to prevent the publication of conflicting views in peer-reviewed science periodicals. Some of the more pungent e-mails:

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

"Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re AR4?"

"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty we can't."

"I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU temperature station data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!"

2. The corruption of the "peer-reviewed" process:

The trouble with outsourcing your marbles to the peer-reviewed set is that, if you take away one single thing from the leaked documents, it's that the global warm-mongers have wholly corrupted the "peer-review" process. When it comes to promoting the impending ecopalypse, the Climate Research Unit is the nerve-center of the operation. The "science" of the CRU dominates the "science" behind the United Nations IPCC, which dominates the "science" behind the Congressional cap-and-trade boondoggle, the upcoming Copenhagen shakindownen of the developed world, and the now-routine phenomenon of leaders of advanced, prosperous societies talking like gibbering madmen escaped from the padded cell, whether it's President Barack Obama promising to end the rise of the oceans or the Prince of Wales saying we only have 96 months left to save the planet.

But don't worry, it's all "peer-reviewed."

Here's what Phil Jones of the CRU and his colleague Michael Mann of Penn State mean by "peer review". When Climate Research published a paper dissenting from the Jones-Mann "consensus," Jones demanded that the journal "rid itself of this troublesome editor," and Mann advised that "we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers."

So much for Climate Research. When Geophysical Research Letters also showed signs of wandering off the "consensus" reservation, Dr. Tom Wigley ("one of the world's foremost experts on climate change") suggested they get the goods on its editor, Jim Saiers, and go to his bosses at the American Geophysical Union to "get him ousted." When another pair of troublesome dissenters emerge, Dr. Jones assured Dr. Mann, "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

Which, in essence, is what they did. The more frantically they talked up "peer review" as the only legitimate basis for criticism, the more assiduously they turned the process into what James Lewis calls the Chicago machine politics of international science. The headline in the Wall Street Journal Europe is unimproveable: "How To Forge A Consensus." Pressuring publishers, firing editors, blacklisting scientists: That's "peer review," climate-style. The more their echo chamber shriveled, the more Mann and Jones insisted that they and only they represent the "peer-reviewed" "consensus." 

The e-mails of "Andy" (as his CRU chums fondly know him) are especially pitiful. Confronted by serious questions from Stephen McIntyre, the dogged Ontario retiree whose "Climate Audit" Web site exposed the fraud of Dr. Mann's global-warming "hockey stick" graph, "Andy" writes to Dr. Mann to say not to worry, he's going to "cover" the story from a more oblique angle:

"I'm going to blog on this as it relates to the value of the peer review process and not on the merits of the mcintyre et al attacks.

"peer review, for all its imperfections, is where the herky-jerky process of knowledge building happens, would you agree?"

And, amazingly, Dr. Mann does!

"Re, your point at the end – you've taken the words out of my mouth."

And that's what Andrew Revkin did, week in, week out: He took the words out of Michael Mann's mouth and served them up to impressionable readers of the New York Times and opportunist politicians around the world champing at the bit to inaugurate a vast global regulatory body to confiscate trillions of dollars of your hard-earned wealth in the cause of "saving the planet" from an imaginary crisis concocted by a few dozen thuggish ideologues.

Which brings us to:
3. The agenda behind all this:

....you can't make informed decisions when those decisions have already been made for you by an educational establishment which has been in the liberal tank for decades. With respect to this particular subject, how many school age children have been forced to watch Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" and given the impression that a blowhard politician with no scientific credentials whatsoever, a man whose own lifestyle contradicts everything he ostensibly believes in, is the last word on the subject? How many kids have been told global warming is "settled science" without offering them a scintilla of contrasting information? How many have been brainwashed into believing that "living green" is tantamount to the religious mandate to "go and sin no more?"

Every effort mankind has ever undertaken to obliterate individual freedom and increase the power of the state has always included the inculcation of children too young to think independently. This one is no different. If America is going to right itself, the war for our children's hearts and minds must be won.

But in order to win it, more people have to realize it exists. More importantly, they have to do something about it. This is a difficult undertaking for parents who are the front-liners in this fight. At the end of a busy day, very few people want to know—exactly—what their children are learning in school. Unfortunately, such apathy is the mother's milk of progressives for whom raising a generation of school children who disdain American exceptionalism is a prime directive. People with no particular pride in their country are a much more malleable bunch than those with a real understanding of self-reliance, Constitutionalism, and historical perspective.
A "burning planet"—only thirty-three years removed from a "freezing" one—reveals the true nature of "progressivism". It is about the accumulation of power by any means necessary. And, as evidenced by the purloined emails, even the ostensible epitome of rational thinking, aka the scientific method, is as exploitable as anything else. But such people could never get as far as they've gotten without getting the children on board. 

Ironically, they have told us so. How many times has a liberal touted this or that government agenda with the idea that they're doing it "for the children." When more Americans begin to understand that the more accurate phrase it "to the children," it will be the beginning of the end for these power-hungry thugs.

4. The double standard of the liberal lamestream media:

The reaction to these revelations? Perhaps as revealing, if not more so, than the revelations themselves. Much like the ACORN scandal, the mainstream media—once again with the exception of Fox News—has either avoided the story completely, or sought to focus on the manner in which the emails were procured. This last bit is pivotal, because it is the basis by which the intrepid folks at the New York Times and other media sources have determined that they will withhold the damning evidence from the public: stolen material is unfit for print or broadcast.

Apparently this is a spanking new standard for the Times, whose appetite for disseminating purloined or secret stuff goes back at least as far as the top secret, "not intended for publication" Pentagon Papers in 1971, all the way through to revealing top-secret info about how the Bush administration conducted various aspects of the war on terror.

While "errors" of omission and large dollops of hypocrisy are nothing new in the annals of MSM behavior, what is new is that they can no longer get away with them. This story has legs for two reasons: 1. it is a genuine scandal and 2. the blogosphere, unlike far too much of the MSM, will not let it go unreported simply because it doesn't jibe with the liberal agenda.

Thus on the plus side, those of you who have heard of this story realize that the old media can no longer be trusted. As a result, your understanding of what is actually happening in the world goes far deeper than the average American. That is the minus side: too many of our fellow citizens still believe watching TV news makes them informed Americans. Too be kind, they don't know what they don't know. Too be less than kind, it's long past time they learned.

Copenhagen, despite Barack Obama's presence, seems sure to be a bust — there will be no agreement on mandatory limits on carbon emissions. Even if there were, it would probably turn out to be no more effective than the limits others agreed to in Kyoto in 1997. In any case, China and India are not going to choke off their dazzling economic growth to please Western global warming alarmists.

But that's just it---the elites pushing this *don't mind* if the Red Chinese won't choke off their economic growth. They just want to choke off *ours*.

Either out of some multicultural brainwash guilt, or a peevish resentment that the Soviets didn't beat us, so they hope the Red Chinese do so, or they genuinely believe the world is better off with another superpower to keep what they see as "Amerikkka" in line. They are old fellow travelers.

Some, like Tom Friedman at the New York Times, do nothing but praise Red China's new spin on statism. In his coverage of China, Tom Friedman reminds me of people like Charles Lindbergh who were impressed with and gushed about what they saw coming out of the Third Reich prior to 1939.

Hero?

A man is visiting the zoo and observing the lion's pen area when he sees a little girl leaning too far over the safety rails and into the lion's pen. Suddenly, a lion jumps upward, grabs the little girl by the cuff of her jacket and tries to pull her over the safety rails and down inside to slaughter her, under the eyes of her screaming parents.

The man quickly runs to the safety rail and hits the lion square on the nose with a powerful punch.

Whimpering from the pain the lion jumps back letting go of the girl, and the biker brings her to her terrified parents, who thank him endlessly. A reporter has watched the whole event.

The reporter addressing the man says, 'Sir, this was the most gallant and brave thing I've seen a man do in my whole life.'

The man replies, 'Why, it was nothing, really, the lion was behind bars. I just saw this little kid in danger and acted as I felt right.'

The reporter says, 'Well, I'll make sure this won't go unnoticed. I'm a journalist, you know, and tomorrow's paper will have this story on the front page... So, what do you do for a living and what political affiliation do you have?'

The man replies, 'I'm an account executive, a former soldier and a Republican.' The journalist leaves.

The following morning the man buys the paper to see if it indeed brings news of his actions, and reads, on the front page:

WHITE BUSINESSMAN ASSAULTS AFRICAN IMMIGRANT, STEALS HIS LUNCH
 *Ex-Military man with anger issues?*
That pretty much sums up the media's approach to the news these days.

Rush Limbaugh smeared by Left

So the Obamunist sycophants in the media are now making outrageous attacks on Rush Limbaugh regarding rumors - that's right, rumors - that he has made racial remarks in the past.

And the NFL, like most big-money operations, got scared, quickly jumped on the bandwagon and let it be known that Limbaugh's desire to be included in a group seeking to buy the St. Louis Rams would be rejected.

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, a classic corporate empty suit, simply referred to Limbaugh's "divisive comments" as the reason for his being viewed as an unwelcome applicant for a franchise.

Since rumor is all that the shrieking Commiecrat crowd has to go on, they have dragged out of the closet the infamous hubbub back in 2003 when Rush Limbaugh was hired to give his opinions on ESPN's Sunday NFL Countdown pregame show. What got him into hot water was when he opined that Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb was overrated. In a refreshingly straightforward manner, he went on to say, "I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team."

I happen to have seen that little segment, and I vividly recall two things about it. First, immediately after Limbaugh made his comments, Hall of Fame player Michael Irvin, an African-American and former Dallas Cowboys wide receiver, said, "Good point, Rush." I take Irvin at his word that he meant what he said.

Second, I recall thinking that Limbaugh's comments were positive in that they spotlighted the fact that most white Americans *do* want to see African-Americans succeed. And that's a good thing. I felt at the time that he should have been applauded for being sensitive rather than reviled for being insensitive. Nevertheless, the Race Police came flying out of the woodwork, and Limbaugh resigned under pressure the very next day.

So, here we are again, bringing up memories of all the "racial" comments made by famous persons who were fired and vilified for being "insensitive." Two of the more well-known examples that come to mind are Al Campanis, who was general manager of the Los Angeles Dodgers, and Jimmy the Greek Snyder, a one-time mainstay on CBS's NFL Today.

In an appearance on ABC's Nightline in 1987, Campanis said, "[Blacks] may not have some of the necessities to be, let's say, a field manager, or perhaps a general manager." The left immediately went berserk, and the Dodgers quickly hustled Campanis off their payroll.

Campanis later explained what he had meant by his remark by saying, "When I said blacks lack the 'necessities' to be managers or general managers, what I meant was the lack of necessary experience, not things like inherent intelligence or ability. I was dead-tired after traveling when I went on the show. I got confused. It was like a telegram - you try to say it in a few words, and it's implied differently."

By all accounts, Campanis was not even close to being a racist. In fact, he was one of Jackie Robinson's biggest defenders when he played for the then Brooklyn Dodgers, and once challenged an opposing player to a fight when Robinson was being bullied.

Moreover, in 1987 Campanis was right, for the simple reason that at that time it wasn't that long ago that African Americans couldn't even *play* the major leagues, let alone manage a team there.

As to Jimmy the Greek, his famous faux pas was when he was purported to have said to a reporter, in a restaurant, "The black is a better athlete to begin with because he's been bred to be that way - because of his high thighs and big thighs that goes up into his back, and they can jump higher and run faster because of their bigger thighs. This goes back all the way to the Civil War when during the slave trading, the owner - the slave owner would breed his big black to his big woman so that he could have a big black kid."

PC and historical accuracy are sworn and everlasting enemies. The interesting thing is that some years later I read a long, detailed article in the newspaper, based on scientific studies, that confirmed that blacks tend to be superior athletes because of their genetic propensity toward large and powerful thigh and buttocks muscles. It was a fascinating, well-researched article that provided scientific answers to a question that has long been of interest to both blacks and whites.

Whites are as much at fault as blacks for the absurd overreaction to both speech and facts regarding race because they are the enablers in a relationship that began as master and slave. As Hoover Institution Senior Fellow Shelby Steele, an African-American, points out in his book White Guilt, Americans are hopelessly trapped by the need to feel guilty over the sins of their fathers. Any people of color - including Arabs, Africans, and Latinos - must be coddled and treated with an excess of TLC.

I guess it's okay to a point, but it's also demeaning and irritating to people of color who just want to be treated like everyone else. As one African-American acquaintance of mine recently said, "The constant whining and cries of insult only succeed in attracting negative attention and get in the way of those of us who are trying to get ahead in life."

Fortunately, most people, both black and white, are becoming immune to the constant drumbeat of the racist-gotcha game. Plain and simple, we are suffering from race-compassion fatigue. To borrow from the title of Juan Williams' book: Enough!

P.S. Rush: For the sake of all Americans, please sue the butts off the NFL and every blogger and member of the media who attributed false quotes to you.

What can we do about this?

1. Call the NFL and give them hell. Their corporate office number is 1-212-450-2000. The switchboard hours are from 8:30AM to 7:00PM, Eastern Standard Time.

The NFL FAX number is 212/681-7573.

NFL staff members can be reached via-email by first.last@nfl.com. Example: roger.goodell@nfl.com

2. Call the corporations who pay big bucks to become the "official sponsors of the NFL" and tell them to please stop. It isn't the corporations fault what the NFL did, but they should know that decent Americans of all colors are fed up.

3. It's time to look into the backgrounds of every last creep in the NFL leadership. Every owner, every CEO, every GM, everyone. And Roger Goodell as well.

Oh look what I just found... I have it on good authority from some schmuck who posted it on the internet on April 1st, 1984 that NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell's ancestors owned slaves and when he learned of this, he was noted to have exclaimed: "COOL! And if I can just become NFL Commissioner someday, I can be a plantation owner too and control all those Black boys! Bwahahahahaha!"

4. Boycott the NFL and ESPN. Now I'm not saying stop watching the games (that's not a credible approach), but you can avoid buying any single product I see advertised in association with the NFL or ESPN. They won't notice me not watching the games, but they might just notice the fact that I'm not buying NFL shirts or other merchandise.

5. Forget the NFL and repeat after me.....N-A-S-C-A-R. Of course, the liberal Demunist Commiecrat news media tried to smear them too. You might remember when Arabic or East Indian looking "fans" were planted by MSNBC into NASCAR events to see if they would be harassed by NASCAR fans. Which prompted this great editorial cartoon:



There is a deeper issue here, namely, what the Leftist Agenda is.

1.) Rush may not be the representative of the opposition to their agenda, but he says exactly the things we are saying amongst ourselves. That is why they must attempt to propagandize about him as the Leader, so they can apply the Rules for Radicals, and isolate and destroy, thus isolating us and ultimately destroying us.

2.) Since the left have taken over all non-elected positions in the government, taken over the re-education of our children, control information transfer and media determination of news, and now represent the elite and Corporate America...They view sports as the re-education camp for the American Population that does not agree with their agenda.

3.) Modern American Sports has nothing to do with competition. It is only sold as competition, but in reality it is Entertainment focused on re-educating a population to fit a particular model.

4.) In sports you can control which people get to play and which can not. By using this method of re-education they can control the story line so that it falls in-line with the agenda. They do this by propping up organizations and individuals that fit the model, and demonizing the organizations and individuals that don't. This is very powerful because the machine can use the cover of apparent transparency to consistently, subliminally, and aggressively set the cultural rules, which in turn will all fit the agenda.

5.) Truth has become a scarce commodity in America. Among liberal leftists, lying is seen as perfectly acceptable behavior. Lying has little or no stigma attached to it, in their world. This is the end-game of moral relativism. Liberals are now enjoying the fruits of their years of subversive and divisive labor. These people are keenly aware of the fact that when truth is effectively undermined, all things are possible. Evil is, in part, the absence of truth. What we are witnessing is the dawning of a new era of evil. Time to fight back in earnest, people.

Some media questions for Barack Obama

If you shake your head in amazement and wonder why a vast majority of Americans aren't demanding that the president, most of his cabinet, all of his czars, and a significant percentage of House and Senate members be criminally investigated, you still haven't grasped the power of the liberal lamestream media. This power has diminished somewhat, as many wise up and turn to talk radio and blogging to vent their frustrations and the Tea Party Movement grows, but the lamestream media power is still strong.

 

This is why hardly any one in the media is talking about the government criminal behavior that is being uncovered.  The reason, of course, is that the Culture of Corruption (Michelle Malkin's scathing indictment of most of the Obama criminalweb) in Washington, at a minimum, goes unreported by most of the major newspapers and magazines, as well as the major TV networks.

And the reason for this is that Obama and his cronies have proven to be masters at implementing the strategy of one of the greatest propagandists of the 20th century, Josef Goebbels.  Said Hitler's infamous propaganda minister: "Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play."

None of the criminality of the Obama administration would be possible without the explicit (or, at the very least, implicit) approval of the media. Can you imagine a presidential press conference where, instead of asking the Obamunist about his dogs or his latest demogogue whitey "beer summit", they asked him questions such as:

"You told Joe the Plumber that you believe in spreading the wealth around. Since the Constitution doesn't allow you to do that, from whom did you acquire the moral authority to take people's earnings by force and arbitrarily hand them to others?"

"You are on video in 2003 saying that you believe in a single-payer healthcare system. Why are you now telling the American public that you merely want a 'government option' added to our existing system?  Were you lying in 2003, or are you lying now?"

"How do you reconcile the fact that, within a short space of time, you said that the Medicare system is a perfect example of how well government programs can work, then turned right around and said that Medicare is broke?"

"Why would you appoint an avowed communist, Van Jones, as "green czar?" Did you know that he was a communist before you appointed him? Was he properly vetted? Since communism seeks to destroy capitalism, isn't his appointment a clear indication that you would like to destroy capitalism?"

"Throughout your life, you have, by your own admission, associated most closely with people like Frank Marshall Davis (another communist), Reverend Jeremiah Wright (an advocate of "black liberation theology"), Bill Ayers (a convicted terrorist who stills says that he wished his group, the Weather Underground, would have done more), and Marxist professors (in college). Given these associations and your extreme liberal voting record in the Senate, weren't you being disingenuous with the American public when you tried to position yourself as a mainstream American in the last presidential election campaign?"

"Who, exactly, writes these thousand-page bills that keep getting rammed through Congress on short notice, and why do you not insist that all congressmen and women read them before voting on them?"

"Most of what you have done since you gained office is in violation of the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment specifically states that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." In other words, the federal government has no powers other than those specifically granted to it by the seven Articles of the Constitution. Knowing this to be so, how do you justify violating the Constitution on a daily basis?"

"Since thousands of creditable scientists throughout the world say that global warming either does not exist or, if it does exist, it is not manmade, why are you determined to push through a cap and trade bill that will kill American businesses and jobs, dramatically raise taxes, and increase the cost of energy?"

"Why is Tom Daschle, whose tax problems were apparently so severe that he withdrew his nomination for Secretary for Health and Human Services, still coming to the White House and giving you advice on a regular basis while at the same time working for the law and lobbying firm of Alston & Bird and giving advice to UnitedHealth, the nation's largest health insurance company?"

From the $410 billion omnibus bill (with 9,000 earmarks) to the $800 billion "stimulus package" ... from Cash for Clunkers to insulting and dismissing American taxpayers who disagree with his policies ... from appointing a total of thirty six "czars" who do not answer to either the Congress or American taxpayers to bringing criminally infested ACORN into the White House to take over the census ... the stench of government corruption can be smelled throughout the land.

Being the clever devil that he is, to avoid ever having to answer such questions, Barack Hussein Obama apparently made a strategic decision to put a great deal of his creative energy into his pals at the lamestream press.  Goebbels would have loved it.

But perhaps I'm giving him too much credit. Maybe it's the press, on its own, that made a conscious decision, early on, to ignore any wrongdoing on the part of this galling young truth-twister because they have waited so long for an unapologetic "progressive" to slip into the White House with a super majority in Congress to back up his dastardly deeds.

If the media did make a conscious decision to become a government keyboard, they should think about that old maxim: Be careful what you wish for, or you may get it. If people get the government they deserve, the press surely is not immune to the same fate.

When wrongdoings evolve into atrocities, I wonder if any left-wing media pawns will turn to the black market to buy up copies of F.A. Hayek's Road to Serfdom in an effort to figure out how they were duped into participating in their own enslavement.

In Praise of Greta Van Susteren

It's funny how the crybaby Commiecrats call Fox News "right wing", even though the network is chock full of liberals like Geraldo, Alan Colmes, Evan Bayh, Paula Zahn, and, of course, Greta Van Susteren. Nor do the pretty cupcakes of Fox News come across as particularly conservative. Of course, Fox News still has many more rightist commentators and journalists than CNN, to say nothing of the completely Marxist-Soviet MSNBC news network.

Still, I must compliment Greta. She may be a liberal, but she is also a very smart woman who tenaciously tries to get at the facts, regardless of whom it hurts or helps. She's a straight arrow who has a deeply ingrained sense of justice about her that causes her to ask pointed questions ... again ... and again ... and again. I doubt that she thinks of herself in strong ideological terms.

I say deeply ingrained sense of justice, because she becomes very impatient when guests talk nonsensically, lie, or try to spin the facts. And in her recent interview with Russell Mokhiber, founder of "Single Payer Action" - a group with a name like "Friends Of Global Progress" out of the novel Atlas Shrugged - there was a lot of all three going on. 

Russell Mokhiber was right on cue with the bogus assertion that "sixty people die every day due to a lack of health insurance." It was clear Mokhiber understood Josef Goebbels' famous words: "The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over."

In nonstop fashion, Mokhiber vilified Whole Foods founder and CEO John Mackey, who is famous for his pro-employee philosophy of business and rather liberal politics! Whole Foods, which employs some 50,000 people, has repeatedly been named one of the best companies in America to work for, and it provides insurance benefits to 80 percent of its employees. As a result, Mackey has been something of a populist hero to the average working man and woman.

Why did Russell Mokhiber do this? Because John Mackey took an honest look at the employer provided health care situation and dared to suggest that Obama the Duplicitous Despot's government-monopoly healthcare plan may not be in the best interests of patients, doctors, or America in general. Zap! Mackey went from media hero to media demon quicker than you could say "change you can believe in".

Worse, he had the audacity to offer his own idea of what he believes to be a better healthcare plan for America. Audacious! Who does he think he is, a free citizen? A successful employer who has a proven healthcare plan in place for his employees? A productive individual who has created thousands of jobs? A business owner who has succeeded by giving consumers what they want?

What in the world would make him believe he has a right to voice a dissenting opinion? He's probably just another one of those dreaded teabaggers in disguise.

Mr. Mokhiber was having none of such hype. He wanted Mackey tarred and feathered, and sent his progressive troops to picket Whole Foods stores in Austin, New York, and Washington, D.C.

What really ticked off Greta was Mokhiber's repeatedly saying that because John Mackey is against single-payer healthcare, he's a "bad guy." Gee, most Americans are against single-payer healthcare. The only thing I'll give Mokhiber credit for is that, unlike his Oval Office hero, he didn't lie about what he wants: government-only healthcare.

As everyone in America now knows, BHO continues to claim that government healthcare would be "just another option," even though he was captured on video, in 2003, saying, "I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health-care program." The man does have a charming way about him, doesn't he?

But this isn't about BHO, who is already way too overexposed. It's about how Greta handled Mokhiber's nasty assertions that John Mackey is a bad guy who should be silenced. True-blue progressives simply don't like to hear dissenting views. Greta skewered him and never backed off, no matter how many times he followed his Goebbels repetition strategy. She simply was dumbfounded that Mokhiber would call a model citizen a "bad guy" for not agreeing with the president's viewpoint.

You can see the whole interview here.

Just remember that Mokhiber is typical of the kind of person that too many RINO Republicans believe they can reason with - you know, "reach across the aisle."

What the "Progressive" Liberal Left has wrought:

A whole group of people brainwashed to utter and believe statements like this:

Courtesy of The Failblog.

US to Expand Immigration Checks to Local Jails‏?

At first, the Washington Post article made me think that I have to give the Obamunists credit where credit is due:

The Obama administration is expanding a program initiated by President George W.
Bush aimed at checking the immigration status of virtually every person booked into local jails. In four years, the measure could result in a tenfold increase in illegal immigrants who have been convicted of crimes and identified for deportation, current and former U.S. officials said.

But upon reading further, I find that:

The effort is likely to significantly reshape immigration enforcement, current and former executive branch officials said. It comes as the Obama administration and Democratic leaders in Congress vow to crack down on illegal immigrants who commit crimes, rather than those who otherwise abide by the law.

In other words, the Bush administration WAS deporting illegals as illegals, and the Obamunists just intend to deport those who are illegals and commit other felonies too? In other words, Amnesty! Oh boy!

Or does it really? Since:

But even some supporters of the program wonder whether it can be implemented smoothly and whether there will be sufficient funding. A surge in deportation cases, noted Stewart Baker, former assistant secretary of homeland security for policy, would require more prosecutors, immigration judges, detention beds and other resources.

Wait a minute, I thought the article said the Obama administration would be more selective? So which is it? Way to muddle the issue, Washington Post!