Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Big Lies in Politics

 By on 7.31.12

The Nazi philosophy of lying to the public prevails in the current administration.

It was either Adolf Hitler or his propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, who said that the people will believe any lie, if it is big enough and told often enough, loud enough. Although the Nazis were defeated in World War II, this part of their philosophy survives triumphantly to this day among politicians, and nowhere more so than during election years.

Perhaps the biggest lie of this election year, and the one likely to be repeated the most often, is that the income of "the rich" is going up, while other people's incomes are going down. If you listen to Barack Obama, you are bound to hear this lie repeatedly.

But the government's own Congressional Budget Office has just published a report whose statistics flatly contradict this claim. The CBO report shows that, while the average household income fell 12 percent between 2007 and 2009, the average for the lower four-fifths fell by 5 percent or less, while the average income for households in the top fifth fell 18 percent. For households in the "top one percent" that seems to fascinate so many people, income fell by 36 percent in those same years.

Why are these data so different from other data that are widely cited, showing the top brackets improving their positions more so than anyone else?

The answer is that the data cited by the Congressional Budget Office are based on Internal Revenue Service statistics for specific individuals and specific households over time. The IRS can follow individuals and households because it can identify the same people over time from their Social Security numbers.

Most other data, including census data, are based on compiling statistics in a succession of time periods, without the ability to tell if the actual people in each income bracket are the same from one time period to the next. The turnover of people is substantial in all brackets -- and is huge in the top one percent. Most people in that bracket are there for only one year in a decade.

All sorts of statements are made in politics and in the media as if that "top one percent" is an enduring class of people, rather than an ever-changing collection of individuals who have a spike in their income in a particular year, for one reason or another. Turnover in other income brackets is also substantial.

There is nothing mysterious about this. Most people start out at the bottom, in entry-level jobs, and their incomes rise over time as they acquire more skills and experience.

Politicians and media talking heads love to refer to people who are in the bottom 20 percent in income in a given year as "the poor." But, following the same individuals for 10 or 15 years usually shows the great majority of those individuals moving into higher income brackets.

The number who reach all the way to the top 20 percent greatly exceeds the number still stuck in the bottom 20 percent over the years. But such mundane facts cannot compete for attention with the moral melodramas conjured up in politics and the media when they discuss "the rich" and "the poor."

There are people who are genuinely rich and genuinely poor, in the sense of having very high or very low incomes for most, if not all, of their lives. But "the rich" and "the poor" in this sense are unlikely to add up to even ten percent of the population.

Ironically, those who make the most noise about income disparities or poverty contribute greatly to policies that promote both. The welfare state enables millions of people to meet their needs with little or no income-earning work on their part.

Most of the economic resources used by people in the bottom 20 percent come from sources other than their own incomes. There are veritable armies of middle-class people who make their livings transferring resources, in a variety of ways, from those who created those resources to those who live off them.

These transferees are in both government and private social welfare institutions. They have every incentive to promote dependency, from which they benefit both professionally and psychically, and to imagine that they are creating social benefits.

For different reasons, both politicians and the media have incentives to spread misconceptions with statistics.

So long as we keep buying it, they will keep selling it.

American Spectator

Universal Muslim Economic Failure


By Daniel Greenfield

If Romney accomplished nothing else during his Israeli visit, he did manage to offend every single Palestinian Arab terrorist group, all of whom, the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the PFLP and the DFLP, issued press releases denouncing him. Their American media outlets, on a desperate gaffe hunt, seized on his statement that the GDP Per Capita differences between Israel and the territory under the control of the Palestinian Authority are the result of different values.



The official media narrative is that these differences are the results of eons of oppression, checkpoints and blockades. Fair enough. But then why does the IMF put Israel's GDP Per Capita well ahead of the oil rich kingdom of Saudi Arabia?

Saudi Arabia has no Israeli checkpoints, no Israeli soldiers or planes flying overhead. It has wealth literally pouring out of the ground with a fifth of the world's petroleum reserves. And yet the IMF puts it 13 places behind Israel and the World Bank puts it 8 places behind Israel. The only Muslim countries with a better GDP Per Capita rating than Israel are small monarchies drowning in oil.

The non-oil Muslim countries who are closest to Israel are Malaysia and Lebanon, 32 and 33 places behind Israel. Both countries also have sizable non-Muslim populations. Muslims make up only 50 percent of Lebanon and only 60 percent of Malaysia.

38 places below Israel is Turkey, which until recently was a secular country and actually has a statistically significant atheist population. And that's it. Below that we fall off a cliff into places like Belarus, South Africa and Grenada; all of whom still have better GDP Per Capita rates. No Muslim country without oil has a better GDP Per Capita than a Muslim country that has sizable Christian or Buddhist minorities.

What Romney didn't mention, but should have, is that the Palestinian Authority dealt yet another blow to its economy when it drove out the Christian population. Christians in the territories have traditionally made the best businessmen and the capital of the Palestinian Authority was actually started by Jordanian Christian refugees escaping Muslim persecution. And their decline follows a pattern of Christian communities across the Middle East declining and disappearing under Muslim rule.

Meanwhile Israel is burdened with 1.2 Muslims inside the Green Line, many of whom work in an unreported black economy, and account for 52 percent of national social benefits. Israel's national  unemployment rate is 5.6 percent. The Arab unemployment rate is 27 percent. Only 59 percent of Muslim men and only 19 percent of Muslim women are officially part of the workforce.  That's compared to 56 percent of Jewish women and 52 percent of Christian women.

The average Israeli family has double the monthly income of the average Arab family. Half the Arab sector officially lives in poverty. According to many NGO's this is due to racism. According to many economic statistics this is due to working for a living and then reporting your income.

The Israeli Jewish GDP is nearly three times higher than the Arab-Israeli GDP. This could be blamed on the usual scapegoat of racism, but the Israeli Arab GDP of $6,750 is actually better than the $5,900 GDP in neighboring Jordan, the $6,540 GDP in Egypt and the $5,041 GDP in Syria. This is the same range in which most non-oil Arab Muslim states are grouped and it is clear that there is no escaping it without a big petroleum reserve. Or like Lebanon with its $15,523 GDP, a whole lot of Christians to actually work for a living.

Again culture is still the determinant. Israel within the Green Line only has about 150,000 Christians and about as many Druze, and both groups perform better economically. Christian Arabs have a higher employment rate and a better rate of higher education than Muslims. 

Apart from that official 1.2 million, Israel is also responsible for the 4 million in the Palestinian Authority (some of whom overlap with that 1.2 million and some of whom are imaginary and exist only to collect benefits from international agencies) who are still Israel's responsibility, according to them and to the world, even though they also continue insisting that they want their own state.


 
 
The reason why the GDP in Palestinian areas is so terrible is because its inhabitants live in a giant welfare state. Their income comes entirely from foreign aid. They don't need an economy because the United States and the European Union are their economy. They don't need a state because the UNRWA is their state. Palestinian Arabs were already receiving 725 dollars in per capita assistance. Despite their absolutely terrible GDP, only 16 percent of their population in the West Bank lives below the poverty line. That's a better rate than that of Israeli Arabs, who don't have an entire UN agency dedicated to taking care of them, and do actually have to work for a living.

It's easy to admire Israel for what it has accomplished, but it stands out so much because of the region it's in. Singapore and Hong Kong are less remarkable because they are in a region where countries don't just give up and wait around for foreigners to come and find oil on their land or for the Mahdi to arrive. In Asia, countries make things happen for themselves. In the Middle East, if you're not Jewish or Christian, and you don't have oil, then you have economic problems.

But let's leave the Middle East and head over to Asia. India and Pakistan are divided by a GDP Per Capita difference of almost a thousand dollars. India is naturally in the lead. Within India, Muslims are at the bottom of the economic ladder. Their per capita GDP is lower, their literacy rate is lower and they perform worse than Hindus. And yet the average Indian Muslim annual income at 513 dollars is still higher than the average annual income in Pakistan at 420 dollars. This remains consistent with the higher Arab-Israeli income and lower Jordanian Arab income model meaning that Muslims in non-Muslim countries will earn less than the majority, but more than they would in a majority Muslim country.

In Africa, Muslim Somalia sits next door to Ethiopia and Kenya and its GDP is so small it can't even be registered compared to $1,093 and $1,746 for them. You might try to blame Somalia's civil war, but Rwanda, which experienced a genocide, has a $1,341 GDP. Niger with an 80 percent Muslim population and a $771 GDP sits next door to Chad with only a 53 percent Muslim population and a $1,865 GDP. Next door Cameroon has a 70 percent Christian majority and a $2,257 GDP.

Now let's head over to Europe. In Britain the myth of the hardworking Bangladeshi or Pakistani storekeeper is practically sacred. In reality 70 percent of Bangladeshis and Pakistanis live in low income households, compared to 50 percent of Africans, 30 percent of Indians and 20 percent of the natives. Bangladeshis and Pakistanis not only have dramatically higher unemployment rates than natives, but they have higher unemployment rates than Africans.

If the issue were racism, then their unemployment rates would be in line with far lower Indian unemployment rates. Instead Muslims have the worst economic record in the UK. Pakistani Muslims in the UK are three times more likely to be unemployed than Hindus. Indian Muslims are twice as likely to be unemployed as Indian Hindus.

Again this fits the same model of Muslims from non-Muslim countries being less economically inept than Muslims from majority Muslim countries. The crucial difference between minority Muslims and majority Muslims is culture. Minority Muslims do have their own culture, but no minority group can entirely escape the values of the majority culture. Arab Israelis and Indian Muslims absorb enough of the values of the majority culture to perform better than their neighbors in Jordan or Pakistan. And they even carry on these absorbed values when they move to another country.

We can see the direct consequences of those values in action. In the UK, Muslims have the highest dropout rate and lack of qualifications of any religion. They have the highest male and female unemployment rates. This isn't racism, this is Islamism.

Muslims have the highest unemployment rate in Ireland. In Belgium, Moroccans and Turks have a five times higher unemployment rate of the native population. In Australia, Muslims have twice the unemployment rate of non-Muslims and forty percent of their children live below the poverty line. Muslims also have the highest unemployment rate in Canada, 14.4 percent to a national rate of 7.2 percent.

The response to all these numbers is the usual cry of racism, but racism fails to explain why Muslims fail more comprehensively at home than they do abroad. If Muslims fail in the West Bank, then Israeli checkpoints are to blame. If they fail in Canada, Australia and Europe, then racism is to blame. But if they fail in Pakistan, Somalia and Saudi Arabia-- who is to blame?

 
 
It can't be Mitt Romney or Benjamin Netanyahu, because neither of those men run Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. The answer can't be racism, because Saudi Arabia gets everything it wants and it still fails. It can't be colonialism, because these days the Muslim world is doing the colonizing. So what's left?

Responsibility is the missing element. It's the character value without which there can be no economic success. The temptation by leftists and Muslims to respond to Romney's comments and these statistics by finding someone else to blame is revealing and damning. These statistics are only the tip of the iceberg of larger statistics about illiteracy, violence and corruption that account for Muslim economic malaise.  

The same lack of responsibility that manifests itself after a Muslim terrorist attack, when Muslims rush to position themselves as the victims, rather than dealing with the violence in their midst, also manifests itself in the economic arena and in every aspect of life. This lack of responsibility is a failure of values that cannot be escaped or ascribed to racism, checkpoints or the boogeyman.

Muslims have failed to deal with their problems and so we are left dealing with them instead. But just because the Muslim world insists on pretending that the problems aren't there or blames them on third parties does not make the problems go away.

Sultan Knish

Monday, July 30, 2012

For Dick Cheney and His Ilk, John McCain’s Brilliant Choice of Sarah Palin was Bad News!

By Gary P Jackson 




 Evidently the Republican Elite™ are concerned that Mitt Romney may give Sarah Palin a speaking role at the convention or, God forbid, might actually be smart enough to consider her as his running mate. Enter Dick Cheney.

Cheney was on ABC News on Sunday. He did the old “she’s a nice girl … but …” insult.

Cheney claims choosing Sarah Palin as VP was a mistake. Now I’ll give him some credit, at least he didn’t pull out the lie that she cost McCain the election, but what he did say implies it. Cheney rightly says there is only one real test to see if a candidate for vice president is acceptable: Can they be president? Cheney claims Sarah failed that test. The man is an idiot.

There were four people on the 2008 presidential ticket: John McCain, Sarah Palin, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden. Out of those four, only one person had Executive experience, and plenty of it.

John McCain has been in Congress seemingly forever, but he’s never run a city, never run a state. He was a Navy man, a fighter pilot, a prisoner of war, a hero, and then went to Washington. Nothing on his resume qualified him to be president. Now one can say he had plenty of experience dealing with foreign policy, and he was right on the Iraq war, when Cheney and others were dead wrong. But face it, as far as decision making experience, at an executive level, he had none.

Then you have Barack Obama. He was a “community organizer” with ACORN. That meant he trained rent-thugs to go out and intimidate people, often by violent means. He was an attorney, and worked with terrorist Bill Ayers on a couple of Ayers’ foundations that were set up as fronts to advance Marxism. He became a state Senator, and other than championing legislation that would allow doctors to murder babies that survived an abortion attempt, was of little consequence.

Obama was elected U.S. Senator and was on the job for about five minutes before he essentially abandoned it to run for president, something he had promised Illinois voters he wouldn’t do. Obama had never run a city, never run a state, never run anything as complicated as a lemonade stand, before becoming president.

And it shows! Talk about failing the test!

Then you have Joe Biden, bless his heart. I would be surprised to learn this man can feed himself without written instructions. Seriously, other than comic relief, you couldn’t find a more useless human being to sit as vice president. There is no way in the world this man is qualified to be president, I don’t care if he has spent most of his adult life in Washington.

And who can ever forget the truly bizarre interview Biden gave Katie Couric around the same time she interviewed Sarah Palin!

I bet Cheney thinks this moron is eminently qualified to be president. Cheney is an idiot!

Now let’s talk about Sarah Palin. She has nearly two decades of public service, almost all of it at the Executive level. She was a Mayor, the state’s chief oil and gas regulator, and Governor.

Now some may poo-poo the Mayor thing, because Wasilla was, and is, very a small town. But as they say, it’s not the size that counts, it’s what you do with it that matters.

Wasilla was a small, mostly dirt road village. Under Sarah Palin’s management, the town became the fastest growing city in the state, and would become the trading hub for the entire Mat-Su Valley, an area roughly the size of the state of Delaware. Sarah improved the infrastructure, built roads, recruited businesses, and grew the economy. And she did all of this while lowering taxes. This sort of thing doesn’t happen by accident. It takes strong leadership skills and common sense.

In 2008 the Mayor of Wasilla credited Sarah’s 75 percent property tax cuts and infrastructure improvements with bringing “big-box stores” and 50,000 shoppers per day</b> to Wasilla. She left office in 2002. That’s some serious and lasting impact for one person to have.

Last time I looked, Dick Cheney had never run a city. Certainly never turned a dirt road town into a highly successful one with a bustling economy.

Sarah’s time as the Chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission is the stuff of legends.

Not so much for what she did as a regulator, which by all accounts was top notch, but for what she did to unwind the massive corruption lawmakers and many oil company executives were engaged in. By the time she was done, the state’s Attorney General was forced to resign in disgrace, as was the Republican Party Chairman. [From his job as a fellow AOGCC commissioner] He was also forced to pay the largest civil fine in Alaska’s history.

Sarah was just getting started, as she would take down the sitting Republican Governor, in a landslide, and go on to pass sweeping reforms once in office, as the FBI was still raiding lawmakers’ offices and hauling people off to prison.

Washington may be one of the most corrupt places on earth, and I’ve never, EVER heard Dick Cheney address it’s corruption in any manner whatsoever.

Stacy Drake and Whitney Pitcher put together an extensive listing of Sarah Palin’s accomplishments as Governor. No one in Washington has accomplished anything near what she has. In fact, you’d be hard pressed to find any elected official in the country who got as much done, has a better record on fiscal issues, or maintained a higher approval record among their voters. Sarah Palin had a sustained approval rating in the 90s as Governor of Alaska.

She’s the real deal.

Of course, now that Dick Cheney has decided to trash Sarah Palin, I’m noticing a new-found respect for him among the democrat run media. Useful idiot.

Out of the three men and one woman on the 2008 presidential ticket, Sarah Palin was the only one with the experience it takes to be president. There was a reason why the Obama campaign spent more time running against her than McCain. She was the dominant figure.

I’m sure Dick Cheney thinks Bill Clinton was qualified to be president, he certainly heaped praise on Hillary Clinton for her work as Secretary of State, calling her one of the more competent members of the Obama regime, and said it would be “interesting to speculate” on how she would do as president. Hillary Clinton is incompetent at her job, and has accomplished nothing of substance whatsoever.

For the record, Hillary was First Lady, a Senator, and now Secretary of State. Other than being another member of the permanent political class, what has she done? What makes HER qualified to be president? Cheney is an idiot.

I bring up Bill Clinton, who Cheney no doubt agrees was qualified to be president, as in fact do I, to remind folks of a 2008 Wall Street Journal article noting: “Compared to Bill Clinton, Sarah Palin is an Executive Giant.” The article goes on to explain Sarah sat as one of the most powerful state Executives in the country, and managed a budget and workforce far greater than Clinton’s tiny Arkansas responsibilities.

If anyone in the country is qualified to be President of the United States, it’s Sarah Palin.

But, you know, Dick Cheney might be on to something. Choosing Sarah Palin was a mistake. A mistake if you are a member of the corrupt ruling class, that is.

For guys like Dick Cheney, and the rest of the Establishment, choosing Sarah was an enormous mistake.
 
*Sarah Palin showed America what an actual Conservative looks like. Something the country hadn’t seen since Ronald Reagan.

*Sarah Palin showed us what fearless leadership looks like. Something that is totally lacking in today’s Republican Party “leadership.”

*Sarah Palin reminded us just how lousy our elected representatives in Washington truly are.

*Sarah Palin proved you can take on corruption, even in your own party, and succeed.

*Sarah Palin proved that you could cut spending and cut taxes, in good times, and still make considerable improvements to your constituents’ way of life.

*Sarah Palin inspired millions to stand up and say “enough is enough!” And that scares the permanent political class, guys like Dick Cheney, TO DEATH.

*Most importantly, Sarah Palin proved that the permanent political class can, and must be defeated.



So yeah, for Dick Cheney and his ilk, Sarah Palin was bad news!

In 2010 Sarah was a powerhouse at the ballot box. She endorsed over 100 candidates for local, state, and federal office. Most won. Thanks to her passion and inspiration, we saw the largest political turnover since Reconstruction, after the Civil War.

In 2012, she’s proving even more powerful. Like most of her supporters, I was greatly disappointed that she didn’t run for president. She would have easily won the nomination, and would whip Obama like a rented mule, but I’m starting to understand the wisdom in her decision not to run.

This election season, Sarah has concentrated on the Senate, and defeating entrenched members of the corrupt Republican Establishment™. So far she is batting 1000 in the primaries, and if the latest polling is any indication, she will have helped defeat one of the Establishment’s big players here in Texas.

So yeah, for Dick Cheney, and his ilk, it was a huge mistake for John McCain to choose Sarah Palin. In Sarah, you have a warrior who will go toe to toe with the GOP Elite and destroy them. We give McCain hell for some of the things he’s done, and is currently doing, but when it’s all said and done, his legacy must include choosing Sarah Palin, as one of the smartest things he’s ever done, and one of the greatest things he’s ever done for his country. For this America will be eternally grateful.

As for Dick Cheney and his bunch, they are directly responsible for destroying the Republican brand. Yeah, the GOP has always had it’s elites. Ronald Reagan fought these same kind of clowns in his day. But with Bush-Cheney, you had for the first time in generations, a Republican President, a Republican House, and a Republican Senate.

Ronald Reagan got big things done, and created one of the longest periods of economic growth in our nation’s history. Reagan faced a hostile Congress. Bush-Cheney had a friendly Congress, and what did they do? They forgot everything the party is supposed to stand for. They grew government, created new entitlements, and spent like drunken sailors. Worse, they didn’t address the massive corruption or out of control bureaucracy. Hell, they added to it all.

Now we all know that being a Republican isn’t the same thing as being Conservative, and that’s the problem. The average voter expects Republicans to be Conservative, and responsible. You know, the adults in the room.

The Bush-Cheney years were an abject failure in this department. And ever single member of the Republican Establishment™ is to blame.

By the time 2008 rolled around, we could have cloned Ronald Reagan, nominated him, and he would have lost. John McCain ran a lousy campaign, thanks to Steve Schmidt and crew, but Bush-Cheney had so damaged the Republican brand, it was almost impossible to think the Republicans could have prevailed.

And yet, thanks to Sarah Palin, her energy, her record, her work ethic, and her ability to inspire others, we damned near pulled it off anyway. Sarah Palin almost dragged the Republicans over the finish line, by herself.

Today, Sarah Palin is a direct threat to the Republican Establishment™. By God I think they hate her more than the democrats.

Democrats hate everybody, so of course they hate Sarah!

The GOP is more vicious though. They are underhanded and ruthless, when it comes to attacking a true Conservative. Look at the pure evil that Ted Cruz has faced here in Texas from his Establishment opponent.

It’s as nasty as I’ve ever see,

Those of us old enough to remember the Reagan years, when he was running for president, can attest, the Republican Establishment™ was as nasty to Reagan as they are to Sarah Palin.

I am feeling an urgency to the GOP Elites’ viciousness though. Unlike in Reagan’s time, there is the Tea Party standing behind Sarah Palin. Millions of Americans who are fed up with both parties.

It’s harder for Republican Elites to overcome that.

That’s why they hate Sarah Palin, and frankly, hate the Tea Party as well. Us plain spoken, average Americans, are a direct threat to the ruling class, and in Sarah Palin we have a champion of our cause. In Sarah Palin we have someone who will fight right along side us.

Sarah didn’t run for president, something that disappointed millions, but currently she is in the process of remaking Congress in her image. I think she understands that she, or any other true reformer, has absolutely no chance as long as there are so many members of the corrupt Establishment in place.

She has a knack for backing solid Conservatives. Men and women who believe in the Constitution, Liberty, and Freedom. Leaders who believe in First Principles, and understand that government is out of control.

That we can’t just slow things down, but that we must stop and turn things around. We must go in the opposite direction, or we’ll head over the cliff.

She understands the foundation must be in place for a true reformer to bring about the sudden and relentless reform that is so greatly needed.

This is why the Republican Elite must destroy Sarah Palin. She is a direct threat to all the power they have amassed. She is a direct threat to business as usual.

So many of us stand and defend Sarah Palin, because when the GOP Elites attack her, they are attacking We The People. They are attacking us.

If we allow the Republican Establishment™ to destroy Sarah Palin, they will have destroyed us as well.

Politicians in both parties have made a mess of this country. We can’t fix the democrat party. It’s too far gone. But we can damned sure clean out the Republican Party, and run these elitist bastards out of politics forever. In fact, we MUST run these elitist bastards out of politics forever. It’s the only way our nation will survive.

This is going to be a long, vicious battle. I’m ready for it, and I stand with Sarah Palin

Conservatives 4 Palin

How to Fight Democrat Intimidation

July 30, 2012
By Sally Zelikovsky

Last week, I wrote an article for a local newspaper about the lack of civility displayed over the years towards Republicans when manning their booth at the Marin County Fair.  Because the paper now requires comments to go through the reader's personal Face Book account, the public responses to this article were relatively tame.  Unleashed, however, and without the protection of the Facebook filter, local members of the "Party of Tolerance and Diversity" revealed their true colors about the article and did so under the cover of darkness and the cowardly guise of anonymity.

Left-wing intolerance and lack of respect for diversity of opinion play out every day in the national arena.  

The president routinely takes center stage when, cloaked with fancy rhetoric and peppered with jocular musings, he vilifies success, wealth, education, self-reliance, religion, etc.

His surrogates point fingers at fictitious racism, just as Louise Lucas did this past week, and his pundits slander the innocent with heinous crimes, as George Stephanopoulos and Brian Ross did when they rushed to judgment and tagged the Movie Massacre Murderer a Tea Partier.

These displays of intolerance, invective, and hate have become so commonplace during the Obama years that they are no longer byproducts of the silly season, but rather the stuff of every day.

It's easy to behave this way in front of a camera, with the power of your office behind you, where your target is floating around in a vast and vague viewership, removed from your direct line of fire.  The average conservative Joe doesn't feel calumny's sting quite as much when the attacks are leveled at a presidential candidate, a congresswoman making a legitimate inquiry about the influence the Muslim Brotherhood might have on US foreign policy, or, on any given day, the entirety of the Republican Party.

But not so when these odious left-wing assaults are levied against the boots on the ground as they go about their  everyday lives -- driving, shopping, working, sleeping, parenting.

I have witnessed left-wingers risk life and limb just to flash you the bird because your bumper sticker offends them -- they'll speed up to your car, take their eyes off the road, and angrily flip you off.  I saw a public union thug break a Tea Partier's hand for no reason other than that he was at the same protest but on the other side.  My car was kicked in by members of the California Nurses Association at a peaceful event for Carly Fiorina.  I know people who have had their houses egged for the crime of displaying a yard sign.  Another friend had garbage dumped on her for committing the offense of manning a table for conservative candidates at a farmer's market.  I hear endless stories of cars being keyed because of bumper stickers, and recently, a good friend was followed into a store because of her "Obamacare: It's a Tax, Stupid" bumper sticker.  She was followed, yelled at, and harassed the entire time she was shopping.

Since publishing my article, I had my Romney bumper sticker ripped off my car.  Saturday night, there was a party for Romney (which I did not attend) about 3 miles from my home.  Two yard signs were placed outside.  When accounting for the signs at the end of the evening, the hosts noticed that one was missing and the other had been completely bent out of shape. 

Later that night, my son discovered what we would soon realize was the missing sign -- mangled and thrown onto our front yard.  This means that the "Sign Mangler" saw the signs when he drove by the party, stopped the car, grabbed one and destroyed it (leaving it as a warning to the homeowner), then drove the other one 3 miles to my house, where he threw it in my front yard.  He obviously knew who I am, was acquainted with my politics, and knew where I lived. 

This was all topped off by a letter sent to me by none other than "Bill Maher," although the return address simply stated "Northern California."  The letter is reproduced below in its original form.  One thing you'll know immediately is that Bill Maher never could have written this -- even with its errors, it is way too clean.
Dear Tea Party Queen,

When I heard that you had a fun raiser for Michele Bachman I almost fell out of my chair.  How you could support this woman who is an absolute moron is beyond me.  She doesn't support woman rights, gay rights (even though her husband is gay) and is a total racist.  After her latest comments about Muslims you should be embarrassed that you support this of fear and lies!!


I feel proud to be an American that people showed you how we really feel about your support of Bachman and the Republican puppet Mitt Romney.  He was not even endorsed by your sorry party but was the last man standing!  Bachman, Santorum, Gingrich, the moron from Texas and the pathetic pizza man?  Those are your candidates who represent your values?  Please go take a hard look in the mirror and ask yourself...Who am I?  You are a pathetic human being if you support the same values these people stand for.  I just wish I knew Michele Bachman was at your house.  I would have loved to meet such a worthless human being and tell her so.


Cheers and to four more years of a man with character, integrity, heart and intelligence.  OBAMA!


Bill Maher
What does all this mean?

The signs aren't ripped down, letters written, fingers flipped, and bumper stickers torn off because there is any hope of changing our minds.  These acts aren't done by adults in control or individuals who feel confident about their candidate.  They are done out of anger and are meant to do one thing and one thing only: intimidate.  Intimidate us from assembling peaceably and expressing our political views, and intimidate us by trespassing on and destroying our private property.

They might not be burning crosses on our lawns (yet), but some of their targets have been intimidated at the polls (despite AG Holder's unwillingness to prosecute).  With their savior being threatened by the real hope and change of Mitt Romney, they are like cornered animals, and their behavior is erratic at best.  

Ultimately, they hope to intimidate us from voting for our favored candidates or voting altogether.  So now members of the "Party of Tolerance and Diversity" are reduced to nothing more than the "Party of Intolerance, Intimidation and Invective."

What do we do about this?  We don't let it intimidate us.  We buy a dozen bumper stickers and replace them as needed.  We put up sign after sign, even if we have to install a surveillance system.  We stick up for each other.  We get out the vote, we march, we rally, we protest, we assemble, and we continue to do it peacefully and with respect.  And we vote.

But most importantly, we call it what it is and throw away their made-up rules for what is and isn't politically correct. 

When Louise Lucas says that those who aren't voting for Obama are racists, we need to call her out for her racism and intimidation.  When liberals label us intolerant because we prefer civil unions to changing the definition of marriage, strike back and point to their intolerance of religious views.  If they talk about the Republican war on women, remind them that since Obama took office, 800,000 more women are unemployed and the poverty rate among women is the highest it has been in 17 years (from 13.9% in 2009 to 14.5% in 2010).  If they talk about how we don't care about the poor, remind them that median household income has declined under Obama; unemployment has hit the young, the black, and the poorest the hardest; over 46 million people are on food stamps; and unemployment (the best way out of poverty) has been at 8.2% for over 40 months.

When Obama and his minions talk about how the government built the roads, bridges, and schools that account for our success, remind them that a ubiquitous and omniscient government is not responsible for that success -- the People are.  The government is nothing without our work, our enterprise, our industry, our ingenuity, and our tax dollars.  The People made this country what it is -- not the Congress or the presidency -- and we are responsible for this country's largesse and our individual success, no matter if we engineered it, mined it, hammered it, used it, or paid for it.   

So, from now on, don't play the politically correct game.  Throw it right back at them.  It's violent, offensive, repulsive, intrusive, racist, bigoted, intolerant, or divisive.  It sets a bad example for the young, it violates our rights, and it threatens not only a civil society, but a free society as well.

And don't back down or cower because of this thuggish behavior.  This is a time for valor, a time for all of us to take a stand.  Our soldiers do not cringe in the face of danger just because the enemy has a gun.  Neither should we.

American Thinker

New Study Crushes Global Warming Data Claims

30 Jul 2012
 



 Global warming skeptic and meteorologist Anthony Watts, whose wattsupwiththat.com website has been called the "world's most viewed climate website," released a scientific discussion paper yesterday that crushes the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's [NOAA's] "global warming" data claims.

The study, co-authored with Dr. John R. Christy of the University of Alabama at Huntsville, Stephen McIntyre of Toronto, Canada, and Evan Jones of New York, concluded that "reported 1979-2008 U.S. temperature trends are spuriously doubled, with 92% of that over-estimation resulting from erroneous NOAA adjustments of well-sited stations upward." In an exclusive interview with Breitbart News this morning, co-author Dr. John R. Christy, an internationally recognized climate change expert, explained the significance of the findings:
In 2010, the World Meteorological Organization adopted a new standard for temperature collection stations. This discussion paper is the first to apply that standard. The finding is that when the new class scheme was applied to weather stations, the stations considered compliant had cooler trends than non-compliant stations.
In a press release issued from his offices in Chico, California yesterday, lead researcher Anthony Watts explained the significance of the new standards and the resultant findings of the study:
A reanalysis of U.S. surface station temperatures has been performed using the recent WMO-approved Siting Classification System devised by METEO-France's Michel Leroy. The new siting classification more accurately characterizes the quality of the location in terms of monitoring long-term spatially representative surface temperature trends...
Today, a new paper has been released that is the culmination of knowledge gleaned from five years of work by Anthony Watts and the many volunteers and contributors to the SurfaceStations project started in 2007.
This prepublication draft paper, titled An area and distance weighted analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends...is to be submitted for publication [in an academic journal]. . .
Using Leroy 2010 methods, [this paper] concludes that these factors, combined with station siting issues, have led to a spurious doubling of U.S. mean temperature trends in the 30 year data period covered by the study from 1979-2008. (emphasis added)
Co-author Christy explained that the decision by lead researcher Anthony Watts to release the discussion paper for public review was an innovation in academic research, pioneered, ironically, by global warming "converted skeptic" Richard Muller:


Releasing this as a discussion paper is like a pre-vetting process. If legitimate things are found, corrections will be made prior to submission to a peer reviewed academic publication. Richard Muller is the only one who has done this before. For me it's an experiment. So far, it's a wild ride. If you look on the blogs you'll see there are already hundreds of comments. We're looking through those comments.

The bits of responses I've gotten from academic types so far are mainly curiosity because this is a whole new world. Responses are all over the map. Some have thought it's been strange. For me, it is a way you can find errors quickly.
Christy added that when and where the study will be submitted for peer reviewed academic journal publication will be determined by lead researcher Anthony Watts:

"That's up to Anthony Watts. He's the lead researcher. I imagine he'll look at publications such as Science, the Journal of Geophysical Research, and the Journal of Climate. What you're seeing here is the evolution of the academic publication process with this kind of [public release of a discussion paper]."
In yesterday's press release Watts acknowledged that "the pre-release of this paper follows the practice embraced by Dr. Richard Muller, of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project." Watts quoted Muller's 2011 Scientific American interview, where he described the practice:
I know that is prior to acceptance, but in the tradition that I grew up in (under Nobel Laureate Luis Alvarez) we always widely distributed "preprints" of papers prior to their publication or even submission. That guaranteed a much wider peer review than we obtained from mere referees.
Look for the mainstream media to give this new study by Watts and his colleagues a very cool reception.

Michael Patrick Leahy is a Breitbart News contributor, Editor of Broadside Books’ Voices of the Tea Party e-book series, and author of  Covenant of Liberty: The Ideological Origins of the Tea Party Movement.

 Big Government

Federal Court: Obama Admin. Interfered in New Black Panthers Case

30 Jul 2012


 The Justice Department has denied that political motivations went into the dismissal of  the New Black Panthers case following President Barack Obama elections and the appointment of Attorney General Eric Holder.

A Federal court in Washington, D.C. on Monday dismissed the DOJ’s claims that its political appointees did not interfere with the New Black Panthers case.

In a case that decided whether the watchdog group, Judicial Watch, could receive fees and costs associated with the New Black Panthers litigation, U.S. District Court Judge Reggie Walton held that:
“documents reveal that political appointees within DOJ were conferring about the status and resolution of the New Black Panther Party case in the days preceding the DOJ’s dismissal of claims in that case, which would appear to contradict Assistant Attorney General Perez’s testimony that political leadership was not involved in that decision.”
“Surely the public has an interest in documents that cast doubt on the accuracy of government officials’ representations regarding the possible politicization of agency decision making,” Walton wrote in his opinion.

“And the DOJ has not shown that these particular materials were released prior to this litigation, or that the information contained therein was already in the public domain.”

The New Black Panthers case revolves around members of the racist group who were caught on tape intimidating voters at a polling station during the 2008 elections in Philadelphia. The Justice Department initially charged the four New Black Panthers in the case. But after Obama shaped the Justice Department with his appointees, the Justice Department reversed course, dismissing the charges against three of the New Black Panthers while a fourth received a restraining order. 

Judge Walton’s decision again shows that politics have often trumped the law in the Obama administration.

Big Government


FBI, DOJ Sued for Info on Mueller's Secret Meeting with Radical Islamic Organizations

30 Jul 2012
 



 Political correctness puts our national security at risk. Case in point: The FBI’s persistent kowtowing to radical Muslims in its approach to terrorism investigations. I’ve written previously about the FBI’s Muslim sensitivity training programs. WorldNetDaily has done some outstanding reporting on workshops run by the FBI that “educate” agents about Muslim customs and beliefs in an attempt to help them to “break down barriers” and foster “mutual understanding.”
Well, now it appears the FBI has taken another giant step down a very dangerous path with FBI Director Robert Mueller’s secret meeting with radical Islamic organizations and allowing them effectively to “edit” the FBI’s training manuals.

Last week we filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) seeking access to records detailing a February 8, 2012, meeting between FBI Director Robert Mueller and Muslim organizations. Judicial Watch is also investigating the FBI’s subsequent controversial decision to purge the agency’s training curricula of material deemed “offensive” to Muslims.

On March 7, 2012, Judicial Watch submitted FOIA requests to the FBI and the DOJ seeking access to records regarding the meeting. We’re after “any and all records setting criteria or guidelines for FBI curricula on Islam or records identifying potentially offensive material within the FBI curricula on Islam,” and any directives to withdraw FBI presentations and curricula on Islam.

We’ve also asked for records of communications between the Office of the Attorney General and several entities, including the Obama White House, the Executive Office of the President, and Muslim organizations, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamic Society of North America, and the Council for American-Islamic Relations regarding the FBI’s curricula on Islam.

The FBI acknowledged receipt of our FOIA request on March 20, 2012, and was required to respond by May 1, 2012. The DOJ acknowledged receiving Judicial Watch’s FOIA request on March 14, 2012, and was required to respond by April 11, 2012. But so far, after months, we’ve received nothing from either agency.

According to the press, Mueller reportedly met secretly on February 8, 2012, at FBI headquarters with a coalition of Islamist organizations, some with radical ties to terrorist organizations.

For example, per The Washington Examiner, one group that reportedly met with Mueller – the Islamic Society of North America – “was tied to the terror groups Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood in federal court documents.” The government named the Islamic Society of North America as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorist financing lawsuit, along with the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the North American Islamic Trust.

During the February 8 meeting, Mueller reportedly assured the Islamic groups in attendance that the agency had ordered the removal of presentations and curricula that were deemed “offensive” from FBI offices around the country. As reported by NPR, overall, “The FBI has completed a review of offensive training material and has purged 876 pages and 392 presentations, according to a briefing provided to lawmakers.”

The material purge was allegedly initiated in response to a letter of complaint sent by Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL). However, other members of Congress, including Rep. Allen West (R-FL), object to allowing radical Muslim organizations the opportunity to dictate U.S. counterterrorism policy and want the material to be reinserted into the documents: “Now you have an environment of political correctness which precludes these agents from doing their proper job and due diligence to go after the perceived threat,” Congressman West said.

I couldn’t agree more. There is no question that the country is less safe when we allow radical Muslim organizations to tell the FBI how to train its agents and do its job. The Obama administration owes the American people a full accounting of how and why this terrible decision was made.

Tom Fitton is president of Judicial Watch and author of The Corruption Chronicles, on sale now.

Big Government

Liz Cheney Disagrees With Dad, Stands Up For Palin

30 Jul 2012
 



  In his interview with ABC News over the weekend, former Vice President Dick Cheney was not only wrong to take a public shot at Governor Sarah Palin in the sense that lending any kind of affirmation to a media narrative about one of our own is immoral -- he's wrong factually.

With real-time polling, time and again, it's been conclusively documented that the "mistake" -- as Cheney describes Palin -- was the only chance John McCain ever had of becoming president. Polling also makes clear that McCain blew the election all on his own after abruptly suspending his campaign to, uhm, save the economy. In other words, in front of the entire free world, McCain jumped on a white horse and charged off with no idea where to go.
Last night, Cheney's daughter, Liz, set the record straight:
Rarely do I disagree with best VP ever but @SarahPalinUSA more qualified than Obama and Biden combined. Huge respect 4 all she's done 4 GOP.

 The elder Cheney is also wrong in the sense that Palin's years in government, especially two years as the chief executive of a state, make her qualified to be president. It's just a fact that she was and is more qualified than any sitting senator with zero executive experience, and this would include Obama, Biden, and McCain himself.
Moreover, during the 2008 campaign, it was Palin who almost always had the guts and the correct instincts. Unlike McCain, she was the one who  bristled at the idea of constantly caving to media narratives and the one who wanted to vet Barack Obama's shady and corrupt past. It was always McCain and the rest of the GOP who thought he could win by appeasing the corrupt media -- it was always McCain who strapped on his "honor" and blindly leapt on to every grenade thrown at him, instead of throwing it back.
We all know who lost that election and we all know what the consequences have been.
By the way, no one should be in the least surprised it would be Liz Cheney who would come out publicly to "disagree" with her own father. Because in the GOP today, it's the women who have the most grit and courage -- and this most certainly includes Governor Palin.
For four years now we've all watched as the collective left in the media and Hollywood have done everything in their power to destroy Sarah Palin and her family. And all the while, too many of the so-called men in our Republican party have done nothing to defend her or have selfishly aggrandized themselves by joining in.  
Andrew Breitbart famously described those in the Republican Party guilty of this unforgivable lack of chivalry as "eunuchs," which is exactly right. There's no question that Sarah Palin is more than capable of defending herself, but a man who doesn't instinctively attempt to defend a woman and her family under a blisteringly unfair attack is lacking in honor.  
A man who unnecessarily piles on is simply embarrassing himself.  

Sunday, July 29, 2012

Mark Steyn fillets authoritarian mayors

July 29, 2012
Joseph Smith

While Rush Limbaugh cut right to the chase on Chick-fil-A, calling out the "Stalinist" tactics of several big-city mayors for their "direct assault on Christianity," the inimitable Mark Steyn was busy with a fine-point pen.

Referring to a Chicago alderman's opposition to Chick-fil-A opening a restaurant in his ward because the company president, who is a Christian, recently stated his support for traditional marriage and opposition to gay marriage, Steyn writes:
...in a city with an Aurora-sized body count every weekend, his priority was to take the municipal tire-iron to the owners of a chain of fast-food restaurants...
The city's mayor, Rahm Emanuel, agrees with the alderman: Chick-fil-A does not represent "Chicago values" - which is true if by "Chicago values" you mean machine politics, AIDS-conspiracy-peddling pastors, and industrial-scale black youth homicide rates.
But, before he was mayor, Rahm Emanuel was President Obama's chief of staff. Until the president's recent "evolution," the Obama administration held the same position on gay marriage as Chick-fil-A.
And referring to Boston Mayor Tom Menino, who suggested in a letter that the company stay out of Boston, Steyn further observes:
If you've just wandered in in the middle of the column, this guy Menino isn't the mayor of Soviet Novosibirsk or Kampong Cham under the Khmer Rouge, but of Boston, Massachusetts.
Nevertheless, he shares the commissars' view that in order to operate even a modest and politically inconsequential business it is necessary to demonstrate that one is in full ideological compliance with party orthodoxy.
Romney campaign surrogate, former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, campaigning in North Carolina on Saturday, called the official intimidation "chilling":
Now you have the police power of government intimidating and threatening people... based on their free speech rights and their religious views.  I mean it's chilling.  I mean it's stunning, it is jaw-dropping.  And so I think strong people who see this need to stand up and say no we don't do that in the United States.
We have seen this same behavior in attempts to demonize Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and the tea party, among others, always following the Alinsky maxim - "pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."
Palin, for her part, tweeted a photo on Friday of herself and husband Todd from a Houston-area Chick-fil-A, noting that "we don't have that in Alaska,' and adding "love me some Chick-fil-A."

In a May National Review article, John Fund reminds us that it's "Still the Alinsky Playbook" for the Democrats, quoting Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell:
...they'll go after anybody or any organization that they think is standing in their way. You know the drill. Expose these folks to public view, release the liberal thugs on them, and then hope the public pressure or the unwanted attention scares them from supporting similar causes down the road.
And here they are, at Chick-fil-A.  Fund concludes:
You can expect that the Obama 2012 campaign and allied groups will be filled with people deeply steeped in Rules for Radicals. That is good reason for conservatives to spend time studying Saul Alinsky.
As R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. observes in his 2011 book The Death of Liberalism, (p. 161), "there have always been authoritarian currents in Progressivism, the New Deal and Liberalism." 

An understatement, perhaps, but painfully obvious when the mask comes off.

American Thinker

Romney Charms Israel, Vows US Backing for Israeli Strike on Iran

29 Jul 2012


  Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney arrived in Israel to a warm welcome yesterday, and met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Shimon Peres in the capital city of Jerusalem today. Romney's warm connection with Netanyahu--whom he has known for decades--was evident. The Romney campaign emphasized that unlike incumbent President Barack Obama, a Romney administration would support a pre-emptive Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, should that become a necessity for Israel. In remarks prepared for delivery, Romney stated:

When Iran’s leaders deny the Holocaust or speak of wiping this nation off the map, only the na├»ve – or worse – will dismiss it as an excess of rhetoric.  Make no mistake: the ayatollahs in Tehran are testing our moral defenses.  They want to know who will object, and who will look the other way.

My message to the people of Israel and the leaders of Iran is one and the same: I will not look away; and neither will my country. As Prime Minister Begin put it, in vivid and haunting words, “if an enemy of [the Jewish] people says he seeks to destroy us, believe him.”
 
We have seen the horrors of history.  We will not stand by.  We will not watch them play out again.

Romney was careful to honor his pledge to avoid direct criticism of President Barack Obama abroad. He also noted the solemnity of the day of his visit, which is observed by Jews as the anniversary of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians and the Romans.

Netanyahu stressed that sanctions and international talks had failed to deter the Iranian regime: "We have to be honest and say that all the diplomacy and sanctions and diplomacy so far have not set back the Iranian program by one iota." Romney also emphasized the threat of a nuclear Iran, as well as common bonds between Israel and the United States.

In addition to Peres, Romney met with other government officials, though canceled a meeting with opposition leader Shelly Yachimovich--a decision that Yachimovich's Labor Party blamed on political considerations and prompting from within the Israeli government.

Breitbart

Olympic Crimes Against Israel--and Common Sense

29 Jul 2012


 This year marks the 40th anniversary of the murder of 11 members of the Israeli delegation to the Olympic Games in Munich by Palestinian terrorists of the "Black September" faction. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) rejected pleas by the families of the victims, and supporters worldwide, to include a memorial as part of the opening ceremonies for the games in London. It was only one of many affronts to Israel at the games--as well as to common sense, and the "Olympic spirit." The same IOC that rejected a memorial for the Munich victims included moments of silence for the victims of war, as well as for the 7/7 terror attacks in Britain in 2005 (a memorial that NBC failed to air). Yet somehow the IOC could not find thirty seconds for the victims of an atrocity directly connected with the Games themselves. The true motive was confirmed by news of an effusive letter from the Palestinian Authority to IOC president Jacques Rogge, thanking him for rejecting the Israeli request. Palestinians regard the Black September murderers as heroes, and the IOC feared to provoke them or supporters within the Arab world.

In a further insult, the IOC bowed to a request by the Lebanese delegation to have a screen erected between its judo team and the Israeli team so that they would not have to share the same practice mat as the Israelis.

And the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), providing coverage of events in London worldwide, is refusing to identify Jerusalem as its capital in its broadcasts, prompting protests from the Israeli government. Recently, a BBC anchor also referred to the terror attack in Bulgaria that left five Israelis dead and many more injured as an "accident."

What we are witnessing is the continued hostility towards Israel--and Jews--in international institutions under pressure from the Arab-Islamic bloc of nations (and within elite British officialdom as well). It is a disgrace--and all the more shocking as it reprises the international isolation of the Jewish people in the 1930s. Jews were allowed to compete--barely--in the Munich games in 1936, but within a few years the Evian conference on refugees made it clear that the world was prepared to look the other way. The attitude of the IOC and the BBC towards Israel are a sign that the world may be headed back in the wrong direction.

Big Journalism

NY City Council Speaker Stands Against Freedom of Speech

29 Jul 2012


 City Council Speaker Christine Quinn. Quinn is proud to stand against our Constitutional rights of freedom of speech and freedom of religion. She is also proud to stand against the right to do legal business anywhere without fearing the iron boot heel of government coming down on citizens for having upset some haughty government official somewhere. Quinn has condemned Chick-Fil-A for having dared to break no laws in the exercise of its daily business and is sponsoring one of those wondrous Internet petitions saying so.

If a petition were to be where her ire ended, well, that would be her right as a private citizen. However, she's taken that step farther which makes her actions illegal. Quinn's invoked her powers as an elected official and sent a letter to New York University's president demanding that the Chick-Fil-A outlet on his campus be shut down.

Writing "as the Speaker of the NYC Council," Quinn's letter contains at least one veiled threat and one overt one -- the latter clearly being un-American and un-Constitutional. The letter reads in part…
Let me be clear -- I do not want establishments in my city that hold such discriminatory views.
We are a city that believes our diversity is our greatest strength and we will fight anything and anyone that runs counter to that
I know from our long relationship that you and your university celebrate the diversity of NYC. Your history in this area is exemplary.
As such I urge you to sever your relationship with the Chick-Fil-A establishment that exists on your campus. This establishment should be replaced with an establishment where the ownership does not denigrate a portion of our population.
First of all, this idea that "diversity is our greatest strength" is absolute, feels-goodism at its worst. It is a rote saying that has no meaning. But that's a quibble compared with the authoritarian threat and the veiled threat contained in this screed.

Then there is this "my city," stuff. You, my dear, are an elected official. New York is not "yours." It is the collective ours, not the autocratic yours. After all, there are millions of New Yorkers, who agree with the owners of Chick-Fil-A about gay marriage. Are you saying those voters have no right to live in "your city"?

The veiled threat is in the second paragraph above. Note that Quinn's implied threat is that if the university doesn't agree with her that Chick-Fil A is the worst company ever, then the university will no longer have that "exemplary" love of diversity record.

And then there is the overt and un-Constitutional threat. Quinn's use of her power as an elected official to oppress a business that has neither broken any laws nor been accused of breaking any laws anywhere in the country, but one whose owners have certain (and inalienable) religious ideas, is unconscionable.

This letter gets even worse. At its end the Speaker tells the university to not only close down Chick-Fil-A but force the next fast food outlet that opens in that space to hire the same people that worked for Chick-Fil-A.
...I also urge you to keep the workers who are employed by Chick-Fil-A and ensure that the replacement restaurant lets them retain their jobs.
That's right, this dictator thinks she can tell the next business who they must hire for having the privilege of taking Chick-Fil-A's spot on the campus!

Ms. Quinn says that Chick-Fil-A is "repugnant and un-American." But what is really repugnant and un-American is this arrogant woman using her position of power to quash a business whose owners she disagrees with on religious matters, but one that has otherwise broken no laws at all.

Quinn has just pronounced Christianity a hate crime. How long will it be before some politician somewhere tries to make this pronouncement a matter of law?

Big Government

Saturday, July 28, 2012

Refuting Obama: The Story of Henry Ford

July 28, 2012
By Isaac Martin




 Everyone is by now familiar with President Obama's famous collectivist speech in Roanoke, Virginia.

Governor Romney promptly reacted to these statist sentiments, saying, "The idea that Steve Jobs didn't build Apple, that Henry Ford didn't build Ford Motor, that Ray Kroc didn't build McDonald's, is not just foolishness; it is insulting to every entrepreneur, every innovator in America. And it's wrong."

Truly, in addition to their efforts, entrepreneurs did get help, but it was from private -- not government -- investors and employees, who in turn were rewarded with pay, promotions, and dividends.

Romney's Ford Motor Company example is worth exploring.  Mr. Ford's company literally transformed, in an immense, economically positive way, the American landscape with his cars, which linked directly to roads and bridges.

Today, few people are aware of Ford's start.  Consider Obama's "great teacher" archetype.  Ford's education took place in a one-room schoolhouse via McGuffey Readers grade-school texts, so there was no "great teacher" miracle worker.  If one individual gave Ford personal encouragement growing up, it was his mother, to whom he was devoted.

As Ford grew up, he was fascinated by mechanics.  At the turn of the 20th century, motor cars were capturing the public's attention, and Ford determined that he would find his career calling in that field.  After some failed starts, Ford Motor Company was incorporated June 16, 1903, when he was 40 years old -- proof again that you're never too old to pursue your dream.

Obama believes that private-sector success means that "someone else made it happen," and he thinks government is that someone.  In Ford's case, business acquaintances invested $100K.  Actual cash was $28,000, the balance being IOUs.  About a month later, company cash on hand was only $226.23, but factory landlord Albert Strelow delivered his $5K investment.  Cars began selling, and in August, the company was $23K ahead.  Investors took a risk with zero guarantee that they would see any money, let alone dividends, paid back.  It was classic capitalism.  

As company engineer, Ford knew the car he wanted to build to sell "to the multitude" [1], and in 1908, the Model T put Ford Motor Company on the map.  It was simple, durable, and quality-built.  Ford knew that to sell, the Model T needed to be inexpensive, hence development of the assembly line.  A five-year sample of production figures  illustrates Ford's success:
  • 1911: 34,858
  • 1912: 68,773
  • 1913: 170,211
  • 1914: 202,667
  • 1915: 308,162
Here's where Obama sounds like a fool and Romney is right. Ford built his company through vision, motivation, and daily decision-making.  Honestly, Ford didn't build his cars alone; employees contributed their talents.  Machinists C. Harold Wills and Edward S. Huff worked alongside Ford fabricating prototype Model T parts.  Charles E. Sorensen was Ford's production manager for 40 years.  Naturally, there were tens of thousands of factory workers, and Ford's profit-based entrepreneurism allowed them to earn a prosperous living.  To my knowledge, there was no government investment or "help."

Obama regularly invokes the holy "your government in action" grail of road and bridge investments.  So did this help Ford succeed commercially?  I doubt it.  In the classic "which came first, cars or good roads" conundrum, road-building played catch-up with consumer automotive demand.  

It shouldn't be surprising that private citizens saw the need for all-weather roads.  A Good Roads Movement started in about 1870, ostensibly for bicyclists, and expanded to include automobiles.  One major populist road improvement example was the Lincoln Highway, connecting New York City with San Francisco.  According to the association, founded in 1913, most roads were dirt and didn't always connect where people wanted to go.  Search YouTube, and you'll find period films of Model Ts navigating rutted dirt roads turned into axle-deep mud rivers after a rain.

Entrepreneur Carl Fisher -- there's individual initiative again -- who built the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, envisioned this coast-to-coast graded highway.  His idea was to privately fund the $10-million project from auto manufacturer contributions.  Ironically, Henry Ford was opposed to the idea, thinking that the public should learn to fund roads.  Congress finally got on board with the passage of The Federal Aid Road Act of 1916, which provided states with matching construction funds.  Tin Lizzy production that year, by the way, totaled 501,462.  For eight years after the first Model T puttered to life, Ford prospered without government infrastructure "investment."

Romney highlighted individuals who transformed their ideas into success via hard work coupled with employee dedication.  As the Declaration of Independence so eloquently put it, everyone engaged in his own "pursuit of happiness."  Success is rarely simple or easy, but I'll take Romney's vision of prosperity over what Obama's sellin' any day.

[1] Lacy, Robert. Ford: The Men and The Machine, Little, Brown and Company, Boston-Toronto, 1986. Page 84.

American Thinker

Bachmann Still Standing as Information on Huma Abedin Emerges

27 Jul 2012
 



 Rep. Michele Bachmann has faced an onslaught of opposition since requesting that U.S. intelligence and security agencies investigate possible ties between Huma Abedin and the Muslim Brotherhood. This onslaught not withstanding, information that has become public since Bachmann's request has only justified her concern and magnified the need to ascertain what influence the Muslim Brotherhood may be exercising in U.S. governmental affairs. Here's what we know:

1. Abedin's mother is not only a member of the Muslim Sisterhood but also sits on its Guidance Bureau (along with Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi's wife).

2. Abedin's mother is also a board member of the International Islamic Council for Dawa and Relief. This council has been banned in Israel for its support of Hamas.

3. Abedin's brother has alleged ties to Omar Naseef and Sheikh Yusus al-Qaradawi, two of the most influential terror supporters in the world.

4. Abedin became involved in the Institute for Minority Muslim Affairs (IMMA) during the Clinton presidency and remained involved with that group until leaving it for a position with Sec. of State Hillary Clinton in 2008. During this time the IMMA was backed by Omar Naseef, one of the influential terror supporters with whom Abedin's brother has alleged ties.

5. Abedin's mother is also heavily involved in the IMMA.

When we take these things into consideration, along with the fact that Sec. Clinton recently overrode Congressional objections and sent a $1.5 billion lump-sum payment to Morsi's Islamist government in Egypt, it only makes sense to investigate what influence the Muslim Brotherhood may be having over our foreign policy.

Bachmann took a stand for the security of the United States. And, thankfully, she's still standing.

Big Journalism