Slaves Revolt on Democrat's Baltimore Plantation

Dear Democrats,

We are NOT sorry that your slaves are revolting on your Baltimore plantation. You clearly learned nothing from your Civil War. Slavery is WRONG! Now stop it!

Sincerely,
Everybody else (Except ISIS - slavery is OK with them too)

---

So it continues...

The democrats will never let their slaves go! They can't get them to pick cotton anymore, but they have locked up their votes. Until the slaves decide to leave the plantation, it is almost difficult to feel sorry for them. 50 years of Democrat rule and Democrat policies in Baltimore have resulted in the slave uprising we are witnessing.

A brief history

Since the 1600's some American colonists had been owning slaves with regularity. There is even a historical debate as to whether the first documented / legal slave owner was a black man. Regardless, it is documented history that black colonists did legally own slaves.

And let us point out that there were no political parties at this time. Slavery didn't become contentious until the formation of the United States. Our founding fathers debated slavery, but could not come to agreement, and all decided it was not the issue that should prevent the formation of this new republic. The government was formed so brilliantly by the constitution, it is hard to believe they could not get that one right. They chose not to address the issue, and so just lit the fuse.

Even after the formation of the new government slavery was not a partisan issue. It was more or less a religious issue. Yes! Those religious nuts were running around, ranting and raving about the evils of slavery! Both the Party of Jefferson (Democratic-Republican Party) and the Party of Adams (The Federalist Party), were buying and selling slaves, and engaging in slavery for commercial gain, and personal comfort.

During the Jackson Administration the two party system morphed into the Democrats (Jackson's Party) and the Whigs (Those opposed to Jackson Party). Still slavery was not a partisan issue. It was not until the 1850's that slavery became political again. The Whig Party dissolved over the issue of slavery during this period. Slave owning Whigs joined the Democrats, who were either for slavery or willing not to pass judgement. Abolitionist Whigs formed the Republican party. So let's take this moment to point out that no Republican ever owned slaves. I assure you that a man on the street survey would show that very few Americans know this. They sure do not teach it in public schools. In fact they do contortions to leave you to believe that it is the Republicans who have always oppressed Black people.

When the Republican Party had it's first nominee (Abraham Lincoln ) elected president Democrats became so alarmed that the Party of Abolitionists would take away their slaves the Confedaracy was formed.

History.com

By the time of Lincoln’s inauguration on March 4, 1861, seven states had seceded, and the Confederate States of America had been formally established, with Jefferson Davis as its elected president. One month later, the American Civil War began when Confederate forces under General P.G.T. Beauregard opened fire on Union-held Fort Sumter in South Carolina. In 1863, as the tide turned against the Confederacy, Lincoln emancipated the slaves and in 1864 won reelection. In April 1865, he was assassinated by Confederate sympathizer John Wilkes Booth at Ford’s Theatre in Washington, D.C. The attack came only five days after the American Civil War effectively ended with the surrender of Confederate General Robert E. Lee at Appomattox.

Once Democrats thought they might lose their slaves, they started the Civil War! Millions of Americans died because Democrats wanted to keep their slaves!

The confederacy lost, and the Emancipation of slaves by the Republicans was complete.

But not so fast.....
Democrats were still unwilling to let their slaves go, so they invented sharecropping.

Sharecropping | Slavery By Another Name | PBS

After the Civil War, former slaves sought jobs, and planters sought laborers. The absence of cash or an independent credit system led to the creation of sharecropping.
Sharecropping is a system where the landlord/planter allows a tenant to use the land in exchange for a share of the crop. This encouraged tenants to work to produce the biggest harvest that they could, and ensured they would remain tied to the land and unlikely to leave for other opportunities. In the South, after the Civil War, many black families rented land from white owners and raised cash crops such as cotton, tobacco, and rice. In many cases, the landlords or nearby merchants would lease equipment to the renters, and offer seed, fertilizer, food, and other items on credit until the harvest season. At that time, the tenant and landlord or merchant would settle up, figuring out who owed whom and how much

Believe it or not, this new form of slavery lasted until the 1930's - 1940's. During this period the sharecroppers revolted by forming unions. Democrat plantation owners retaliated with violence.

Slavery in the 20th Century

The situation of landless farmers who challenged the system in the rural south as late as 1941 has been described thus: "he is at once a target subject of ridicule and vitriolic denunciation; he may even be waylaid by hooded or unhooded leaders of the community, some of whom may be public officials. If a white man persists in 'causing trouble', the night riders may pay him a visit, or the officials may haul him into court; if he is a Negro, a mob may hunt him down."

Sharecroppers formed unions in the 1930s, beginning in Tallapoosa County, Alabama in 1931, and Arkansas in 1934. Membership in the Southern Tenant Farmers Union included both blacks and poor whites. As leadership strengthened, meetings became more successful, and protest became more vigorous, landlords responded with a wave of terror.

It was only mechanization of farming that eventually brought the institution of sharecropping to an end in the United States. Think about that for a second!

But not so fast.....
Democrats were still unwilling to let their slaves go, so they invented Jim Crow Laws.

Jim Crow Laws

The Jim Crow laws were racial segregation state and local laws enacted after the Reconstruction period in Southern United States that continued in force until 1965 mandating de jure racial segregation in all public facilities in Southern U.S. states (of the former Confederacy), starting in 1890 with a "separate but equal" status for African Americans. Conditions for African Americans were consistently inferior and underfunded compared to those provided for white Americans. This decision institutionalized a number of economic, educational and social disadvantages. De jure segregation mainly applied to the Southern United States, while Northern segregation was generally de facto — patterns of segregation in housing enforced by covenants, bank lending practices and job discrimination, including discriminatory union practices for decades.

It wasn't until 1964 that Jim Crow laws were legally ended.

On July 2, 1964, Johnson signed the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964.^[24][25] It invoked the commerce clause^[24] to outlaw discrimination in public accommodations (privately owned restaurants, hotels, and stores, and in private schools and workplaces). This use of the commerce clause was upheld in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States 379 US 241 (1964).^[26] 

It is my belief that this is why Democrats are seen in modern day politics as the champions of the Black race. Only because the sitting President was a Democrat do democrats get to absolve themselves of their sins of slavery. And as to how Republicans who freed the slaves became the foil? I really have no good explanation other than indoctrination or re-education by public schools and the media. Another man on the street survey would most likely show that most Americans believe Republicans opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This just simply is not true. All you have to do is look at the votes for this Act to see that Democrats still wanted their slaves. In every instance Republicans were far more in favor of this Act than Democrats.

Vote Totals

By party

The original House version:^[20]

• Democratic Party: 152–96  
• Republican Party: 138–34  

Cloture in the Senate:^[21]

• Democratic Party: 44–23 
• Republican Party: 27–6  

The Senate version:^[20]

• Democratic Party: 46–21
• Republican Party: 27–6 

The Senate version, voted on by the House:^[20]

• Democratic Party: 153–91 
• Republican Party: 136–35 

Once again, it was really the Republicans that came to the rescue of Black slaves.

But not so fast.....
Democrats were still unwilling to let their slaves go, so they invented welfare.

Democrats now keep their slaves on the plantation by handing out welfare and other entitlements at the expense of tax payers. The allure of free stuff is just too magnetic. And while Republicans have been fighting to free Blacks from Democrat enslavement once again by eliminating welfare and the stagnation of lives, Democrats have fooled Blacks into being resentful of such attempts.

Democrats have always argued that they love Black people and have always had their best interests close to their hearts. When the issue was actual slaves as property they argued that it was the most humane thing to do since Blacks hadn't been able to civilize themselves. Slavery was their path to civilization.

Democrats argued that sharecropping was in the best interest of the ex-slaves. After all? What else were they going to do?

And finally, democrats today argue that welfare is in the best interest of their ex-slaves as a helping hand, despite the facts of generational addiction to free stuff ultimately resulting in poverty.

Are all Democrats part of the slavery conspiracy? Certainly not. Those that are not are just from the 'Unicorn and Fuzzy Bunny' wing of the Party. If it sounds like charity, makes them feel warm and gooey on the inside, then they are for it.

But let's be clear about one thing. When it comes to race, Republicans are not the bad guys.

Massa is still out there. Burn her plantation down!

Marc Ash Is Still A Moron: #OWS

Atlanta #OWS Rally

Pigheaded progressive propagandist March Ash over at Reader Supported News is waxing poetically over the Occupy Wall Street movement. It wasn't too long ago that I posted about his fear and loathing over Tea Party protests and how he wagged his finger at their violent overtones.

Marc Ash is a Moron.

It's time to set the record straight. The reason that Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the brain, "through and through," was that an individual hated and feared her political objectives enough to commit the cowardly act.

His hyperbolic contortions to blame the Tea Party for the violence done to Gabrielle Giffords were pornographic, never mind a complete lie.

And now? Now that violence has come to the streets he wells up with pride and adulation at the stinky dirty occupodos currently occupying the streets of Oakland.

A Witness to the Violence in Oakland

Whatever meaning the Occupy Movement represents to the protesters who participate, to the Oakland Police Department, and the system they are paid to protect, it obviously represents something to be feared and repressed ... violently, and even lethally, if necessary.

Apparently, now being feared is good. He goes on to lie about their non-violent nature.

Armed only with a growing chant of "Our streets!" the marchers moved forward towards the line of police in riot gear. Shoulder to shoulder in non-violent defiance, the marchers tried to filter through the line of riot-armored police.

Brings a tear to your eye, doesn't it? Only, as usual, it's not the whole story.

Occupy Clashes Test Mayors

The trouble began after some demonstrators in front of the Oakland Library Tuesday afternoon began throwing "paint or other hazardous material" at officers, said a statement from Oakland police posted on Twitter.

Oh c'mon! A little paint and "hazardous material" never hurt anyone. I wonder if by "hazardous material" they mean feces? But what the hell?

Police said protesters threw M-80 fireworks at the officers as well as objects including bottles, rocks, pots and pans.

Damn police! They never let anyone have any fun!

Marc Ash goes on to preach about how this movement can never be stopped.

And there is no indication that police violence can stop it.

That maybe so, but unlike an old hippie like Marc Ash who's Marxist vision can never be extinguished, the useful idiots that make up the Occupodos are in fact learning something from this experience.

Remedial Economics

Nan Terrie learned an expensive lesson last week about the importance of property rights. "Stealing is our biggest problem at the moment," the 18-year-old protester told the New York Post. "I had my Mac stolen—that was like $5,500." Why? Because she left it in a public place, amid a crowd demanding the redistribution of wealth. Imagine that.

It's always going to be a good day when a Wall Street Journal Op/Ed piece can give you a good chuckle, but it's a great day when they can make you laugh out loud (lol - for you occupodos who might be reading this).

Perverse incentives were at work at Occupy Boston, where 36-year-old Andrew Warner told the Boston Herald: "It's turning into us against them." By "them" he didn't mean rich bankers but street vagrants: "They come in here and they're looking at it as a way of getting a free meal and a place to crash, which is totally fine, but they don't bring anything to the table at all." The same is true in New York, where "sanitation committee" member Lauren Digioia told the Daily News: "There's a lot of takers here and they feel entitled."

Really! You cannot make this stuff up.

Marc Ashe ignores the reports of beatings, rapes, robberies and does not talk about the fact that the encampments have begun to put together their own brown shirt squads to try and police themselves, mostly because it's embarrassing to have to call the police you have been battling to come to the aid of a rape victim.

More than anything else, given his completely based in no fact at all indictment of the Tea Party and their violent imagery, I would like to know what he thinks about the violent imagery and intimidation being used by the occupodos?

Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed....said in a statement. Among his apparent concerns were an unauthorized hip-hop concert held at the park last Saturday, which drew large crowds, and a protester who circled the park Tuesday toting an AK-47, which he had a permit to carry but which unnerved others in the park.

Such are the travails of a hard core propagandist.

Occupy Wall Street vs Tea Party

It is amazing to sit back and watch the main stream media lavish the #OCCUPYWALLSTREET crowd with pity and support, all the while remembering how peaceful Tea Party Protests were depicted as angry and violent mobs.

With the cries for 'civility' from the left now just a distant memory, they can no longer suppress their penchant for hate and violence. The party that loves to hate is back on the street, and they are pissed!

One of Saul Alinsky's rules for radicals was to "accuse your opponent of the awful things that you are doing or about to do"

Clearly accusing the Tea Party of violence fell into the "about to do" category.

And now that there is some blood in the water the unions are joining the fun. The self proclaimed thug army for Obama can't stay away from a good street fight.

---

Winning the Future? or Duh Losing!

Today President Obama spoke at George Washington University to dig in his heels, and fire the first volley in the coming battles that will be the debt limit and the 2012 budget.

He began by painting everyone who does not agree with his ideas as evil cold hearted evil doers by lecturing the country on social responsibility. Like these were thing the country did not know or understand

Transcript of Obama's Speech on the National Debt

“There but for the grace of God go I,” we say to ourselves, and so we contribute to programs like Medicare and Social Security, which guarantee us health care and a measure of basic income after a lifetime of hard work; unemployment insurance, which protects us against unexpected job loss; and Medicaid, which provides care for millions of seniors in nursing homes, poor children, and those with disabilities. We are a better country because of these commitments. I’ll go further – we would not be a great country without those commitments.

For much of the last century, our nation found a way to afford these investments and priorities with the taxes paid by its citizens. As a country that values fairness, wealthier individuals have traditionally born a greater share of this burden than the middle class or those less fortunate.

 And then he moved on to blame Bush for 40 years of entitlement and social program government spending.

But after Democrats and Republicans committed to fiscal discipline during the 1990s, we lost our way in the decade that followed. We increased spending dramatically for two wars and an expensive prescription drug program – but we didn’t pay for any of this new spending. Instead, we made the problem worse with trillions of dollars in unpaid-for tax cuts – tax cuts that went to every millionaire and billionaire in the country; tax cuts that will force us to borrow an average of $500 billion every year over the next decade.

To give you an idea of how much damage this caused to our national checkbook, consider this: in the last decade, if we had simply found a way to pay for the tax cuts and the prescription drug benefit, our deficit would currently be at low historical levels in the coming years.

 riiiiiiiight. 

While President Bush did in fact double the deficit he inherited during his eight year tenure, President Obama wants to ignore the fact that he double the deficit yet again in a mere two years. Yet this deficit problem is still Bush's fault (read: any republican who dares utter an idea toward cuts).

And then as a preamble to sharing his super genius plan for the budget (well his second one anyways) he attacks the opening bid proposed by Republicans. The cuts proposed in the Ryan proposal.

These aren’t the kind of cuts that Republicans and Democrats on the Fiscal Commission proposed. These are the kind of cuts that tell us we can’t afford the America we believe in. And they paint a vision of our future that’s deeply pessimistic.

It’s a vision that says if our roads crumble and our bridges collapse, we can’t afford to fix them. If there are bright young Americans who have the drive and the will but not the money to go to college, we can’t afford to send them. Go to China and you’ll see businesses opening research labs and solar facilities.

Great. China is his model. Centrally planned economies and trickle up poverty (communism) are the ideals he is looking to for inspiration. The fact of the matter is that the phenomena he is observing is due to the fact that China is moving toward free markets while America is moving away from them.

South Korean children are outpacing our kids in math and science.

And it's not due to lack of money. America has been throwing money at education for years to the extent that the amount of money per pupil has doubled in the last ten years in real dollars with no appreciable improvement. (statistics and reference to come shortly).

 Worst of all, this is a vision that says even though America can’t afford to invest in education or clean energy; even though we can’t afford to care for seniors and poor children, we can somehow afford more than $1 trillion in new tax breaks for the wealthy

Well Mr President, as you said earlier in the speech

Even after our economy recovers, our government will still be on track to spend more money than it takes in throughout this decade and beyond. That means we’ll have to keep borrowing more from countries like China. And that means more of your tax dollars will go toward paying off the interest on all the loans we keep taking out. By the end of this decade, the interest we owe on our debt could rise to nearly $1 trillion. Just the interest payments.

So let's get to the super genius idea then. What do we do? Nope. We need to perform the eat the rich ritual first.

Think about it. In the last decade, the average income of the bottom 90% of all working Americans actually declined. The top 1% saw their income rise by an average of more than a quarter of a million dollars each.

Really? I think we need a fact check on that one. If that's correct, then why are state tax revenues that are addicted to Millionaire taxes in so much trouble?

The Price of Taxing the Rich
The top 1% of earners fill the coffers of states like California and New York during a boom—and leave them starved for revenue in a bust.

Nearly half of California's income taxes before the recession came from the top 1% of earners: households that took in more than $490,000 a year. High earners, it turns out, have especially volatile incomes—their earnings fell by more than twice as much as the rest of the population's during the recession. When they crashed, they took California's finances down with them.

If Obama's outright lie were true, probably would not be having this discussion because we would be getting a good chunk of their purported prosperity already!

But back to the speech.

The first step in our approach is to keep annual domestic spending low by building on the savings that both parties agreed to last week – a step that will save us about $750 billion over twelve years

There we go. Finally an idea. Though he bemoaned those very cuts a week earlier, now they are his idea. Great. Whatever.

The second step in our approach is to find additional savings in our defense budget.

Fine. Everything is on the table. We should evaluate defense spending from many angles
( Charles Wolf, Jr.: The Facts About American 'Decline' - WSJ.com)
And finally the president makes his third point.

The third step in our approach is to further reduce health care spending in our budget. Here, the difference with the House Republican plan could not be clearer: their plan lowers the government’s health care bills by asking seniors and poor families to pay them instead. Our approach lowers the government’s health care bills by reducing the cost of health care itself.

Uh oh. Here we go again. Entitlements will save us, not sink us. If the president hangs onto the idea that Obamacare is saving the country money and that more Obamacare will save even more money, then say bye bye in 2012. The public at large has already roundly rejected that silly lie.

And finally

The fourth step in our approach is to reduce spending in the tax code.

Wow? What does that even mean? It takes a second to sink in, but what it really means is raising taxes. Is that not the mother of all euphemisms?

So, that's it really. Nothing new to see here.

Hope and change has been replaced with winning the future. Big government is still the solution to all that ails, and all those opposed will be destroyed.

Resistance is futile.

Trumka's Tragic Travesty

Thug-in-Chief and Union Fat Cat Dick Trumka had the temerity to publish an op/ed piece in today's Wall Street Journal. In his ridiculous diatribe he clearly illustrates that he just doesn't get it. This of course explains why his puppet, president Obama, also appears obtuse and feckless. Trumka rants about corporate profits and the destruction of the middle class while completely ignoring the ire of the middle class tax payer and the Tea Party.

Scott Walker's False Choice

The business climate couldn't be stronger. Corporate profits reached an annualized level of $1.7 trillion in the third quarter of 2010, the highest figure since the government began keeping statistics 60 years ago.

Are you out of your mind? The business climate could not be stronger? That shows how much lunkhead Trumka knows about business. Just because profits were up does not mean that everything is hunky dory. In fact it suggests that big business is sitting on their cash because of uncertainty caused by the anti business administration, and Dick Trumka wants to shake that money from the corporate trees.

He goes on to rant that Republican Governors are:

demanding steep cuts in wages and pensions for public workers, they also want to take away workplace rights, so that workers can no longer bargain for better compensation and benefits.

Their claim is that public workers have become parasites, busting state budgets with bloated wages and benefits at a terrible cost to taxpayers.

Dead on Dick! We have the second highest corporate tax in the world and even record corporate profits could not fill the deficit void for every state save one. So clearly, yes, it is left to the middle class to be soaked by taxes to try and even get close to even, and we are taxed enough, and we have had it, and we want cuts, and the gold plated benefit packages, and the lifetime employment attitude of the public service sector is a good place to start. Why should we be taxed to death to create an upper middle class of government employees who live better of than we do and contribute less to society and the overall economy than we do?

So here's working America's message to governors like Scott Walker and New Jersey's Chris Christie: We believe in shared sacrifice. But we don't believe in your version of shared sacrifice, where the wealthy and Wall Street reap all the benefits of economic growth, and working people do all the sacrificing.

Again. Enough of the Wall Street bashing. What do you want? you already get 35% of their profits which were record high and we still can't afford the government we have? Exactly what is your solution, other than "don't take my gold go take some from someone else". We'll that someone else is us. The taxpayers you referenced earlier.

it's crucial that we sit down at the table together and find a way to grow without taking more away from the middle class

Exactly! Except sitting down at the table doesn't mean "what else can the tax payers give us". Start making some real suggestions and give the people a reason to come to the table. Otherwise, we have ideas of our own.

(h/t Jersey Nut)

Chomsky is still a Chump!

How does this guy continue to be revered as some type of philosophical guru while speaking complete untruths in front of supposedly learned audiences? I've pointed out before how this guy appears to exist in some opposite upside down world universe.

Chomsky the Chump
And he's still at it!

Noam Chomsky lectures on nation’s problems

"The military budget is half of the deficit," Chomsky said. "The other half is the heavily privatized health care system. We would not have debt and might even have a surplus if we did not have (the health care system)."

I've heard him say this many times, including in the video below, and it is just simply not true, yet none of the brilliant know it all intellectuals call him on it. A little over half of annual spending by the government goes to defense, and what Noam calls health-care which he means medicare, and medicaid. Now, if half of your annual budget goes to health-care and defense, then how are you able to apportion those two line items to 100% of your debt? Unless you are cooking the books, all of your expenditures are proportionally responsible for your overage.

Chomsky also discussed terrorism and the post-Sept. 11 United States.
"Bush said terrorists committed crimes because they hate our freedoms," he said.
Contrary to this statement, Chomsky said that Muslims actually hate our policies, not our freedoms.
Chomsky said United States' policies actually benefit Jihadists.

Wrong again Noam! The Jihadists do hate us for our freedoms. Unless of course by policy you mean policies like educating our women. Policies like not requiring women to wear burkas. Policies like not incarcerating homosexuals. Policies like allowing people to listen to western music.

"The U.S. remains Bin Laden's only ally," he said.
Chomsky discussed the United States' support of dictatorships in Egypt, Tunisia, Georgia, Jordan and Colombia. He said this too falls under the "guiding principle."

Really? Last time I checked Columbia was a real democracy with a real freely elected president. Georgia too!

"The United States has a violent labor history," he said. "The rallying cry of the late 19th-century labor movement was, 'Those who work in mills should own them,'" he said.
Chomsky said this holds significance today, specifically with the automobile industry.
"Obama took over the auto industry, so the government owns it," he said. "The government is closing plants when they could turn them over to the workers and let them run it for profit."

Well, you get partial credit here Noam. The labor movement truly has been violent. Violent thugs who feel they deserve the property of people who took risks and became succesful. It's funny how labor only wants too take ownership of the successful businesses, which is precisely why, Noam, that the workers have not taken over those closed plants you claim they could run.

"Democrats today are what used to be moderate Republicans, and today's Republicans are so deep in the pockets of business, you have to have a magnifying glass to find them," he said.

Oh my god! Who lets him get away with such fantasies? Does he really believe a John F Kennedy, cut taxes and be strong on defense democrat would be tolerated in today's party?  The democratic party has moved so far left that communist principles and leaders are openly praised and adored.

"Social Security is actually in good shape, despite what you read," he said. "The rich want to get rid of Social Security, because it is based on the principles of compassion and solidarity, and (the spread of these principles) could be dangerous for the rich."

No Noam, it's because it's a ponzi scheme, and all ponzi schemes eventually implode. As soon as it's mathmatically impossible to expand the base of the pyramid to pay the few at the top, it collapses.

Students said they gained valuable insights from Chomsky's lecture.

God help us all!

---

CL

L.A. Times: Wrong again

The conversation about Sarah Palin's official post-Arizona statement: She really messed this one up

In using "blood libel," a term rooted in anti-Semitism, however, she created a bigger mess for herself. Quoting from James Oliphant's Los Angeles Times article, Sarah Palin's charge of 'blood libel' spurs outcry from Jewish leaders: 

"Instead of dialing down the rhetoric at this difficult moment, Sarah Palin chose to accuse others trying to sort out the meaning of this tragedy of somehow engaging in a 'blood libel' against her and others," said David Harris, president of the National Democratic Jewish Council, in a statement. "This is of course a particularly heinous term for American Jews, given that the repeated fiction of blood libels are directly responsible for the murder of so many Jews across centuries -- and given that blood libels are so directly intertwined with deeply ingrained anti-Semitism around the globe, even today."

Even conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg is with us on this one. Blogging for NRO, he said:

"I should have said this a few days ago, when my friend Glenn Reynolds introduced the term to this debate. But I think that the use of this particular term in this context isn't ideal. Historically, the term is almost invariably used to describe anti-Semitic myths about how Jews use blood -- usually from children -- in their rituals. I agree entirely with Glenn’s, and now Palin"s, larger point. But I’m not sure either of them intended to redefine the phrase, or that they should have."

 um....not exactly.  I think Rabbi Shmuley Boteach got it right.


Sarah Palin Is Right About 'Blood Libel'

 Murder is humanity's most severe sin, and it is trivialized when an innocent party is accused of the crime—especially when that party is a collective too numerous to be defended individually. If Jews have learned anything in their long history, it is that a false indictment of murder against any group threatens every group. As Martin Luther King Jr. wrote in his Letter from Birmingham Jail, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Indeed, the belief that the concept of blood libel applies only to Jews is itself a form of reverse discrimination that should be dismissed.

 The L.A. Times is leading the way in the replacement for Bush/Cheney/Haliburton dementia, Sara Palin obsession. 


CL

Marc Ash is a Moron.

The leftist wing-nut founder of TruthOut and now Reader Supported News was one of the pseudo-news lefty operatives to come out early and start blaming Sarah Palin for the horrific events in Arizona.

Political Assassination in Arizona

It's time to set the record straight. The reason that Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the brain, "through and through," was that an individual hated and feared her political objectives enough to commit the cowardly act.

Really? 'hated and feared her political objectives' ? Now there is some journalistic integrity for you. Using the deaths of six people and the horrid assassination attempt of a member of congress to jump to a politically convenient conclusion is an obscenity. All indications are that this was nothing more than a full on Mark David Chapman crazy guy.

But OK. You don't believe in defective humans doing random craziness? You need a political motive? I think they might be on to something over at The Jersey Nut blog.

Cover-up: Gabrielle Giffords targeted for being Jewish?

But what I find interesting is why the media absolutely refuses to raise the question of Congresswoman's Giffford's faith. She is Jewish, the first Jewish congressperson from the state of Arizona. In and of itself that could be coincidental, but being that Jared Loughner lists Mein Kamp as one of his favorite books, well - don't you think it is odd a few alarm bells didn't go off? Imagine if a Muslim in a similar situation were killed by an assassin with pockets full of Tea Party literature - the media would go nuts? But a pioneering Jew killed by a man who professed love for Hitler's classic tome? Strangely, the media is silent.

There you go. The so called progressives who want to bring you a European style welfare state also harbor a little bit of that European antisemitism that rears its ugly head every couple of years. So they won't be talking about that much. It's difficult enough to explain why we have been treating our allies in the the middle east, the Israeli's, the way we have to the American people. Well, it's actually not difficult if we just don't talk about it.

But no, the best defense is a good offense, so Marc Ash goes on to say

When men like John Boehner and women like Sarah Palin tell you that they are shocked and saddened by what has occurred you may well assume that they are indeed. They inspired the rampage, and they are now confronted by what they have wrought.

Yeah ok, we'll just pretend that we've forgotten about the videos of president Bush being hung and burned in effigy. We will pretend to ignore all the evidence that the left (can you say Bill Ayers) has always taken the lead in political violence.

All Patches has to fear, is fear itself!
Manufactured Violence
Lefty Loon Turns Suicide Bomber

Mr Ash ends his little rant with

Let this day go down in history with April 14, 1865, November 22, 1963, April 4, 1968 and June 5, 1968.

What? No Reagan assassination attempt?

Obama, and the Spies who love him

My antennae went up the moment this starry broke. Having a Russian spy ring busted up and hauled in a mere day after a high level meeting with Vladimir Putin's messenger boy, Medvedev, was just too much to let lie as coincidence.

I wrote about it right away knowing there was something very deep going on here.

To Russia with Love

From the beginning this felt like an Obama overture to ingratiate himself to the Russians.  This ideologue actually believes that kind gestures to evil people will yield positive results.  You can't fault him for not being a true believer, however naive that may be.

And now the evidence piles up.

US began deliberating spy swap well before arrests

The White House began deliberating a spy swap with Moscow nearly a month ago

In the course of the following negotiations with Moscow, the United States put forward the names of the four people who were released by Russia on Friday as their part of the bargain

Four people? What four people? It is interesting that the names and profiles have not yet been released.  What a deal!  Obama confesses, and then cleans up some massive loose ends that the new KGB left for us. Loose ends that could have been played, turned, or designated for misinformation at an important moment. You just don't hand over assets like this. Especially for 4 people the nation has never heard of!

the official said, briefing reporters on condition of anonymity under ground rules set by the White House.

Reporters?!?!?!?  You mean someone held an anonymous press conference? Usually leaks happen in one on one situations where anonymity can easily be granted. Here we have state-run-media colluding with an orchestrated intelligence leak and pretending like it's an unknown source. White House ground rules?  I have been calling the main-stream-media the state-run-media for over a year. Now you have the proof.

The U.S. government has declared itself pleased with the outcome, saying it got everything it wanted out of the case.

Yip. Nothing to see here. President Obama has offered up yet another gift at the feet of Vladimir Putin, and what did he get in return?



xx

Chomsky the Chump

Apparently Noam Chomsky is fearful that we are headed toward fascism.

Chomsky Warns of Risk of Fascism in America

Noam Chomsky, the leading leftwing intellectual, warned last week that fascism may be coming to the United States.

“I’m just old enough to have heard a number of Hitler’s speeches on the radio,” he said, “and I have a memory of the texture and the tone of the cheering mobs, and I have the dread sense of the dark clouds of fascism gathering” here at home.

Cheering mobs? or angry mobs? Didn't you get the memo from Nancy Pelosi Noam? These mobs are angry. What does Noam suppose they are cheering about? Query-some. The only cheering crowds are for the well spoken orator swept in to power not because of an understanding of his ideology but because of a rejection and dissatisfaction with a war time president who was not able to deliver a victory. Sound familiar?

Chomsky invoked Germany during the Weimar Republic, and drew a parallel between it and the United States. “The Weimar Republic was the peak of Western civilization and was regarded as a model of democracy,” he said.

And he stressed how quickly things deteriorated there.

“In 1928 the Nazis had less than 2 percent of the vote,” he said. “Two years later, millions supported them. The public got tired of the incessant wrangling, and the service to the powerful, and the failure of those in power to deal with their grievances.”

I do see the parallel. However, I would say that the regime he fears is already here. The far far  left (socialists) only had 10% of the vote. But the public got tired of the incessant wrangling, and the service to the powerful, and the failure of those in power to deal with their grievances. Enter the Obama administration.

When farmers, the petit bourgeoisie, and Christian organizations joined forces with the Nazis (National Socialists), “the center very quickly collapsed,” Chomsky said.

This is exactly how Obama was elected, and his National Socialism agenda began.

“The level of anger and fear is like nothing I can compare in my lifetime,” he said.

I am sorry but I have to through a flag on the play here. Nice try. But are you seriously suggesting that now is a scarier time than the violent 1960's? Really? How so? Bill Ayers and the underground blowing up public buildings was benign in comparison with angry tax payers carrying signs? I'm sorry, that is being intellectually dishonest. It is evidence that Noam is merely playing his part in the Saul Alinsky tactic of accusing the other side of the things that you are doing.

I am old enough to remember watching the news in the 60's on my mom's black and white TV. What I saw back then is all out war compared to a Tea Party protest. If Tea Party protests are scary and convey violent undertones, then the far left violence at strikes and anti-war protest are full blown insurrections. The fact that the left thinks they can spin what is going on, and make the country believe that there should be real fear out there is an insult to ones intelligence.

They decried the anti-terror movement as the politics of fear. Somehow they believe you should not fear people who have and still desire to kill thousands of Americans at a time. But fed up tax payers? Well, then by all means use the politics of fear to change the subject.

Fascism isn't coming Noam, it is here!

Crash the Tea Party!

I was curious as to why I had a sudden spike in web traffic yesterday. There was a spike in visits from search engines where the user was searching for the phrase 'crushtheteaparty.info' and 'crushtheteaparty.org'.

Well, it was not until later that I heard the story about the web site crashtheteaparty.org. This site is soooooo  great. It documents the attempts by the left to overtly frame the tea party movement as a bunch of whack jobs. The whack jobs they imagine people who don't agree with them to be.

And the search statistics on my site reveal the freudian slip that lefty loons hope to 'crush' the tea party rather than 'crash' it. The irony of rhetorical violence.

 Post subject: Crash the Tea Party Websites

These darlings in the Tea Party movement are quite afraid of violent rhetoric. Let us use this. We should begin to create fake accounts, and post such rhetoric and watch as they get extremely upset...it is quite funny to watch. I posted something similar (farther down the page) to this on the Tea Party patriots website and instantly stirred the hornets nest. If we want to corrupt the image of this short-lived populist movement, we should be promoting violence in the name of the movement. Post on their websites and bring the radical rhetoric to their rallies, especially on 4/15. 

Consider rhetoric like this:

The Invisible Tea Party

My proclamation is simple: the current Tea Party Movement needs more violence. There is a coming insurrection in this country towards our worthless government and this movement is the vehicle to deliver this momentous change.

Many will mock and preach out against this type of activism, the most cynical would not even call it activism, but do let the cowards fool you. Everything is about to change. Not through a ballot box, not through elected officials, not through any system man has conceived to rule himself. The change will come from the minds of the bravest TPPs and his or her methods will be considered very extreme by those who fear for his/her societal or ruling position. 

The mainstream Tea Party Movement that controls this site is afraid of posts like these and often deletes and suspends free thinkers such as ourselves. Such cowardice can not stand in such a beautiful movement 

More to follow…

The Invisible Tea Party

So do you still think that there were not plants in the D.C. protest where representatives were allegedly called the N-word? It is a right out of the Alinsky playbook tactic. "Accuse others of what you are doing".

This day in history: The Stamp Act

It's almost erie weird that this day in history on March 22nd 1765 that the British Parliament passed the Stamp Act. The piece of legislation that marked the end of colonialism and the beginning of tyranny in North America.

I would like to suppose that adjusted for leap years and atomic minutes and all that other stuff that somehow astrologically speaking there is some connection between the passing of the Stamp Act and the passage of the Obamascare nightmare law.

At a minimum the connection is that both pieces of legislation have made America sit up, pay attention, and determine to take action.

When laws that raise taxes and are passed against the will of the people, and must use parliamentary tricks and illusions, you can rightly suggest that we have reverted to the state of 'taxation without representation'.

"If once [the people] become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, Judges and Governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787. ME 6:58

 "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government. Whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Price, 1789. ME 7:253

and of course

"Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [i.e., securing inherent and inalienable rights, with powers derived from the consent of the governed], it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315

Pelosi Courts the Tea Party?

It was pretty unbelievable. I practically fell off of my couch when I heard it.

Pelosi says GOP has hijacked 'tea party' movement

OK, first I have to deal with the title of this piece. "Pelosi says GOP has hijacked 'tea party' movement". What? Are you kidding me? After an all out assault, and the overt alienation of the movement she now wants to portray her lack of attention and her lack of interaction with the voice of real Americans as another right wing conspiracy?

This is flabbergasting! Some people really have no shame! Or, maybe it is a mental disorder. I understand that congenital liars don't really understand or think they are lying.  I mean it was just a few months ago where she was sniffing and crying crocodile tears over her fear of the fake / violent Tea Party people. She did not believe the Tea Party was a real movement. She described the grass roots effort as 'Astro-Turf'. She accused the participants of exhibiting manufactured rage.

She was cowering in fear, in a back handed attempt to portray the movement as violent, around the same time Patrick Kennedy was sniveling about the movement.

So now, after "The Scott Heard Around the World" she accuses the only political party willing to acknowledge and work with their outraged constituents as 'hijacking' the movement? Sorry Lady you were just too stupid or too arrogant to think that real people matter.

You can't make this up. And it gets better! On the Sunday ABC talk show she said:

The San Francisco Democrat says the tea party coalition shares some common ground with Democrats, such as their dislike of special interests in Washington. She cited public disdain for the recent Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance that allows companies and unions to spend freely on ads that promote or target particular candidates by name.

What? Are you kidding me (again) ?

This is the part where I fell all the way off of the couch and then went and made a drink. This is like watching an abusive relationship. Nancy Pelosi has "Bitch Slapped" the Tea Party movement for the last year and done so at every opportunity. And now? "No baby, no. I didn't mean it. I love you". You gotta be @#$%^&* kidding me!

The Democrats and the Tea Party don't like special interests? Well? Why is Andy Stern of SEIU is the most frequent guest at the White House? Why is he on the 'Deficit Commission'? Do they not think that the Tea Party sees the Union as the special interest that they are?

Campaign finance ruling? She thinks that the Tea Party is against free speech?

All pretty unbelievable.

Revisionist History

You have to get it on national television, and get the story out into the theaters before the masses can start asking questions and talking back!

A blog on the Washington Post has an interesting piece on Micheal Moore's new Movie.

44 The Obama Presidency

It's hard to believe that this guy is for real and that so many people believe what he says

the film spends quite a lot of time building up last fall's financial bailout as the ultimate showdown between Wall Street interests calling in their Washington chits and a vanguard of hardy populists in Congress standing in their way. Left unsaid is that a larger proportion of House Republicans than Democrats voted against the bailout --

I have not seen the movie, but I can already hear and visualize the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy diatribe that he will use to place blame for the melt down and the bailout. Apparently he does go after Sen Dodd for being cozy with the wall street fat cats, but we'll have to wait and see if anything other than friendly acquiescence is laid at his feet.

The article really gets interesting near the end when it talks about revising history.

when asked whether the film had glorified the anti-bailout position assumed by so many conservative Republicans, saying that what he had really set out to do was to reclaim the bailout critique for skeptics of capitalism, away from the anti-government types.

"I wanted to stop the revisionist version of how the bailout is remembered," he said. Republicans "are trying to ride some phony populist wave because they know there's anger brewing. Beneath the surface, history is full of people taking advantage of [populist anger] and taking this country to an extra reactionary place."

Which revisionist version? And yesterday President Obama got into the act as well. The timing could not be choreographed any better either. Moore's movie premiere last night was at the same AFL-CIO convention that the president is speaking at today. Like yesterdays speech that he gave to Wall Street, I am sure we will here the same message that puts the bloody knife into the hands of the Wall Street fat cats.

giving loans to those who they knew could never repay

Now, he's right, of course. But, by not giving you the whole story, or by not sharing the blame with bad govt policy, and lack of enforcement of existing regulations, he effectively revises history to place all of the blame on Wall Street and the Republicans.

Never mind that it was the Community Reinvestment Act signed into law by Jimmy Carter which was

designed to encourage commercial banks and savings associations to meet the needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.^[1][2][3] Congress passed the Act in 1977 to reduce discriminatory credit practices against low-income neighborhoods, a practice known as redlining.

Never mind the  Financial Services Modernization Act signed into law by President Bill Clinton

which repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, opening up the market among bankingsecurities companies and insurance companies. The Glass-Steagall Act prohibited any one institution from acting as any combination of an investment bank, a commercial bank, and/or an insurance company. companies,

 Never mind that in September of 1999

the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.


Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

 In that same New York Times article, there were those who were already sounding the alarm.

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

I wonder if Barney Frank makes an appearance in Mr Moore's new movie?

What They Said About Fan and Fred

 Rep. Frank: I do think I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness that we have in OCC [Office of the Comptroller of the Currency] and OTS [Office of Thrift Supervision]. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing. .

Inspiring isn't it?

Nothing says "Never forget 9/11" like painting the wall of a house that's being built. Who knows? Maybe the house will go to some down on his luck illegal immigrant who is looking to join an Al-Queda cell?






Never Forget!

I saw this happen in real time as I was stirring sugar into my coffee at work. I will Never Forget!

Take this day of service and shove it!

On 9/11, day of mourning becomes day of service

Only in our new era of insanity, in our new upside down world would a solemn day like 9/11 be thought of a day of service. If the intent was to stop and think about joining the militray or maybe think of something you can do to show support for our military, then......O.K. But, that is the farthest thing from the bill's intent.

Why not bestow the day with the honor it deserves. A National Holiday. Close the banks. Close the schools, and close the federal offices.

What? We have too many holidays? We can't have more than 10? Then let's toss labor day over the side? Why do we celebrate corrupt greedy unions anyways? Instead of not doing labor, let's do service on that day!

The real insult is that the intent is not to make you remember the 9/11 tragedy, it is to make you forget it. By morphing the day from what should rightfully be a holiday, into a recruitment tool for the likes of ACORN, they begin the process of having it's origin fade away.

It's only one of many remarkable acts of newspeak we increasingly observe.

The past is alterable

The past only exists in the human mind. The human mind is infinitely malleable.

George Orwell, "1984"

I am not against a day of service. I like the idea very much. Just not on 9/11. In fact, I put my whole hearted support behind the MLK Day effort to establish that day as a day of service. It makes much more sense to have a day of service on a day of celebration. A day that is intended to celebrate the birth of someone who is considered a great champion of unity. Service on a day of mourning is well... inappropriate.