Jan 17
There are many reasons why the Second Amendment right to bear arms is critical and must not be abridged in any way. The Left is trying to exploit the Tucson shootings to, once again, attempt to implement substantial gun control. We must make sure that this does not occur.
This comic illustrates another important and not frequently discussed reason to maintain this right. Data has repeatedly and irrefutably shown that states with concealed weapon carry laws have lower crime rates that states and cities which don't allow it.
Posted in Gun Control Ideology Political Cartoon Second Amendment with No Comments
More:
Print This Post
17
During his two year tenure as “president”, Obama has unmasked his true intentions and character: an unrelenting arrogant, contemptuous, narcissistic, racist, elitist Progressive who intends to transform the American political, economic and social system in direct opposition to the wishes of an overwhelming majority of citizens in order to realize his ideological goals. His agenda is authoritarian control or, in essence, tyranny and has been accomplishing much of this through his czars and fellow Progressives with regulations and rules that often bypass Congress.
In isolation, Obama would have little success. Unfortunately, he and a cadre of Progressives in high places have worked to advance the far left causes which have been immensely aided by the fifth column press which is complicit in this revolution. We all know the names of some of these noxious Progressive politicians who are bent on undermining and destroying our country: Hillary Clinton, Barney Frank, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Pete Stark. (See yesterday’s post : Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s Outrageous Statements Made In An Arab Country Regarding the Tucson Shooter for just one example of the outrageous, destructive and irresponsible actions of Hillary Clinton)
We must vanquish this revolution being perpetrated by liberal Democrats and Progressives from within the government, doing whatever it takes to neutralize these individuals and their destructive actions. The November massacre of Democratic politicians at the voting booth is a start but we must continue on relentlessly. It is imperative that we fervently support the conservatives and Republicans in Congress in order to help regain our stolen rights and freedoms as well as reestablish sane fiscal policies.
Arrogant and Authoritarian: Barack Obama and the New Progressives
Chuck Rogér January 12, 2011
Blindness to physical reality, denial of human nature, and a consuming desire to use government force to impose fantasies on fellow human beings. Welcome to the mind of today's American "progressive."
Progressives veil sophomoric schemes in eloquent verbiage. Barack Obama's mastery of the technique got him elected president. Sixty-nine and a half million Americans would not have voted for Obama had he failed to conceal the differences between his campaign spiel and the contents of his heart.
Convinced of the goodness of their intentions, ideologues like Obama mistake tyranny for noble action. And to achieve their noble objectives, today's progressives bend the truth far more than did predecessors like John Dewey, Woodrow Wilson, and FDR. Yet Obama has increasingly adopted a more direct modus operandi since becoming president. The "centrist" disguise has disintegrated.
Progressivism initially appeared on the American scene in response to problems that cried for solutions. Peter Berkowitz describes the movement's birth.
The original progressivism arose in the 1880s and 1890s and flourished during the first two decades of the 20th century. It is associated with, among others, Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, scholars Fredrick Jackson Turner and Charles Beard, reformer Jane Addams, theologian Walter Rauschenbusch, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, philosopher and educator John Dewey, and journalist and New Republic founder Herbert Croly.
At their best, the original progressives responded to dramatic social and economic upheavals generated by the industrial revolution, opposed real Gilded Age abuses, and promoted salutary social and political reforms. They took the side of the exploited, the weak, and the wronged. They fought political corruption and sought to make political institutions more responsive to the will of the people. And they advanced programs and policies that, in a changing world, brought liberal democracy in America more in line with the Declaration of Independence's and the Constitution's original promise of freedom and equality for all.
So some original progressives had a positive influence on the country. But history shows that the ideas of zealots like Wilson, Croly, Dewey, and FDR had devastating effects. Government size and intrusion into business and private life have mushroomed. America's education system has decayed into a vehicle for infecting young people with pie-in-the-sky misconceptions of human nature and twisted versions of the American story.
Decades since the progressive movement began, a clear picture has developed of rabid ideologues like Margaret Sanger, whose racism incited her to conceive the eugenic "Negro Project" to reduce the "inferior" black population. Progressive minds like Sanger's, capable of spawning the depravity of Planned Parenthood, are dark places.
Today, the truth stares Americans in the face. While progressivism was born of an earnest desire to advance personal freedom, the ideology devolved into a collection of approaches that would lock people in the chains of a centrally planned society, with progressive elites withholding the keys to the locks. The elitists truly believe that legislative and regulatory shackles can remold human nature to conform to an impossibly perfect vision.
We need look no farther than our progressive-in-chief for the embodiment of the stubborn pseudo-intellectual who views himself as society's infallible guiding hand. Barack Obama wants government to "spread the wealth" by taking wealth from high earners who spread it more broadly and deeply than government ever could. Our president thinks that Americans who are concerned about decaying values and explosive federal spending are too "scared" to trust cherry-picked "facts and science." Obama believes that people are wasting valuable time "pushing away challenges, looking backwards" -- presumably focusing on really dreadful stuff like wholesome values, common sense, and facts evidenced by history. Barack the magic driver says that Republicans critical of his magic bus "can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back."
A hundred years ago, Herbert Croly foretold the Obama mindset, declaring that "the average American individual is morally and intellectually inadequate to a serious and consistent conception of his responsibilities as a democrat1." Peter Berkowitz suggests that today's progressives probably find Croly's declaration "mortifying." I think Berkowitz misses the mark. Hillary Clinton, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Time's Joe Klein, U.C. Berkley linguist George Lakoff, Massachusetts Representative Barney Frank, and countless other progressives routinely make an exhibition of their insufferably arrogant elitism. Obama's superior manner and California Representative Pete Stark's outrageous impudence typify the demeanor of today's enlightened ones.
With a smugness celebrated by soul mates in the media, Barack Obama inspires American progressives to flaunt their haughtiness. Describing the posturing that accompanies the haughtiness, Berkowitz observes that Obama's techniques constitute an "effort to push dramatic transformation under the cover of moderation, pragmatism, and post-partisanship."
My characterization is more straightforward. The media actively sell Obama's phony "moderation, pragmatism, and post-partisanship" to "cover" actions that are immoderate, impractical, and entirely partisan. Obama purveys doublespeak to convince people of one thing while the illusionist-in-chief does another. Millions of Americans voted for a package of illusions in 2008.
Obamaesque deceit and conceit are easily summarized: progressives sanctify pretty theory as obviously true and condemn ugly reality as necessarily false. Progressives see themselves as incapable of error and believe that rejection of their high-mindedness could be undertaken only by commoners too dim to comprehend what's best.
During the two years after Barack Obama moved to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and Democrats increased their stranglehold on Congress, something became crystal-clear. A hideous infestation called progressivism has uglified the White House and the Democrat Party. The tyrannous legislative and regulatory rampages that Obama and the Democrats undertook made something else clear. Until progressivism is flushed from the party, Democrats must never again be entrusted with substantial influence in government.
A writer, physicist, and former high tech executive, Chuck Rogér invites you to visit his website, www.chuckroger.com. E-mail Chuck at swampcactus@chuckroger.com.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/01/arrogant_and_authoritarian_bar.html
Posted in Anti-American Arrogance Barney Frank Czar Government Control Harry Reid Hillary Clinton Ideology Media - Far Left Nancy Pelosi Obama Personal rights Pete Stark Progressives Regulations Republican with No Comments
More:
Print This Post
Jan 16
The FCC's recently approved "net neutrality" regulation was known by its voting members to truly be outside its jurisdiction, probably unconstitutional and could be easily overturned by Congress yet they were unrelenting in pursuing control over people and businesses. This arrogant and tyrannical attitude is suffused through the Obama Administration with its myriad socialists and communists and other "radicals".
A Massive, Strong and Controlling Central Government is at the core of their ideologies. This new regulation is just one step...
Obama, his Administration and czars must be stopped cold in their attempts to seize further control of our country from us.
Posted in Arrogance Communism Constitution FCC Government Control Ideology Obama Political Cartoon Regulations Socialism with No Comments
More:
Print This Post
Jan 10
The shooting of Arizona Democrat Rep. Gabrielle Giffords by a deranged 22 year old gunman has predictably but despicably precipitated a fusillade of culpatory attacks by liberals and Progressives, including politicians and the news media, who blame this tragedy on everyone important who holds conservative views including especially Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and the Tea Parties. This assignation is reprehensible, irresponsible (particularly the news media and politicians), incorrect and ironic. We suspect that if the victim instead were a Republican, liberals would be insinuating that the individual had it coming to them because of their "Neanderthal" ideological views.
What we do know is that the perpetrator had clinically evident mental illness, possibly paranoid schizophrenia, was a pot head and heavy drinker of alcohol and a liberal with radical political views. The politician he shot was a Democrat and liberal. Thus, there is no conservative or right wing factor here though the Democratic politicians and the liberal Netroots and news media would have you believe that such was irrefutably the case.
The list of these contemptuous, disgraceful perpetrators is too long to list. Included among these are some of the anticipated suspects: Keith Olberman, Paul Krugman, Wolf Blitzer, Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos, (Hanoi) Jane Fonda, Sen. Dick Durbin, former Sec. of the Defense William Cohen, Rep. James Clayburn (3rd highest ranking Democrat in the House) CNN and MSNBC.
In fact, in his NY Times blog, Paul Krugman wrote:
"You know that Republicans will yell about the evils of partisanship whenever anyone tries to make a connection between the rhetoric of Beck, Limbaugh, etc. and the violence I fear we’re going to see in the months and years ahead. But violent acts are what happen when you create a climate of hate. And it’s long past time for the GOP’s leaders to take a stand against the hate-mongers."
Where were all these individuals while the Left was relentlessly threatening President Bush and V.P. Cheney in some of the vilest ways and continue to do so particularly against Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh? We didn’t hear them complaining or calling for the cessation of such inflammatory attacks and language. Actually, they were among those who were spewing the Left’s incessant incendiary rhetoric. We also didn’t hear them complain about the film “The Death of a President” which was a depiction of the assassination of President George Bush and which won the International Film Critics Award (as a far left political statement) or even when he was depicted with Nazi symbols. There were no condemnations when John Kerry stated regarding President Bush that “I could have gone to 1600 Pennsylvania and killed the real bird with one stone.” They also didn’t complain that Obama was inciting violence when he declared at a Philadelphia fundraiser in 2008 regarding Republicans: “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun”, a statement which he has often repeated.
Such is the irony of their present, unfounded accusations which the American public has been able to easily discern. For several reasons based on their corrupt moral algorithm, they don’t consider these blatant improprieties and transgressions to be as such. However, to rational and neutral observers, this is incontrovertibly a double standard.
Exacerbating the situation are the immediate attempts by the Left’s to use this tragedy in order to gain support for their liberal agenda of gun control and the restriction of free speech - prohibiting what they deem to be provocative (according to their double standards). As Rahm Emanuel famously posited:
"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."
These are a continuation of relentless attempts to provide the government with ever increasing power over its citizenry while concomitantly abridging and restricting our rights, freedoms and ability to protect ourselves as explicitly enumerated in the Constitution.
We must remain vigilant if we want to remain free.
Posted in Arizona Conservative Constitution Democrat Far Left Freedom Gun Control Ideology Media - Far Left Progressives Republican Tea Parties with 2 Comments
More:
Print This Post
Jan 9
Of course, the liberal and Progressive ideologues in Washington may never accept the data and self evident findings. After all, it is not about climate control.
It has always been about government control.
Posted in Global warming Government Control Political Cartoon with No Comments
More:
Print This Post
Jan 6
Obama is using the EPA as a proxy to implement his radical, corrupt, and power confiscating ideologies.
Posted in EPA Obama Political Cartoon Regulations with No Comments
More:
Print This Post
Jan 4
For more than 50 years, liberals have aggressively supported major government programs, legislation and ideologies that have unsurprisingly failed to produce the results they expected or wanted though they vehemently deny such outcomes. More accurately, they have been abject failures with far reaching and long lasting impacts.
Still they persist, staunchly supported by their media lapdogs, and attack those armed with data and better alternatives. They can’t seem to acknowledge the disaster their policies have caused.
In the following editorial, Larry Elder succinctly and lucidly reviews these domestic policies which have been unequivocally disastrous. These include taxes, welfare, education, affirmative action, minimum wage hikes and Obamacare.
What Do Liberals Have To Show For 50 Years Of Horrible Policies?
Larry Elder 12/23/2010
For the past 50 years, the Democrats — and many Republicans who should know better — have been wrong about virtually every major domestic policy issue. Let's review some of them:
• Taxes. The bipartisan extension of the Bush tax cuts represents the latest triumph over the "soak the rich because trickledown doesn't work" leftists.
President Ronald Reagan sharply reduced the top marginal tax rates from 70% to 28%, doubling the Treasury's tax revenue.
President George H.W. Bush raised the income tax rate, as did his successor. But President George W. Bush lowered them to the current 35%.
President Barack Obama repeatedly called the current rate unfair, harmful to the country and a reward to those who "didn't need" the cuts and "didn't ask for" them.
If true, he and his party ditched their moral obligation to oppose the extension. But they didn't, because none of it is true.
Democratic icon John F. Kennedy, who reduced the top marginal rate from more than 90% to 70%, said, "A rising tide lifts all the boats." He was right — and most of the Democratic Party knows it.
• Welfare for the "underclass." When President Lyndon Johnson launched his "War on Poverty," the poverty rate was trending down. When he offered money and benefits to unmarried women, the rate started flat-lining. Women married the government, allowing men to abandon their moral and financial responsibilities.
The percentage of children born outside of marriage — to young, disproportionately uneducated and disproportionately brown and black women — exploded. In 1996, over the objections of many on the left, welfare was reformed. Time limits were imposed, and women no longer received additional benefits if they had more children. The welfare rolls declined. Ten years later, the New York Times wrote: "When the 1996 law was passed ... liberal advocacy groups ... predicted that it would increase child poverty, hunger and homelessness. The predictions were not fulfilled."
• Education. The federal government's increasing involvement with education — what is properly a state and local function — has been costly and ineffective at best, and counterproductive at worst. Title I, a program begun 45 years ago to close the performance gap between urban and suburban schools, burns through more than $15 billion a year, and the performance gap has widened. The feds spend $80 billion a year on K-12 education, as if money is the answer. States like Utah and Iowa spend much less money per student compared with districts like those in New York City and Washington, D.C., with much better results.
Where parents have choices — where the money follows the student rather than the other way around — the students perform better, with higher parental satisfaction. But the teachers' unions and the Democratic Party continue to resist true competition among public, private and parochial schools.
• Gun control. Violent crime occurs disproportionately in urban areas — where Democrats in charge impose the most draconian gun control laws.
Over the objection of those who warn of a "return to the Wild West," 34 states passed laws allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons. Not one state has repealed its law. Professor John Lott, author of "More Guns, Less Crime," says: "There is a strong negative relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate: As more people obtain permits, there is a greater decline in violent crime rates. For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect, the murder rate declines by 3%, rape by 2% and robberies by over 2%."
• "Affirmative action." Race-based preferences have been a disaster for college admissions. Students admitted with lesser credentials are more likely to drop out. Had their credentials matched their schools, they would have been far more likely to graduate and thus enter the job market at a more productive level.
Preferences in government hiring and contracting have led to widespread, costly and morale-draining "reverse discrimination" lawsuits. Where preferences have been put to the ballot, voters — even in liberal states like California — have voted against them.
• Minimum wage hikes. Almost all economists agree that minimum wage laws contribute to unemployment among the low-skilled — the very group the "compassionate party" claims to care about.
Economist Walter Williams, 74, in his new autobiography, "Up From the Projects," describes the many low-skilled jobs he took as a teenager. "By today's standards," he wrote, "my youthful employment opportunities might be seen as extraordinary.
That was not the case in the 1940s and 1950s. In fact, as I've reported in some of my research, teenage unemployment among blacks was slightly lower than among whites, and black teens were more active in the labor force as well. All of my classmates, friends and acquaintances who wanted to work found jobs of one sort or another."
• ObamaCare. This ghastly government-directed scheme will inevitably lead to rationing and lower-quality care — all without "bending the cost curve" down as Obama promised.
Any party can have a bad half-century. Merry Christmas.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/557701/201012231806/What-Do-Liberals-Have-To-Show-For-50-Years-Of-Horrible-Policies-.aspx
Posted in Democrat Diversity policies Education Gun Control Ideology Larry Elder Liberal ObamaCare Progressives Taxes with No Comments
More:
Print This Post
Dec 30
The FCC is a supererogatory federal agency that is a constant threat to our rights including as a dangerous political weapon of the left, an impediment to a free market place and innovations, and a waste of taxpayer money. It wantonly issues regulations such as the recently approved net neutrality law even though it doesn’t truly have the legal authority, a problem made worse by the fact that the commissioners are political appointees and not elected officials. In fact, the “president” has used this agency as a way to bypass Congress and attempt to implement ideologically radical policies.
We can protect our rights, save billions of dollars, reduce the size of the government and its debt by terminating this agency run amok.
Kill Off The FCC
Investor’s Business Daily 12/23/2010
Regulatory State: Two days after the FCC voted to take over the Internet, it stands in the way of an agreement between private companies. This is an agency that should be targeted for elimination.
On Tuesday, the Federal Communications Commission approved net neutrality, a regulatory framework that has been sold as a means of keeping the Web fair and open. In truth, the rules give government the authority to tell Internet service providers how to organize the traffic that flows over their infrastructure.
That's enough meddling in private affairs for one week for any federal agency. But the FCC wasn't finished.
Chairman Julius Genachowski, who pushed net neutrality despite a court ruling and bipartisan opposition in Congress, set conditions Thursday on Comcast's acquisition of NBC Universal. He wants Comcast to distribute content in a way that he approves of and lets competitors access Comcast's platform.
It's almost amusing that these conditions are being applied in the name of the "public interest."
Genachowski's proposal isn't binding. He still has to present his ideas to the other four commissioners and a vote must be taken. But neither one man nor one group should have the power to marshal private companies' business operations.
Private media companies are not government-owned utilities.
Regulators such as Genachowski say they are merely trying to keep competition healthy and protect consumers.
But their efforts inhibit competition and obstruct innovation.
Cell phones, for instance, were delayed by the FCC for a decade. The cost of this hang-up to the economy, according to the National Economic Research Associates, was $85 billion.
Like generals fighting the last war, regulators make rules based on the way businesses operated yesterday. As they try to keep up with market dynamics, they inflict uncertainty into business decisions and put a boot on the neck of progress. When not held back by regulators, though, companies freely create new technologies and business models that increase competition.
What role, then, is there for regulators, especially those at the FCC, which oversees one of the most dynamic industries in the world? With the intense competition in telecommunications that has benefited consumers and led to wide commercial successes, there's no need for a government referee in this sector.
There's nothing the FCC does that can't be eliminated, streamlined or handed over to another agency or department that has a legitimate function. (Ed Morrissey of hotair.com suggests broadcast licenses "could be handled by the Commerce Department, or by a greatly reduced FCC with binding limitations on jurisdiction." The point is, the FCC as now constituted doesn't have to do it.)
The FCC has been around for a while — it was established by the Communications Act of 1934. So it won't be abolished overnight. But its elimination is a worthy goal.
Republicans, who at one time had a shutdown agenda, will control the House beginning in January. They should make the call and get the process started.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/557805/201012231855/Kill-Off-The-FCC.aspx
Posted in Congress FCC Government Control Legal rights Liberal Republican with No Comments
More:
Print This Post
Dec 25
The federal government just can't resist imposing its might and regulation on virtually anything that exists in the private sector or our private lives. It's most recent victim is the internet.
Though the FCC's Net Neutrality legislation has not been fully divulged, we know by countless past examples that government meddling or control IS NOT a good thing. With it will ultimately come an infringement of our rights and freedoms or at least the threats of it.
And then there is that well known phenomenon of the law of unintended consequences where the ultimate outcome is always worse with unanticipated results than is nothing were done at all.
Fortunately, this all may be moot as this federal agency does not appear to have the authority to impose such legislation. The Republican controlled House of Representatives is gearing up to quash this edict.
Posted in FCC Political Cartoon Republican with No Comments
More:
Print This Post
25
The FCC’s naked power grab with its “Net Neutrality” legislation is reflective of the arrogance, disdain for legalities and the ideology of a Big Brother government that Obama and many liberal/Progressive Congressional Democrats have. There was little practical need for government intervention here.
If it is allowed to remain in effect the probability of which is close to zero, the consequences will likely be the stifling and politicizing of an industry which will hurt most parties in the end.
DeMint vows to reverse FCC's 'Internet takeover'
Mark Tapscott Dec 21 2010
Sen. Jim DeMint, R-SC, says Federal Communications Commission should be renamed the "Fabricating a Crisis Commission," following a vote by the panel's three Democrats to approve proposed rules that amount to a hostile takeover of the Internet by a government agency acting illegally.
The proposal - misleadingly described by proponents as an attempt to insure "net neutrality" by guaranteeing equal access to the Internet - was introduced a year ago by Julius Genachowski, President Obama's appointee as FCC chairman.
A federal court has ruled that the commission has no authority to regulate the Internet, and a bipartisan group of senators and representives warned Genechowski not to attempt to impose a regulatory regime on the Internet earlier this year.
The move's legality was even questioned by FCC Commissioner Michael Copp, one of the Democrats who voted today with Genachowski, saying he considered voting against the proposal because it lacks a sufficiently defensible legal basis to survive a court challenge promised by major Internet Service Providers like Verizon, Microsoft, and AT & T.
But legal challenges by industry are likely to be much less of a problem for the Genachowski-led takeover than efforts in Congress to stop the FCC in its tracks.
That's clearly what DeMint has in mind, as he said in his statement released today following the FCC action:
“The Obama Administration has ignored evidence that this federal takeover will hang a millstone of regulatory and legal uncertainty around the neck of a vibrant sector of our economy.
"Proceeding on its own liberal whims rather than facts, this FCC has chosen to grant itself broad authority to limit how businesses can bring the internet to consumers in faster and more innovative ways.
“Americans loudly demanded a more limited federal government this November, but the Obama Administration has dedicated itself to expanding centralized government planning. Today, unelected bureaucrats rammed through an internet takeover, even after Congress and courts warned them not to.
“To keep the internet economy thriving, this decision must be reversed. Regulatory reform will be a top priority for Republicans in the next Congress, and I intend to prevent the FCC or any government agency from unilaterally burdening our recovering economy with baseless regulation.
"In order to provide the stability businesses need to grow, I will work with my fellow senators to see passage of my FCC Act, which would ensure that the FCC can only use its rulemaking powers where there is clear evidence of a harmful market failure, as well as the REINS Act, which would add the accountability of a Congressional vote before any government agency’s proposed major regulations may be finalized.”
If the FCC plan somehow manages to survive, it will almost certainly do for First Amendment liberties and the Internet what it did for them in regulating broadcast television and radio. Former CBS News president Fred Friendly's landmark book, "The Good Guys, the Bad Guys and the First Amendment," describes in great detail how the Kennedy and Johnson administrations used the FCC to silence conservative critics.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2010/12/demint-vows-reverse-fccs-internet-takeover
Posted in FCC Government Control Sen. Jim DeMint with No Comments
More:
Print This Post
Subscribe to Our RSS Feed
Follow Us on Twitter
Comments