Sunday, June 10, 2012

First Lady Denies Photo ID Hypocrisy


Semi-News/Semi-Satire ^ | 8 June 2012 | John Semmens



The Obama Administration may be going all-out to prevent states from requiring photo IDs from those voting, but Michelle Obama is fine with imposing a photo ID requirement on those attending her book signings. Those wishing to attend book-signing events featuring the First Lady must buy her book—American Grown: The Story of the White House Kitchen Garden and Gardens Across America—and present a valid photo ID.

“There’s no hypocrisy,” Press Secretary Jay Carney maintained. “Comparing voting and visiting with the First Lady is like comparing apples and oranges. Voting is a right that may not be infringed. Meeting the First Lady is a privilege that can be withheld from anyone for any reason.”

Carney characterized requiring photo IDs for voting as “clearly unwarranted. Voting is a basic human right. No human should be barred from it based on trivial concerns over identity or place of residence.

The only thing a poll worker should be asked to ascertain is whether he is giving a ballot to a human being. This standard is simple and straightforward. Anyone can make it and it assures that everyone’s human right to vote is preserved.”

if you missed any of this week's other semi-news posts you can find them at...
http://azconservative.org/2012/06/09/president-says-private-sector-is-doing-fine/

SUDDENLY, MANY WAYS FOR ROMNEY TO REACH 270 ELECTORAL VOTES!

 
Big Government ^ | June 10, 2012 | by JOEL B. POLLAK



The Obama campaign wants to make the 2012 contest a “choice” between its candidate and the Republican party; the Romney campaign wants to make the vote a referendum on Barack Obama. Mitt Romney is laying low, letting the election revolve around Obama--and winning. While his campaign pushes back against Obama and the mainstream media, Romney is shaking hands on the trail--and winning support in key swing states.

At the outset, Romney’s path to victory seemed a narrow one. It was universally agreed that the 2012 contest would be fought in roughly ten swing states. But Obama’s weak economic performance, and Romney’s quietly effective campaign, has narrowed the field of play. It is now reasonable to imagine that Romney will win in North Carolina and Florida--two states that Obama won in 2008 and that he will likely lose this time around.

(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...

You know who’s really ‘doing fine’ under Obama?’


The American ^ | June 8,2012 | James Pethokoukis



“The private sector is doing fine” – Barack Obama, June 8, 2012.

There’s a deeper issue here than just Obama being thoughtlessly glib about the slow-growth nature of the U.S. economic recovery. (In an earlier post, by the way, I highlighted some of the ways in which the private sector is most certainly not “doing fine.”)

No wonder there’s been so little sense of urgency by the Obama White House to cut the sky-high corporate tax rate or so little consideration given to the impact on small business of letting the Bush tax cuts expire. The private sector is “doing fine,” after all. Unintended consequences? What are those?
Approve the Keystone pipeline? Why? The environment comes first, especially at a time when the private sector is “doing fine.”
Indeed, it seems that Obama thinks the only big flaw in the Obama recovery is that government isn’t hiring enough public union members. Everybody else is “doing fine.”
You know who really is doing fine? Washington. Federal spending is at record levels. Of course, it’s easy to be “doing fine” when you can just keep taxing the private sector. As Ben Bernanke joked yesterday, “A trillion here, a trillion there …”
But the real economy? It’s not doing fine at all.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.american.com ...

New Rules for Bill Maher's Mets





Now that Bill Maher has obtained a minority interest in the NY Mets, surely there will be some changes made to bring the team in line with what is most important to Bill. Rumor has it, these changes are under consideration: ;-)
All employees will receive equal pay, from management to players to ticket takers.
No player will be allowed to have greater accomplishments than any other. If a pitcher throws a no-hitter, he must not do so again until all the other pitchers have also done it.
All genders, ethnicities, races, and sexual preferences will be equally represented on the team's roster. At least half the team must be women.
All ticket prices will be the same for all seats.
The best seats will be given to the poorest fans. Bring proof of government benefits with you to the game.
The line-up for each game will be decided by a vote of those present in the stadium prior to the game.
No animal products, peanuts, sugary drinks, or alcohol will be served during games so as not to offend or upset anyone.
Christians, fans and players, will not be allowed to wear or display any sign of their religion. Muslims, however, are welcome to stop games at any time and go onto the field for prayer. The direction of Mecca will be prominently displayed.
Every member of the team will have an equal number of at bats. Batting order will be determined by lottery prior to each game.
If the opposing team commits an error, the Mets' player who plays that same position must make an error in the subsequent inning.
All games must end in a tie in order to preserve equality of results.
If the Mets make a profit, it must be shared equally with every other team in the league.
The Mets will not participate in the All Star Game, the playoffs, or the World Series because some players and teams are excluded from these events.

Our Republic Depends on the Revival of Honor!


Townhall.com ^ | June 10, 2012 | Gina Loudon



An excerpt from Ladies and Gentlemen: Why the Survival of Our Republic Depends on the Revival of Honor, by Dr. Gina Loudon and Dr. Dathan Paterno.
Lady and gentleman are somewhat familiar terms, for sure. We hear them from magicians and carnival emcees. Billboard advertising manipulates those words into a twisted description of strip clubs. We sometimes view examples of them on quaint Hallmark films. Our children even study literary characters with these names (e.g., Lady Macbeth).
But rarely do we hear the terms used to teach or uphold virtues. When was the last time you heard a parent say to a child, “That was not very ladylike” or “Hold the door open like a gentleman, son”? When was the last time anyone heard a politician or actor referred to as a “true gentleman” or an actress’s behavior mentioned as “ladylike”? How many television programs lift up virtuous young men and women while decrying their polar opposites?
Modern culture is more desperate than ever for a return to solid character with uniform, universal virtues. Our nation is starved for male and female models of virtue. Recall the Michael Jordan commercial with the tagline “Be like Mike.” Right idea, wrong model. Sure, Michael Jordan inspired many to desire excellence, fame, and financial success. But he inspired few to behave with virtue (one could argue that he inspired the opposite).
Parents wander in a wilderness of disparate parenting techniques and philosophies, without adequate terms to refer to or ideals to emu- late. Mothers lack commitment to behaving like ladies; our culture does not inspire them to exhibit ladylike virtues.
And why would they? Where are these virtues modeled and glorified? Certainly not in popular magazines or television shows. Certainly not on YouTube. Certainly not in their social circles, where peers could encourage, reward, and model female virtue with the dual goals of personal satisfaction and bequeathing their values and character to their daughters.
Fathers are performing no better in this regard. Normally the parent responsible for more direct instruction of values and virtues, fathers are by and large neglecting this solemn duty. Some fathers, of course, have indeed become more involved in their children’s lives; they now bear some of the everyday burdens of driving, helping with homework, and sharing household chores. But they are quite often taking a backseat in the discipline of their children.
The inevitable consequence is that fathers are inadvertently training their children to perceive themselves as entitled, overly free autocrats. The results have been disastrous.
A generous perception of Hollywood would view them as complicit in the devolution of the American character. The unfiltered reality, however, is that they have been waging a directed assault on virtue. They seem to live under the crude assumption that moviegoers are not interested in heroes and heroines of virtue. Clearly, the vast majority of popular films centers on amoral themes or glorifies characters whose virtues are deplorable at best.
The political climate is rife with dialogue about civility, but we lack leaders who not only model civility and other virtues but the moral platform with which to demand it. There are exceptions, to be sure—some of whom we will mention throughout this book—but the overall tone of politics serves as a poor model for both national and personal virtue.
Imagine if parents, teachers, politicians, media personalities, and artists utilized the same terms to describe virtuous behavior. Imagine if they agreed to uphold and emulate models of these virtues. Imagine if they utilized the same terms to describe these ideals and the men and women who lived them.
Imagine if parents spoke with each other about the virtues they wished to instill in their children. Imagine if they encouraged each other to model these virtues and speak about them explicitly in their homes. Imagine if they praised each other when they and their children exhibited these virtues, yet lovingly rebuked each other when they frequently and inevitably failed. Imagine if Dad and Mom referred to certain parents as gentlemen or ladies. Imagine their children internalizing the desire to think and behave like these paragons of virtue.
Imagine if teachers (at private and public schools) and parents agreed to explicitly used the same language. Imagine if the education of virtue were weaved into the schools’ curricula.
Imagine if artists produced heroes whose behavior and heart made them role models for children to glorify and emulate. Imagine that these heroes were not only strong but good, kind, generous, and accountable to a higher authority. Imagine if they lived their virtues in private just as they did in public. Imagine children asking for stories about these characters and having birthday parties with themes about them.
Imagine politicians speaking to and about each other with gracious attitudes. Imagine them exhibiting true humility, admitting mistakes and ignorance. Imagine them speaking charitably about their political adversaries and chiding others from their own party who do not. Imagine them being wholly transparent about their worldview and the philosophical beliefs that inform their political positions. Imagine them with the courage to take positions that might anger a special-interest ally, even if it means evaporating financial support. Imagine that their political work reflected service of God and country far more than self.
Imagine cable television news personalities who exhibit hope, faith, and love. Imagine that the national viewership rewarded this with high ratings. Imagine that other personalities and networks followed. Imagine these personalities reinforcing each other’s efforts by referring to each other as gentleman or lady.
Our book imagines all these things. But it goes further. It believes that our culture can indeed make these things happen. We believe that individuals—parents, teachers, priests, pastors, cable television news personalities, politicians, actors, musicians, and authors—have the collective power to dramatically alter the personal, social, and political landscape. This is change we can believe in!
Ladies and Gentlemen: Why the Survival of Our Republic Depends on the Revival of Honor believes in fairy tales. This book believes that this nation was founded and made possible by the virtues and character traits found in the best, noblest fairy tales. This book recognizes that plenty of Americans believe in these virtues and long for their return. Most importantly, this book believes in a God who makes fairy tales come true.

The Choomer in Chief: Obama's Early Years on Marijuana


CelebStoner ^ | Saturday, 26 May 2012 | Staff



Pres. Obama was a pothead growing up in Hawaii. When he and his smoking buddies got high, they called it "chooming." According to a new biography about the president, Davis Maraniss' Barack Obama: The Story, Barry Obama was the head of the Choom Gang.
Barack Obama 1980The young Obama was known for his rules of marijuana engagement, such as "total absorption," which penalized premature exhaling. "Your turn was skipped the next time the joint came around," Maraniss writes.

"Roof hits" are described as, "When they were chooming in a car, all the windows had to be rolled up so no smoke blew out and went to waste. They tilted their heads back and sucked in the last bit of smoke from the ceiling."
(Excerpt) Read more at celebstoner.com ...

Burglar tries to break in Judge Lillian Sing's car {SAN FRANCISCO VALUES}


San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 6/10/12 | Phillip Matier, Andrew Ross, Chronicle Columnists



Judge Lillian Sing got a taste of judicial medicine the other day when a convicted car burglar she was trying to help walked out of her San Francisco courtroom and, within minutes, was busted for allegedly breaking into her car.

Phillip Bernard was in Community Court on Tuesday for a check of his progress while on probation for an auto burglary conviction.

Bernard, who is homeless, had missed an earlier appearance and had failed to follow his probation requirements. "I wasn't too happy with him," Sing said.

But Community Court is set up to get people help, not send them to jail for minor infractions. So Sing let him off with a stern admonishment.

"I told him he had better get into a harm reduction program and get going with a job search," Sing said.
No sooner did Sing's gavel go down, however, than Bernard exited the Polk Street courtroom, went around to the alley in back, pulled out a weighted sock and smashed the rear passenger window of a car, police said.

As fate would have it, a couple of beat cops were passing by. They nabbed Bernard, ran the car's plate and bingo - up popped the judge's name.


"He did it right under my nose," Sing said.


Bernard, 32, is now back behind bars, facing another auto burglary charge.
His next court date is Tuesday, this time in Superior Court.
As for this validating those who say Community Court is just a revolving door for petty criminals like Bernard?
"He's just one of 1,600 we deal with," Sing said. "Most of them do really well."
Maybe - but this is the one who is going to be remembered.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...

Move over, Wisconsin -- the union battle is beginning in California


Sacramento Bee ^ | 6/10/12 | Jon Ortiz



Labor unions and business interests have been quietly raising millions of dollars and testing campaign messages for months, girding for a brawl over a November ballot measure that could fundamentally shift political power in Sacramento.
Now, on the heels of an election that saw unions handed a major defeat last week in Wisconsin, the opposing camps in California soon will launch a campaign battle likely to consume $50 million or more in political spending.
"Unions have just two channels of influence," said Daniel J.B. Mitchell of the Anderson Graduate School of Management at UCLA, "collective bargaining and the political side, so this initiative is extremely important to them."
The measure, which has not yet received a proposition number, would ban both unions and corporations from contributing directly to candidates, although both sides could still freely spend money on their own independent efforts.
Another provision forbids both sides from using money gathered from payroll deductions for political purposes. It promises to gut the power of labor unions because they raise nearly all of their money for political and other purposes via payroll-deducted dues from their members' paychecks.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...

Crony Capitalism and President Obama: How the System Really Works


Townhall.com ^ | June 10, 2012 | Marita Noon



President Obama’s attacks on Romney’s record while at Bain Capital have opened the window on what is being called “Obama’s public equity record”—with Romney’s surprise news conference in front of failed solar manufacturer Solyndra and new campaign ads bringing the Obama administration’s record into the spotlight. Suddenly the “green jobs” record is being carefully examined and “giving taxpayer money to big donors, and then watching them lose it” is back in the news.

In his book, Throw Them All Out, Peter Schweizer says: “These programs might be the greatest—and most expensive—example of crony capitalism in American history. Tens of billions of dollars went to firms controlled or owned by fundraisers, bundlers, and political allies, many of whom—surprise!—are now raising money for Obama again.”

We understand that “crony capitalism” involves helping those who have helped you; “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours.” But the simple term crony capitalism belies the evil, corrupt nature associated with the actual process. Crony capitalism goes way beyond helping your friends, your cronies. It is a twisted, orchestrated plan that rewards the cronies and costs the taxpayer, while punishing the average citizen.

It may take years of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to uncover the depth of President Obama’s crony capitalism, but we can get a glimpse of how it is done and what it costs us through a new book, Governor Richardson and Crony Capitalism, which meticulously chronicles the crony capitalism of one of Obama’s cronies: former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson—President Obama’s original pick for the Secretary of Commerce post.
Governor Richardson and Crony Capitalism is a little book. It can be read in an hour. It addresses just one aspect of Governor Richardson’s crony capitalism—but it covers it thoroughly, with nearly as many pages of footnotes and documentation as story. I didn’t write the book, but I did have a bit part. I filed a couple of the FOIA requests and picked up some of the documentation. When I read the manuscript, I knew this was a story everyone needed to read—not so much because everyone needs to know about New Mexico, but because everyone needs to understand how the system really works.
New Mexico is a poor state, on the bottom of about every list—except for drunk driving (where we are on the top). Governor Richardson and Crony Capitalism, documents just one rule—not even a law—that Richardson appointees, heads of state agencies (think EPA), inflicted on the state’s most economically important industry: oil and gas. With color photos, charts and graphs, the author, Harvey E. Yates, through Governor Richardson and Crony Capitalism demonstrates how the “pit-rule” has cost the state $6 billion in overall revenues, and the state and local governments, specifically, $1 billion. Remember New Mexico is a poor state, and the rule chronicled in the book, the pit-rule, is just one rule that favored one of Richardson’s friends. Similar actions likely played out over-and-over by a governor with higher aspirations. Similar actions likely continue to play out in the Obama White House with bigger numbers.
Johnny Cope was a long-time friend of Bill Richardson who the newly-elected Governor intended to appoint to an important position in his administration. (Note: the definition of cronyism is “Favoritism shown to old friends without regard for their qualifications, as in political appointments to office.”) Cope owned a financially troubled business: Controlled Recovery Inc. (CRI) which serviced the oil industry through oil field remediation and waste management. At the time of Richardson’s election in 2002, CRI was near worthless and struggling, yet in 2006 CRI was sold for $10 million.
CRI grew to include a fleet of trucks and round-the-clock operations in just four years. Along the way, CRI got regulatory preference, uncooperative officials were removed, CRI’s business was increased, and its competitors were eliminated through agency orders. Official filings show that, on six specific occasions, Cope made substantial donations—or raised donations—totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars to Richardson, which coincided with critical regulatory events.
Pit-rule 17 was proposed in March 2006—the same month Cope's companies donated $70,000 to Richardson's re-election campaign. This statewide rule virtually required that all drilling waste from new drill sites be transported to an approved disposal facility. But in 2004, the Richardson administration had made the CRI facility exempt from tough new regulations on oil field waste landfills and oil sludge recovery facilities, such that CRI had a huge advantage over its few remaining competitors. Effectively, the oil and gas industry had to pay CRI for the privilege of drilling new wells in New Mexico.
(On a national level, we have what could be called “crony environmentalism.” Laws and regulations, which should apply to everybody, are waived for the favored few. For example, the oil and gas industry is hauled into court if a migratory bird happens to die in an oil pit, but the thousands of birds—including protected eagles—killed by wind turbines are actually authorized.)
In the years prior to the pit-rule draft release, New Mexico’s drilling rig count closely paralleled the neighboring oil-and-gas states of Oklahoma, Texas, and Colorado. However, after March 2006, New Mexico’s rig count started trending downward and fell below Colorado’s for the first time in more than a decade—costing New Mexico lost jobs, and severance and royalty income.
Chapter 1, Overview, starts with “Environmentalists eagerly claim fatherhood of the pit-rule. However, a close examination of the evidence leads to the conclusion that, while environmentalists indeed were useful midwives in the delivery of the pit-rule, cronies of former Governor Richardson sired the rule.” Chapter 6, The Price We Paid, ends with these words: “Such is the legacy of a Crony Capitalist enterprise. The losers were the state’s public education system, state employees, the state infrastructure, and generally, the citizens of the state. If the environmental community wishes to assume part of the responsibility for the loss to the state because of its role of midwife of pit-rule 17, that is probably appropriate.”
Governor Richardson left the state with a budget deficit. Yet he was somehow able to have plenty of campaign cash to launch his presidential run. Governor Susana Martinez took on the deficit. She put different people in charge of the agencies and changed the policies. Instead of using regulations as a hammer, they are now used as a guideline. The industry with New Mexico’s single largest economic impact is coming back. Nationally the economy is still in crisis, yet in one year, the New Mexico state budget has gone from deficit to surplus.
There is an obvious parallel with the New Mexico story and the national one. Governor Richardson and President Obama seem to be cut from the same ideological cloth. They hurt the industry that has the ability to help—if not fix—economic woes while making policy decisions that help their friends at the expense of the tax-paying citizens, often under the cover of environmentalism. Yates’ Governor Richardson and Crony Capitalism shows how it was done in New Mexico through the tight, single story of the pit-rule. The reader can easily extrapolate it out to the national stage.
Additionally, Governor Richardson and Crony Capitalism offers activists a lesson in the power of FOIA. There are surely similar stories being played out in other states where winners are picked and others are punished while the person in power laughs all the way to the bank.
In New Mexico, we elected a new governor who doesn’t share Governor Richardson’s ideology, and, in one year, the state budget went from a deficit to a surplus. On a national level, the problem is bigger than that of my poor state, but the results of a change at the top—and therefore, a change in the various agency heads—could well produce similar results for America.

Sheila Jackson Lee Declares Rodney King a 'Great Philosopher'


American Thinker ^ | June 10, 2012 | M Catharine Evans



On Friday in response to a Fox News reporter's question about Obamacare, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), a University of Virginia Law graduate, invoked the name of Rodney King calling him a "great philosopher."

Not since Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) expressed concern that the addition of 8,000 service personnel and their families onto the island of Guam might cause it to tip over have Americans heard such moronic craziness.

Do we really pay the Queen of Racism $174,000 per year?

(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...

Obama's Not Out Of Touch, He's Just Wrong!


TalkingSides.com ^ | 06/10/12 | CaroleL



Hours after President Barack Obama made his already infamous "The private sector is fine" statement, he was in damage control mode telling reporters, "it is absolutely clear that the economy is not doing fine." But if you read beyond the headline, the president actually doubled down on his original statement.


Mr. Obama could have walked all the way back and said the private sector is not doing fine but instead he chose to use the broader term "the economy." He then followed up with, "I think if you look at what I said this morning, what I've been saying consistently over the last year, we've actually seen some good momentum in the private sector." In other words, the private sector is doing fine. And to someone whose ultimate goal is to grow the government in both size and scope until it controls every aspect of our lives, private sector growth is so irrelevant that the current dismal levels show "good momentum".

(Excerpt) Read more at talkingsides.com ...

McCain: Obama Responsible For Leaks!


turn 10 23, ABC ^ | 6/10./12 | Ashley KilloughCNN



(CNN) -- Sen. John McCain continued his blitz against the Obama administration Sunday, saying the president was responsible for the recent national security leaks--whether he knew about them or not.
"It's obvious on its face that this information came from individuals who are in the administration," McCain said on CNN's "State of the Union." "The president may not have done it himself, but the president certainly is responsible as commander in chief."

His comments came after the president himself forcefully dismissed the idea on Friday that the leaks came as a form of political strategy for the White House - a claim made by some Republicans on Capitol Hill, including McCain.

(Excerpt) Read more at turnto23.com ...

Zing! Liberal Media Slams Obama As “Dazed And Confused”


gateway ^ | June 9, 2012 | Andrea Ryan



The leader of our country is “dazed and confused”.

At his press conference Friday, Obama delivered what the Liberal media described as a “stuttering”, “uncertain”, word-searching mess from a president “dazed and confused”. That’s because our dazed and confused president is a mess. And he created an even bigger mess for himself with his embarrassing press conference. Even Liberal Washington Post couldn’t re-craft his senseless, “meandering and stuttering performance”…and they didn’t even try, entitling their summary, “‘Uhhh,’ the president’s ‘uhhh’ press conference was ‘uhhh’ terrible”.

The Washington Post reported,

If you are president of the United States and you don’t have anything to say, don’t have a press conference to say it. If you’re the president of the United States and by Thursday it’s widely believed you’ve had one of the worst weeks of your presidency, take Friday off, and specifically avoid having a press conference.

Anytime you are president and you’re speaking in public at an ill-timed press conference after a bad week, try to have something to say, and do a good job in saying it. I watched the whole thing, but it’s not easy to think of one useful thing that he had to say. And what he said, he said very poorly. Was it just me, or did the president seem a little dazed and confused? He should have had a cup of coffee before the press conference.

(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...

Narcissistic personality disorder (Did it promote the "WHITE HOUSE LEAKS"?)


MAYO CLINIC ^ | Unknown | MAYO CLINIC staff




Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance and a deep need for admiration. Those with narcissistic personality disorder believe that they're superior to others and have little regard for other people's feelings. But behind this mask of ultra-confidence lies a fragile self-esteem, vulnerable to the slightest criticism.

Narcissistic personality disorder is one of several types of personality disorders. Personality disorders are conditions in which people have traits that cause them to feel and behave in socially distressing ways, limiting their ability to function in relationships and in other areas of their life, such as work or school.

Narcissistic personality disorder treatment is centered around psychotherapy.

(Excerpt) Read more at mayoclinic.com ...

Your Implanted Barcode, Please!


The Omega Letter ^ | June 9, 2012 | Jack Kinsella



In 2004, the Food and Drug Administration approved an implantable chip technology known as the Verichip for implantation in human beings. According to the FDA, VeriChip could be implanted in a person’s body and scanned for electronic information.


Since 2006, new U.S. passports include radio frequency identification tags (RFID) that store all the information in the passport, as well as a digital picture of the owner.


In June 2007, the American Medical Association declared that "implantable radio frequency identification" (RFID) devices may help to identify patients, thereby improving the safety and efficiency of patient care, and may be used to enable secure access to patient clinical information.

Production of VeriChip was mysteriously discontinued in 2010 when a connection was made between the implantable Verichip and cancer in test rats. When the report was released, Verichip's stock dropped 40%.

In 2010, VeriChip officially changed their name to "PositiveID" but discontinued marketing the product for now.

Biotech company MicroCHIPS has developed an implantable chip to deliver medicine to people on schedule and without injection. But the problem with RFID chips is that they are vulnerable to hackers.

Consequently, the technology company BIOPTid has patented a noninvasive method of identification called the “human barcode.”

Barcode technology has been in use since the early 1970's. Barcodes were developed into the Universal Product Code symbol and have been on every product purchased worldwide for decades.

There are so many different kinds today for so many uses that it would be pointless to try and list them all. Instead, find something that DOESN'T have a barcode.

If you go to the hospital, the wristband has a barcode. Maybe it has your name, but all the important information is embedded in the barcode.

If you bought it, there will be a barcode on it somewhere. Everything you purchase at retail has a barcode on it.

I can buy movie tickets online and flash a barcode on my iPhone at the theater. Amazon has just released a mobile barcode app for making "one click" Amazon purchases.

PayPal quickly followed suit with a method for using PayPal to make bricks-and-mortar purchases.

Here's how that would work. You take your purchase to the counter, whip out your phone, log in to your PayPal account, let the cashier scan the barcode displayed by the app, and you're all done.

Last week, science fiction author Elizabeth Moon gave an interview to the BBC in which she advocated the idea of using barcodes instead and barcoding each baby at birth.

“I would insist on every individual having a unique ID permanently attached — a barcode if you will — an implanted chip to provide an easy, fast inexpensive way to identify individuals,” she said on "The Forum".

"And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark (charagma)in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name." (Revelation 13:16-17)

The word translated as "mark" in our English Bibles is the Greek word, charagma meaning "a scratch or etching, ie a stamp as a badge of servitude", rather than stigmata, which refers to scarring left by a puncture wound.

A barcode would be tattooed or otherwise etched on the skin, like a stamp, whereas an implantable RFID chip is implanted by puncturing the skin.

The Bible says the Mark will be etched on the right hand or forehead, not implanted under the skin. So isn't it interesting that Verichip went off the market in 2010 after being linked to cancer?

"Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six." (Revelation 13:18)

Among unbelievers, this is probably the most-often quoted verse in Scripture. Remember the Omen Trilogy? Damien had three little sixes hidden in his hair to identify him as the antichrist.

But the Bible says the mark will contain the number of his name and that number is six hundred and sixty six. The mark isn't on the antichrist -- it will be etched on his followers.

I wish I had a dollar for every time somebody said dismissively, "When a Mark shows up using the 666 symbol, then I will believe!"

The symbols of three sixes have been part of the UPC for almost forty years. I always get hammered at this point by purists pointing out that the three dividing lines are not "sixes" -- they just look like sixes.

But THAT's my point. It doesn't matter if they are sixes. Barcodes use machine-readable symbols. The Bible isn't written from the perspective of a machine. We look at the same symbols with our eyes and the three long separators look like the symbol for "six."

So to all intents and purposes, there is already a universal, economic Mark that incorporates three visible "sixes" without which, retailers couldn't sell, and consequently, you couldn't buy.

But it isn't the Mark of the Beast, anymore than an implantable RFID chip is the Mark of the Beast.

The Mark is a symbol of worship. You obtain it by submitting to the False Prophet's demand that the Beast be worshipped. Those that refuse to worship are refused the Mark, which excludes them from the economic system, which makes them easy to identify and round up.

But what I want you to see this morning isn't that the Mark of the Beast is upon us. It isn't. First you need a Beast. Then you need a Mark. What I want you to see this morning is the technology.

It was never possible prior to this generation. Don't let that blend into the background of white noise. Pull it back out and dwell on it.

Prior to this generation, the whole prophecy was impossible. . . yet for two thousand years, there it was, in black and white.

Generation after generation puzzled over what the prophecy could mean. The preterist argument that Revelation's "Beast" was really Emperors Nero and Domitian collides with the Mark of the Beast, something they could credibly claim was all 'symbolic' only when it was impossible.

But the Mark of the Beast is not only literally possible, for this generation, something like it is inevitable. There is no denying the reality that for this generation, cash is unnecessary, anonymity is impossible, and centralized government is inescapable.

There is only one possible explanation for John's detailed description of this exact scenario, set for a single generation somewhere in time, to the exclusion of all other generations, since it must come at the same time as the restoration of Israel and the revival of the old Roman Empire.

Read that last paragraph through one more time. Don't allow its familiarity to diminish what it says. This is the time forecast by the Lord Jesus and all the prophets that every generation has looked for since the Lord ascended back into Heaven.

We are the generation witnessing the greatest interaction between the natural and supernatural since the Apostles roamed the known world preaching the Gospel of Peace. It is happening right now, all around us!

One of our members wrote in the forums yesterday, "I'm tired of all the killing. I'm tired of reading about faces getting eaten off, of moms killing their kids. I'm tired, tired, tired."

So am I, Warren. I get up every morning determined to find something cheerful and optimistic to write about. If only I could find something.

But keeping things in perspective, these things point, as does everything else, to a time when evil will run wild, unhindered by the social and spiritual restraints which any honest observer can plainly see have already reached a breaking point.

Looked at from the perspective of today's news, one need not ever crack a Bible or ever have heard of Bible prophecy to arrive at the same conclusions forecast by the prophets for the last days.

The difference is, however, that the Bible not only told us what would happen two thousand years in advance, it also tells us how it all turns out in the end.

"And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draweth nigh." (Luke 21:28)

Under the circumstances, that is about as cheerful and optimistic as it gets. Don't let fear steal your victory! The scarier it looks, the closer our redemption.

Liberals shed frustration, gear up for election fight (Hussein a bit too slow for real freeloaders)


Yahoo ^ | 6/08/12 | John Whitesides






PROVIDENCE, Rhode Island (Reuters) - After a gut punch in Wisconsin and frequent bouts of disappointment with President Barack Obama, liberal activists could be excused for a lack of enthusiasm about November's U.S. election.


But many of those attending Netroots Nation, a three-day gathering of grassroots progressives in Rhode Island, said the stark choices in the looming battle for control of the White House and Congress were all the motivation they need.


While liberals have frequently criticized Democrat Obama for being too quick to compromise and too slow to fight for their principles, those at the conference said it was time to focus on the stakes in his presidential race against Republican rival Mitt Romney.


"Most progressives are pretty savvy and focused on the future, and Mitt Romney is going to be very motivating for us," said Arshad Hasan, executive director of Democracy for America, the group founded by former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, whose failed 2004 presidential bid galvanized the left.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...

The ObamaCare poll that the White House hates: 4 takeaways (Commiecare™ on the ropes)


Yahoo ^ | 6/08/12



By The Week's Editorial Staff – Fri, Jun 8, 2012


A new survey shows that a full two-thirds of Americans would like to see all or part of ObamaCare struck down by the Supreme Court.


Two-thirds of Americans would like to see the Supreme Court strike down all or part of ObamaCare, according to a new poll conducted by The New York Times and CBS. The poll comes as the country awaits the Supreme Court's decision on President Obama's signature legislative achievement, which is expected to be handed down sometime before the end of June. During oral arguments in the spring, conservative justices expressed skepticism about the constitutionality of ObamaCare's central provision: The individual mandate, which requires most Americans to buy health insurance. Here, four takeaways from the latest poll:


1. ObamCare is still very, very unpopular
According to the poll, 41 percent of Americans would like the high court to overturn the entire law, while another 27 percent said only the individual mandate should be struck down. A mere 24 percent said the justices should uphold the entire law. Republicans are particularly opposed to ObamaCare, with about two-thirds saying the whole law should go. However, the law isn't all that popular with Democrats either, with only 43 percent saying the court should keep the entire law intact.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...

IS IT RACIST TO SAY 'BLACKS ATTACKING WHITES'? Politically incorrect fact about crime!


World Net Daily ^ | June 5, 2012 | Colin Flaherty



Let’s say thousands of people riot in your upscale downtown neighborhood. And it happens a few dozen times in just a few years: Not just partying, but violence, destruction, theft and serious injuries.
Question: If people notice that most of the criminals were black and most of the victims were white, does that make them racist?

Depends. In Philadelphia, it makes you a hero. In Baltimore, a bigot.

Van Jones: Liberals feel ‘crushed’ by Obama


The Washington Post ^ | June 9, 2012 | Felicia Sonmez



PROVIDENCE, R.I. — Throughout this year’s three-day Netroots Nations conference — as progressive activists have cheered on Elizabeth Warren, held Occupy-style general assemblies and attended seminars on topics ranging from voter ID laws to “Love, Compassion and Outrageous Forms of Activism” — present just below the surface of the discussion has been an undercurrent of dissatisfaction with President Obama.

A series of liberal favorites, culminating with former Obama environmental adviser Van Jones, took to the stage at the Rhode Island Convention Center to rally the Democratic base — and also to make clear that nearly four years after his election, Obama has not lived up to their expectations.

“He stands up for Trayvon; he stands up for gay marriage; we like him,” Jones said of Obama in the keynote speech of the evening. “But we’re not in love with him.”

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...

Tony Bennett: 9/11 Hijackers Told Us to Stop Bombing: Who's the Terrorists?



Liberal/Singer Tony Bennett told Howard Stern this week the jihadists who flew the planes into the World Trade Towers in 9/11/01 did so because "we were bombing them and they told us to stop."

Who were we bombing in 2001 before 9/11/01? Is he talking about Operation Desert Storm, 1990-91, when Iraq invaded their Muslim neighbors in Kuwait? Where Hussein was guilty of 16 violations of law of war in the Hague and Geneva? Where Hussein amputated limbs, used electric drills and acid baths on fellow Muslims; where he rubbed Kuwaiti humans down with sandpaper, raped and pillaged, and thousands simply disappeared? 

In that war where Palestinians were given weapons by Iraq, and where they killed the Kuwaitis with whom they had lived side-by-side with for years, all for Saddam Hussein. If we had bombed and killed Hussein then, there would have been no Oil for Food scandal - with Saddam Hussein stealing food and medicine from the mouths of the Iraqi people. There would have been no sanctions on the people of Iraq. Is Tony Bennett ignorant of world affairs or just a doddering old fool?



Bennett also rhetorically asked: "are we the terrorists or are they the terrorists?" Today he is apologizing. Sorry Tony, we know these appalling liberal apologies are cheaper than Democrat philanthropy. Botice in the video, he is not shy, unsure, doddering or hesitant, as he says what he says.



Leading up to the 1990 Gulf War, we had American hostages held in Iran, but we didn't drop a bomb. We had multinational forces in Lebanon, at their request, to move the PLO out, and return the government to some measure of sovereignty. Libya bombed a town in Sudan and both Sudan and Egypt asked for assistance. Chad asked for help to save them from Libya. Egypt tried to fly the hijackers of the Achilles Lauro to safety (an American died brutally at their hands), and eventually Reagan bombed Tripoli for the Libyan bomb that killed two U.S. soldiers Europe.

Bennett is promoting his new album, Duet II, featuring Lady Gaga and the recently deceased Amy Winehouse. That's how an old guy sells an album these days. I hope no grandmas find Duet II under their Christmas Tree.

Carter:
Stern tried to point out that it was the 9/11 hijackers that flew the planes into the World Trade Center, Bennett said;“They flew the plane in, but we caused it. Because we were bombing them and they told us to stop.”
At the end of the video you'll hear the ABC anchor say Bennett told Stern that in 2005, George W. Bush told him going into Iraq was a mistake.

Tony Bennett: Terrorists Told Us to Stop Bombing 

US Census Bureau: America Set to be an Overpacked Third-World Dump by 2060





According to the latest estimates of US population growth emanating from the Census Bureau, in 50 years from now the United States of America will need to have made room for a bloated populace numbering some 459 million American citizens -and that's not even including 3M+ illegals flooding our nation's borders annually.

Yes, legal US population growth alone will bring 150+ million new Americans by 2060- and the vast majority of this incremental increase will consist of immigrants and their offspring... not children born of established American families.

The cumulative US Census prediction is represented by a yellow mid-range line of the (below) chart, while anything north of that would be newcomers to the States over the coming years and decades. The calculations are based upon current immigration and fertility levels, and these kind of numbers should concern anyone who harbors interest in the common-sense long term management of this country, it's culture, and it's traditions.

DO keep in-mind that NONE of the lines you see here include any illegal immigrants, not a one... and there's 30 million over-the-fence already:


But none of this is inevitable... one should note that the projections are based upon the assumption of Congress never cutting immigration: perhaps you'd like to spit in your Congressman's ear...? (EZ links below to House/Senate reps).

The sad reality is that our feeble, indebted, entitlement-mired economy doesn't even come close to supplying enough jobs for millions out of work here now... at 10% unemployment, many remain on the public dole for months and even years.

Saddled with the damaging consequences of Obamanomics' myriad failures, America today faces a grim economic landscape for some time to come.

Simply put, there is no serious reason to support mass amnesties and/or a level of legal immigration unmatched anywhere in the world other than to fulfill
liberal dreams of a huge, new obedient voting block... and everybody knows it.

In the coming years and decades we are set to be swamped with hundreds-of-millions more for whom we can provide little opportunity outside of gang membership... does it really have to be this way?


Note how the US Census Bureau web-page now prominently displays -rather than population of American citizens- a number of 308M+ for "Resident Population"... that should tell you where this highly-politicized bureau's head is at while Barack Obama presses-on with a relentless quest to "fundamentally transform our nation" by hook or by crook.

So fight back...


Obama could take a lesson from "W"

Obama's Graves

Huff and Puff

Reform

Trophy

Top Ten List

Girl Scouts leadership: pro-choice, pro-gay ideologues


CNA ^ | 6/3/2012 | Mary Hasson



Who’s calling the shots over at the Girl Scouts? And where’s the organization headed?
The questions matter for two reasons. First, it’s cookie season. Any day now some cute little girls wearing green sashes and bright smiles will knock on your door and sweetly seek support for their projects, badges, and activities. Do you write the check or not? (Forget your craving for Thin Mints. Think rationally!) Should you support the Girl Scouts?
Second, the Girl Scouts organization (GSUSA) is in trouble again. In recent weeks, they’ve drawn scrutiny for promoting biased resources (the left-wing Media Matters) and pressuring an employee to muzzle her pro-life views. The latest events top the pile of controversies that has outraged parents and spurred some Scouts to quit the organization.
What’s going on? Are these merely quality control issues – or do the problems reflect an ideological divide between the Girl Scout leadership and the families they serve?
In recent years, the Girl Scouts have tacked left, and criticism has mounted – over their programs and their partnerships with America’s leading abortion provider, Planned Parenthood. (As an aside, the Scouts mislead families and churches into believing that they have no relationship with Planned Parenthood at any level; they maintain that “Girl Scouts of the USA (i.e. the national office) does not have a relationship or partnership with Planned Parenthood,” but say nothing about the many local Girl Scout councils that do partner with Planned Parenthood and its teen subsidiaries.
Concerned Scouts and their parents have publicized and documented the Girl Scouts’ liberal bent. And they’ve asked for changes.
The Girl Scouts consistently respond as if the reported problems are small brush fires that erupt sporadically because people are careless. And they project the impression that these brush fires would die out on their own, but for the hysterical bystanders – conservatives, of course – who shriek at the first wisp of smoke.
Offensive materials? Quality control issues, that’s all.
The official spokespersons’ carefully worded statements make small concessions, hoping to blow the smoke far enough away to divert attention from the incendiary truth: the leadership of today’s Girl Scouts is driven by a liberal ideology far out of step with the families and churches that support them.
Americans tilt right, increasingly so. For the third consecutive year, according to Gallup, conservative Americans (40%) outnumbered both moderates (35%) and liberals (21%). Interestingly, over the same three year period, the Girl Scouts lost half a million members and operated at a loss (In 2010, for example, GSUSA reported a $4.9 million loss.)
That’s a lotta people and a big chunk of change out the door.
You’d think the Girl Scouts leadership would consider a right turn or two, maybe even circle back around to their founding principles, like promoting “virtues” and “womanhood.”
But still the Scouts turn left. They can’t help themselves.
The Girl Scouts have filled their National Leadership Team and Board of Directors with unwavering ideologues whose careers, non-profit work and philanthropic choices reflect a hefty commitment to liberal causes – same-sex marriage, gay and lesbian rights, abortion rights, comprehensive sex education and ‘girl power’ feminism.
Their liberal ideology drives everything – from program materials to themes to partnerships – even their view of leadership.
It’s who they are. And it’s who the Girl Scouts organization has become.
A few examples tell the story.
A pro-abortion bias
The Girl Scouts imagines itself the “thought leader and voice for and of” American girls. But the only “voice” the Scouts hear is a liberal one. The Girl Scouts’ own research shows that the voice of American youth is strongly pro-life: just nine percent of 7th through 12th graders would advocate for abortion if a friend sought advice on an unexpected pregnancy. And only 25% believe it’s “all right” to have an abortion when a baby seriously disrupts life plans.
But the GSUSA refuses to allow pro-life advocacy to count towards badge work or program requirements, even within faith-based religious recognition programs. It’s “not an option,” they say. Yet their leadership program objectives consider advocacy for “reproductive health” in school or neighborhood as a sign that a Scout has mastered the desired advocacy skills.
In addition, the Girl Scouts’ curriculum ("Your Voice, Your World: The Power of Advocacy") instructs girls to explore five pro-abortion advocacy organizations, including the Population Council, to see “where and how they are promoting change.” Pro-life advocacy groups? None.
The pro-abortion bias reflects the core convictions of the Girl Scouts’ National Leadership Team and Board of Directors. These individuals, who frame and implement the Girl Scouts’ mission, maintain tight connections with Planned Parenthood, other abortion advocates, and foundations that support them.
Consider:
• GSUSA CEO Anna Maria Chavez collaborated* with Planned Parenthood as head of Girl Scouts of Southwest Texas; (See UPDATE).
• GSUSA National President Connie Lindsey donated to the pro-abortion, pro-LGBT Chicago Foundation for Women;
• GSUSA Board Member Barbara Krumsiek is the Board Chair of the Eugene and Agnes E. Meyer Foundation which funds Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington;
• GSUSA Board Member Monica Gil is a volunteer and former Board Member (through 2011) of the Saban Free Clinic in L.A., which providesfree and easy” birth control, emergency contraception, and abortion referrals to teens over 12, without parental notice or consent;
• GSUSA Board Member and Executive Secretary Debra Nakatomi is International Commissioner to the pro-abortion World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts and promoted contraceptives to Asian teens through California’s Get Real program;
Laurie Westley, GSUSA Senior Vice President of Public Policy, Advocacy & the Research Institute, previously worked for the National Women’s Political Caucus, a group dedicated to electing pro-choice women.
• Joan Wagnon, the GSUSA Treasurer, Board of Directors, accepted large campaign contributions from late-term abortionist George Tiller while she was Secretary of Kansas’ Department of Revenue and praised Tiller’s “social conscience and … big heart;”
• Ellen S. Fox, GSUSA Board Member from 2008 through 2011, serves on the Investment Committee of the International Planned Parenthood Federation’s Board of Directors.
The list goes on.
The new normal: homosexuality and sexual promiscuity
Pro-life views are not the only ones given short shrift by the Girl Scouts. Traditional sexual morality takes a hit, while lesbians enjoy good press in required Girl Scout materials. These books – the “Journeys” series – generally push global environmentalism from a feminist slant; certain books go further, normalizing homosexuality and degrading sexual behavior.
For example, the "Journey" book "Your Voice Your World: The Power of Advocacy" spotlights numerous lesbians and LGBT advocates as “Voices for Good” -- role models for young Scouts.
And the 4th and 5th grade "Journeys" book, "Agent of Change," highlights author Marjane Satrapi, a young Iranian woman with “real moxie,” whose life – detailed in her comic book-style autobiography, "Persepolis" – will “inspire” Girl Scouts. But in Persepolis, Satrapi crudely discusses men’s genitalia (even with her own father), calls nuns prostitutes, gets explicit lessons about sex from a promiscuous friend, lives with eight homosexual men and attempts suicide twice. Offensive illustrations and shocking sexual dialogue complete the picture. For ten-year olds?
It gets worse.
Another "Journey" book, "GIRLtopia," encourages 9th and 10th graders, “to imagine a perfect world – for girls.” It recommends the book, "The Gate to Women’s Country," by Sheri Tepper (former Executive Director of Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood), as a utopian journey into “a future world where women spend their lives learning and discovering lost knowledge.” That’s a deceptive gloss on a book laced with obscenities, revolting dialogue, and lewd descriptions, and which presents men as violent barbarians. The book graphically describes women having sex with random warriors at a semi-annual Carnival, undergoing brutal, demeaning genital exams, and breeding out violence by compulsive sterilization and selective prostitution. The only good men are castrated men. This is Girl Scout utopia?
Juliette Low, the Girl Scouts’ founder, would be aghast.
Why would Girl Scout Execs and Board members approve this material?
Because they don’t find it shocking or radical at all.
It reflects their worldview – sexual promiscuity is a given and homosexuality is normal. And indeed, key players at the Girl Scouts have a history of advocating those very positions, particularly on homosexuality.
Timothy Higdon, for example, holds a pivotal position at GSUSA: as Chief of External Affairs, he oversees marketing, fundraising, advocacy, and research. Higdon’s official bio on the Girl Scout website touts his earlier work for the Army, a fundraising firm, and Amnesty International. It even mentions he’s an Eagle Scout. But it doesn’t mention that, spurred by his decision to come out as a gay man, he’s a “seasoned gay rights activist.” (For example, in 2002 he headed a Florida gay rights organization working closely with the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.)
In 2011, Higdon welcomed another homosexual activist to his team: Deborah Taft, Senior VP of Fund Development, sits on the Human Rights Campaign’s (HRC) Board of Governors. (HRC pushes same-sex marriage and is an adoption bully, pummeling religious adoption agencies that prefer married heterosexuals to homosexual pairs.)
Other LGBT activists fill prominent GSUSA positions or Board seats. Consider GSUSA Media Spokesperson Joshua Ackley. By day, he writes the Girl Scouts’ blog. By night, he frolics in unsavory places reminiscent of his homopunk career. He’s the former lead singer of the Dead Betties, a queer band whose music videos feature masturbation, prostitution, and sexualized violence against women. Ackley’s past activism suggests he’s not likely to flinch over a sexually inappropriate book or lesbian role models. He’s not alone.
The LGBT advocates in the Girl Scouts’ inner circle help set the organization’s trajectory: GSUSA emphasizes diversity and tolerance, applauds adolescent acceptance of LGBT behavior, promotes lesbians as role models, and allies itself with the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN).
Forget character. Think advocacy.
I opened this article with two questions. First, who’s calling the shots at the Girl Scouts? The answer: incorrigible liberals – unbending proponents of abortion, homosexuality and teen contraception.
Second, where’s the organization headed? The Girl Scouts’ vaunted leadership programs have morphed into liberal training grounds. While the Scouts’ founding vision promoted “the virtues of womanhood;” today’s Scouts strive for advocacy-oriented objectives.
The new “Girl Scout Leadership Experience” is less about the person a girl becomes and more about “taking action” aligned with the liberal agenda. GSUSA trains girls to be “advocates,” mini community organizers who see themselves as “agents of change,” rather than young women of virtue who exercise leadership with an eye towards “personal honor … and the public good.” (Girl Scout Mission, 1917)
Indeed, it’s hard to find the language of virtue in the Scouts’ program materials. Patriotism? Self-sacrifice? Humility? Self-control? Nope. The new Girl Scouts focus on diversity, “environmental justice” (they’ve got a whole book on it) and liberal advocacy.
But don’t expect the Scouts to ‘fess up. Though they’ve gutted the meanings of “character” and “leadership,” they continue to snow member families and sponsoring organizations (like the Catholic Church) with their institutional history as a character-building, leadership organization.
Bishops, pastors, ministers, and parents, don’t be fooled. If the Girl Scouts’ leadership – toting the same pro-abortion, pro-gay, environmentalist, feminist baggage – showed up today as a new organization and sought your sponsorship to shape girls in their image, would you say yes? I doubt it.
So…should you support today’s Girl Scouts?
My answer: a resounding “No!”
What’s yours?
NOTE: *The word “collaborated” replaces the verb “partnered” that appeared in an earlier version of this article. Although “partnered” has a range of meanings including an alliance or collaboration, the author has replaced it in order to preclude suggestion that a contractual, business partnership existed. The significance of the relationship remains, in the author’s view.

Dancing a Little Jig on Progressive’s Shattered Dreams


Townhall.com ^ | June 10, 2012 | Derek Hunter



What a week!

It won’t end up being a week where people ask you “Where were you when…” as you drink beers 20 years from now. But the recall election results in Wisconsin were like Christmas in June. There’s something about tears of disappointment from liberal progressives that makes my liberty-loving heart smile.
How awesome was that? And by awesome I mean hilarious. Any time you make a guy wearing a Boston Red Sox hat cry by voting against a Democrat union stooge it’s a good day. There was one bright spot for Leftists on election night…MSNBC, while still embarrassingly trounced by Fox News, scored high ratings for their prime time DNC talking-points-spewers. Those high numbers can be traced to the record number of conservatives who tuned in to enjoy reality wiping the smirks off their collective faces as they were forced to announce Gov. Scott Walker had won.
If you watched closely, I swear you could see on their faces the harsh reality setting in. First, they were picked last in every gym class every day. Then, they had to take their cousins to prom. And now, the unpopularity of their political philosophy put them back in the same dark, awkward place. It didn’t last long. They stomped it back down faster than Daffy Duck stomps down Bugs Bunny when they pop out of the ground in a cavern full of gold. But it was there. And it was glorious. (Here’s a video compilation. Enjoy.)
You almost have to feel bad for the young progressives in Wisconsin. They really believed their own press. These children of the unearned high-self-esteem culture never before had truly confronted reality. They’d spent their lives with their psyche encased in bubble wrap and covered in participation ribbons. The notion they might not get what they want simply because they want it was as foreign to them as personal responsibility is to President Obama. Not anymore.
They’ve now been confronted with the fact you don’t get what you want by simply demanding it – that refusing to shower, acting obnoxious, chanting and drum circling as if these things matter do not amount to a campaign strategy.
Most won’t learn the lesson. They’ll just chant louder and drum circle harder next time. But some may wise up and realize their neighbors who voted for Walker aren’t the devil and fiscal sanity isn’t the moral equivalent of the holocaust. And they’ll begin to question whether the lies they’ve taken out massive student loans out to be spoon-fed actually are engraved on Mt. Sinai.
It’s unlikely the percentage of protesters who will wise up reaches double-digits. But if only one person opens his mind, it will have been worth the tens of millions of dollars in forced union dues the bosses spent to not only retain Gov. Walker but give him a larger victory and more solid mandate than when he was first elected.
And to those protesters/union goons/radical anti-American Leftists who learned nothing, I have this to say: You spent the last six months with a small group of bussed-in, like-minded drones chanting “THIS IS WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE!” Putting aside the fact that we’re a representative republic – not a democracy -- and ignoring that you should sue whoever educated you for malpractice, the humiliating loss you suffered on Tuesday is, in fact, what democracy looks like. You can’t spend all that time demanding “the people’s voice be heard” then plug your ears and scream “la la la” when they speak.
You’re free to not like what they have to say. But the excuse-making and lies you tell each other to justify the discomfort you still feel from collective butt-kicking you just endured (such as that you were out-spent when you weren’t) is unbecoming a 5-year-old. Then again, your public months-long temper tantrum is what we’d expect from a 5-year-old. So maybe it is fitting.
A Quick Note on a Few Books
This week and next are a great time for books.
David Limbaugh has a new one, The Great Destroyer. He was kind enough to send me a signed copy (which was really cool). Once I picked it I couldn’t put it down, and that’s a feat considering its size. He’s compiled the best case against the Obama administration I’ve read. It’s all you’ll need to convince fence-sitting friends. To call it important doesn’t do it justice. It’s a book you will return to time and again for reference between now and November. It will help you change or influence minds. I couldn’t do the book justice in a longer review; there’s simply too much good in it to summarize. Just know it’s the single best compilation of President Obama’s actions in the last two years and a book you’ll wear out with dog-ears and highlighter. To put it bluntly – buy it, read it, use it. It will help you, help us, win.
My good friend Kurt Schlichter released an e-book based on his Twitter feed called “I’m a Conservative: Uncensored, Undiluted and Absolutely Un-PC.” Kurt is a former comedian, lawyer and a Colonel in the Army Reserve. But don’t hold the lawyer against him. Although he’s one hell of a lawyer, he’s still a great comedian. It’s a fast read and a hilarious one. If you like to laugh, especially at liberals, and aren’t interested in the politically correct garbage or leftist propaganda that passes for comedy these days, check out Kurt’s book. It’ll be the best $2.99 you’ll spend all week…especially considering, thanks to President Obama, gas costs more than that.
Speaking of politically incorrect, Adam Carolla has a new book out this Tuesday called “Not Taco Bell Material.” I haven’t gotten it yet, but it’s pre-ordered and should be here the day it comes out. If it’s half as good as his last one, “In 50 Years We’ll All Be Chicks,” it will be awesome. His humor isn’t for everyone, especially people who don’t like “salty” language (in which case it’s a good thing I have an editor here because I swear like it’s an Olympic event sometimes), but those of you who aren’t bothered by such things and just like a good laugh, Carolla is for you. You’re probably already familiar with his rant about the Occupy Wall Street mutants (if not you should be), but he’s also the world’s most downloaded podcaster and a guy who loves telling government to leave us the hell alone. He’s recently started doing “conversation shows” with Dennis Prager (who has his own book out now) in theaters around California, soon the country – and they’re every bit as thought-provoking as they are hilarious. Do yourself a favor, click here and listen to him and Prager talk for an hour about morality, taxes, self-esteem, race and a whole host of other topics. It’s free, so you have nothing to lose. He’s a major influence on me, so if you find any enjoyment in my rantings and ramblings, give Adam a try. There aren’t many free-market lovers in the entertainment business, and fewer still with a razor-sharp sense of humor. Carolla is both…and more.
That is all. Go about your week.

What Bill Clinton Knows


Sultan Knish ^ | Saturday, June 09, 2012 | Daniel Greenfield



Bill Clinton was many things, but stupid was never one of them. Even his supporters were eventually forced to admit that most of those things were true. Sloppy, corrupt, impulsive, amoral, vindictive, petty and loving every minute of it. Sure. But not stupid.

Clinton was of the left, but he was a politician first. He understood politics as more than just gamesmanship, a set of rules, procedures and technicalities, powerful people to court, an image to cultivate and opponents to destroy.

What Clinton understood, and Obama doesn't, is that politics is about people. And that politics is nothing without people. 400 glowing articles don't compare to what people are feeling when they're unemployed, when they're not sure how they'll make payroll next month and when they sit toting up the numbers late at night and worrying about the future.
Obama isn't so much a machine politician as he is a politician of the machine. A man whose career was made by one machine after another. Smooth gleaming urban monstrosities guiding him from one organization to another, from handshakes to dinners to ballots to signatures. Politics to him is nothing but a power game almost completely detached from the people. They're spectators, showing up to faint, cheer and buy him drinks afterward.
Politics to Obama is its own game, like law or basketball. The people in the stands and benches make it necessary, but they don't really figure into it except as a nebulous crowd providing moral support. What really matters are how you win the game, the rules and the way you can break the rules. It's all that matters.
Considering his level of emotional detachment, Obama has been good at faking it. But most of the fakery is second-hand. The work of an army of advisers and a grass-roots movement determined to create a Hollywood idea of the hero, who wins elections, defeats conservatives, and like at the end of every political movie, connects with the voters by delivering a speech that sets out the stakes.
Bill Clinton knows that's a load of crap. He's played that game, he's had those advisers, and he's given those speeches, but he has enough of a background in real world elections to know that nobody really gives a damn about the speeches. They'll listen to them when they're first getting to know you or when something important happens, but mostly people elect politicians to do things for them.
Clinton, like McCain, underestimated the power of the machine behind Obama. The new world order of digital power, manufactured cult-of-personality media complex and sheer arrogant rule-breaking. Slick Willy had tasted two out of that three in his time, but no one ever worshiped him as a god. And certainly no one was going to faint on listening to his wife or build statues to her. Hillary would not inspire works of art or paeans of praise.
But Bill also had the last laugh. Because gods are not allowed to let you down. Gods are not allowed to keep blaming Bush or the Republicans. They're not allowed to promise to take care of things later. That's not what people elect gods for.
There's no doubt that he saw this coming early on and that in the dregs of his bitterness at losing, not just failing to win, but the humiliation of defeat, he knew that the day would come when the statues would fall. When people would stretch out their hands expecting help... and when it did not come, the hands would clench into fists.
People expect less of Presidents, than they do of gods. They expect more of men who claim to be able to lower sea levels and change history. And they don't take "no" for an answer. Being ignored only makes them angrier.
Unlike Clinton, Obama isn't able to step out there with an apologetic shrug and a heartfelt speech about tough times. The speech can be written for him by the campaign that never ends, which will find a poet from Chicago who writes rhymes about the Great Depression that reflect class and social divisions, while sipping a craft beer, to do the hard work of laying out all those words, it will be touted for two weeks by the media as the final response to an ungrateful nation, it will upstage three television programs that people actually enjoy watching in these hard times, and it will sound and feel exactly like the time your neighbors sent over their spoiled brat to apologize for breaking your window on pain of losing his trip to Disneyland.
Obama's detachment is his gift. That coolness which convinces supporters that his mind is exploring other realms, contemplating deep thoughts on racial identity and postmodernism or probing the moral paradoxes of soft power. It makes his occasional bouts of attentiveness seem more intense, like a coma patient occasionally waking up to check in, before checking out again.
His pathological need for attention is wholly self-centered and he is not at all surprised to find that the world revolves around him. But it's an attention that he has never had to fight for. It was the birthright that he gained from his dysfunctional family, his coddled educational background and his red carpet ride through politics.
Bill Clinton has never checked out in his life. Of the two men, he looks like the lazy one, but is the genuine hard worker. Even after serving two terms, he is still searching for something to do. After a term or two in office, you won't find Obama frothing at the mouth to run someone else's campaign. Chatting with the folks on Martha's Vineyard, maybe. Delivering speeches on facing the challenges of tomorrow, for a cool million a pop, to Chinese corporations, almost certainly. But not working.
When it comes to attention, Clinton fights for it. His permanent campaign is a personal one that never goes away. Give him five minutes anywhere and he will make himself the center of attention, not because he deserves it and certainly not because it's handed to him as a token prize for his race or his coolness, but because he wants it more than anyone else in the room.
There is an emptiness in many entertainers that drives them to be the center of attention and from there into explosive bouts of self-destructive behavior. Clinton is of their breed. Give him five minutes in any room and he will own the room. And then the next room. But he isn't an actor. The actor is his rival, the cool man with the big ears, who spends more time entertaining himself than anyone else. Who reads his lines, waits for the peasants to applaud and takes off for the next venue.
There are two kinds of actors. The kind who just fall into it, who get noticed by the right people and end up in movies because a string of producers and executives thought that they had the right look. That's Obama's bio to a tee, except that the production he's starring in is Hollywood's most expensive blockbuster, it's a compelling drama about a new era in race relations and the transformation of politics through one man's inspiring charisma. Its budget is in the trillions, but like so many movies, the studios and producers aren't the ones footing the bill.
Actors of this kind can thrill you from the other side of the screen with the way that they deliver their lines, intoning with self-consciousness as if they are thinking over the implications of every word that comes out of their mouths. They're megastars, and their combination of occasional intensity and general detachment makes them seem bigger than life. But the whole thing means nothing to them. It's an easy life, and they're always on the lookout for an easier one. When things don't go their way, they stamp off in a huff, hide out in their trailer and go off looking for easier work. They last only so long as the trail of luck that got them this far does. Setbacks wipe them out so completely that a decade later people occasionally wonder what happened to them.
Then there's the other kind. The Clinton kind. The ones who really need it. Who don't take attention as their birthright, but fight for it as if they're the youngest sibling and every room is twenty older brothers and sisters. Who will go anywhere and stop at nothing to get the applause and the awareness that shows up in the eyes of their audience. The magnetic connection that links them to other people.
Actors like this know that you have to learn about people and understand what makes them tick. It's not enough to go out and deliver the lines that someone else wrote for you. It's not enough to practice the speech a few times in front of the mirror, lift a few facial expressions and tics from your favorite performers and then go out and take the applause that's rightfully yours. They know that you have to understand your audience, to know what they are afraid of, what they love, what they hate and what makes them give you that charge you want so badly. They know you have to get under their skin to be able to connect with them.
Men like these are unstable. They can screw up at key moments. They are too needy to be trusted. But they can also perform on the fly, without the net, without the teleprompters and the endless staff. And, for all their faults, of which they have many, they also understand what their audience wants, and they know that the audience is an integral part of the performance. That the performance is a bond between them. They may despise the audience, they may cheat the audience, lie to it and abuse it, but they never take it for granted. Without the audience, they don't exist.
Clinton always knew that Obama was bound to fail. He understood the megastar illusion of Obama was a haze of press release news stories, wishful thinking and manufactured hysteria that would be no match for the actual challenges of the country. And he also knew that the knee jerk radicalism and arrogance of his opponent and his trusted advisers would leave him hopelessly out of touch with the country in troubled times.
The former President knows the audience that Obama is playing for, the Beltway radicals with degrees and theories, the San Francisco green-energy tycoons, the New York reporters totting along Kindles with a hundred trendy bestsellers they never read through the same dozen airports and the midwestern liberal sages, playing politically correct cracker-barrel philosophers in the hopes of holding on to the party's vanishing white male voters. And he also knows that audience isn't enough to hold the country. It was enough to take the country with a blizzard of money and publicity, but conquests are easy, defenses are hard.
He knows that you talk to traditional businessmen, to factory workers, to coal miners and soldiers, to homemakers and those gun-and-bible-clingers too. And you don't just talk to them, you listen, and you try to give them something, because that's how you hold on to power. That's how you hold on to your audience. That's how you keep on winning.
The Democratic Party has turned on Clinton again, calling him everything from senile to traitor, but that's a laugh. Clinton knows that they know that there's no loyalty in the party except to yourself. Why should he or Deval Patrick or Cory Booker spit on Bain, golden fount of Democratic money, just because of the vicissitudes of the current election campaign? They'll praise it instead and, when fundraising time comes around, they'll remind their hosts of it. And fundraising time always comes.
Clinton also knows that last season's golden boy easily becomes this season's goat. He was the new JFK before he became the new Nixon. He was the first black American president, after all, and he isn't going gently into the sunset. Hate doesn't impress him. He's been hated by bigger and better men than the pipsqueaks in the media, who winked and nudged when he passed the girls around, and then pretended to get outraged when he got caught. Who laughed at his racist jokes in private clubs, but act outraged because he refused to give up in South Carolina.
"To hell with them," he thinks, "they'll be back." And maybe they will. Stranger things have happened. Whatever they call him, he isn't going away. There's an itch inside him and he still wants to play. They tell him the game has changed, but he knows how the game is really played. And he knows that the first rule, the one so many of his generation never learned, and even fewer of Obama's generation did, is that you never give up. You never go away.
Obama wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth. He was born with a whole set of them. That quixotic combination of connections, political and interpersonal, racial cred, important kin, friends of friends, a world-traveler's bio and a time when a man with his background would be irresistible. Bill was baffled by it at first, but he gets it now. Flavor of the month. He's seen them before. And he's outlasted silver spoonies before. It's just a matter of persistence. Of never giving up.
Hillary doesn't want another race. The last one was bad enough. It confirmed what she suspected all along. That no one really liked her. She never cared that much what people thought of her, but it was a slap in the face to realize that all her preparations had counted for nothing. That putting in the hours and working for it wouldn't stop a talentless amateur with more powerful backers from taking it from you. But Bill knows that's exactly how it works and he has never let rejection stop him before. Tell him off fifty times and he still thinks that the next time you might agree.
Bill knows that the prep counts, but then you have to leave behind the notes and committee meetings and fly. And he's determined to win again because, unlike them, he can't stop. They may curse him now, but, in hindsight, they may thank him and, when the next Democrat steps up, he'll be there for credibility with the business community because he was the man who got it. The one who understood that Bain did great work, that the Bush tax cuts have to be extended and that the country needs responsible leaders who are willing to reach across the aisle.
And then, just as he's turning away, he'll smile and say, "Hillary sends her regards. I hope she can count on your support."