Archive for the ‘Video’ Category

Flashback 1995: Eric Holder Wanted to Brainwash People on Guns

Monday, March 19th, 2012

"Brainwash"

Leave it to Breitbart.com to dig up this clip from 1995 of Eric Holder explaining how he would like to use the media, and the public relations outfits in Washington DC to push a new theme on the evils of guns in such a way as to mimic what’s been done with cigarettes.  His point was that it would be best if young people, particularly young men, never had the desire to have or carry(keep and bear) guns.  It’s typical of the left to believe that a PR campaign can fix anything, and of course, to some degree, it probably works on the sort of mind-numbed robots who tend to vote for leftists, but I don’t think Holder made much progress on this.  On the other hand, for all his talk about the evils of guns, he sure didn’t seem to mind putting guns into the hands of narco-terrorists in Mexico through the Justice Department’s Fast and Furious and Operation Gun-Walker.

This is typical of the left.  “Brainwash!”  This man actually wanted to “brainwash” Americans almost two decades ago, and he wonders why his testimony before Congress comes under scrutiny?  Who else is he trying to “brainwash,” and with what?  Leftists are dangerous precisely because their ideas represent a threat to American liberty.  We need more than the sort of bland change represented by Mitt Romney.  We need a reversal.

Advertisements

Chris Rock’s Insane Hatred Caught on Camera

Thursday, March 15th, 2012
sexy kim kardashian dresses

Chris Rock Attacks Camera

It seems that there’s something wrong with this guy.  Chris Rock’s hostility has always had a racial element, and his legendary rants on the subject of race have always bordered on the disturbed, but being a big Hollywood celebrity, he’s able to get away with all of this vile garbage under the heading of being a comic.  I would suppose that may work if his audience thinks what he has to say is funny.  Jason Mattera’s new book entitled Hollywood Hypocrites exposes some of the endless nonsense that so many of these leftists in Hollywood do, that contradicts so much of what they profess.  In this case, as Breitbart.com reports, Mattera was asking Chris Rock about his statements about the Tea Party in a 2011 Esquire Magazine interview, when Rock said:

“When I see the Tea Party and all this stuff, it actually feels like racism’s almost over. Because this is the last — this is the act up before the sleep. They’re going crazy. They’re insane. You want to get rid of them — and the next thing you know, they’re fucking knocked out. And that’s what’s going on in the country right now.”

When Mattera questioned Rock about this, he reportedly grabbed the camera and hurled it some fifty feet, before threatening a fight.  This isn’t sane behavior.  It’s called assault.  Watch the video:

This is inexcusable conduct, but be ready for the left to excuse it.  They will offer reasons why Mattera shouldn’t have asked the question, or similar, but what they will not do is to openly criticize Chris Rock’s thuggish behavior.  Mattera interviewed a number of Hollywood types for his book.  He says there will be more footage coming.  It’s long past time that somebody exposed the blatant hypocrisy in Hollywood.

Chris Rock talks about insane racism, and then puts on this display?  Projection?

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Mitt Romney Caught Flat-Footed By Megyn Kelly

Thursday, March 15th, 2012

Oooops

Appearing on Fox News with Megyn Kelly, former Massachusetts Governor and putative GOP nomination “front-runner” Mitt Romney was caught a bit flat-footed when Megyn Kelly asked him about his support of a Federal insurance mandate. As Kelly pointed out, it’s going to be difficult for Romney to run away from this, although he’s been trying for months.  The truth, no matter how you slice it, is that Romney has previously stated that he thought the model he used in his home state for so-called “Romney-care” would be good for the entire nation. Kelly played a clip for Romney to attempt to refute, but the problem is that it’s basically irrefutable. This isn’t simply about insurance mandates, bad as they may be, but instead goes to the veracity of anything this candidate says or promises.

Take a look, H/T RightScoop:

One cannot argue in support of a Federal insurance mandate in the first instance, only to disclaim it in the second instance, but claim never to have said what one has clearly said.  It would be a different matter if Mitt Romney said that he had changed his mind on this issue, and no longer supported the idea, but what he is trying to do is say that he never supported the idea at all.  Clearly, that’s simply not so.

Rather than confront the issue head-on, he tries to weasel away from what he said in the 2008 primary season, and that simply won’t do.  Some in the media wonder why Mitt Romney isn’t catching fire with conservatives, and I strongly believe you need look no further than this exchange between he and Megyn Kelly.  He could have straightened it out, and he could have admitted he removed a line from his book about taking Romneycare nationwide, but instead, he’s trying to trick conservatives into thinking he didn’t say what he said and wrote.

This is a problem, because one must ask what his motive might be.  After all, under the pressure of public opinion, most candidates will back-pedal at least a little when presented the opportunity, but Mitt’s not doing that.  The problem is, he can’t claim it’s because he’s taking a “principled stand” on the issue, otherwise he would be more forthright about it.  He’d say he’s changed his view, suck it up, and move on.  He’s not doing that either, leading one to wonder why.

I have my own thought, and it goes back a few weeks to when Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi was interviewed on the matter, and she as much as admitted she would be part of Romney’s program to take Romneycare nationwide as a replacement for Obamacare.  At present, he can still claim he never changed his mind, despite implying otherwise, but never really reversing himself. He wants to be able to go into the Fall election and promise only to replace Obamacare.  He won’t care about conservative opinion at all, at that point, because he will figure that he has them anyway. If he gets the nomination, he may have a point, because what will conservatives do? Will they stay home and permit Obama’s re-election, or as a matter of personal and familial self-defense, and in the defense of the nation, simply go pull the lever, or punch out the chad for Mitt Romney?

Romney is willing to bet it’s the latter, and his whole campaign is predicated on winning the nomination predominately in liberal locales and doing what he can in the South, but knowing that once he has the nomination, he can ignore the South almost entirely and focus on those swing states.  If this is his strategy, and it surely seems to be, then once he has the nomination in hand, what’s to prevent him from flipping back a bit on the issue of a national mandate for health insurance?  It will satisfy many Democrats after all, particularly those fatigued with Obama’s disastrous economic policies, and his gamble will be that he may pick up more around the middle than he will lose from the conservative base of the party.

I believe this may well be the reason he’s still hedging his bets on this issue.  It’s either that, or his ego won’t permit him to say he’s changed his mind, or some political strategist is telling him to capitulate on the issue will do him more damage than good.  Whatever is going on here, Romney isn’t credible simply because the facts and his own historical statements refute his current ones, but his current statements seem to contend his historical statements don’t exist.  If you can follow this, then you must see as I do that Mitt Romney is plainly lying.  I know not how others may choose to vote, but we already have one liar in the White House, and I’m not inclined to replace him with another.

Ann Coulter Takes Another Swipe at Sarah Palin

Wednesday, March 14th, 2012

Attacking Like a Liberal

One of the things that I have begun to notice is how similar the GOP establishment and its shills really are to Democrats.  Ann Coulter is a Mitt Romney supporter, who endorsed the former Massachusetts Governor after her preference, Chris “Krispy Kreme” Christie announced he would not seek the nomination on October 4th of last year.  Ever since then, Ann Coulter has been a non-stop verbal siren for Mitt Romney, a man she told us only a year ago would lose if nominated.  Coulter is never satisfied to let sleeping dogs lie, or to bury the hatchet and move on, but I think she actually takes her shots at Sarah Palin in a desperate attempt to curry favor with the GOP establishment.  In this video clip, she was asked about the notion of a brokered convention, and possible “outlier candidates,” and she decided the moment was right to take another miserable swipe at former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. It’s bad enough to be attacked by somebody in your own party, but when they resort to the same sort of cheap and nauseating tactics as the left, you know the attacker is a RINO.

Here’s the clip, H/T Sharktank:

Coulter lied.  I have never heard or read one word from Sarah Palin whereby she suggests that she should be the Republican candidate if we wind up with a brokered convention.  Many of her supporters would like to see that, but not once in all her media appearances has she ever said she would be that candidate, and she has explicitly said that the GOP establishment wouldn’t permit it.  She’s likely right, and as if to prove the point, here is Ann Coulter jabbing at Governor Palin for something she never actually said.  It makes one wonder what is next from Ann Coulter.  Will she next tell us that Tina Fey’s portrayal of Governor Palin is accurate, or that Julianne Moore’s is any better?

I realize politics can be a nasty game, complete with a bunch of ankle-biters(and some would throw me in that category) who take their shots at targets of political opportunity, but as a grass-roots activist, I wonder about Ann Coulter.  Apart from appealing to moderates and liberals with her attacks on Sarah Palin, and her unceasing, sycophantic support of Chris Christie, I am now in the position of being forced to ask what Ann Coulter has done for conservatives lately.

The truth is that when you listen to what Ann says, it no longer seems to be the speech of a firebrand conservative, but the compromising and haughty harrumph of an establishment lackey who has overestimated her worth to all concerned. Coulter apparently sees herself as part of the “in crowd,” but even if so, that won’t last the first time she questions something the GOP establishment does.  For the moment, however, she’s safe, and she’s still useful, because she stands ready to propagate their talking points with the unquestioning  obedience of a megaphone.

Actual conservatives hear her real message loud and clear, and are abandoning her to her establishment friends.  I wonder how many copies of her latest literary cacophony the RINO wing of the Republican Party will buy?  It’s a relatively narrow market segment, after all. Maybe that’s the problem:  For a long while, Ann Coulter was the one of just a few highly visible Republican women, and perhaps she doesn’t like the competition?  She’s seems concerned to a state of near distraction that Sarah Palin has the FoxNews job, doesn’t she?

 

Will The Real “Prostitute” Stand Up?

Wednesday, March 14th, 2012

The Right Proposition?

Listening to the Democrats, you would think Rush Limbaugh had committed a war crime.   His use of the terms “prostitute” and “slut” that he offered as possible descriptors of leftist agitator Sandra Fluke, and for which he subsequently apologized has been the rallying cry of every lefty feminist in sight, but Democrats generally as they seek to make as many miles on this as they can.  The problem is that contrary to the shrill refrain, it’s not having quite the effect the Democrats had hoped, and what seems to be happening is that there has been a backlash against sponsors who withdrew advertising from Limbaugh’s show.  This flies in the face of all we’ve been told about this episode by the mainstream media, but it also offers a little insight as to who the American people see as the real prostitute, as the double-standard in the media has become apparent with such leftists as Bill Maher getting a pass from certain politicians and political groups.

National Organization for Women(NOW) President Terry O’Neill was asked whether she thought the Obama SuperPAC that received a million dollars from the so-called ‘comic’ Bill Maher ought to return the money on the basis of what he has said about a number of prominent conservative women, including Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann.  Her answer is only surprising to those who are naive about the motives of the NOW gang.  Watch the video:

Ms. O’Neill expresses a smarmy contempt for the question, noting that she wants Barack Obama elected, thus rejecting the idea that the money ought to be returned to Maher.  I would never make the mistake of telling you that O’Neill is a “prostitute” or a “slut,” but it is interesting to see how her support of women is conditional and quite obviously for sale.

This brings me to the real object of my question.  You see, while President Obama doesn’t technically control the SuperPAC that accepted Bill Maher’s million dollars, he does exercise at least theoretical moral authority.  He could urge the money be returned if he was as serious as his invoking of his own daughters in a discussion of the Fluke-Limbaugh situation implies, but that’s if you believe his feigned moral outrage.  Here you have the pinnacle of hypocrisy.  Obama waxes philosophically on the shame of what Rush Limbaugh said prospectively of Sandra Fluke, and yet he permits a SuperPAC operating in his name to accept money from a misogynist like Bill Maher?

The fact is that the things Bill Maher has said about conservative women are far worse than Rush Limbaugh’s proposed words, and honestly, if we can see media castigate Rick Santorum because Foster Freiss made his remark about “an aspirin between the knees,”  surely this President, who poses as the savior of women, and who has the President of NOW selling out the organization’s stated principles on his behalf could stand firm against misogyny.

What this demonstrates is that Barack Obama is a political prostitute, and that his principles and haughty talk about misogyny all goes out the window for a measly million dollars.  He’s just announced his price, if you ask me, and he might as well stand on a DC street corner asking for the support of lobbyists in much the same way.  Unfortunately for us, he has no need of a street corner because he has turned the Oval Office into the political brothel-of-state, where he routinely sells out all of his lofty notions about the “interests of the people” and “change” along with whatever else he’s selling on any given day.  The lobbyists had no problem finding him when it came time for the negotiations on the health-care bill, or the financial reform act.  They merely made deposits at the bank of the DNC and his favorite campaign SuperPacs, and for chump-change, he willingly put out.

Rush Limbaugh needn’t have proposed that Sandra Fluke might be a “prostitute” or a “slut.”  He really only needed to point out that the nation’s head madame is a he, and that he plies his trade at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  Those who were confused shouldn’t be now, because Barack Obama has made it clear: He’s for sale, and the bidding starts at one million dollars, setting the price at which he will overlook anything, no matter how vile.

 

 

Panetta Testimony Prompts Resolution Threatening Impeachment

Monday, March 12th, 2012

A Bridge Too Far?

The Obama administration is signaling that it will overstep its bounds again, this time with respect to Syria.  Many in Congress were upset by President Obama’s use of military force against Libya without Congressional approval.  This issue again raises questions about when this nation goes to war, what constitutes the actual making of war, and what is an effective limitation on executive authority in this respect.  More pressing than this, however, may be an underlying notion put forward by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta on consultation with our allies and the international community before even talking to Congress.  A resolution is being offered that threatens an impeachment should President Obama step outside the bounds of his authority and fail to consult with Congress in order to gain their approval before engaging American forces.

Congressman Walter B. Jones Jr.(R-N.C.,) has introduced a resolution stating that should the president use offensive military force without prior authorization by an act of Congress, “it is the sense of Congress” that any such actions would constitute “an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor.” Of course, introducing such a resolution and actually passing it, and then subsequently acting upon it are very different things.  According to WND, former Congressman Tom Tancredo believes the bill was offered as a response to the following statement by Leon Panetta, now serving as Secretary of State:

“Our goal would be to seek international permission and we would … come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress – I think those are issues we would have to discuss as we decide what to do here.”

This was Panetta’s response to Senator Jeff Session(R-Al,) during testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee.  There has long been a significant division between presidents and congresses on the use of military force, but this is an escalation of sorts, because what it admits is that the Obama administration is willing to seek permission from international bodies like the United Nations, but not willing to seek approval from Congress.  That’s an absurd reversal of precedent in many respect, because the Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution provides that it shall be Congress that has the authority to declare war.

Here’s video of the exchange:

Of course, what Presidents have long asserted is that not all military actions constitute a war by traditional definition, and that various military incursions do not require approval of Congress.  For instance, the operational security of some strikes might be compromised if the President had to go to Congress for each relatively small action.  There is a certain truth to this, but at the same time, Congress has addressed this with the  War Powers Act, that virtually every President has ignored ever since it was passed.  There are vigorous debates over the constitutionality of that act, but what remains certain is that when it comes to declaring war, Congress is the proper authority.  Instead, the argument revolves around what constitutes a war requiring that declaration from Congress.

Congress has itself added to the confusion, by passing resolutions that “authorize the use of force” in various contexts, but they have not issued an “resolution of war” since 1941.  If Congress is going to assert its authority, it has a long line of precedents it established by its own intransigence or malingering in the last seventy or so years since it last summoned the will to declare war.  This has been part of the case that previous presidents have made with respect to Congressional objections in the last four or five decades.

On the other hand, if the Congress actually passes Congressman Jones’ resolution, this might signal the willingness of Congress to take a more fundamentally active role in the foreign and military affairs of the nation. While all presidents would prefer a Congress to act as rubber-stamps for their foreign and military affairs agenda, the fact is that President Obama has been governing wildly outside the norm as commander-in-chief, and his intransigence to long-standing American foreign policy interests is a sore spot in many quarters.  His willingness to abandon allies, or support former enemies is a troubling development, and this may be leading Congress to finally re-examine its largely inactive role in that part of the policy arena. Here is the complete wording of the resolution:

Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a president without prior and clear authorization of an act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.

Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a president without prior and clear authorization of an act of Congress violates Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under Article I, Section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.

Readers should bear in mind that any such resolution, to carry any force, would need to be approved by the  House and the Senate, but that would require the resolution being brought up for a vote.  That would effectively require Speaker John Boehner(R-OH) to be in favor of it, or at least willing to put it up for a vote, and I suspect this may not be the case.  Boehner has long avoided controversial maneuvers simply because he wants to avoid the possible political fall-out, meaning in too many cases, he has been unwilling to do that which is right in favor of that which he can do in relative political safety. More importantly, it would have to come to a vote in the Senate, and there’s virtually no chance of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D-NV) would ever permit that.  This strangely means that Boehner might be willing to bring it up for a vote, since he knows it would go nowhere in the Senate.  That would merely continue the trend of Congress doing nothing to sustain its own power in foreign and military affairs, and that’s what readers should expect.

 

Obama For America Takes Swipe At Sarah Palin and Conservatives

Monday, March 12th, 2012

Obama's Goon Squad

This is pathetic.  One could scarcely write a more predictable script for the sorts of things to which the Obama campaign would resort in trying to win the 2012 election.  Here, they’ve created a video ad aimed at trying to ramp up racial divisions, and the irony is that they feature a clip of former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin addressing that very issue during a recent Hannity appearance.  Predictably, the Obama-drones tried to flip it, but frankly, I think this ad actually will work against them. Their intention is to portray Sarah Palin and the conservatives who support her as some how racially intolerant is a lie that smacks of the LBJ campaign of 1964 versus Barry Goldwater, but I think this demonstrates who it is the Obama administration really fears:  Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, and constitutional conservatives.

Here’s the video:

The ad closes by saying “these attacks are wrong and dangerous.  If you’re tired of it, do something.”  This ad constitutes a threat, and one could say that it borders on incitement.  One can only imagine the sort of thing this group of radicals is trying to incite, virtually proving Governor Palin’s point within a span of seconds.  You can’t run an ad like this and not know that it’s going to create some sort of backlash.  This advertisement actually makes Sarah Palin’s point for her.

There’s something disturbing about the radicalism that is expressed by this ad.  It’s veiled threat is a latent call to indefinite action of an indeterminate nature.  There’s no description of the “something” people should “do,” but merely a call to “do something.”  What?  Let’s be blunt:  The Obama administration is full of radicals, and Obama for America is full of radicals, including the sort of folks who thought that bombing government targets in the early 1970s was insufficient. Remember, Bill Ayers, rather than apologizing for his terrorist behaviors, said he wishes he had done more.  These are the sorts of radicals with whom Obama has surrounded himself.

Here, an ad that features Governor Palin decrying the divisiveness and radicalism of the Obama administration is actually used to incite more, and more of an unknown sort, although we can guess.  With the Occupy Wall Street movement having been unmasked as a front for the Obama-Soros push for a radical social state, with mayhem and violence throughout the protests, and with Frances Fox Piven declaring that it’s going to get ugly, I don’t think there’s any doubt but that this video constitutes an incitement to violence of some sort.

______________________________________________________________________________________

Glenn Beck Abandons Rick Santorum

Sunday, March 11th, 2012

Beck Jumps Ship

I’ve been waiting for Beck to say this for some time, and I think it’s been part of his plan all along. While he supported Michele Bachmann, and then Rick Santorum, if you watched the coverage he gave to all of the candidates, you might have noticed that he was reluctant to criticize Mitt Romney. There are those who believe this comes down to the Mormon faith he shares with Mitt Romney, but I’m not sure it’s quite that simple. On Friday evening, he appeared on FNC’s O’Reilly Factor to say that it’s time to be done with the primaries, and that Santorum and the others should get out in order to give Romney an unfettered run to the general election.

Here’s the video, courtesy Mediaite:

I couldn’t possibly disagree more. I really don’t understand how with Santorum challenging Romney closely, Beck can justify walking away. He mentions the numerical impossibility, but that’s a lot of hogwash if you examine things closely. It’s entirely possible for Romney to stumble, and for Santorum to pick it up, or even for Newt Gingrich to rise back to the top, and Beck’s position in this seems at least somewhat self-defeating if we are to believe he has supported Santorum since Bachmann’s withdrawal.

From my point of view, it appears that Beck’s support of Santorum wasn’t all that strong from the start, and he seemed to be moving in Romney’s direction all along. A number of conservatives have questioned this change in Beck, and it’s really a bit disturbing, but Beck will likely discount such talk as “conspiracy theories.” It will be interesting to see who else caves and goes along with the Romney ticket before the outcome is clear. After all, much of the whining at present is based on the notion that a brokered convention would be a disaster for the party, and thus the country.

I don’t believe that. I think the Republican party could stand the cleansing provided by a good floor battle. It would likely lead to either a real moment of unification or a moment that will lead to what I see as the inevitable split in the party. The problem is that false unity will not provide victory, and the proof of that was in 1976, when the party suffered a defeat after conservatives had a dishonest theme of unity shoved down their throats. It took them another four years to get their act together, and for the conservatives to take over the party, but the result was Ronald Reagan presidency.

Some argue that we can’t afford four more years of Obama, because the country might well collapse under the weight of his maladministration. I am inclined to agree, and that’s why I believe it is more important than ever that when the GOP nominates a candidate to face Barack Obama, that such a candidate must be up to a real fight, and must be able to draw distinctions between the GOP and the Democrats in clear terms. I don’t think a contrived unity will accomplish that, but if Mitt Romney is the nominee, we may indeed find ourselves faking it come November, and while fakes and frauds may win as Democrats, it’s not going to work on conservative Republicans. Too many will simply stay home in disgust, and I won’t blame them.

The Obama Volt – Video(Humor)

Friday, March 9th, 2012

Change?

Somebody did me the kindness of forwarding me this video, created by Ben Howe.  It’s clever and straight to the point.  Best of all, it was good for a laugh. It’s a short video that makes a point about the entire Chevy Volt fiasco through the lens of we who have been shafted to pay for it. If you’re an Obama fan, or simply an environmentalist who believes in all of this “green energy” nonsense, you may not want to watch. Hopefully, sane Americans will find it entertaining.

Enjoy:

Chevy Volt – Building a Better Tomorrow from Ben Howe on Vimeo.

 

 

Sarah Palin on Hannity Thursday

Friday, March 9th, 2012

Sarah Palin on Hannity

Governor Palin appeared on Fox News with Sean Hannity on Thursday evening.  They discussed a wide range of topics, including the controversy over the Barack Obama Campaign’s unwillingness to urge an Obama SuperPAC to return a million dollars donated by Bill Maher in light of his long history of misogynist remarks over the years, including some aimed at Governor Palin and other women, including Rep.Michele Bachmann (R-MN).  This highlights the hypocrisy on the left, as they continue to pummel Rush Limbaugh for remarks that are tame by comparison to anything Maher has said.

The video is in two segments:

In the second segment, Hannity asked Governor Palin about the Breitbart tape:

Obama Says Energy Costs Beyond His Control; Not So Fast

Thursday, March 8th, 2012

Something Stinks

Barack  Obama has been on the campaign trail mocking Republicans, particularly Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin(although not by name,) who advocate an energy policy of increasing domestic energy production.  This is a bit odd, because while Obama mocks “Drill Baby, Drill,” he has already undertaken policies with the same effect in mind.  If increasing the supply can have no effect on prices, as the President claims, why did he order a release from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve late last summer?  It’s now rumored that he will soon do so again in response to rising pump prices.  Does Barack Obama think we’re idiots?  Releasing oil from the SPR merely accomplishes the same thing as producing more oil domestically:  It provides more crude oil to the market, and that bump in supply tends to bring prices down over time.

Either Barack Obama doesn’t understand basic economics, or he thinks we’re too stupid to notice the contradiction implicit in the difference between his words and his actions.  Here’s what he’s saying:

 

 

Notice that he continues the lie about the so-called “hand-outs” to “Big Oil.”  You may hear his thesis that “there’s no silver bullet,” but what you must understand is that he fully understands that the silver bullet is supply, and when he has order releases from the SPR, it’s an acknowledgement of the fact that an increase in the supply available to the market is a downward pressure on prices.  This is pretty basic, and I assume even President Obama understands that concept, despite frequently demonstrating a a general ignorance of economics.  If he knows better, then there must be a reason he’s misstating the facts in this case, and there is:  He’s in political hot water over the issue, and he knows it.

This is his attempt to stave off criticisms over escalating fuel prices, but it’s not going to work when the electorate realizes that in other ways, Obama is working to constrict the supply of oil available to the United States.  On Thursday, even Mitch McConnell seemed to get it, and from the well of the Senate, he pointed out that Barack Obama is still obstructing the Keystone XL pipeline, and all of the jobs it would create, and the effect it would have on pump prices domestically:

 

 

Unloading On The Campaign Trail

This is a plain debunking of Barack Obama’s thesis, and Obama knows it.  You can’t expect fuel prices to come down so long as you’re restricting the growth of exploration and development of new productive fields.  Why does Saudi Arabia, in particular, but OPEC in particular regulate its production?  The answer is obvious: To prop up the prices oil brings in the market.  They intentionally restrict supply, and what increased production of domestic oil resources will do is to take away the ability of Saudi Arabia and other OPEC nations to effectively dominate the question of global supply delivered to the market.   Doing so will begin to have an immediate effect, as the oil market, like any other sees dramatic moves on the basis of even small marginal changes in the quantity supplied relative to demand.

Obama can’t talk his way out of this one, and worse, he’s been caught lying. You can’t legitimately claim that to increase  supply won’t effect prices while having undertaken measures to artificially prop up supply in order to drive down prices.  This is the nature of Barack Obama’s dishonesty, and it’s all political. I leave you with this:

Update: I just received this link via email. It’s a story on RightScoop, same basic subject.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Video Flashback: Thomas Sowell Compares Derrick Bell to Adolph Hitler

Thursday, March 8th, 2012

Thomas Sowell

Breitbart has managed to dig up a small segment from C-Span2’s Book TV, in which Thomas Sowell is asked about Derrick Bell by interviewer Brian Lamb on the question of what sort of ideology Derrick Bell was pushing at the time.  The interview is from May, 1990, when Bell was using his radical approach of protest and occupy to try to force the administration of Harvard University to hire a professor based on whether that professor accepts the ideological viewpoints of Bell, at the time, a tenured professor at Harvard Law.  This is a stunning interview, inasmuch as Sowell was will to go so far as to compare Bell to Hitler.  If you’re familiar with Dr. Sowell, you’ll know that he doesn’t throw such comparisons around in jest, or thoughtlessly.

Here’s the video:

I think this demonstrates that even as early as 1990, in the same time-frame in which Bell was Barack Obama’s mentor, Bell’s Critical Race Theory wasn’t considered merely controversial, but radical, and this is the ideology Barack Obama was recommending when he embraced Bell, saying:

“Open your hearts and open your minds to the words of Prof. Derrick Bell.” -Barack Obama(Video Here)

To pretend that Derrick Bell wasn’t a radical, or that the philosophy of law he professed wasn’t controversial is a ridiculous position, but since the unveiling of the Obama-Bell video Wednesday evening, the media has been doing all it can to downplay its importance. In this case, Sowell was condemning Bell’s ideological bigotry, that demanded a complete agreement among faculty and students. This should be interesting because at the time, he was one of Obama’s mentors.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

What the Breitbart Video Reveals

Thursday, March 8th, 2012

On Wednesday evening, Breitbart.com revealed a video on Hannity that provides clear proof of Barack Obama’s radical ties.  In this case, the radical in question is Professor Derrick Bell, who was the first African-American to obtain tenure as a Law Professor at Harvard University.  He was also a radical, and ideological model for Barack Obama.  The most important thing to note may be that the video was hidden through the 2008 presidential campaign so that Barack Obama would never be called to answer for the association with Prof. Bell.  The reason they wanted to hide it is clear:  It shows a warm embrace between an acolyte and a mentor, the former showing his love and devotion to the latter.

Here’s a clip from Breitbart:

This video is just the first installment of what promises to be a heavy season of vetting for Mr. Obama if Breitbart’s crew is able to pull this off in the wake of Andrew Breitbart’s death.  So far, Joel Pollak and the rest of the staff writers have been churning out work with a remorselessly driven, dedicated fervor.  I think Andrew Breitbart assembled one of the best outfits in the business, despite critics who have tried everything possible to discredit the organization.  I expect it will worsen.  In this case, BuzzFeed actually released a highly-edited version of the video hours ahead of the release, all to give a chance to cause it to be covered differently than it might have been.  It was a way of trying to soften its impact.

This is hardly the last bit of video we will see from Breitbart.com in vetting Barack Obama.  Andrew may be gone, but his fighting spirit lives on in all the wonderful folks there who seek to bring you all the important news few outlets in the mainstream media will cover.

Occupiers: No “True Democracy” While Capitalism Continues – They’re Right!

Wednesday, March 7th, 2012

Anti-Capitalist Stephen Lerner

Andrew Breitbart managed to get his hands on some video of an Occupy strategy session, and in this video, SEIU skunk Stephen Lerner says that there can be no co-existence of Capitalism and “True Democracy.” Here’s the problem, and it’s one patriotic Americans need to grasp: Occupy is right. Now, before you go off the deep end to suggest that I’m losing my mind, because in this case, I agree with Occupy Wall Street, I would like you to watch the video. It’s important to understand what they’re saying so I can explain to you why they are right.

Here’s the video:

The problem we have is that most Americans have been mis-educated to believe that the United States is a democracy. It’s not. It never has been, and it was never supposed to be a democracy. Democracy is merely organized mob-rule under color of law. The United States was constituted as a representative republic, as demonstrated by the words of our own founding document, the US Constitution, in Article IV, Section 1:

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government“(emphasis added)

This is a part of our constitution that is often ignored, and one that is often side-stepped by leftists because they cannot tolerate the notion that we have a republican form of government by design, and by the intentions of our framers. They understood that democracy was a horrid wrecking machine that destroys individual liberty, and is ever the precursor to tyranny. What a democracy ultimately permits, but what a representative republic is structured to forbid is the voting away of rights of some minority, including the smallest minority that is an individual. The whole purpose of the strong requirements on amending the constitution, or replacing it via a constitutional convention is specifically to make the destruction of individual rights exceedingly difficult.

What we have seen over the last century is a concerted effort to turn the US into a democracy of sorts. Capitalism cannot operate where there are not strong protections of individual rights, including the right to property, or one’s sovereignty in the marketplace. What Stephen Lerner and the rest of the Occupy Wall Street crowd understand is that there can be no “true democracy” while capitalism still lives. In short, it’s a recognition of the fact that the mob-rule that is implicit in democracy is prohibited in order to make capitalism possible.

What makes capitalism work is that you have the right to your property, exclusively, with no valid claim upon it by society at large. That’s why the income tax was pawned off on the American people with the 16th Amendment almost a century ago: The idea was to wreck your legitimate hold over your own property. In order to redistribute your wealth, they first needed the legal authority to take it, and that was the entire purpose of the 16th Amendment. Once they had a method by which to steal your wealth, they needed the ability to make it easier to redistribute it, and so the 17th Amendment was passed, providing for direct election of Senators, turning them into a more democratic institution. From that moment on, the character of American government began changing from a representative republic into a democracy as a precursor to a police-state.

What Lerner and the other Occupiers in this clip have understood is that in order to have the police and welfare state they want, they must first destroy your liberties, and that one of the reasons you will fight them is because you know that without them, capitalism, the means of your existence, cannot last. Last fall, I received a number of comments here from Occupy-sympathetic posters who assured me that OWS is not anti-capitalist. Guess again. This video proves it, and it does so very easily.

These are people who have a clear understanding of what they are after, and frankly, I think too many Americans have been intentionally mis-educated as to the proper form and function of our government precisely in order to permit these people to make such statements.  You see, they’re right, and while it may seem shocking to some who think there’s no difference, this is why Americans must begin to arm themselves with the truth.  These people are out to make us into a democracy, but that is not the form in which we were constituted.  Our nation is a constitutional, federal, representative republic.  Capitalism is only possible here because we adopted that form. This  has led to our great wealth and prosperity, but if we wish to grow it or even keep it, we will need to retain our constitutional form of government.  Occupy Wall Street understands the distinction, but if you wish to keep your country, you had better learn it, and fight for it too.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Sarah Palin: I Voted for Newt

Wednesday, March 7th, 2012

On Super Tuesday, Fox News talked to former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.  She was asked who she voted for in the GOP Primary in Alaska, and she was blunt: She voted for Newt Gingrich.  She explained her thinking, and she explained why she thought the Republican primary contest should go on.  She also referenced the behavior of the media, and its focus on other irrelevant issues, or distractions.  She pointed to the focus Newt Gingrich has placed on the energy question, and she made it clear that Barack Obama must be replaced if we are going to turn this country around.

Here’s the video:



Sandra Fluke’s Curious Activism and More Curious Recommendations

Tuesday, March 6th, 2012

Dumb Luck for the Left?

Isn’t it odd that the Democrats have been pushing this contraception theme as the means by which to derail the heated issue over the Obamacare mandate on religious institutions as a breech of their religious freedoms, and just as Rush Limbaugh stepped into the well-laid snare, the trap was sprung with a ferocity that no talk-show host should warrant, who should rise to the top but Sandra Fluke, 30 year-old Georgetown University law-school student and radical feminist advocate to catch Limbaugh off guard.  I think Rush is a target of opportunity, because I believe they were hoping Rick Santorum would get caught up in all of this.  Having failed to ensnare any of the Republican presidential hopefuls, but having managed to catch the big radio voice they would most like to destroy, they seized upon the opportunity to attack Limbaugh for his imprudent use of the words “prostitute” and “slut.”

Fluke isn’t the innocent she’s been portrayed as having been.  She’s been presented as a bit of a patsy, and a well-meaning young woman, and all of that, but the truth is that Fluke has been a radical activist for years.  In fact, her entire rationale for enrolling at Georgetown University was to try to force this fight.  She’s not some poor, helpless student who was set upon by big mean Rush Limbaugh.  By all reports, she’s a coldly-calculating left-wing conniver who is actively pursuing the goal to compel colleges and other religious institutions to cover not only contraception, but also gender reassignment surgery for transgendered people.  That’s right, Ms. Fluke is hardly some wide-eyed victim of the evil right-wing and other alleged woman-haters. Here’s an excerpt of the article at TheCollegePolitico:

The title of the article, which can be purchased in full here, is Employment Discrimination Against LGBTQ Persons and was published in the Journal’s 2011 Annual Review. I have posted a transcript of the section I will be quoting from here. In a subsection of the article entitled “Employment Discrimination in Provision of Employment Benefits” starting on page 635 of the review Sandra Fluke and her co-editor describe two forms of discrimination in benefits they believe LGBTQ individuals face in the work place:

Discrimination typically takes two forms: first, direct discrimination limiting access to benefits specifically needed by LGBTQ persons, and secondly, the unavailability of family-related benefits to LGBTQ families.

Their “prime example” of the first form of discrimination? Not covering sex change operations:

A prime example of direct discrimination is denying insurance coverage for medical needs of transgender persons physically transitioning to the other gender.

This so called “prime example” of discrimination is expounded on in a subsection titled “Gender Reassignment Medical Services” starting on page 636:

Transgender persons wishing to undergo the gender reassignment process frequently face heterosexist employer health insurance policies that label the surgery as cosmetic or medically unnecessary and therefore uncovered.

To be clear, the argument here is that employers are engaging in discrimination against their employees who want them to pay for their sex changes because their “heterosexist” health insurance policies don’t believe sex changes are medically necessary.

Additionally Sandra Fluke and her co-editor have an answer for why exactly these “heterosexist” insurance policies, and the courts that side with them, deem sex changes as medically unnecessary:

In Mario v. P & C Food Markets, Inc., an employee who was denied such coverage brought claims under the federal Employee Retirement Income Security (ERISA) and Title VII. The court rejected the ERISA claim, finding the plaintiff’s mastectomy and hormone therapy were not medically necessary. The court’s ruling was based upon controversy within the medical community regarding that treatment plan. Much of that controversy has been linked to ignorance and bias against transgender persons, and the American Medical Association has declared the lack of coverage to be discrimination.

You see, all opposition to the determination that sex changes are medically necessary, and therefor must be covered by private employer provided health insurance, is based on “ignorance and bias against transgender persons”.

This gets more absurd, as she appeared Monday on The View with the gaggle of gawking leftists(minus Elizabeth Hasselbeck, who is probably moderately conservative at best.)  Fluke rejected Limbaugh’s apology, as read in part by Barbara Walters, and when asked about Rush Limbaugh, launched into another thing and made a website recommendation.  Guess which one?  (It’s at around the 1:03 mark in the video)

Barbara Walters went out of her way to mention that this isn’t about tax-payer money, and this is somewhat true, but in fact, it’s much worse than this: It’s about compelling religious institutions to pay for coverages that are contrary to their deeply held religious views.  As bad as it would be if Fluke were merely demanding public money, what she’s actually demanding is that the First Amendment rights of religious institutions be over-ridden by her demands.  She’s worse than a welfare moocher for contraception:  She’s a full-on tyrant who doesn’t give a damn for the rights of people and institutions that will be compelled at gunpoint to provide this coverage.  In my view, this doesn’t make the case for Fluke, but merely damns her all the more.

Her recommendation of Media Matters as a source for information is troubling, because what this reveals is a hardcore radical-left activist and advocate bent on an agenda.  The longer this goes on, the more thoroughly I’ve become convinced that it’s a lefty set-up al the way, and that unsuspecting Rush Limbaugh ran headlong into it merely means this was engineered at the highest levels.  As it turns out of course, the testimony happened with Minority Leader(and former Speaker) Nancy Pelosi presiding, while Obama’s administration was pushing this desperately as they were beginning to lose ground in the polls due to the controversy over their violation of the protections of the free exercise of religion.

Now comes word that a push is ongoing in the Senate to get Rush Limbaugh off the radio altogether, and the White House has posted a link to a petition to get Limbaugh off of Armed Forces Radio, while political hack Steny Hoyer(D-MD,) runs around talking up the possibility of Fluke filing suit against Limbaugh.  I doubt such a suit would ever occur, because as Mark Levin pointed out on his show Monday evening, this would open up the matter of discovery, and soon we would find out all the details of Ms. Fluke’s personal life. I can imagine attorneys asking things like:

“Have you ever participated in the events known widely as “slut-walks?”

Of course, nobody knows the full details about Ms. Fluke’s life, never mind whether she’s ever participated in such an event, but that is the way she and the White House would probably like to keep it, because it would cause great harm to this little storm they have swirling around Rush Limbaugh, and it’s for this reason that I doubt she’d file suit.  By testifying before Congress, she’s entered into the realm of public persons by her own volition.  The standards there would be much higher, and she’d be hard-pressed to show that Limbaugh’s questions, little more than opinions, were anything more than any of the millions of other opinions issuing forth about public personae each and every day in media. In short, she’d probably lose, and for her trouble, would be placed into the position of having to air her own laundry, however clean or dirty it might be.

One thing is certain about Fluke: She’s not the poor little school-girl the media has made her out to be, and while Limbaugh probably shouldn’t have used the words he did, it’s clear to me that the left is using this to gin up another false narrative, and more, they’re continuing to push the notion that some alleged entitlement to contraception trumps religious liberties.  It’s a lie, it’s a sham, and if they expect me to forget this, they’re wrong.  Oh, and don’t expect me to abandon Limbaugh to the leftist hyenas. I’m not like those weak-kneed Republicans last seen running for the tall grass.  Not a chance.

Here’s some more interesting background on Fluke.

 

Alan Dershowitz Identifies Anti-Semitism at Media Matters

Tuesday, March 6th, 2012

Obama and Rosenberg: Tight!

Alan Dershowitz, the liberal Democrat and law professor at Harvard University has a good reason to think that Media Matters for America is harboring antisemitism within its heart. M.J. Rosenberg at Media Matters is the particular object of the Harvard professor’s ire. He has a long history of questioning the loyalties of Americans who support Israel, particularly American Jews, but I think what Prof. Dershowitz is missing in all of this is that the radical left has taken a turn toward naked antisemitism for a long while. Media Matters is part of this growing trend. I don’t think that there’s any hope that Obama will dissociate from Media Matters, or that MMfA will even dump M.J. Rosenberg as Prof. Dershowitz might like, because even more than the case of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, in this case, it’s all about ideology, and Obama will not turn his back on his radical friends.

This interview is from Fox News, with Alan Dershowitz explaining his position:

 

 

Media Matters and MJ Rosenberg are nothing but hard-left hacks, and while Dershowitz is definitely a liberal, and I certainly have my disagreements with him, on this issue, he’s spot-on, and it’s not the first time he’s been right lately. Dershowitz is cautioning Obama to place distance between himself and Media Matters, but Obama can’t do that, and it goes back to George Soros, who helped fund and launch the hack-squad over at Media Matters for America. He also helped launch Barack Obama. Obama is a Soros puppet, and so is Media Matters. Getting the two to distance themselves from one another is impossible. The President has too many friends and compatriots over at MMfA, and what Professor must know is that whatever else he may think, Obama is not his kind of liberal.

Barack Obama is a radical, and that is something one cannot say about Dershowitz. Don’t get me wrong, as Dershowitz is liberal enough, but he does not come from the same Alinskyite school of thought that gave rise to Barack Obama. Dershowitz seems to have a blind spot for some Democrats who are on the hard left fringe, not wanting to see them for what they are, but MMfA has finally gotten his attention. At this very moment, while Dershowitz complains about the lack of daylight between obama and MMfA, those two organizations are coordinating efforts along with Capitol Hill Democrats on another matter. More on that later…

    ____________________________________________________________________________________

Gingrich Speaks to the NRA – He Gets It

Monday, March 5th, 2012

Newt on the 2nd Amendment

If you missed Newt Gingrich when he addressed the National Rifle Association in mid-February, you missed a great speech.  He referenced history extensively, and explained the real meaning of the Second Amendment and its critical importance as a political right.  Gingrich did not mince words about the reason for the right to keep and bear arms, its origin, and its continuing relevance and application in our modern world.  It was encouraging to hear a politician say that he understands the new direction of the attacks on the Second Amendment being levied by the Obama administration and the institutional right.

This speech is a classic:

The idea that the Second Amendment is about hunting and target practice ignores the fact that the first purpose of the right to keep and bear arms is a political right, meant to keep government in check.  Yes, that’s right.  The idea of the founders is that by the guarantee of the Second Amendment, the American people ultimately retain the right to throw off a tyrant.  This is why every socialist on the planet, or in the history of the planet, eventually gets around to banning firearms: It’s easy to rule over disarmed peasants.  I am gratified to see that Gingrich has a thorough understanding of this aspect of our constitutional system of government.  His knowledge of history helps explain why this context is not lost on Gingrich, and it’s one of the many particulars of his candidacy that exhibits his qualifications for the job he’s seeking.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

After Hammering Gingrich, Santorum Over Earmarks, Romney Is Exposed

Sunday, March 4th, 2012

Do as He Says...

Mitt Romney’s big government reflex was revealed in a video captured by a Democrat operative back in 2002, but what makes this situation so bad is the hypocrisy it demonstrates in Mitt Romney’s attempt to win the nomination at any cost, including going after Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich for their support of various “earmarks” over the years.  In point of fact, Mitt Romney was determined to get his share of earmarks for the Salt Lake City Olypmics, bragging about it while running for Governor. In the debate in which he said every Olympics went to the Federal government for assistance in the areas of security and transportation, the truth is that he even solicited assistance from the Department of Education, and received it.

Here’s the ABC News video:

It should be obvious from all of this that Mitt Romney is every bit as hooked-in to the Washington DC process as anybody else.  The fact that Romney has never served in Washington DC is irrelevant to the fact that he has leveraged plenty of Washington connections to his advantage, including while running the Salt Lake City Olympics, but also while governor of Massachusetts, funding much of the “Romneycare” health reforms in Massachusetts with healthcare dollars from the Federal government.

It’s bad enough to be a hypocrite, but it’s even worse to do so by misleading debate audiences about the matter.  This is a significant part of the reason that I don’t accept the narrative that Mitt Romney is an anti-Washington candidate.  He’s always been willing to use Washington’s influential permanent political class to his benefit, or the benefit of whatever he’s pursuing at the time.  It’s a laughable claim, in fact, because what Romney doesn’t admit, but the record proves is that he has had his hands out for those federal earmarks while others created them.  Outsider?  Hardly.  What Mitt Romney has done in this instance is to try to have it both ways, but conservatives shouldn’t permit it.

New Mini-Movie Shows Obama’s Anti-Israeli Record

Sunday, March 4th, 2012

Friend of Israel?

This Youtube video was released in time for the AIPAC conference in Washington DC this week, by the Emergency Committee for Israel, and it highlights the despicable record Barack Obama has built in his dealings with the Israeli security issues, but also his befriending of radical anti-Israeli elements around the world.  It calls into question Obama’s sincerity on his campaign promises about the security of Israel, while pointing out that some of the President’s actions have been downright hostile.  It’s a bit lengthy, and it provides a bit of background for the narrative, but what viewers should understand is that Barack Obama and his administration have been systematically undermining Israel all along.  This sabotage of Israel clearly isn’t in the long-term interests of the United States, and it shouldn’t be ignored.

The mini-movie runs approximately thirty minutes:

I find the parade of Democrat politicians chastising Obama’s policy entertaining, if for no other reason than the remarks of Hillary Clinton last week, and what it reveals about the sincerity of their support for Israel. If nothing else, it certainly proves the point that the Obama administration isn’t playing straight with the American people, or with Israel. Barack Obama has been a disaster for US-Israeli relations, and for the prospects of peace and Israeli security.  The fact is that given another four years of his presidency, Israel will be among the biggest losers, second only to the American people.

Sarah Palin Talks to Fox News Weekend Live

Saturday, March 3rd, 2012

Governor Sarah Palin appeared on FoxNews on Weekend Live.  She discussed the field of contenders, and whether she would get out and campaign for the GOP nominee if that happened to be Mitt Romney.  They talked briefly about the HBO fiction called Game Change, and her PAC’s response to it with a video.   Then she was asked about whether she would accept a GOP nominee’s offer of the Vice Presidential spot on the ticket, and she threw a name into the hat for consideration as the GOP’s Vice Presidential nominee that many of you will find quite interesting.

Watch the video:

What Hillary Revealed About Democrats’ Real Thoughts on Israel

Friday, March 2nd, 2012

Friend of Israel?

When America isn’t watching closely, or the event in question appears well away from the bulk of domestic media, occasionally one of the left’s officials will slip up and show their true face.  If you listen to what Democrats in Congress and in the Obama administration say about Israel, you would think they support Israel, and are fine friends of the Jewish state.  The lavish oaths of friendship upon Israel, and swear they have no bigger supporter than the Democrat Party.  That is, if you can believe them.  Ordinarily, it’s tough to prove, but in this case, one of their own has put her big foot in her mouth, all without the help of her slick former-President husband.  None other than Secretary of State Hillary Rodham-Clinton has made a statement that reveals the truth about her party.  Watch this short video:

That’s right.  In this video, when asked by somebody in the audience about the state of politics in the US, and how it is that any Muslims from around the world could trust either party, since both seem to support their enemy, Israel, Mrs. Clinton gives a stunningly honest answer.  For those Americans of any persuasion who had thought the Democrats a friend of Israel, I want you to decipher her answer, because it was clearly intended to intimate a dark secret, and that is that what politicians say in public is one thing, but what they believe may be something else entirely.

Surely you understand that this confirms what I have told you about how the radical left has taken over the Democrat party, and how they now practice an institutional antisemitism that blows kisses to Jews in public, while undercutting Israel ferociously in private.  They view Israel as a problem to be dealt with, and if you’re wise, you’ll realize that historically, this is far from the first time the Jews have been regarded as a “problem” to be solved.  Let’s not beat around the bush about it:  The left hates Israel, and it’s partly because they see a potential ally in the Muslim world, and partly because they view Israel as the obstacle to that alliance.

Just as in the Cold War, Teddy Kennedy was willing to participate in secret talks with Soviet leaders in order to undercut President Reagan, the left will makes it friends anywhere they believe will advance their agenda.  Currently, they look to the Islamic world as another source of support, which is why they have linked up with militant Islamists in some cases, in the furtherance of the so-called “Arab Spring,” but also in support of the so-called “Palestineans.”  What Secretary Clinton describes in her too-candid answer is the mechanism of carrying out a ruse. In public, they must continue to support Israel, for now, but in terms of our actual foreign policy, we are currently very much pro-Islam.

The hardcore left has been pushing in this direction for many years, decades in fact, and what you quickly realize is that they have merely transformed their animosity.  These same America-hating leftists have simply identified Israel as a domino that must fall in order to finally vanquish America.  Once they realized this, it was only a matter of time until they began to form strategic alliances with a militant Islam that views Israel as the Lesser Satan and America as the Great one.  I read an interesting posting on Tammy Bruce’s site by a guest contributor named Shifra, self-described as a Jew who discovered the universe of leftists’ rage against Israel.

While I’m not Jewish, it comports well with my own knowledge and observations, but more importantly, it reveals how the American left has slowly adopted positions that are now not only antagonistic toward Israel, but hostile to Jewry in general.  For this reason, the only reason I am surprised about Hillary Clinton’s remark is that she would leave that implication hanging so publicly.  The institutional left, of which Hillary is the queen bee, with her Soros-funded career, and her Soros-funded boss, is armed to the teeth with a rage she dare not exhibit.  She can only make not-so-subtle intimations in public, but what is hidden behind the facial expression is the coldly-calculated leftist who knows what expressions in public are too much, and will hurt the cause.  Hillary walked all over that line here, but you should view it as an opportunity to demonstrate the point.

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Video Reminder of the Tea Party’s Fight – Video

Friday, March 2nd, 2012

Time to Take America Back

I’ve attached a video to this post as a reminder of the things our departed friend Andrew Breitbart had supported, because while he has passed, the movement he defended and supported goes on.  The Tea Party is still here, and conservatives are still here, so why don’t we take a moment to remind ourselves of where we were just two years ago.  This video went viral at the time of its initial posting on Youtube, but let us not forget this as part of our modern Tea Party heritage.  It’s easy to become dispirited, and it’s easy to forget how much worse others have had it.  It’s time to kick some ass, and we do so, we should remember why we fight:

SarahPAC’s “Game Change” Video Response

Thursday, March 1st, 2012

SarahPAC has released a video that is a video rebuttal to the idiocy that is the movie “Game Change” from HBO. The video takes on the narrative about and portrayal of former Alaska Governor and Republican Vice Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin and debunks it by simply displaying the truth.  That’s the only debunking that ridiculous movie needs: Facts. We should remember that HBO’s trashing of Sarah Palin is fiction.  Purely.

This video delivers the reality: