Noonan: when the Left stop supporting Obama

In a backwards stance, it seems the planet is falling down all about our ears:

• Hoodie-wearing gunmen kill 1, wound 5 in Chicago; all were black;
• Al Sharpton cries ESCALATE, in direct contravention of Martin Luther King;
• Conservatism linked to "low brainpower";
• Climate change skepticism is a "sickness that must be treated";
• UK held in thrall of "petroleum emergency";

That said, when Peggy Noonan in a WSJ Editorial calls Mr Obama "creepy," and writes that "Obama increasingly comes across as devious and dishonest," the paradigm and the narrative and the meme has somehow changed:

What is happening is that the president is coming across more and more as a trimmer, as an operator who's not operating in good faith. This is hardening positions and leading to increased political bitterness. And it's his fault, too. As an increase in polarization is a bad thing, it's a big fault.

Events of just the past 10 days have contributed to the shift. There was the open-mic conversation with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in which Mr. Obama pleaded for "space" and said he will have "more flexibility" in his negotiations once the election is over and those pesky voters have done their thing. On tape it looked so bush-league, so faux-sophisticated. When he knew he'd been caught, the president tried to laugh it off by comically covering a mic in a following meeting. It was all so . . . creepy.

If you jumped into a time machine to the day after the election, in November, 2012, and saw a headline saying "Obama Loses," do you imagine that would be followed by widespread sadness, pain and a rending of garments? You do not. Even his own supporters will not be that sad. It's hard to imagine people running around in 2014 saying, "If only Obama were president!" Including Mr. Obama, who is said by all who know him to be deeply competitive, but who doesn't seem to like his job that much. As a former president he'd be quiet, detached, aloof. He'd make speeches and write a memoir laced with a certain high-toned bitterness. It was the Republicans' fault. They didn't want to work with him.

This is a, truly, devastating piece. And yet an honest piece. Noonan was an early ObamaCon from the start and then, now, with her newest editorial, she writes from a position that indicates a visceral disagreement.

Not good for Mr Obama.

BZ

OBAMA HYPOCRISY: two white students killed by black; Obama SILENT

Parents of murdered British students criticise Barack Obama

The parents of two British students murdered in Florida have criticised President Barack Obama for his lack of compassion over their son's deaths.

Check the article at the UK Telegraph.com.

But the overarching and larger question remains, in terms of considering the current situation with Trayvon Martin in Florida:

What is it that makes Trayvon Martin more "valuable" -- a single life -- to our American President as opposed to the two lives of visiting UK students?

You and I both know the answer: political racial fodder. As the article indicates:

It would perhaps appear that Mr Obama sees no political value in facilitating such a request or that the lives of two British tourists are not worthy of ten minutes of his time."

Mr Obama can make more political hay over the death of a 17-year-old black male than he can over two elitist, spoiled, junket-traveling UK white kids.

Related:

• Sarasota murders: double murder was 'a crime of blunder'

  29 Mar 2012

• Sarasota murders: victims a world apart from killer

  29 Mar 2012

• Shawn Tyson: a school dropout with a single parent

  29 Mar 2012

• Florida holiday Britons who took wrong turn shot dead

  23 Mar 2012

• Sarasota murders: British tourists begged for their lives

  27 Jul 2011

• Sarasota murder suspect 'confessed'

  14 Jun 2011

Finally, allow me to get even more base: Mr Obama claims he is black and panders to blacks. He can conjure a bit of black patois when he wishes and can conjure complete Caucasoid speech when he wishes, at command. This hypocrisy arises solely because, in my opinion, Mr Obama is at his core a racist who favors blacks, plain and simple -- though he cannot be so plain as to alarm the bulk of Brain-Dead America.

He lets Eric Holder do his prejudiced works as well.

So: a shock that a racist 17-year-old black convicted murderer is shuttled aside in favor of a 17-year-old black male "victim" placed on the DEM/MSM proverbial "front street"?

This should come as no shock whatsoever.

Mr Obama, in my opinion, is a racist who plays to racial black-favored politics, plain and simple. Don't listen to his stilted words, America. Watch what he does or, in this case, doesn't do.

BZ

Obama budget killed in the House, 414-to-0

Correct. Not ONE Demorat voted for Mr Obama's budget. Instead of "partisan," the vote was entirely bipartisan : NO ONE voted for it.

BZ

Here's all you need to know about Obama: PRAVDA endorses him!

The Russian news source Pravda (organ of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation) endorses Barack Hussein Obama and excoriates Mitt Romney. Official Pravda site here.

After this fiasco -- imagine that.

This, my fellow Americans, is called a clue. A clue that you, in your ignorance, will predominantly ignore.

With the exception of my readers.

BZ

American Power Plants Slapped Down

Whilst everyone else worries about the second-day arguments before SCOTUS regarding ObakaKare, one heinous point slipped through:

The first step in CapNTax.

From Reuters.com:

Government proposes first carbon limits on power plants

(Reuters) - The Obama administration proposed on Tuesday the first rules to cut carbon dioxide emissions from new U.S. power plants, a move hotly contested by Republicans and industry in an election year.

The Environmental Protection Agency's proposal would effectively stop the building of most new coal-fired plants in an industry that is moving rapidly to more natural gas. But the rules will not regulate existing power plants, the source of one third of U.S. emissions, and will not apply to any plants that start construction over the next 12 months.

Note: "Effectively STOP THE BUILDING of most new coal-fired plants."

Mr Obama made it quite clear that he was gunning for coal, that he wanted to bankrupt the coal-fired electrical generation industry. Said on January 17th of 2008 in a San Francisco Chronicle interview:

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.

That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches.

The only thing I've said with respect to coal, I haven't been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a (sic) ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can.

It's just that it will bankrupt them.

In that vein, from the Chicago Tribune:

Consumers could see their electricity bills jump an estimated 40 to 60 percent in the next few years.

The reason: Pending environmental regulations will make coal-fired generating plants, which produce about half the nation's electricity, more expensive to operate. Many are expected to be shuttered.

The increases are expected to begin to appear in 2014, and policymakers already are scrambling to find cheap and reliable alternative power sources. If they are unsuccessful, consumers can expect further increases as more expensive forms of generation take on a greater share of the electricity load.

Back in 2011, the Chicago Tribune already predicted skyrocketing electric bills because of coal-fired electrical generation stations being under the governmental gun:

Consumers' electric bills likely to spike as coal plants close

As stricter environmental regulations approach, some power generators are choosing to shutter their coal-fired plants.

June 11, 2011|By Julie Wernau, Tribune reporter

Consumers could see their electricity bills jump an estimated 40 to 60 percent in the next few years.

The reason: Pending environmental regulations will make coal-fired generating plants, which produce about half the nation's electricity, more expensive to operate. Many are expected to be shuttered.

This is nothing more than Mr Obama having his way and providing more political power to the EPA than anyone ever imagined, usurping the logic and rationality from local agencies and kicking it up to a federal level that, simply, cannot be touched or questioned.

In the meantime, in the seeking of some Sylvan Utopia, if the elderly or the infants die due to extreme cold or heat, no big deal. It's just a transition stage; get used to it.

On the other hand, do you see this nation beginning to truly mine and tap its vast natural gas reserves? Why, that would be a resounding NO -- because of the Religious Left.

This country is under physical assault, ladies and gentlemen. Under incredible assault.

Now, the Religious Left have decided we can have no wind power because it kills birds.

Nothing works, ladies and gentlemen.

Nothing solves.

We can, essentially, per the Religious Left, make NO electricity because each and every way is bad and evil.

Then: what are the final options? What do you leave us?

BZ

Obama to Medvedev: "Stay with me; I'll be giving away my country to you next term."

[NOTE from BZ: this is an incredibly target-rich news-filled day and week; I almost don't know where to begin. There are numerous topics to address and so little time!]

With the microphone of a Russian reporter still on at a nuclear security summit in Seoul, Korea, involving the heads of fifty nations, Mr Obama on Monday (3-26) leaned over to outgoing Russian President Medvedev and said -- in hopes of sotto voce -- that he'll willingly be kissing more Russian posterior (from ABCNews.com):

President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.

President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…

President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.

President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.

This is Mr Obama, in essence, telling the Russians that his attempt to re-make this country into another former USSR is in progress. He is telling Medvedev that he shares more in common with the Russians than they would suspect.

Clearly, Mr Obama is all about jacking up domestic spending and -- shock of shocks -- his budget cuts are in national defense.

With that in mind, please note these four words above: "BUT PARTICULARLY MISSILE DEFENSE."

Mr Obama not only PLANS to emasculate this nation, but ASSUMES he has a second term and purposely TELEGRAPHS his machinations to our enemies up front.



From The Washington Times regarding the nuclear summit:

The U.S. and its NATO allies are pursuing a missile defense shield, while Russia objects that it would compromise its security.

"Compromise (Russian) security"?

Hello? Is anyone with the slightest hint of logic and rationality who's interested in the survival of America listening?

As in: that's the point?

Mr Obama gets it wrong on just about every aspect and issue of American politics, sovereignty and security.

This bit of insight into Mr Obama is completely in keeping with his purposeful attempted dismantling of America.

And truly: is anyone listening?

Will this incident be splayed across morning newspapers all across America tomorrow? Will it be covered 24/7 for at least the next seven days on CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, C-SPAN or even Fox?

I think you have your answer.

Mr Obama thinks the best interests of Russia are the best interests of America. To this president, it seems greater to be an American foe than an American friend. You make this comment, Mr Obama, because you don't want the American people to know what you are planning.

America, you are so about to be sold out in a manner you could never have even remotely envisioned.

Mr Obama isn't just the "worst president ever." He is the most dangerous president in the history of our nation.

And he is actually on the cusp of a second term, make no mistake.

BZ

Trayvon Martin: Point and Counterpoint

Unless you've had your head buried in the sand, you've heard and read about the shooting of Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida on Sunday, February 26th. Yes, correct; the incident occurred roughly a month ago. I wrote about it here.

Texas Fred posted about the situation here and I responded in a comment:

Let me make this as simple as I can:

In my jurisdiction, in my agency, over 45% of the violent crime is committed by black males between the ages of 15 and 25. Much of this is black-on-black crime, committed by young black males against young black males.

This isn’t theory or guessing or assumption. These are stats that my department and others in the area compile and predominantly do not want getting out into the mainstream public.

My suggestion to young black males? When your crimes trend down markedly, you may find yourselves with longer life spans, having to attend fewer funerals, with greater potential for employment and with more respect.

This isn’t rocket science. Those are facts.

On that vein, ∞ ≠ ø recommended the following video:



Though a bit historical, this insight is provided from an Australian article even back in 1995:

Justice Department Statistics About Black On White Race Violence
'The Race War Of Black Against White' by Paul Sheehan The Sydney Morning Herald , Australia, 20 May 1995

The longest war America has ever fought is the Dirty War, and it is not over. It has lasted 30 years so far and claimed more than 25 million victims. It has cost almost as many lives as the Vietnam War. It determined the result of last year's congressional election.

Yet the American news media do not want to talk about the Dirty War, which remains between the lines and unreported. In fact, to even suggest that the war exists is to be discredited. So let's start suggesting, immediately.

No matter how crime figures are massaged by those who want to acknowledge or dispute the existence of a Dirty War, there is nothing ambiguous about what the official statistics portray: for the past 30 years a large segment of black America has waged a war of violent retribution against white America.

And the problem is getting worse, not better. In the past 20 years, violent crime has increased more than four times faster than the population. Young blacks (under 18) are more violent than previous generations and are 12 times more likely to be arrested for murder than young whites.

Nearly all the following figures, which speak for themselves, have not been reported in America:

• According to the latest US Department of Justice survey of crime victims, more than 6.6 million violent crimes (murder, rape, assault and robbery) are committed in the US each year, of which about 20 per cent, or 1.3 million, are inter-racial crimes.

• Most victims of race crime—about 90 per cent—are white, according to the survey "Highlights from 20 Years of Surveying Crime Victims", published in 1993.

• Almost 1 million white Americans were murdered, robbed, assaulted or raped by black Americans in 1992, compared with about 132,000 blacks who were murdered, robbed, assaulted or raped by whites, according to the same survey.

• Blacks thus committed 7.5 times more violent inter-racial crimes than whites even though the black population is only one-seventh the size of the white population. When these figures are adjusted on a per capita basis, they reveal an extraordinary disparity: blacks are committing more than 50 times the number of violent racial crimes of whites.

• According to the latest annual report on murder by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, most inter-racial murders involve black assailants and white victims, with blacks murdering whites at 18 times the rate that whites murder blacks.

These breathtaking disparities began to emerge in the mid-1960's, when there was a sharp increase in black crime against whites, an upsurge which, not coincidentally, corresponds exactly with the beginning of the modern civil rights movement.

Over time, the cumulative effect has been staggering. Justice Department and FBI statistics indicate that between 1964 and 1994 more than 25 million violent inter-racial crimes were committed, overwhelmingly involving black offenders and white victims, and more than 45,000 people were killed in inter-racial murders. By comparisons 58,000 Americans died in Vietnam, and 34,000 were killed in the Korean war.

When non-violent crimes (burglary, larceny, car theft and personal theft) are included, the cumulative totals become prodigious. The Bureau of Justice Statistics says 27 million non-violent crimes were committed in the US in 1992, and the survey found that 31 per cent of the robberies involved black offenders and white victims (while only 2 per cent in the reverse).

When all the crime figures are calculated, it appears that black Americans have committed at least 170 million crimes against white Americans in the past 30 years. It is the great defining disaster of American life and American ideals since World War II.

All these are facts, yet by simply writing this story, by assembling the facts in this way, I would be deemed a racist by the American news media. It prefers to maintain a paternalistic double-standard in its coverage of black America, a lower standard.

Things are not always as they seem. Perhaps, as Leftists suggest, it really is time to open our minds -- but to the possibilities that blacks are not always victims, and that guilt runs rampant in the lesser melanin-packed portions of our media and our institutions.

One final thought: in my state, Fornicalia, Caucasoids truly are a statistical minority.

If we want to portray certain classes as victims only, then I have a problem -- particularly in light of the fact that certain strata of this nation make their money on the backs of so-called victims and, as long as victims exist, their money streams continue uninterrupted. I specifically cite Poverty and Racial Pimps such as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

Because a thread doesn't fit a narrative, perhaps it's time to expand our horizons as Leftists suggest. Except that, when a narrative refuses to fit a Leftist meme, that narrative becomes racist, sexist, homophobic, discriminatory, and any number of likewise judgmental words.

Ladies and gentlemen, read all you can, digest all you can, consult as many internet and hard copy sources as you can, use your filters, your logic, your proportion, your common sense.

Don't be a Prole or a Groundling or a Serf.

Be a Free American.

BZ

P.S.
This update:

George Zimmerman suffered a broken nose, and had an injury to the back of his head, he was attacked by Trayvon Martin on that evening," Sonner said. "This was a case of self defense."

All the facts are not yet in. Because ∞ ≠ ø provided this link which extends greater insight into the overall situation and, as yet unseen, photographs of Trayvon Martin at his more current age, replete with loving tattoos. Trayvon Martin's MySpace link is here.

It seems that Tray was also on Twitter, but his account seems to have been recently deleted by his family or friends. Wagist writes (and has researched):

His screen name was “@NO_LIMIT_NIGGA, as you can see from the twitpic account screenshot above. He was also a member of a twitter hash group #team4dat.

There seem to be several allusions to violence on Tray’s Twitter account.

His friends posted supportive messages using it as well, about how happy they were that Trayvon whooped Zimmerman’s ass before he died.

@NO_LIMIT_NIGGA IMA MISS YU TILL I DIE DOG I KNOW YU WHOOPED HIS ASS DOE.. CUZ I PRAY GOD HELP ME AND WATCH YU LOVE YOU CUZZ REST ETERNALLY.

Yes, all the facts are not in. But I will continue to present the information that the DEM/MSM refuses to investigate, cover or reveal. You wish to speak and write of prejudice? I submit it's with GOWPs and the cowardly, pandering bulk of American media.

Osama bin Laden: NOT "buried at sea"?

From HumanEvents.com:

WikiLeaks has been releasing emails pilfered from Stratfor, a private global intelligence firm. One email thread in particular has been grabbing headlines today, even though it was actually disclosed last week – The Journal has a story dated March 1^st about them. In this exchange, Stratfor’s vice-president for intelligence, Fred Burton, discusses the disposal of Osama bin Laden’s corpse with CEO George Friedman, and suggests he thinks the official account of bin Laden’s burial at sea is false.

These were internal and confidential emails, sent between the officers of a private firm. They’re big news today because a hacker group stole them, and handed them over to WikiLeaks. There probably isn’t much point in tut-tutting everyone about eagerly taking part in this forcible violation of privacy, but it’s interesting to observe that many of those feasting upon Stratfor’s data today would, on any other day, profess themselves deeply concerned about violations of their digital privacy. Why is anyone who frets about the Patriot Act more comfortable with privacy that exists only until a group of hackers – appointed by no one and accountable to no one - decides to violate it?

Friedman said Stratfor would not validate any of the leaked correspondence, because “having had our property stolen, we will not be victimized twice by submitting to questions about them.”

Now that global media organizations are writing about the bin Laden exchange, there’s no way to un-spill the milk. If Stratfor sticks to its guns and refuses to confirm the validity of the leaked data, we’re left to consider the conversation on its merits, and wonder if the participants – who are well-connected private analysts, not government officials – actually had access to information concealed from the rest of the world.

In the leaked email exchange, intelligence VP Burton expressed a bit of skepticism toward the official story of bin Laden’s aquatic corpse disposal. A few hours after the raid on the old monster’s compound, Burton said “Reportedly, we took the body with us. Thank goodness.”

25 minutes later, he sent an email declaring “Body bound for Dover, DE on CIA plane. Than [sic] onward to the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology in Bethesda.”

An hour later, Burton once again says he “doubts” bin Laden’s body was dumped at sea, because “we would want to photograph, DNA, fingerprint, etc.” the remains. He discusses the similarity of the bin Laden situation and the death of Nazi leader Adolf Eichmann with company CEO George Friedman, who is the son of Holocaust survivors, and a student of military history. Friedman points out that “Eichmann was seen alive for many months on trial before being sentenced to death and executed,” although his body was then cremated to avoid creating a shrine for Nazi die-hards. He thought this was very different than “suddenly burying [bin Laden] at sea without any chance to view him, which I doubt happened.”

Burton agrees with this analysis, and says “the US Govt needs to make body pics available like the MX’s do, with OBL’s pants pulled down, to shout down the lunatics like Alex Jones and Glenn Beck.” I can’t speak for Jones and Beck, but I would like to assure the Administration and the U.S. military that I really don’t need to see that photo.

Question: do you believe that OBL was in fact killed and removed from his compound and, additionally, that he was "buried at sea" or transported to another location?

BZ

Trayvon Martin: Perhaps a bit of truth?

With regard to the Trayvon Martin incident, all is not as the media and our president portrays. One of the clearest articles yet written is here, and it is upon the information dispensed here that I shall predicate my post.

First, it is abominable that our president weighs in without all the facts. However, it is in keeping with his instant judgment regarding, for example, the black "educator" vs the white cop. The dedicated, respected and highly-decorated white cop is wrong; the Leftist black professor is right. Plain and simple. Obaka later backed down.

That said, new facts are emerging from the Martin/Zimmerman incident. Facts not covered by the DEM/MSM. Again, I submit: PURPOSELY. Some of them include:

George Zimmerman was not "white." Zimmerman has been, historically, a Teutonic name. These days, one cannot draw conclusive evidence from a name. I have been told this by any number of Leftist elements.


In fact, having looked closely at the photograph the DEM/MSM displays of Zimmerman, it is obvious to any clear-thinking individual that Zimmerman is Mexican or Hispanic. This is routinely ignored in the media, where he has been written as "white." If Mr Zimmerman is "white," then I am Chinese. And I am not Chinese. From Examiner.com:

Literally thousands of articles contain at least one false statement in the first couple of lines. They usually read "George ZImmerman, a white man," or "shoot by a white man." Zimmerman is described by family as a multiracial Hispanic. His appearance is clearly that of a Latino/Mestizo individual. However, the media wants him to be white because that better fits the political narrative they are trying to artificially create. Many news articles have also claimed the neighborhood is "mostly white." This is also a lie. The neighborhood is only 49% white. It is over half non-white.

Second: Trayvon Martin was a cute little black boy, small, gorgeous, half-white (if you believe Mr Obama's pandering in comparison to his own pale self), innocuous, unimposing. From Examiner.com:

Almost all news items are written solely from the point of view of the grieving family. The media also fills their articles with outdated baby-faced pictures of Trayvon. Very few include that he was a towering 6'2” football player. Is the media really reporting the news, or is this classic agitation/propaganda to advance a political agenda?

More details provided by the Sanford Police include:

1. The witness reports that George Zimmerman was on the ground and Trayvon is on top of him punching him.
2. The witness says that George Zimmerman was screaming and yelling for help.
3. Police arrive and find Zimmerman bleeding on his face and the back of his head. He also has had grass stains on his back. All this confirms the story told by Zimmerman and the witness.
4. Police play the 911 tape for Trayvon Martin's father, who tells police that the voice screaming is not the voice of his son.

Hear or read any of this? No?

• The witness who dialed 911 interviewed here.
• New details from Sanford PD here.
• Lots of crime in the neighborhood, as the Miami Herald details here.

In truth, the Miami Herald found another neighbor to interview, Ibrahim Rashada, who is black:

Rashada ​confirms that there has been a lot of crime in the neighborhood and indicates to the reporter that the perpetrators are usually black.

All the facts are not in; that much is clear.

But let's hear and read what's out there -- not the limited and agenda-driven drivel pushed by Poverty and Racial Pimps like Jesse Jackson.

And finally: in terms of "over the top":

• "Dead or alive" posters are issued by the New Black Panther Party for George Zimmerman;"
• Jesse Jackson ignites and fans the flames of all national racial fires;
• Florida school walk-outs occur;

No one has all the facts yet. No one. Repeat: no one.

BZ

Direct from LA: the ELIMINATION of Free Speech

City Council Warns ‘Crack Ho’ Comments ‘Intolerable’, Calls For Diversity In Talk Radio

March 21, 2012 11:04 AM

From CBSLocal.com:

LOS ANGELES (CBS) — City Council members took a step closer on Wednesday to becoming the first in the nation to adopt a resolution condemning certain types of speech on public airwaves.

Councilmember Jan Perry introduced legislation that would call upon media companies to ensure “on-air hosts do not use and promote racist and sexist slurs” on radio and other broadcasts.

Members of Black Media Alliance, National Hispanic Media Coalition, Korean-American Bar Association, American Indians in Film and Television were on hand to voice their support for the proposal.

The resolution — which was also supported by Councilmember Bernard Parks and Council President Herb Wesson — called attention to the recent uproar over comments by KFI 640 AM talk show hosts John Kobylt and Ken Chiampou.

Kobylt and Chiampou were suspended after they called the late pop singer Whitney Houston a “crack ho” three days after her death in February.

As I've written before, again, Liberals/Leftists attempting to suppress free speech.

Next stop: Rush Limbaugh:

NEW YORK — Rush Limbaugh’s opponents are starting a radio campaign against him Thursday, seizing upon the radio star’s attack of a Georgetown law student as a “slut” to make a long-term effort aimed at weakening his business.

The liberal Media Matters for America is using a past campaign against Glenn Beck as a template. In Limbaugh, however, they’re going after bigger game. He’s already fighting back and the group’s stance has provoked concerns that an effort to silence someone for objectionable talk is in itself objectionable.

Media Matters is spending at least $100,000 for two advertisements that will run in eight cities.

And "now playing on YouTube and Facebook, kill Rush Limbaugh."

Finally, MSNBC fill-in host Karen Finney blamed the death of Trayvon Martin on Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum.

Yes, all speech good unless its Conservative speech.

The same rule does not apply to Leftist/Demorat civility as well, however.

Hypocrisy, they name is once again Leftist/Demorat.

Imagine that.

BZ

Highest Ranking Saudi Mufti: "Destroy All Churches"

And of course you've heard about this, I'm certain, from the DEM/MSM, have you not?

Covered day and night by our thoroughly-efficient 24/7 news providers in America?

From The Washington Times Op-Ed:

If the pope called for the destruction of all the mosques in Europe, the uproar would be cataclysmic. Pundits would lambaste the church, the White House would rush out a statement of deep concern, and rioters in the Middle East would kill each other in their grief. But when the most influential leader in the Muslim world issues a fatwa to destroy Christian churches, the silence is deafening.

On March 12, Sheik Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah, the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia, declared that it is “necessary to destroy all the churches of the region.” The ruling came in response to a query from a Kuwaiti delegation over proposed legislation to prevent construction of churches in the emirate. The mufti based his decision on a story that on his deathbed, Muhammad declared, “There are not to be two religions in the [Arabian] Peninsula.” This passage has long been used to justify intolerance in the kingdom. Churches have always been banned in Saudi Arabia, and until recently Jews were not even allowed in the country. Those wishing to worship in the manner of their choosing must do so hidden away in private, and even then the morality police have been known to show up unexpectedly and halt proceedings.

I ask you:

• Has the US State Department weighed in?
• Secretary of State Clinton?
• Did I miss a press conference with Jay Carney?
• Has Mr Obama condemned this violent fatwa against all of Christianity?

In a word: no. And please read the rest of the editorial here.

The fatwa "does not just create a religious obligation for those over whom the mufti has direct authority; it is also a signal to others in the Muslim world that destroying churches is not only permitted but mandatory." [My emphasis. -BZ]

News-flash to Mr Obama: if you try to ignore Islamists, they won't simply go away.

Ignoring them doesn't work.

Ask William Jefferson Clinton.

"Islam is as Islam does."

BZ

P.S.
Isn't it comforting to know that Abdul Aziz Bin Abdullah is on Facebook? You can like him or pike him or friend him or bend him or whatever it is you do on Facebook. And don't look now, but isn't that our president with AABA in the photograph above?

Mitt Romney: Perhaps ONE Vertebrae?

I should care to point out Mitt Romney made one very poignant and clear delineation yesterday, which shows he has -- at least -- a bit of spine.

From FoxNews.com:

Question from woman in Peoria, Illinois: "So you’re all for like, 'yay, freedom,' and all this stuff. And 'yay, like pursuit of happiness.' You know what would make me happy? Free birth control."

Romney: "You know, let me tell you, no no, look, look let me tell you something. If you’re looking for free stuff you don’t have to pay for, vote for the other guy. That’s what he’s all about, okay? That’s not, that’s not what I’m about."

My gosh, a bit of truth just seeped out?



I wish I'd seen this kind of clear delineation from the very beginning but, no, Mitt Romney was too wrapped up in being everything to everyone at the time and point that he appeared in front of an audience.

A bit of spine?

BZ

The Quick Demise Of Rosie O’Donnell’s OWN Talk Show: What Went Wrong?

From DeadlineHollywood.com:

OWN went for broke with the launch of The Rosie Show, whose October premiere, along with that of Oprah’s Lifeclass, were broadcast on five Discovery networks. The struggling and money-losing OWN spent some $10 million to market the two shows, whose debut was touted as an unofficial OWN relaunch. That $10 million went where the previous $250 million+ in investment from Discovery went — down the drain. After an OK start with 500,000 viewers tuning in to the premiere, Rosie quickly lost more than half of that to average under 200,000 viewers for most of its run, while Lifeclass was pretty much DOA. Why did O’Donnell, who had two successful previous daytime talk show stints under her belt, on her own syndicated show and on ABC’s The View, fizzle so quickly?

No matter what, you and I both know that George Bush is responsible, as well as Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh. I suspect the Bilderbergers had a hand in this, as well as Skull and Bones. Rumors have it that I had a hand in the mix as well.

So -- really -- why did O'Donnell's show fail? And not just Regular Fail, but Extra Crispy Fail, With Cheese? [Would you like fries with that, Rosie?]

Lack of viewers. No one gives a shite what she says or thinks. Even Harpo Productions recognizes a media and cultural loser. After five months = "cut your losses."

The same thing could be asked of Air America, the so-called Bastion of the Perfect Left.

Why did it fail?

Same answer: lack of listeners. No one gave a shite what it said or advocated.

You're either appealing or you're not. You either take an audience or you don't. You're either yesterday's news or you're not.

Put me on TV and even I could draw 200,000 viewers.

Perhaps the days of overweight gun-toting hypocritical and self-defeating, negative lesbians are gone?

Or is it simply because Winfrey just fired 20% of her OWN staff? Isn't that rather harsh considering this current economic climate? Or not: considering Obama says the economy is gaining momentum by leaps and bounds and hand-stands? No problem for Oprah's staff; they can easily find other jobs in Mr Obama's Excellent Adventure Economy!

Or -- oopsie! -- is Oprah Winfrey waging her own "war on women" "just like Conservatives"?

After all, Oprah, if you were not, you would hold onto the poor, overweight, ugly, lesbian with terrible ratings.

Or is it just: business? Because this is what really happened?

If so, that doesn't quite seem so tolerant and Leftist to me. Unless, of course, you're using your Bottom Fiscal Line to adjudge relative worth. Shameful! I say. Shameful, if so!

BZ

P.S.
Imagine that. Oprah Winfrey making decisions based only but upon HER fiscal moneymaking abilities! Her Evil Profits! Shameful! I say. Shameful, if so!

The Current GOP:

Perfectly illustrated.

BZ

1946: The Battle of Athens

And why we need the SECOND AMENDMENT of our BILL of RIGHTS supported at every level:

The "Battle of Athens."



We think that an abuse of government cannot occur in our time and that weapons afforded ordinary citizens cannot overthrow an abuse of government? That scenario has already played out. But the event is primarily unknown because it has remained mostly uncovered in history books and in our schools. Purposely. Shame that we should acknowledge how firearms and weapons can be a force for good -- in our very own nation?

Also see this link. And Conservative Perspective.

Governments -- and particularly despotic or questionable governments -- demand disarming its citizenry. An unarmed populace can do nothing to resist governmental tyranny, except acquiesce.

The more a government wishes to disarm its citizens, the more it wishes to buttress its own power of the state and minimize the power of its people. Because, sooner or later, government will always run out of "other people's money."

I took this photograph in the cab of a Union Pacific locomotive:

Local, common citizens who lack the ability to even defend themselves have one word to describe themselves: serfs.

Ask yourself one salient question: who fears and wishes to suppress gun rights the most? Conservatives or Leftists?

I think you have your answer.

Do what I call "the logical extension" with that answer.

BZ

[Thanks, Frank.]

Last Run of the USS Enterprise, CVN 65

The USS Enterprise is our first (and the world's first) nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, commissioned in November of 1961. At 1,123-feet, she is still the longest naval vessel sailing today.

After 50 years of constant duty (no other US naval warship has served so long), the USS Enterprise finds herself on her 22nd and last deployment, headed to the Persian Gulf in support of the carriers USS Abraham Lincoln and USS Carl Vinson. The presence of these carrier groups is in direct response to potential conflict with Iran, should it decide to mine the Strait of Hormuz, interfere with tanker shipping or shell civilian traffic in or around the Strait.

The memories are bittersweet. The old lady creaks and groans, demanding constant repair says current and likely last commander, Captain William Hamilton. Built with eight reactors -- six more than current carriers -- the USS Enterprise was a "one-off" kind of ship, the only ship of its class. Because it was the only unit of its class, there are no real "spare parts" per se. Most all replacement parts must be fabricated from, essentially, scratch.

However, it was a test bed where new and exciting technologies were utilized in preparation for successive classes of American nuclear carriers. Much was learned from the old gal.

Further, it is said that the USS Enterprise (its military website here), because of its plethora of reactors, was and may be the fastest large surface vessel in the US fleet, with a rumored top speed of over 40 knots; that's 46.1 miles per hour. To clarify: that's 94,800 tons running at almost 50 mph. It's a certainty that the Enterprise, wherever it steamed, was the fastest ship in its carrier group.

No one knows what will happen in and around the Strait of Hormuz in the coming days and immediate few months. Some conspiracy theorists are speculating that Enterprise is being sacrificed, a la the USS Maine, in Iran because it's cheaper to kill her than decommission her. That's how far the "theorists" have sunk.

That said, the "Big E" has served in a stolid and steadfast fashion for twice her operational design time of 25 years (a major refit occurred in 1979). Resultingly, Capt Hamilton says there are two phrases on board:

• "There's tough, and then there's Enterprise tough," and
  
• "We eat pain like candy."

Clearly, Iran will be a challenge as will the Strait of Hormuz.

To the Big E: thousands served upon you. God bless you all, and particularly the 27 sailors who lost their lives from the 1969 ordnance explosion and fire.

BZ

P.S.
Click on the below photo for a much enlarged classic view of Big E.

Santorum: another reason I won't vote for him

Rick Santorum has recently said he'll shut down internet pornography.

This is reason enough for me not to vote for Santorum.

You start to mess with my very dear First Amendment rights and you're gone, as far as I'm concerned. You're completely off my radar screen.

Because, as I frequently write: "do the logical extension." Its an easy reach for me to be next up for suppression (in terms of this blog) under this or another Leftist administration.

Let's refamiliarize ourselves, shall we, with the First Amendment from the Bill of Rights:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Once the government officially stops my ability to access information over the internet, then it is a very easy movement to extend these limitations to other venues as well; venues wherein the government tends to disagree with the opinions of those private individuals and/or groups who express them. On both sides of the aisle.

This is path upon which I am not willing to tread.

If Conservatives are successful in cutting off this area completely, then a subsequent Leftist's administration building but upon only the prior administration's precedent, may find itself easily deciding to curb Rush Limbaugh, to curb the Heritage Foundation, to curb the Drudge Report, to curb Michael Medved, to curb Alex Jones, to curb Adriana Huffington, to curb Markos Moulitsas when they disagree with the current running meme.

On the other hand, let there be no mistake:

Child porn, animal porn, porn involving individuals or creatures who have no ready ability to understand or make an informed consent of their involvement -- that is wrong. Sexual acts amongst consenting adults portrayed on various sites which do not involve violence or suppression of the ability to refuse are not my problem nor should be the concern of government.

If I decide to watch or visit these legal sites, that is my prerogative. If I decide to disdain these sites, that is my prerogative as well. The final decision to view or not view images and sites on the internet should rest with the End User. In terms of children in a home, the overarching End User is the parent(s), whose duty it is to limit or constrain product entering the home.

If you, as the parent(s) don't deploy your ability to limit your child's access to the internet, that's quite not my problem. If you lack the balls to pull the computer or television -- if you object -- out of your child's bedroom, that is not my problem. If you lack the spine or ability to speak to your children about these issues and points because you're insipid, that's not my problem.

It is my problem when you -- the individual or Collective You -- cannot make an individual determination for a given situation and instead lump the entire nation into a limitation. Enough "tions" for you yet?

Because, then, you completely misunderstand our Constitution.

You obviously don't read my blog or grok my thrust.

As I wrote here, there are theories about what some writers -- myself included -- quantify as positive vs negative rights:

POSITIVE vs NEGATIVE RIGHTS:

Our current Constitution frames much of what we value in terms of what we cannot do.

- The government cannot engage in unreasonable searches and seizures

- It cannot inflict cruel and unusual punishment

And therefore, the individual has a right to NOT be subject to various items, and so forth.

By our current Constitution, it does NOT "guarantee" so-called "rights" to such things as housing, clothing, food, jobs -- rights that place upon the state to obtain the resources from other citizens to pay for them.

Let me make this abundantly clear: "RIGHTS THAT PLACE UPON THE STATE TO OBTAIN THE RESOURCES FROM OTHER CITIZENS TO PAY FOR THEM."

Leftists wish to enable a solid "privileges or immunities clause" which becomes open-ended and -- therefore -- susceptible to specific 'interpretation" by such pre-chosen federal judges!

A "logical extension" might be to allow "privileges or immunities" to create new "rights" which could "guarantee" social or economic "equality."

If the law moves this way, then your possessions, my possessions, could and would be "redistributed" as seen fit by your government.

Your "rights" will be parsed out, in dribs and drabs, by appointed berobed iconoclasts and Leftists.

This will supplant "representative" decision-making and throw decisions onto those who are appointed and -- therefore -- completely immune from accountability or responsibility.

It is not the government's job to tell me what I can or cannot eat, what I can or cannot wear, or what I do with the property or items I lawfully purchase. The government increasingly could care less about personal property and does not respect the rights thereof.

And finally: Conservatives can be generally broken down into the classic triumvirate of

• Fiscal Conservatism: less government, balanced budgets, less spending, fewer taxes; you can't tax and spend your way out of a deficit;
• Social Conservatism: the tenets of western religion place us on the track; our government was founded upon religious principles; abortion, gay marriage - these are abominations that will drag us down societally and collectively;
• Defensive Conservatism: these United States of America need to be sovereign, answerable to naught but domestic positions, strong, vast, overwhelming. We would rather be feared than respected. If something is in the best interest of this country that's the overarching determinant.

I've said it before and I'll write it again: Social Conservatism is last on my scale. Dead last. Only when the other two are firmly in place and holding do I believe we have the time to focus on Social Conservatism.

Disagree with me or not, these are my views. I may lose some Social Conservative Priority readers. If so, then so be it. You're always welcome to comment.

When your priority argument involves, for example, contraceptives and, simultaneously, the entire nation is in danger of complete fiscal and defensive collapse -- then this makes no sense to me whatsoever.

Again, bottom line: Rick Santorum, your priorities are flawed and, as such, I will never vote for you. In my opinion, we just don't have the time or the resources to waste on this right now.

BZ

Thursday: Let "Poolmageddon" Commence

Whilst the rest of the world plays out all around our ears, it's politics as usual with Mr Obama as he "pays back" his good -- his very good -- friends, the Trial Lawyers. These wonderful people gave Mr Obama more than $45 million dollars in 2008.

Because today, Thursday, is Day One of a wonderful monetary windfall for trial lawyers: Poolmageddon.

It's the drop-dead day when all community pools, motels and hotels must have affixed to their sites a permanent -- not a portable -- hoist and winch assembly so that disabled persons may be lowered and raised into said pools, in order to allow accommodation.

From Conn Carroll of TheWashingtonExaminer.com:

President Obama's Department of Justice -- led by Attorney General Eric Holder -- has found a new way to make the Americans with Disabilities Act pay off for Democratic trial lawyer campaign donors.

Since the ADA first became law in 1990, the DOJ has been issuing "guidelines" that businesses must follow to comply with a multitude of the nation's civil rights laws.

For example, if a restaurant bathroom has a light switch that is 52 inches above the floor, then that business is in compliance. But if the light switch is 53 inches above the floor, than the restaurant owner is a civil rights violator subject to fines from the government and liable for civil damages from any disabled individual who ever used the bathroom.

The DOJ has been issuing a growing wave of such guidelines over the years, reaching an ever larger portion of business activities. In September 2010, the DOJ issued guidelines for "recreational facilities," including a new rule that all public access swimming pools must provide a lift capable of moving disabled patrons from their wheelchairs into the water.

Compliance with the rule requires pool owners to have a lift for each "water element" in their facility. So if your local community pool also has a spa, both the spa and the pool must be "accessible." But if you have two spas, don't worry, only one lift is required.

But then industry leaders began hearing rumors last year that Obama's DOJ would require permanently fixed lifts for each pool and spa. They began to write letters to DOJ asking for clarification on the issue.

On Jan. 31 of this year, DOJ granted the industry's call for a clarification: But it was not the answer they wanted. All 300,000 public pools in the United States must install a permanent fixed lift. The deadline for compliance is tomorrow, March 15. Call it "Poolmageddon."

There is no way all 300,000 pools can install permanent lifts by Thursday. There simply are not enough lifts in existence or enough people who know how to install them, according to industry spokesmen. Plus, each lift costs between $3,000 and $10,000 and installation can add $5,000 to $10,000 to the total.

You grok that? You, as the director or panel or agency supporting a local community pool -- no matter the size, location or ability to pay -- could find yourselves facing a potential $15,000 bill in terms of one lift installation. Plus every individual motel or hotel or chain sporting a pool in America.

Not that the government is going to step to each pool just yet; oh no. They have the Trial Lawyers to do that dirty work. And don't think trial lawyers don't have extensive lists of community pools in their regions -- lists of every community pool that isn't in compliance the microsecond today rolled around.

Ah, the ADA -- draining taxpayers and businesses dry via Trial Lawyers from the moment it stepped into view, in 1990. Thank you kindly, President George HW Bush.

BZ

Obama's CBO: ObakaKare to cost roughly DOUBLE his estimate

When your local politician lies and says "Vote for me, I'll fix all the potholes on your street," you're talking roughly $1,000 worth of asphalt.

When Obama promised ObakaKare, a wave of retardation blasted through DC so that it was passed in the dark of night with little time for examination -- in contravention of -- again -- his promises of "transparency" and "posting on the internet" and "time to examine his proposals":



You local politician lied to you.

And Mr Obama LIED to you as well -- if you're an American Taxpayer and an actual contributor to society -- about ObakaKare.

He didn't "prevaricate" or was "misquoted" or "undersold the program" or "soft-peddled the numbers" or "equivocated" or "fibbed" or "misreported" or was "mendacious" or offered an "obliquity" or told a "tale" or a "whopper". . .

No.

Obama LIED.

Allow me to repeat: he LIED.

From the WashingtonExaminer.com:

President Obama's national health care law will cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, according to a new projection released today by the Congressional Budget Office, rather than the $940 billion forecast when it was signed into law.

Democrats employed many accounting tricks when they were pushing through the national health care legislation, the most egregious of which was to delay full implementation of the law until 2014, so it would appear cheaper under the CBO's standard ten-year budget window and, at least on paper, meet Obama's pledge that the legislation would cost "around $900 billion over 10 years." When the final CBO score came out before passage, critics noted that the true 10 year cost would be far higher than advertised once projections accounted for full implementation.

And to further confirm that our country is broken and essentially beyond repair absent some form of insurrection:

It's likely that Mr Obama will be voted into a second term for two very salient reasons:

• The GOP have no viable candidate, and
• Too many persons want Free Cheese and will utilize their vote to achieve same

You won't find the truth on ABC, CBS, NBC. You won't find the truth on major forms of American media. You won't find the truth in your local newspaper.

You'll find it over the internet.

Expect, then, the internet to be attacked rapidly and roundly in Mr Obama's second term -- likely in terms of "NATIONAL SECURITY."

Brace yourselves for this impact, my fellow bloggers and readers.

The truth -- like the above -- cannot afford to continue to bleed out.

So sayeth DC. Your Masters.

BZ

Eric Holder: Opposes Texas Voter ID Law

Holder's DOJ in stellar form once again:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department's civil rights division on Monday objected to a new photo ID requirement for voters in Texas because many Hispanic voters lack state-issued identification.

Texas follows South Carolina as the second state in recent months to become embroiled in a court battle with the Justice Department over new photo ID requirements for voters.

Photo ID laws have become a point of contention in the 2012 elections. Liberal groups have said the requirements are the product of Republican-controlled state governments and are aimed at disenfranchising people who tend to vote Democratic — African-Americans, Hispanics, people of low-income and college students.

Proponents of such legislation say the measures are aimed at combating voter fraud. But advocacy groups for minorities and the poor dispute that and argue there is no evidence of significant voter fraud.

But here's the most important paragraph in the story, direct from the office of Captain Obvious:

In a letter to Texas officials that was also filed in the court case in Washington, the Justice Department said Hispanic voters in Texas are more than twice as likely than non-Hispanic voters to lack a driver's license or personal state-issued photo ID. The department said that even the lowest estimates showed about half of Hispanic registered voters lack such identification.

Most rational American citizens would posit, then, having read the above: "might this not be because those 'Hispanics' mentioned are illegal?"

Clearly, the Obvious may in fact be too obvious for our federal gubmint officials.

Try this scenario on for size:

Let's say Canada was in turmoil. Let's say Canadians were starting to depart Canada and simply walk over their frontier to the border and cross with impunity -- as occurs on our southern border. However, let's say that it was common knowledge that most illegal Canadians had a history of voting either Republican or Conservative.

With that in mind, you and I both know that "securing" the border would become a massive priority, there would be voter ID laws and swarms of DOJ agents making checks at businesses throughout the nation. Deportations would occur on a massive level and the government would be screaming for more agents and armed soldiers on that border frontier.

Because Canadians wouldn't generally vote for Demorats.

BZ