Categories
Archives
Please donate any amount you can to help us try to recover legal costs in defending liberty and the right of free speech !

Archive for the ‘Progressives’ Category

Tea Party Leader Reveals Who is Really Behind the Ferguson Unrest

Tea Party Leader Niger Innis was on Neil Cavuto’s show on Fox News where he was explaining who was really behind the Ferguson unrest.

“This is ultimately a GOTV effort for 2016, to get folk that have been dropping off from that progressive coalition.”

Obama and the Progressives Scales Of Justice

EPA-Scales-NRD-600-w-logo

GOP, It’s Time To Bring Down The Hammer On Obama Corruption!

by Ben Crystalcorruption1
Barring a late-season push, the Democrats are heading into this fall’s midterm elections looking at a near total loss. President Barack Obama is dragging down his party’s image like a battleship anchor lashed to a rowboat.
Direct assaults on Americans’ individual liberties, once laughed off as “phony” by the Democratic ownership, have clung to the headlines like a particularly virulent fungus, mostly because Obama and his minions have a bad habit of doubling down when they get caught lying. But most importantly, the Democrats’ willful refusal to acknowledge that they’re not the only ones whose opinions count has infuriated Americans to no end. Yet the Republicans appear to be doing everything they can to keep the Dems in the game. At this point, as the country reels from yet another race-infused nightmare made infinitely worse by the machinations of Obama and his ilk, the only reason the Democrats are still in the midterm electoral fight is GOP hesitation to deliver the knockout blow.
Obviously, the biggest violator of the public trust is Obama himself. His scandal-plagued regime’s tendency to launch vicious attacks on his perceived enemies not only has produced the still-unresolved Obamacare fraud debacle, the Benghazi nightmare, the NSA domestic spying scandal, the outrageous use of the IRS as a political weapon and a foreign policy as confused as it is impotent; but it also has produced a presidency that is every bit as detached and isolated from the people it purportedly serves as the Hollywood bobbleheads are from the shmoes who buy tickets to sit through their dreck. Nonetheless, beyond the efforts of dedicated public servants like Congressmen Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) and Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the Republicans have made almost no effort to return justice to the fore. Instead, they’re suing the president.
Oh, how I loathe the idea of suing Obama. When dealing with a self-styled despot of such low character, a mere lawsuit just seems too small. The guy didn’t back over the mailbox; he backed over the entire U.S. Constitution. The image of House Speaker John Boehner and the rest of his blue-suited lawyer buddies sitting in the hallway of some courthouse waiting for some slip-and-fall case to finish up so they can play the lawsuit lottery strikes me as positively surreal. Moreover, seeing Boehner and his lieutenants filing into a courtroom like disgraced former Senator John Edwards and his ambulance-chaser choir is just plain funny.
Better remedies for a rogue executive exist, up to and including impeachment. However, as long as sociopaths like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid are allowed to wander the halls of the Capitol with impunity, impeachment will flatline worse than Michael Moore in a CrossFit competition. Plus, impeachment would let far too many people off the hook.
I say it’s high time Congress goes old school on the White House. I’m talking Richard Nixon-era action — “Dirty” Harry Callahan interrogating a suspect or John Shaft going upside some sucka’s head! The president of the United States and a number of his accomplices represent a clear and present danger to the lives, the liberties and the pursuits of happiness of every American — even the ones who voted for him. When Nixon’s administration got caught trying to cover up its criminal activities, people went to prison. Obama and his henchmen have been caught trying to cover up a criminal empire, and not one of them has had their ticket punched for a stay in the big house.
Instead of some endless, special prosecutor-filled, mind-numbingly debated impeachment hearings, let’s see Congress drag every one of the Obama minions who got caught flouting the law onto the mat for a full-on, prison-yard beatdown.
Bring Attorney General Eric Holder back and punish him for his role in — and lies about — Operation Fast and Furious, which resulted in a significantly higher number of deaths than the Ferguson, Missouri, incident, albeit with fewer Jesse Jackson fundraising speeches.
Duckwalk back IRS stooges John Koskinen and Lois Lerner for their offensively cavalier — and incredibly stupid — attempts to whitewash what is a growing firestorm over the IRS harassment of innocent Americans.
Frog-march back former Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius for violations of the Hatch Act, not to mention Obamacare’s trillion-dollar excesses.
Pinch former ambassador and current National Security Adviser Susan Rice — and even squirrely little mouthpieces like former White House press secretary Jay Carney and his successor, Josh Earnest — and bring them up to Capitol Hill in handcuffs.
Hell, go all in. Get a warrant and make President Executive Orders himself do a perp walk. Unlike Obama — who overstepped his bounds in his executive orders on immigration, Obamacare (the post-passage changes for which he’s being sued) and so-called “global warming” — Congress actually does have the power to issue arrest warrants.
The Democrats would scream bloody murder. They would pivot from their usual yammering about racism, sexism and any other “-ism” they can dream up to screech like howler monkeys at the affront to the dignity of the office of the presidency. They’d accuse anyone and everyone they could of undermining the executive. They’d shriek about Congress overstepping its bounds. And — of course — they’d play the race card.
And here’s how the Republicans should respond: “So?”
The affront to the dignity of the office of the presidency presented by criminal charges would be nothing compared to the affront presented by Obama’s six-year house party. When the executive deliberately and illegally undermines Congress — as it has with Obamacare, the immigration ploys and upcoming U.N. “name and shame” global warming sham — I didn’t hear of too many Democrats wringing their hands over the offenses. And the old tack of smearing your opponents as “racist” is just plain sad.
Would all the arrests result in convictions? Probably not. Some of them might not even hold up in court. Neither did Obama’s attempt to force taxpayers to fund abortions, but the victims of that end run around the 1st Amendment still had to fight all the way to the Supreme Court just to beat it back. And again, I say: “So?”
If the Republicans start playing hardball, who will they send running for the hills? The Democrats are already conditioned to reflexively hate anyone of whom and anything of which their fuehrers don’t approve, so they’re not likely to swing back. Meanwhile, the conservative base would be energized, and the fence-sitters would finally hear a better campaign slogan than this: “Vote GOP! We’re Slightly Less Appalling!”
To the Republicans: Heed the wisdom of the ages, “Go big or go home.” And to the Democrats: Heed the other wisdom of the ages, “Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.

Six Threats Bigger Than Climate Change – Obama talks global warming as the world burns.

John kerryAug. 28, 2014 8:02 p.m. ET

Secretary of State John Kerry said during his January 2013 confirmation hearings that he would be a “passionate advocate” on climate-change issues, and he’s living up to that promise. In a speech this month in Hawaii, Mr. Kerry called climate change “the biggest challenge of all that we face right now.” Not 10, 20 or 100 years from now—right now.

If only Mr. Kerry were right. Unfortunately, America faces much bigger immediate challenges and threats than climate change. Our enemies around the world are intent on harming us—right now. America’s secretary of state should worry more about them and less about the Earth’s temperature decades from now.

US Secretary of State John Kerry Agence France-Presse/Getty Images
Here’s a list of a few challenges, all of which pose a greater threat to the world than climate change. It might help the president and his colleagues understand why Mr. Obama’s foreign-policy approval rating is about 36%, according to an August poll by Gallup.

• Iraq is a greater challenge than climate change. While the president now likes to pretend that he didn’t force a total withdrawal of U.S. troops, Americans remember his 2008 campaign promise to do exactly that. When the U.S. leaves a vacuum, others will fill it. The barbaric Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, or ISIS, is trying to build a base of operations in Iraq and Syria from which to attack the U.S. and its allies. The recent beheading of American journalist James Foley showed how serious ISIS is about “drowning” our nation in blood, as the group said in the video of the murder posted on YouTube.

• Afghanistan. The administration says it still intends to pull out the remaining 30,000 troops by the end of 2016. If it does, the country will quickly become a terrorist haven once again. As with Iraq, the timetable seems to be mostly about the political calendar. The Obama administration seems to have lost the will to win. The terrorists have not.

• Russia. President Obama was so intent on “resetting” U.S. relations with the Kremlin that he telegraphed a lack of resolve. President Vladimir Putin has only become more aggressive. That’s led to Russian troops in Ukraine and Russian-supplied weapons shooting a passenger plane out of the sky.

• An Iranian nuclear weapon. America’s enemies have shown they are content to stall for time, while President Obama gets distracted. That’s what’s happening as the president continues to negotiate indefinitely on Iran’s illicit nuclear program. An Obama administration desperate to strike a deal is likely to strike a bad one. It could leave in place an enrichment program that would be a pathway to a nuclear-armed Iran.

• Syria. It has been more than three years since President Obama said the time had come for President Bashar Assad to step aside. The administration drew a “red line” on the use of chemical weapons, then did nothing when Assad crossed that line last summer. ISIS already has strongholds in Syria, while the Free Syrian Army desperately needs more U.S. assistance.

• North Korea. The North Koreans continue to test nuclear weapons. They have held multiple tests of missile technology designed to reach the continental U.S. President Obama has done nothing at all about this.

The White House has said its foreign policy rule is “don’t do stupid stuff,” but putting climate change ahead of global threats fails that simple test. The United Nations will hold yet another conference on climate change next month, while the world burns.

The greatest threat to Americans “right now” is not climate change. The greatest threat is people with the intent and capacity to do us harm—and the president’s failure to lead the fight against them. Mr. Kerry’s fixation on climate change is one reason America’s friends no longer trust us and our enemies no longer fear us. The world is growing more dangerous as a result.

Dr. Barrasso, a Republican, is a U.S. senator from Wyoming.

In California Sex Ed For Ninth Graders Now Features Sex Toys, Oral Sex And, Of Course, BONDAGE

junior-high-tween-kids-Getty-Images1
by Eric Owens
Over a thousand outraged parents who have children enrolled in taxpayer-funded public schools in Fremont, Calif. have signed petitions threatening legal action over a ninth-grade health textbook featuring oral sex, vibrators and, of course, bondage.

The 392-page textbook, which will be in use in the Bay Area school district, is called “Your Health Today.” It is rarely assigned to ninth graders, and it is not used in any other California school districts. Instead, it is most frequently used by professors in college-level health classes, the San Francisco Chronicle reports.

The semester-long course in which the textbook will be used is a required course for graduation.

In addition to the bondage information, Fremont high school freshmen get to see detailed illustrations of female and male sexual organs in different phases of arousal. Those phases are “excitement,” “plateau,” “orgasm” and “resolution.”

The book also contains guidelines for using Internet dating sites, information concerning masturbation and explanations of the major sexual positions. Other sections are devoted to gay marriage and e-cigarettes. Lady Gaga, actors from the “Harry Potter” movies and rapper Rick Ross also make cameos in the academic tome.

School officials have defended their decision to utilize the textbook by saying that 14-year-old kids need to know about sex, bondage and orgasms well before they reach college.

“We really want them to have a safe place to get facts about their bodies and how to handle things and how they need to be mature to deal with these things,” Fremont Unified School District board president Lara Calvert-York told the Chronicle.

Impressed school district health teachers unanimously chose the textbook for their 2,400 ninth-grade charges. The school board narrowly voted 3-2 to adopt it.

Michele Hartmangruber, who works at a Fremont high school, heartily endorsed the book’s raunchy contents.

“I want to let everyone know, if you think sex isn’t happening with your freshmen, you need to take your blinders off,” she said at a June school board meeting. “It’s happening, and it’s happening in the corners, in the bathrooms, in the cars, in the parks and even on the 50-yard line in front of everyone.”
Thus, Hartmangruber concluded, “You have to educate at the ninth-grade level.”

The parents who have signed the petition disagree.

“I feel that it’s not age appropriate for these kids,” mad mother Asfia Ahmed, who has a son entering ninth grade, told the Chronicle.

In a letter to the school board, Ahmed described the textbook as offensive and essentially pornographic at certain points.

“I was shocked when I looked at the book the first time,” she wrote, according to the Chronicle. “I am willing to pursue legal action, and I have other parents willing to support me on this.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/07/sex-ed-for-ninth-graders-now-features-sex-toys-oral-sex-bondage/#ixzz3AUDgDpDc

The Trouble Isn’t Liberals. It’s Progressives.

Unknown

Social conservatives. Libertarians. Country-club conservatives. Tea party conservatives. Everybody in politics knows that those sets of people who usually vote Republican cannot be arrayed in a continuum from moderately conservative to extremely conservative. They are on different political planes. They usually have just enough in common to vote for the same candidate.
Why then do we still talk about the left in terms of a continuum from moderately liberal to extremely liberal? Divisions have been occurring on the left that mirror the divisions on the right. Different segments of the left are now on different planes.
A few weeks ago, I was thrown into a situation where I shared drinks and dinner with two men who have held high positions in Democratic administrations. Both men are lifelong liberals. There’s nothing “moderate” about their liberalism. But as the pleasant evening wore on (we knew that there was no point in trying to change anyone’s opinion on anything), I was struck by how little their politics have to do with other elements of the left.
Their liberalism has nothing in common with the political mind-set that wants right-of-center speakers kept off college campuses, rationalizes the forced resignation of a CEO who opposes gay marriage, or thinks George F. Will should be fired for writing a column disagreeable to that mind-set. It has nothing to do with executive orders unilaterally disregarding large chunks of legislation signed into law or with using the IRS as a political weapon. My companions are on a different political plane from those on the left with that outlook—the progressive mind-set.
Wait, doesn’t “progressive” today reflect the spirit of the Progressive Era a century ago, when the country benefited from the righteous efforts of muckrakers and others who fought big-city political bosses, attacked business monopolies and promoted Good Government The era was partly about that. But philosophically, the progressive movement at the turn of the 20th century had roots in German philosophy ( Hegel and Nietzsche were big favorites) and German public administration ( Woodrow Wilson’s open reverence for Bismarck was typical among progressives). To simplify, progressive intellectuals were passionate advocates of rule by disinterested experts led by a strong unifying leader. They were in favor of using the state to mold social institutions in the interests of the collective. They thought that individualism and the Constitution were both outmoded.
That’s not a description that Woodrow Wilson or the other leading progressive intellectuals would have argued with. They openly said it themselves.
It is that core philosophy extolling the urge to mold society that still animates progressives today—a mind-set that produces the shutdown of debate and growing intolerance that we are witnessing in today’s America. Such thinking on the left also is behind the rationales for indulging President Obama in his anti-Constitutional use of executive power. If you want substantiation for what I’m saying, read Jonah Goldberg’s 2008 book “Liberal Fascism,” an erudite and closely argued exposition of American progressivism and its subsequent effects on liberalism. The title is all too accurate.
Here, I want to make a simple point about millions of people—like my liberal-minded dinner companions—who regularly vote Democratic and who are caught between a rock and a hard place.
Along with its intellectual legacy, the Progressive Era had a political legacy that corresponds to the liberalism of these millions of Democrats. They think that an activist federal government is a force for good, approve of the growing welfare state and hate the idea of publicly agreeing with a Republican about anything. But they also don’t like the idea of shouting down anyone who disagrees with them.
They gave money to the ACLU in 1978 when the organization’s absolutism on free speech led it to defend the right of neo-Nazis to march in Skokie, Ill. They still believe that the individual should not be sacrificed to the collective and that people who achieve honest success should be celebrated for what they have built. I’m not happy that they like the idea of a “living Constitution”—one that can be subjected to interpretations according to changing times—but they still believe in the separation of powers, checks and balances, and the president’s duty to execute the laws faithfully.
These Democrats should get exclusive possession of the word “liberal.”
As a libertarian, I am reluctant to give up the word “liberal.” It used to refer to laissez-faire economics and limited government. But since libertarians aren’t ever going to be able to retrieve its original meaning, we should start using “liberal” to designate the good guys on the left, reserving “progressive” for those who are enthusiastic about an unrestrained regulatory state, who think it’s just fine to subordinate the interests of individuals to large social projects, who cheer the president’s abuse of executive power and who have no problem rationalizing the stifling of dissent.
Making a clear distinction between liberals and progressives will help break down a Manichaean view of politics that afflicts the nation. Too many of us see those on the other side as not just misguided but evil. The solution is not a generalized “Can’t we all just get along” non-judgmentalism. Some political differences are too great for that.
But liberalism as I want to use the term encompasses a set of views that can be held by people who care as much about America’s exceptional heritage as I do. Conservatives’ philosophical separation from that kind of liberalism is not much wider than the philosophical separation among the various elements of the right. If people from different political planes on the right can talk to each other, as they do all the time, so should they be able to talk to people on the liberal left, if we start making a distinction between liberalism and progressivism. To make that distinction is not semantic, but a way of realistically segmenting the alterations to the political landscape that the past half-century has brought us.
Mr. Murray is the W.H. Brady BRC +2.04% Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

Please donate any amount you can to help us try to recover legal costs in defending liberty and the right of free speech !