Saturday, July 31, 2010

Leftist Historian Howard Zinn's Communist Ties



by the Left Coast Rebel

A Howard Zinn primer:
"Let's talk about socialism. I think it's very important to bring back the idea of socialism into the national discussion to where it was at the turn of the [last] century before the Soviet Union gave it a bad name. Socialism had a good name in this country. Socialism had Eugene Debs. It had Clarence Darrow. It had Mother Jones. It had Emma Goldman. It had several million people reading socialist newspapers around the country. Socialism basically said, hey, let's have a kinder, gentler society. Let's share things. Let's have an economic system that produces things not because they're profitable for some corporation, but produces things that people need. People should not be retreating from the word socialism because you have to go beyond capitalism."

---Howard Zinn, Madison, Wisconsin 2009

Can anyone here say how many died in the 20th century for the notion of a kinder, gentler society that 'shares' things? Historian Howard Zinn (passed away recently) and many leftists, progressive and liberals think that socialism (Marxism, Leninism, etc.) has failed so resoundly because it hasn't been given enough of an American attempt.

Common sense, of course, --- tells us how preposterous this is. An absolutist ideology melded with absolute power and a fervent faith in the absolute force that power will always create human misery and worse.

I'm off on a tangent (again). The actual gist and purpose of this post is to point the reader to Robert Stacy McCain's barn-burning exposé on Howard Kinn in relation to recently released FBI FOI documents. RSM is one of the best in the business when he is firing on all cylinders - he must have had the caffeine and nicotine this morning (and some rest).

Anyway, Howard Kinn was a communist (among many other things) way-back-when (and obviously, still was before his death). Read it - it's fascinating stuff that dates all the way-back-when.

Exit question - how many leftists in academia, the intelligensia, the press and the Soros-funded groups are actually dyed-in-the-wool communists? Don't forget the White House and congress too.

The truth on that might shock you.

Via Memeorandum.

Web Hosting Services Shut Down—Is there a Kill Switch?




Around July 9th, Blogetery, a WordPress platform used by more than 70,000 bloggers, was shut down and its members were told by the web host, BurstNet, that service was terminated at the “request” of a law enforcement agency. The mystery is, WHICH agency made this request and WHY? Then approximately 5 days later iPBFree terminated its service with no explanation.

There is speculation running amuck that Blogetery violated copyright laws, was posting child pornography, and also that some of its members were engaging in terrorist activities, like an al-Qaeda hit list and how-to tips on bomb construction. Another enigma, WHICH speculation is accurate?

A spokesperson for the Recording Industry Association of America said it had no involvement with the termination of BurstNet’s shut down and a spokeswoman for ICE said, “While ICE's Internet piracy enforcement efforts are still very much ongoing, we were not involved with the action." A spokesperson for the Motion Picture Association of America said he had never heard of Blogetery!


If the MPAA and the RIAA weren’t involved, WHO issued the order to shut down this site? Especially since those organizations typically make a big deal out of copyright law breakers. Benjamin Arcus, Vice-President of BurstNet, confirmed that he complied with copyright laws and removed unauthorized material “within 24 hours” whenever he was informed of the infraction. Besides, a BurstNet executive stated, "I can not disclose which agency or why they [ordered the action]. I can say that this is not a copyright issue."

A law enforcement officer, with experience in cyber crimes, who wished to remain anonymous, said that when child pornography was involved, hosting services weren’t just “shut down” and he didn’t know of any agency that had the authority to terminate service for thousands of people without jumping through legal hoops. In his experience, search warrants were normally obtained and Internet protocol addresses were turned over, but the service stayed in operation. He noted that prosecutors and law enforcement agencies are required to provide due process and that in the United States we are innocent until proven guilty.

This leaves us with the allegation of terrorism. Was there a blog or blogs that were posting information on how to construct bombs or other incendiary information which could be construed as terrorism against the United States and its citizens? And if so, why not investigate THEM? Why did the entire domain have to be terminated, shutting down over 70,000 blogs, most of which were perfectly innocent, and you know, exercising that silly thing called the 1st Amendment.

Remember the anonymous law enforcement officer said he didn’t know of any agency that had the authorization to terminate internet access for thousands of people. Well, I know of an agency that has that type of authority—our Federal Government, and it now has a piece of legislation which does give them authority-- It’s called the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act. Is it possible that our government deemed Blogetery and iPBFree as risks? Threats of some kind and shut them down? Farfetched you say? Yeah, well I never thought I’d be called a racist for disagreeing with the President or for wanting LEGAL immigration, either. Anything is possible these days, as far as I’m concerned, especially considering we pass two-thousand page bills without even reading them! Heck, the Speaker of the House has even said, "we need to pass them to find out what’s in them"! Unbelievable I know, but TRUE!

For now we don’t know the answers as to why two internet hosting sites have been shut down. We might never know. Suffice to say it appears suspicious so I’m going to back up all of my information just in case I log in to Blogger one day and find out I can’t access it. One never knows if a computer will crash, a hosting site will go under, close down or if our government will…well…use a “kill switch”…

The Ground Zero Mosque... ADL is Right to Oppose

By: Les Carpenter III
Rational Nation USA


I have maintained my pledge to generally keep the debate of religious theocratic philosophy, with all the sordid details with respect to human suffering that are part of it's history, off the pages of this sight. I can no longer do so.

The proposed construction of a Mosque near Ground Zero, and the rush by the progressives to argue in support of its construction, leads me to delve into the issue, and provide a reality check for those in favor of any such construction. Just to set the record straight, because the progressives who read this will otherwise undoubtedly call me a right wing  Bible thumping fanatic, I am a believe that religion, or the lack thereof is a deeply personal issue. If there is one issue I agree with the progressives on it likely would be the issue of religion and its place in society. But I digress.

The attack on the United States of America on September 11, 2001 was an attack by Islamic religious extremists that are determined to destroy not only the USA, but any civil society that does not accept the religion of Islam. While there are probably hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions of moderate Muslims who can live in peace with their non Islamic neighbor, the very structure of the Islamic religion, the Koran is anything but peaceful. To the devout adherents of Islam a mosque at this place represents a breath taking victory of the west and its infidels.

The argument that Islam is a religion of peace is a myth carried not only by moderate Imams and Mullahs, and by progressive in America that have latched onto the "feel good" aura it provides them. It is likely few of them are aware of the history of Muhammad, Islams creator, or the requirements of  the devout adherents to the faith of Muhammad.

Muhammad was anything but a piece loving, compassionate, and understanding individual. He was committed to the conversion of all peoples to his new faith of Islam. Following an excerpt from Who Was Muhammad?


Islam spread rapidly in Yathrib, now Medina, and Muhammad took his followers there to settle and build a great Mosque.  After settling the area for his followers and another marriage to a 10-year-old girl, a long list of  "holy wars" began.  Those people who were conquered in these battles were given three choices:  accept Islam, pay tribute, or die by the sword (see the Repentance Surat, verse29).  As a result of this method of forced conversion, many Christian churches were turned into mosques to please the conquering Muslims, while many other Christians not willing to take the easy way out were killed.  After the Battle of Badr, he proclaimed the ordinance "Know that whatsoever thing ye plunder, verily one-fifth thereof is for God and for the Prophet."  The remaining spoils, after Muhammad received one-fifth, were divided among the warriors.  This began the teachings of Jihad, and fighting for the cause of Islam.  Muhammad taught that to die for the cause of Islam was the highest honor and would lead to eternity in Paradise surrounded by virgins.
Surat al-Nisa 4:74  Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other.  Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward.
Surat al-Ma'idah 5:33  The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land.  Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom.
In the Battle with the Quraiza Jews, over two thousand Jews were slaughtered by Muhammad and his warriors.  In the bloodbath, Zainab, his adopted son's ex-wife, Muhammad's fifth wife, and a Jewiss taken in battle, lost her husband, father, and brother.  Seeking revenge, Zainab poisoned Muhammad's dinner.  Muhammad spit out the food before it could kill him, but it's effects on him combined with pneumonia in the eleventh year of the Hijra, led to his death at age 64.

History tells us that the twelve months following Muhammad's death were spent in bitter, bloody battles to subdue the Arab tribes who became apostate.  However, Islam continued to grow after Muhammad's death, led by four Khalifs elected by the closest followers of the prophet.  Jihad also continued in much the same way it had under their prophet.  In 634 the Islamic military force advanced on Palestine and Syria, and defeated the Byzantine armies at Yarmouk River in 636.  Forty thousand more Muslims marched to conquer North Africa, followed by the surrender of Jerusalem to the plundering Muslims. 

Over one million Armenian Christians were savagely slaughtered by the Turkish Muslims at the beginning of the twentieth century.  According to a report by Khartoum University professors Ushari Mahmud and Suleyman Ali Blado, more than one thousand Dinka citizens were massacred in the Western Sudan town of Diem in 1987.  The Baptist Record newspaper of November 5, 1987, added that dozens of pastors have been killed and many churches destroyed since Islamic law was imposed in 1983, when Sudan was officially declared an Islamic republic.  The Baptist World Alliance newsletter of September, 1987, tells of 130 church buildings and pastor's homes, all of Christian denominations in Kadona State in Nigeria, being destroyed by Muslim rioters.  Where does this rampant slaughter in the name of religion come from.  It is taught in the Quran as revealed by the prophet Muhammad.

 Read the exact words from the Koran: Repentance Surat, Verse 29 in which Muhammad preaches:


Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.


Translation: The devout Muslim has but three choices when engaging with non Muslims, or as Muhammad saw it infidels. First the devout Muslims will attempt to convert the infidels to Islam, Failing the first Muslims are to subjugate the infidels to Islam and Islamic law, and failing the second they are to kill the infidels. So sayeth Muhammad, the prophet of peace.

The proposed mosque near Ground Zero is a slap in the face to peaceful religions, a stick in the eye of every American, and a coarse disregard for the individuals who died at the hands of proponents of this abhorrent religious dogma and their families.

This sight has been selected because it sends the message to Islamists and Jihadists around the world that infidels died by the sword of Islam in the country that would protect their right to hold the most violent of religious dogma. It is time the progressives wake up and realize that Islam in the modern world sees its destiny the same as it did in 631 AD. To convert the rest of the world to belief in, and acceptance of the Koran and Islamic law, failing this subjugate it to Islamic law, and if both fail annihilate the infidels. Any arguments that attempt to lead us to believe the Muslim community is proposing this site as a means too heal the wounds of 911 den't deserve a respond.

The fight over the  proposed mosque is not just about religious tolerance, it is about recognizing the truth and the danger inherent in the "supposed" peaceful  religion of Islam.

Cross posted at Left Coast Rebel.

Via: Memeorandum
Via: Memeorandum
Via: Contender Ministries
Via: Muslin Access

Friday, July 30, 2010

My Busy Time... And More From Tim Daniel via The Daily Caller.



By: Les Carpenter III
Rational Nation USA

The industry in which I work is entering it's busiest and most hectic business cycle. I welcome this fortunate circumstance as it signifies the company I am employed with is healthy and continuing to provide employment in my local area.

Positive events can occasionally have a downside which is generally short lived.  In my case (at this point in time) the downside is limited time for my blogging activities. 

Due to the pressures and restraints on my time content from me will be lighter and likely more sporadic for the next six to eight weeks. It is often said it seems there isn't enough time in the day to accomplish everything. This certainly holds true for me today.

I want to thank all my contributors, the Left Coast Rebel, Western Hero, Old Fashioned Clarity,The Oracular Opinion, and The Humble Libertarian  that have provided much awesome content at Rational Nation USA. You guys have been great and I really appreciate your contributions. Because of you Rational Nation USA has grown.

Tim Daniel, Editor in Chief at Left Coast Rebel  has just put up his third article at The Daily Caller. It touches on gun control and second amendment rights. I encourage my readership to head on over and give it a read. You won't be disappointed you did!.

That's it for today folks. Enjoy.

Thursday, July 29, 2010

Charlie Rangel may skip a Public Trial but the Three Ring Circus will be Remembered in November

by the Left Coast Rebel

A reader sends breaking news and asks a question. In the LCR mailbox:
Lawyers have reached a tentative deal to settle ethics charges against Rep. Charles Rangel. If approved by the House ethics panel, the deal would stop public hearings on alleged ethics violations.

The buck stops no where with these guys - what do you think?


I simply wrote back, "every infringement stacks up to more electoral losses for the Democrats in November."

To expand upon this - perhaps a public trial would not be as damaging for the Democrat party and leadership (and potentially at the ballot box in November) as yet another smoke-filled-backroom-attorney-power-broker-deal is. I recall similar antics played out during the train-off the-tracks Republican congress and we all recall how that turned out.

Charles Rangel cutting a deal to avoid a public trial may just incite more anger from independents, Tea Partiers, libertarians, moderates and conservatives than the ruling class is estimating.

If only I had photoshop skills, images of Charlie Rangel and a three ring circus are flooding my mind:

circus-bear-f


Cross posted to War Planner, Proof Positive, Rational Nation, Allied Liberty News.

Judge Bolton... Another Judge Cloned BY The ACLU


By: Les Carpenter III
Rational Nation USA


I suppose it was to be expected. Judge Susan R. Bolton, a former President William Jefferson (no resemblance to President Thomas Jefferson) Clinton has struck down key provisions of Arizona's immigration law. Judge Bolton's actions are consistent with the typical disregard the statist has for the will of the people in general, and the rule of law specifically.

What has just occurred is s federal judge thumbing her nose at not only the citizens of the state of Arizona, but at all Americans who in majority support the Arizona law. In fact several states have been considering actions of their own to effectively control illegal immigration to their states. The federal government, by consistently and methodically failing to enforce immigration laws created the reason Arizona acted, and why other states have been considering similar measures.

The ACLU, one of America's most progressive collectivist bodies is solidly behind the efforts to overturn Arizona's perfectly legal SB 1070, the bill that created their new law. What the federal government really is after is just this... Amnesty for all current illegals in the country and a cake walk path to citizenship in the future for all desiring entrance into our country.

If this is not so then someone please explain why nothing has been done going all the way back to the Reagan years to control the onslaught of illegals entering our country. When the question is asked... A defensing silence. Yet  when a Governor with the, excuse the expression, balls to take action and show leadership finally arrives on the scene the response is to handcuff and shackle her efforts.

The very federal government that is "supposed to protect the interests of the federal union" (which by the way was initially entered into voluntarily by all states) is failing miserably. The issue of illegal immigration points this up better than almost any other issue. It is time the citizens of the nation make their voices heard. And it is long past time for the government to take heed. The majority of  legal American citizens support tougher immigration laws. They also support Arizona's new law... The way it was written.

I suppose I am ranting here. However it is about time those who understand that the issue is all about ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION stand up in unison and force their voices to be heard. Arizona's new law has nothing whatsoever to do with racism, racial profiling, abridging a citizens rights, or any other nefarious act. Rather it is about protecting Arizona's right to control it's borders and insure the safety of it's people.

Find Arizona Governor Jan Brewers appearance on Hannity discussing the subject on my Twitter and Facebook pages. Stand tall Governor Brewer. Take the fight to those who would work against securing your your bonders and those of the United States of America. The final judgement is not in. When it is the rights to secure our borders will be vindicated.

The joke of the day is this statement by Hannah August of the Justice Department... "While we understand the frustration of Arizonans with the broken immigration system, a patchwork of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal immigration enforcement."


This statement says two things. First the fed's (Obama and minions) want to increase further their failed statist agenda, and second, how does one hamper an enforcement policy that has been non existent?

Stay tuned.

Cross posted at Left Coast Rebel.


Via: Memeorandum

The Rule of Law

The Rule of Law
We’ve lost the original definition of “Rule of Law.” Republicans abused it badly during the Clinton impeachment trials, but both parties bear responsibility for the perversion of this important concept.

Hayek gives us the classical definition:
“Government in all its actions is bound by rules fixed and announced beforehand--rules which make it possible to foresee with fair certainty how the authority will use its coercive powers in given circumstances and to plan ones individual affairs on the basis of this knowledge."
He explains that the Rule of Law should not be ad hoc, but it should be “the rules of the game,” predictable and understandable, allowing free people to exercise their rights while refraining from violating the rights of others. No exemptions for government or for special groups. No leeway for arbitrary exercise of power by bureaucratic fiefdoms. The tax code alone violates this principle.

We Are Here
70 years ago, Hayek described what an absence of the rule of law looks like.

...The use of the government’s coercive power will no longer be limited and determined by pre-established rules. The law can ... legalize what to all intents and purposes remains arbitrary action.

If the law says that such a board or authority may do what it pleases, anything that board or authority does is legal--but its actions are certainly not subject to the rule of law.

By giving the government unlimited powers, the most arbitrary rule can be made legal; and in this way a democracy may set up the most complete despotism imaginable
The rule of law is a good and right exercise of the coercive power of government to protect the natural rights of the people. What we have today is a grotesque perversion of that Lockean principle that inspired our founders.

For a short explanation of Hayek’s classical understanding of the rule of law, see Charles W. Baird’s article, Hayek on the Rule of Law and Unions. Substitute “corporation” or “government" for his use of “union” in the article, and his point will still remain the same. A government that hands out favors and disrespects the natural rights of the free citizenry becomes debased, arbitrary and eventually, tyrannical.  

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

My Second Daily Caller Piece: Barney Frank's One Dollar Fare Conundrum and the Ruling Class

by the Left Coast Rebel

Yesterday evening I had a little free time. I decided to write up another op-ed and I got published again at the Daily Caller!

dc 2

Here's an excerpt from my article:

From California to New York state, Arizona’s illegal immigration law has been making headlines. In what is perhaps a last ditch effort, the state chose to enforce border security and stop criminality that comes with undocumented immigrants.

But last Friday residents thousands of miles away in New York witnessed something similar but quite different: an aggravated, disheveled, undocumented senior citizen.

70-year-old Representative Barney Frank, (D-MA) was heading out to New York’s Fire Island. The New York Post reported that the Massachusetts congressman failed to contain his exasperation when a ticket clerk at the local dock rejected his request for a $1 discount ferry fare to the island. Frank did not possess the necessary Suffolk County Senior Citizens ID to take part. Something quite fascinating then unfolded.
Let me know what you think of the op-ed and once again, please promote it via. your individual sites and social media such as Twitter, Facebook, Digg, etc. After you read the piece, simply click the icons at the bottom to promote it through these avenues.

I'm excited - I seem to have regained a bit of my writing 'voice' after feeling like I had lost it for one reason or another recently.

Mike Church: Ronald Reagan and Ron Paul - A Comparison

by the Left Coast Rebel

B.K. Griffith just pointed me to this video from Mike Church of the Mike Church show:


Several LCR readers have consistently insisted that I listen to the Mike Church show. Being that I have not tuned in and don't have a subscription or satellite radio, this is actually my first foray.

Mike Church explains the background of the video:

Introduction from Mike Church - This movie was a collaborative effort between the Rev. X and me. The goal was simple: ALL Republicans profess to crave, no covet! a new Gipper as the Party’s nominee. It should go without saying that said nominee should actually BELIEVE in Reagan’s core beliefs and his guiding principles.

Many people cite the 1964 speech Reagan gave on behalf of Barry Goldwater as his finest, which is why it has come to be know as “The Speech.” In The Speech, we hear Reagan referencing our Founding Fathers, The Constitution and limited self government.

We also hear his warnings about keeping Social Security as is and that young people should be allowed out of the program. Reagan warned of inflating the dollar and the departure from Gold. As he pointed out, our National Debt in 1964 was 1.5 times that of all the debt owed by all the other Nations of the WORLD.

When this speech was filmed, Americans had been newly committed to the Vietnam War and Reagan didn’t approve. He also protested our involvement and expenditures in 108 countries around the globe when we set out to help 19.

Finally, Ronald Reagan thought we had crossed a dangerous threshold when the cumulative tax rate reached 33%. (today it stands at 51-57% depending on income)

Ronald Reagan would get his chance to right many of these transgressions, but not all. His legacy, we should remind ourselves, is rooted in his undying belief in his principles and how he applied that to governing.

The point of this movie is not to sway votes in Presidential Primaries, it is to argue that Congressman Paul and those of us who agree with him, ought to have a seat at the table as our party debates it’s purpose and future which we hope is firmly rooted in the rich, Constitutional advocacy, of our past.

Yours in Conservatism,

Mike Church

Prudence

A lack of prudence, combined with an erosion of our natural rights, is killing our culture and our nation
Prudence: 2.  caution with regard to practical matters; discretion. 3. regard for one's own interests. 4.provident care in the management of resources; economy; frugality. (Dictionary.com)
Anyone who's ever had an arm in a cast knows what happens to the muscles in that arm:  They atrophy from disuse.

Prudence has suffered a similar fate due to the progressive cast our government has encased our lives with.   A dense encrustation of laws that legislate our every activity down to the last iota leave us no discretion to reason things out for ourselves.  Safety nets that turn into hammocks, bailouts, and lawsuits that reward stupidity have practically eliminated the need for prudence.

We careen about with no care for the consequences because lawyers can justify our behaviors based on fairness and special pleading for special categories, we can escape credit card debt, and serial impregnators inspired by pop culture get off Scott free while taxpayers foot the bill for their prolific breeding.  Predators are coddled by the state while victims get the shaft.


A Gross Injustice
82 year old Robert Wallace shot a thief in the head as the robber and an accomplice were absconding with his lowboy trailer in the dark of night.  The Wheatridge, Colorado man is now up on multiple felony charges to include attempted murder.

The natural right to property includes the right to defend it, even with deadly force.  To say otherwise renders the right invalid.  "Let the cops handle it," some say.  OK.  If they fail to retrieve your property, can you sue them?  No.  So when the state takes away your right to shoot a scumbag who is making off with your property, the state also violates your God-given right to property.

What about the case of an honest mistake?
"What if the thieves were really just two guys picking up a trailer someone offer to loan them, and they got the address wrong?" 

Good question.  Now I have one for you.   Would you just hook up a trailer in the dead of night or in broad daylight without checking with the people in the house first?  As President Bush 41 would say, Wouldn't be prudent.  You make damned sure everything is square before you haul off somebody elses property.

What if it were a prank?  How would you feel if you shot a prankster?  I'd feel pretty bad, but I'd also tell any survivors that stealing other people's property is not a prank, it's a crime.

If federal, state and local governments respected our rights to defend our property, there would be an increase in prudence among honest people, and tragic mistakes would be rare, as would larceny.


We are no longer serious about serious things
We argue over trivialities of pop culture and sports, while we take our eye off the ball when it comes to safeguarding our fundamental rights.  If you cannot defend your life, your liberty and your property, you are not a free man.  You are a slave of the state, and you are subject to the whims of marauding malefactors who respect nothing.

A state that allows failures to pay for their own losses...  A state that recognizes the rights of free people to defend their lives and property...  That is a state that will eventually produce a prudent people.  Darwinism we can believe in.


For an excellent essay on the subject, read Ralph Waldo Emerson's Prudence.

(PHOTO) Only in America - GM's Electic Car Volt Will Cost over $40,000.00

by the Left Coast Rebel

What to do you do with a failing car company with failed ideas, inferior products, crushing union-pension 'legacy' costs and a business model that is just plain outdated?

Well you take over the company, supersede contract law, don the company Government Motors and with leftists and Obama at the helm you make things like ---

production-chevy-volt_021

Since you are paying for it, at least it's pretty, no?

It's called the 'Volt' and it's all yours for $41,000 and $44,000 for the 'loaded' model.

It gets worse though. Not only does Obama own the Volt, Government Motors is touting the new electric car's price tag as quite a bit less than $41,000 "because a federal tax credit of $7500.00 applies to it."

So essentially you have a ludicrously overpriced 'electric' car that can go 40 miles on electric power after which gas-powered generators kick in (?!?!), is being heralded as a landmark and is bought and paid for by you and me.

Color me unexcited.

Via Memeorandum, Cross posted to Rational Nation, Proof Positive, War Planner.

Monday, July 26, 2010

Howard Towt on Intimidation and Anonymous Blogging....

http://www.lisamcpherson.org/images/anonymous.jpg
Anonymous electronic activism and expression to protect one's identity and family is much different than being an empty suit.

by the Left Coast Rebel

I just picked up this post via Anti-Republican Culture. Howard Towt, writing out of Colorado, says it quite nicely:

Tim Daniel, the inspiration behind Left Coast Rebel (and a supporter of this blog), recently had a post in The Daily Caller. The article displayed Tim’s understated “can you believe THIS!” style of writing, and yet it was significant for another reason.

Tim published it with his name and photograph.

Why is this significant? It is because our culture supports the idea of Republicans being continually “under siege.” We accept Republicans having shoes thrown at them, eggs thrown at them, speeches drowned out, and cars vandalized. Our culture simply shrugs and continues with the idea that Republicans deserve this treatment.

It makes a difference. It intimidates us. We hesitate.

That’s why this has been an interesting week. The people who run the town of Bell, California didn’t expect pushback from folks like Tim Daniel. Senator Kerry didn’t expect to be called on his tax avoidance techniques. The NAACP didn’t expect to be criticized for working to label Republicans as “racists.”

The blogging community is now the primary agent for transparency over governmental heavy-handedness. It’s a service delivered unapologetically, with a simple appeal to human fairness.
Howard is totally correct here. When I published my piece, there was a certain queasiness in knowing that my name and my mug were getting transmitted all across the electronic wilderness.

There are a lot of radical leftists that wish to do harm to those with strong voices in opposition. They turn to intimidation and coercive measures because their way of doing things doesn't add up in the real world. Plus, many are anti-social, angry and extremely vengeful and hateful. I know this even better after having blogged for a year and a half now.

And even far more damaging and common too - leftists turn to thought-police tactics and Marxist-based 'political correctness' (that is anything but) to stifle classically-liberal ideas and expression.

But we all have to be stronger and better than that. For those that can afford to lift the veil of anonymity, we should do so knowing that we are expressing our most basic rights and that if those right are infringed upon, that we have many friends able to lend support and aid, if need be.

Read the rest of Howard's excellent piece here, as well as several posts in the backlog that I missed recently at Anti-Republican Culture. Cross posted to Rational Nation (one whom I respect for authoring his opinion under his true name).

Shirley Sherrod... Is She In Reality Just Another Race Baiter?

By: Les Carpenter III
Rational Nation USA


You know what? After posting a piece essentially chastising Andrew Breitbart  for his premature release of an edited video of Shirley Sherrod's address to the NAACP as shoddy journalism, and casting doubt on his credibility 9a piece I firmly stand by) I find Sherrod is not above being dishonest.

The American Spectator has an excellent and well researched piece on this matter. Published today, 7/26/10 it demonstrate that Shirley Sherrod is not above lying to further the cause of the progressive collectivist movement. Please don't forget that racism is the most vile form of collectivism and it appears that the left, Shirley Sherrod included, has no problem playing the race card to advance their agenda.

Note the following excerpts from the American Spectator article:

In her speech, Ms. Sherrod says this:
I should tell you a little about Baker County. In case you don't know where it is, it's located less than 20 miles southwest of Albany. Now, there were two sheriffs from Baker County that -- whose names you probably never heard but I know in the case of one, the thing he did many, many years ago still affect us today. And that sheriff was Claude Screws. Claude Screws lynched a black man. And this was at the beginning of the 40s. And the strange thing back then was an all-white federal jury convicted him not of murder but of depriving Bobby Hall -- and I should say that Bobby Hall was a relative -- depriving him of his civil rights.
Plain as day, Ms. Sherrod says that Bobby Hall, a Sherrod relative, was lynched. As she puts it, describing the actions of the 1940s-era Sheriff Claude Screws: "Claude Screws lynched a black man."
This is not true. It did not happen. How do we know this?
The case, Screws vs. the U.S. Government, as she accurately says in the next two paragraphs, made it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Which, with the agreement of all nine Justices of the day -- which is to say May 7, 1945 -- stated the facts of the killing of Bobby Hall this way:
The arrest was made late at night at Hall's home on a warrant charging Hall with theft of a tire. Hall, a young negro about thirty years of age, was handcuffed and taken by car to the courthouse. As Hall alighted from the car at the courthouse square, the three petitioners began beating him with their fists and with a solid-bar blackjack about eight inches long and weighing two pounds. They claimed Hall had reached for a gun and had used insulting language as he alighted from the car. But after Hall, still handcuffed, had been knocked to the ground, they continued to beat him from fifteen to thirty minutes until he was unconscious. Hall was then dragged feet first through the courthouse yard into the jail and thrown upon the floor, dying. An ambulance was called, and Hall was removed to a hospital, where he died within the hour and without regaining consciousness. There was evidence that Screws held a grudge against Hall, and had threatened to "get" him. 
The very first paragraph of the Supreme Court decision states:
1. Upon review of a judgment affirming the conviction, for violation of § 20 of the Criminal Code and conspiracy thereunto, of local law enforcement officers who arrested a negro citizen for a state offense and wrongfully beat him to death, the judgment is reversed with directions for a new trial.

As appalling as the  real facts of the case are the point here is this... Ms. Sherrod's credibility is as suspect as Andrew Breitbart's ever was. This is a case of playing the race card to the hilt. The circumstances described by Sherrod are a fabrication, and the intent is to inflame the situation.


Above the fray sits the Obama administration. Should we be digging deeper?


Cross posted at Left Coast Rebel.


Via: Memeorandum

Oliver Stone adds to his Resumé

stone460_1476782c

by the Left Coast Rebel

In the past year and a half I have blogged on and off about far-left director Oliver Stone. Much like useful idiot communist sympathizers Sean Penn, Danny Glover and dozens of others out of Hollywood, Stone typically doesn't dissapoint when he finds himself in the headlines.

Call it a spontaneous Team America-moment when it happens. And an easy topic to blog about too, since he is such a deranged loon.

On cue, the recent Hugo Chavez 'documentary' (read love fest) that Stone shot perhaps pointed to a new level of moonbattery, even for the half-Jewish communist director.

Oh, did I mention half Jewish? Here's why, via Newsbusters:

Director Oliver Stone belittled the Holocaust during a shocking interview with the Sunday Times today, claiming that America's focus on the Jewish massacre was a product of the "Jewish domination of the media."

The director also defended Hitler and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and railed against the "powerful lobby" of Jews in America.

Stone said that his upcoming Showtime documentary series "Secret History of America," seeks to put Hitler and Communist dictator Joseph Stalin "in context."

Uh-huh.

And you thought Mel Gibson had problems,? asks Robert Stacy McCain, (while chalking up a must-read).

To which I ask, in response - why does Oliver Stone have any cred, even in Hollyweird? And aren't most of the power brokers in Hollywood Jewish, too?

There's something about the final evolution of a progressive-collectivist's thought pattern and ideological that also embraces the 'Jews are responsible for x, y and z' outlook as well.

On this, Oliver Stone reminds me of another favorite - Gore Vidal. Cross posted to Rational Nation, Proof Positive, War Planner.

A Threat to One Right is a Threat to All Rights

I got into an argument with an old friend and fellow lifetime NRA member over that organization’s support for campaign finance legislation that restricts free speech in exchange for an exemption for itself.

Good on the NRA for defending our Second Amendment rights. Bad on them for squashing the First Amendment in the process.

Things really got heated when I excoriated our NRA for toying with the idea of endorsing Harry Reid. Reid Voted for the Brady Bill, Erik Erikson reminds us.  Politico explains how politics in America makes such bedfellows possible:

First, Reid has a fairly favorable lifetime rating from the NRA. And then there’s the $61 million for the Clark County Shooting Park, earmarked by Reid, which led Wayne LaPierre, chief executive officer of the National Rifle Association, to call Reid “a true champion” of the Second Amendment at an event commemorating the opening of the 2,900-acre park in April. (Politico)
So Reid bribed the NRA with $61 million of taxpayer money, and they in return call this petty statist "a true champion." Disgusting.

Legislation as a Money-Making Scam
It is bad enough that congress exempts itself from its own laws. Is truly a despotic government that enacts laws threatening our individual liberties in order to sell those rights back to the highest bidder. This is extortion--a sickening theft of our birthright.

Progressive America, Negotiated Rights
 Natural Rights are down the toilet. The Kagan hearings confirmed that. Congress can make us eat our veggies and progressive jurists like Kagan will stand aside because they see nothing wrong. And she will be confirmed in a cakewalk.

If government can make a free man play “mother may I” in order to keep firearms, it can also make a free woman ask permission to exercise her God-given right to free speech. Once we open negotiations on our fundamental rights, we’ve already lost. Government ceases to be the protector of our rights and now becomes the gatekeeper, telling us which rights we may exercise, when and where.

Welcome to Progressive America...

Race and White Guilt

By: Bastiatarian

I've been a subscriber to Bernard Chapin's YouTube channel for a long time, and if you aren't familiar with "Chapin's Inferno," I would recommend starting at the earliest videos and working your way through all 402 installments. He's both perceptive and entertaining, and he has a haircut just like mine.

The two most recent installments address the issues of race and white guilt, and express well essentially what I would say on the subjects.





As Bernard states, race and emotion have nothing to do with the determined opposition that people like me have toward Barack Obama and others of his ilk. Race and emotion are 100% irrelevant. When somebody starts vomiting out the "Racist!" meme, you know that he or she has completely conceded the argument.


I have never oppressed anyone of any perceived "race," and I have seen no evidence that any of my ancestors back at least a couple of centuries ever owned slaves (or even had the financial resources to become slave owners). I have also never made a decision about anything at all based on perceived "race."


On the other hand, I was once mugged by a tall black man. Does that mean that I should now hate all black men? That would make about as much sense as me hating all tall men. Should I teach my children and grandchildren to hate all black men and tall people? Do other black people and tall people owe me something? Do they owe my children and grandchildren something? No. The only person that owes me anything is the tall black man who grabbed a little boy by the collar, pushed him up against a fence, took his five dollars, and threatened him with death if he told anyone. Does that tall black man owe my children or grandchildren anything? No. They are 100% unrelated. He owes me, and nobody else, five dollars (I would also accept the hot dog and candy that I was going to buy) and an apology. Does he owe that to me because he was black and I was white? No. He owes that to me because he was a thief and I was his real, direct, physical victim.

Race is irrelevant. Only actual behavior matters.

Sunday, July 25, 2010

Franken Another Fear Monger... Like TAO at Corrupting Conservatives Progressive Collectivist Blog

By: Les Carpenter III
Rational Nation USA


The newest ICON of  progressive collectivist thought, none other than former comedian (retract... still a comedian) Senator Al Franken addressed a convention of liberal bloggers and activists  Saturday evening. He implored the left to "fight to stay in power in the mid term elections."

Okay, I have absolutely no problem with this. However was it not just the other day that Kyra Phillips and John Roberts of CNN were calling for restraint and regulation on conservative bloggers? I guess censorship is just fine if it applies only to conservative rational thought. Progressive collective thought , which is almost always based on emotion rather than logic is just fine, and therefore need not be censored. Go figure.

Franken, warning of catastrophic disaster (my words) should the progressive collectivists lose control of the Congress had this to say:

"If Republicans take back Congress they'll implement a truly dangerous agenda. Everything is on the table from repealing healthcare reform to privatizing Social Security."


"Darrell Issa is promising to double his staff and embark on a witch-hunt in the hopes of bringing down the Obama administration."


"We have seen what happens when Republicans take control of Congress with a Democratic president and it ain't pretty."


"They hide behind big talk about deficits as if deficits suddenly appeared at noon on Jan. 20, 2009."

Okay, granted much of the countries fiscal problems began under GWB who never met a spending bill he didn't like. GWB was also lax on border control and was in favor of a path to citizenship for illegal aliens. GWB was responsible (along with a compliant Congress which included Democrats as well as Republicans) for involving the USA in a war that need not have been fought. And he was in charge during the economic meltdown tat is still affecting our nation.

However, almost nineteen months into the administration of "Hope and Change" we are seeing a continuation of the same policies that the progressive collectivists so readily denounced during the 2008 campaign. A rational analysis leads on to understand that the differences between  "conventional" republicans and the current crop of democrat  progressive collectivists is just a matter of degrees.

Voting for either entrenched republicans or entrenched democrats will, without a doubt, yield more of the same. The need to change the group of elitist congressmen and senators that control our nations welfare is clear. The only real possibility for change in direction is to vote in a group of individuals that truly have a mindset that is different from the progressive collectivists of the entrenched democratic or republican power structure.


Franken is part of the problem, so is Scott Brown from Massachusetts. The policies that have guided this nation during recent republican and democratic leadership, are the cause of our domestic fiscal problems and our international problems. It is time for change. Real change.


The hope for such change lies in voting for candidates with fresh new ideas. Candidates from the Libertarian Party, the Conservative Party, the Modern Whig Party, and candidates such as Rand Paul and Sharon Angle, and Allen Ward  from the Republican Party that think out of the box. IE: thinks differently than the old guard republicans such as John McCain, Sarah Palin, and Newt Gingrich.


The Modern Whig Party and The Conservative Party may not have candidate running in your area. However, the point is to identify with a party that has ideas you are comfortable with that challenge those of the old guard progressive collectivist democratic and republican party platforms and support them and those who would run on the parties platform.


Real change requires a radical departure from the present. Often it requires a return to radical concepts of the past. Such as those held by our founding fathers. Franken somehow just doesn't measure up.


Cross posted at  Left Coast Rebel


Via: Memeorandum 

Howard Dean... Your Typical Democratic Racist

By: Les Carpenter III
Rational Nation USA


Howard Dean, former Governor of the State of Vermont and one time Presidential hopeful has weighed in on the Shirley Sherrod issue. As to be expected he has determined that conservative, IE: rational FOX news network is a racist media outlet.

The ranting bozo (remember the unhinged rant during the 2008 primary race?) has joined the chorus of progressive collectivists that have denounced FOX news. Not because they have done anything wrong, but rather because they are balanced and simply provide a perspective that the liberal government media complex refuses to consider, let alone present to it's viewers.

Here is an excerpt from Dean's comments:

“Let’s just be blunt about this … I think Fox News did something that was absolutely racist,”


“Fox News was not blameless during this,” Dean said. “You played it up.”


 “I think we need to stop being afraid of Glenn Beck and the racist fringe of the Republican Party,”


Lets see... Fox news did not run this story until after  the Obama administration forced Sherrod to resign, as Chris Wallace so accurately pointed out.


Mr. Bozo Dean also had this piece of ignorance to offer:


 “I think we need to stop being afraid of Glenn Beck and the racist fringe of the Republican Party,”

Whoa... Lets stop and question on  what basis this statement  can be justifiably substantiated.

Gosh, after several hours of trying to identify some rational evidence to support Mr. Bozo's allegations I could find none. Not surprising really as the extreme progressive wing of the American Leninist Party is very adept at using the principals of Alinsky to subjugate the truth to fallacy and progressive spin.

What I did find, was the following piece of historical truth by The Black Sphere which is still true today. Thinking people realize this and whether black or white will stand in opposition to the Deans and the rest of the progressive collectivists that will do more to racial harmony and the conservative movement ever did or will.

The video:



Dean's resent comments are simply the most recent in attempts to disparage conservative media outlets and the conservative blogoshere without just cause.The purpose of course is to stifle or shutdown any viewpoints that are contrary to the progressive collectivists mantra. I can think of a few regimes in the last eighty years that did the exact same thing. Can you?

Via: Memeorandum

Cross posted at Left Coast Rebel.

The Inner Vessel


Over the past few days, Tom Tancredo has been the target of a significant amount of criticism for a statement he made indicating his observation that Barack Obama was "a more serious threat to America than Al Qaeda." I would expect such criticism from the always-frothing-at-the-mouth leftists, but much of the criticism has come from so-called "conservatives," people who should know better.

I'm not sure about the validity of Tancredo's argument for impeachment. Certainly, Barack Obama is worthy of being removed from office, but I don't know how it would hold up in court, even with a common-sense individual on the bench. Impeachment is difficult, and it is difficult for a reason. From a practical standpoint, I doubt that anyone would have the integrity and the courage to convict Obama of his crimes, both of omission and commission.

The important point, however, is that Tom Tancredo understands something that many people seem to forget, that powerful nations and civilizations do not fall unless they rot inside first. A strong nation can always rebound from physical attack, even widespread destruction. On the other hand, a nation that has been turned into a collective of effete, foppish, dependent, morally decadent children will fall when faced with the slightest attack, and often topples itself, leaving the remains to be picked through by the scavengers of the surrounding world.

In a sense, Al Qaeda is easy to deal with. If we did not have incompetent nincompoops in Washington, D.C. mishandling the wars, our military could have ended the threat already.

Boom, boom, boom. The Persian Gulf is larger. The threat has been eliminated.

The threat from within is more dangerous because it is insidious. It pretends to be pro-American, but works tirelessly to weaken America. It pretends to love liberty, but promotes policies that hack away at freedom. It pretends to be honest, but is the most secretive of any administration in American history. It pretends to be unbiased, but plays the race card with reckless abandon. The Obama administration defines corruption, thuggery, and power-lust, and has been able to dupe millions into selling their birthright for a mess of pottage.

We all have a responsibility to protect our nation from enemies both foreign and domestic. It is clear that foreign enemies are at the door, and even in the front hall, but the domestic enemies are living in your bedroom and leering at your children.

On My Honor...

By: Bastiatarian

My 17-year old son recently had his Eagle Board of Review and became an Eagle Scout. Although I did not advance past the rank of Star when I was a Scout, over the decades since then I have been involved in Scouting as a leader in a variety of capacities. I have also tried to encourage my own boys to live the principles of Scouting.

Boy Scouts are expected to adhere to the Boy Scout Oath:

On my honor, I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight. 


 As indicated in the Scout Oath, Boy Scouts are also expected to live in accordance with the Scout Law:


A Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent.

The Boy Scout Handbook elaborates on each element of the Law.
A Scout is Trustworthy.
A Scout tells the truth. He is honest, and he keeps his promises. People can depend on him.
A Scout is Loyal.
A Scout is true to his family, friends, Scout leaders, school, and nation.
A Scout is Helpful.
A Scout cares about other people. He willingly volunteers to help others without expecting payment or reward.
A Scout is Friendly.
A Scout is a friend to all. He is a brother to other Scouts. He offers his friendship to people of all races and nations, and respects them even if their beliefs and customs are different from his own.
A Scout is Courteous.
A Scout is polite to everyone regardless of age or position. He knows that using good manners makes it easier for people to get along.
A Scout is Kind.
A Scout knows there is strength in being gentle. He treats others as he wants to be treated. Without good reason, he does not harm or kill any living thing.
A Scout is Obedient.
A Scout follows the rules of his family, school, and troop. He obeys the laws of his community and country. If he thinks these rules and laws are unfair, he tries to have them changed in an orderly manner rather than disobeying them.
A Scout is Cheerful.
A Scout looks for the bright side of life. He cheerfully does tasks that come his way. He tries to make others happy.
A Scout is Thrifty.
A Scout works to pay his own way and to help others. He saves for the future. He protects and conserves natural resources. He carefully uses time and property.
A Scout is Brave.
A Scout can face danger although he is afraid. He has the courage to stand for what he thinks is right even if others laugh at him or threaten him.
A Scout is Clean.
A Scout keeps his body and mind fit and clean. He chooses the company of those who live by high standards. He helps keep his home and community clean.
A Scout is Reverent.
A Scout is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties. He respects the beliefs of others.
As I have mentioned, Boy Scouts are expected to live in accordance with these principles. Whether they are active in Scouting or not, I expect my own sons to live that way.

What do we expect of our elected officials? How many members of Congress live the principles of the Scout law? How many are truly trustworthy? Thrifty? Clean? In general, politicians have very few if any of these qualities. For the most part, we have sent our worst and stupidest, our least honorable and least capable, to Washington, D.C.

Isn't it about time that we held our elected officials to the same standard that is successfully upheld by millions of adolescent boys across the nation?

Saturday, July 24, 2010

CNN Advocates Internet Censorship


By: Les Carpenter III
Rational Nation USA

CNN anchors Kyra Phillips and John Roberts believe there should be an internet "gate keeper" to regulate the content of material posted on "anonymous" blogs.

While both acknowledged the "mixed blessing of the internet" the also agreed that a crackdown on internet bloggers would be desirable.

John Roberts said "There are so many great things that the internet does and as to offer, but at the same time Kyra, s you know, there is a dark side."


There is going to be a point in time where these people have to be held accountable" Kyra said. How about all those bloggers that blog anonymously? They say rotten things about people and they'rs actually given credibility, which is crazy. They'rs a bunch of cowards, they're just people seeking attention.


Fail! What dear Kyra and Mr. John fail to recognize is that the constitution guarantees the right to free speech and press. Particularly politically offensive speech, even when the accuracy  of said speech may be in question.the founders realized that to limit the flow of information and opinion, even when offensive was a direct threat to the republic they had fought to enshrine in America.

They also fail (naturally) to recognize that independent bloggers of all political beliefs and allegiance often report the news and opinions the major media outlets fail to provide the American people. Whether they wish to accept it or not this is a good thing and in sync with the founding principals.

Certainly there will occasionally be shoddy, even yellow journalism, as was the case with Andrew Breitbart's release of an edited tape of Shirley Sherrod speaking at the NAACP. While Breitbart is most often correct in his analysis he sadly failed to verify the accuracy of the edited video he was given. This is shoddy journalism at best and deserves the criticism it is getting.

However, to respond to this incident by calling for what is essentially selective censorship is unjustified and goes against the grain of our constitutional liberties. We are guaranteed the right to express our views, even when they might be wrong. That is what a democratic republic is founded on. Freedom of speech and press, regardless if it offends someone.

While what Ms. Phillips and Mr. Roberts espouse may sound reasonable on the surface, it is the gateway to government censorship of news content and popular and public opinion. It is the agenda of the progressive collectivists, it is about controlling speech and press, and it is about controlling what Americans see and hear.

Make no mistake, it is about your very liberties to hear, read, and think independently that is at sake. Only by insisting on your constitutional rights will we remain a free democratic republic. Those who think like Phillips and Roberts present perhaps the greatest threat to our liberties.

Following is the discussion between Phillips and Roberts.




More discussion at News Busters, No Sheeples Here, and Pajama Media.


You also may be interested in the following... Modern Journalism and the Media- Fact of BiasWhich News Network Is The Most Trusted Today?

Cross posted at Left Coast Rebel.


Via: Memeorandum 

Lt. Col. Allen West... A Patriotic American and a Healer

By: Les Carpenter III
Rational Nation USA


Lieutenant Colonel Allan West is a man of integrity and honor that served his country well. He is indeed a man that understands the meaning and value of unity and what it means to be an American.

In his words you hear and feel sincerity and a love for the country he took an oath to protect and defend.



Lieutenant Colonel West is running for a congressional seat in the state of Florida. Were I a Floridian you can bet I would be working on the ground for this man to insure his election to congress.

 View his website and familiarize yourself with his positions on the issues. Washington needs more women and men with the character of Lieutenant Colonel Alan West.

Judging from the Lieutenant Colonel's  background, character, and integrity, it is possible, in fact likely he may be a rising star. We should only hope so.

h/t: The Right Scope

Cross posted at Left Coast Rebel.


Via: Memeorandum

Friday, July 23, 2010

Must Read Column at the Daily Caller: Left Coast Rebel Rings a Bell and Pages Chris Christie

by the Left Coast Rebel

(Editor's Note - shameless, self-serving promotion imminent, be aware!)

I decided to do it and submit it. Big, shiny, million-reader Daily Caller intimidation be damned!

In about an hour and a half I wrote up a fairly decent opinion piece and then subsequently spent nearly two hours editing and re-editing the darn thing. It was a lot of work but I was proud of the final result. I've learned a lot writing so much in the last year and half and covering (typically with dismay and outrage) the body-politic around us.

So please pass along my first (of hopefully many) Daily Caller pieces, it's titled, "Ringing the bell at the top: Paging Chris Christie"


Thursday, July 22, 2010

Big News Today: Democrat-Socialists Drop Cap and Trade, Charlie Rangel Found Guilty of Ethics Violations

by the Left Coast Rebel

And why is no one talking about either of these things? The War Planner gives us a clue, (her name is media-saturated Shirley):

I mean, the woman has been reviled, revered, fired, re-hired, excoriated, gotten her obligatory interview on left-leaning media, called for Breitbart to be shut down, called FNS biased and racist, gotten her call from The Pantload..

..is there anything left to be done?

I'm thinking speechifyin' in front of a joint-session of congress and maybe convening the U.N. General Assembly?

Spare me.

Let's move on; I have Sherrod fatigue.

..unless, of course, we launch into some other aspect of this sorry episode of peristaltic gesticulations by the White House or some background investigation turning up the fact that she barbecues and serves Pomeranians at her weekend get-togethers.
Does anyone here know what a Pomeranian is? If not:

PomeranianPommaniaPDiddy

Awesome - oh the thought! Anyway the good news today that is all-but-forgotten is that, #1, the Democrat-socialists have dropped the holy grail of their neo-Bolshevik agenda and nobody's talking. It's called cap and trade and it's gone the way of the dodo, at least for now (Politico via Memeorandum):

Senate Democrats pulled the plug on climate legislation Thursday, pushing the issue off into an uncertain future ahead of midterm elections where President Barack Obama’s party is girding for a drubbing.

Rather than a long-awaited measure capping greenhouse gases — or even a more limited bill directed only at electric utilities — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will move forward next week on a bipartisan energy-only bill that responds to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill and contains other more popular energy items.

So seriously, conservatives, libertarians and indies - you should be popping a cork on this news today, instead of chasing Sherrod-barbecuing-pomeranian-rumors.

#2 - One of the biggest Democrat-socialist crooks finally got his comeuppance (or proverbial slap on the wrist), either way NYT, also via. Memeorandum:

WASHINGTON — After a nearly two-year investigation, a House investigative panel has found that Representative Charles B. Rangel probably violated a range of ethics rules, dealing a serious blow to Mr. Rangel, a Harlem Democrat, in the twilight of his political career.

The investigative subcommitee did not disclose any details about the nature of the violations that it found evidence, but one House official who has been briefed on the findings said that they included some of the most serious allegations that had been examined.
And once again, seriously - conservatives, libertarians, indies and anyone that cares about honesty, transparency, ethics, trustworthiness and otherwise, (not to mention adherence to limited government and the Constitution) should be popping the cork on a top-shelf bottle of something tonight.

Only in the Congress of the United States of America would it take 2 years to prove this:

relaxinrangel

Cross posted to Proof Positive, War Planner, Left Coast Rebel.

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails