Tuesday, December 18, 2012

The Fix is in: Hillary’s Benghazi cover-up—like Vince Foster death investigation!

Canada Free Press ^ | Marinka Peschmann

If past is prologue expect the Benghazi investigations to be covered up whether or not Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testifies. According to Foreign Policy Magazine that despite the House and Senate foreign relations committees having announced she would testify on Benghazi this week, the State Department said last Thursday “that’s not a done deal.” On Saturday, the deal was undone when it was announced that Hillary would not testify due to health issues but would be able to continue to work from home.
Recall how it was Clinton who was one of the first top Obama administration officials to mislead the public by falsely blaming a YouTube video for the deadly attack. President Barack Obama, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and White House Press Secretary James Carney towed-the-line and repeated the same falsehood knowing it would be reported as the truth by the media.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...

Illegal aliens murder 12 Americans daily!

WND ^ | 09/28/2006

Though no government agency in the U.S. – not the FBI nor Immigration and Customs Enforcement – tracks violent crimes by illegal aliens, even murders of police officers, a search by WND of news reports in the last three years shows law enforcement personnel are hardly immune to deadly carnage wrought by untracked, undocumented armed predators inside the country.
While no government agencies specifically track crimes by illegal aliens, there have been some efforts to quantify the loss. Last December, Mac Johnson set out to investigate the number of homicides perpetrated by illegal aliens. Since the federal government would not provide any useful information, he contacted all 50 statehouses. Three months later, he had fewer than a dozen responses. Only one state, Vermont, provided any useful information.

He then set out to statistically estimate the number of murders by illegal aliens based on available crime data and conservative estimates of the actually number of illegal aliens in the country – which, of course, nobody really knows.

He found that between 1,806 and 2,510 people in the U.S. are murdered annually by illegal aliens. If he’s right, that would represent between 11 percent and 15 percent of all murders in the U.S.

In one study of a sample 55,000 illegal immigrants serving prison sentences in the U.S., it was discovered that they are responsible for over 400,000 arrests and over 700,000 felony crimes.

According to Heather McDonald of the Manhattan Institute, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide (which total 1,200 to 1,500) target illegal aliens. Up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) are for illegal aliens.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...

States Give ObamaCare A Massive Vote Of No Confidence

Investor's Business Daily | 12/17/2012 | IBD Staff

Health Reform: If ObamaCare is such a great idea, why are so many governors — including several Democrats — refusing to play along? What do they know that the administration isn't telling the rest of us?
So far, not one part of ObamaCare has worked as planned. Almost immediately, the administration had to distribute huge numbers of waivers to companies because its initial rules would have forced them to drop their low-cost plans.
ObamaCare's high-risk pools promised to cover hundreds of thousands, but ended up attracting almost no one. The small-business tax break has been a complete bust. Insurance premiums are already spiking.
And now states are in open revolt against two key elements of the law.

The numbers don’t lie: banning guns means more crime; more innocent victims and the Left knows it

\coachisright.com ^ | DECEMBER 18TH, 2012 | Kevin “Coach” Collins

As threaten as the Second Amendment looks right now, in the end new attacks on our freedom to own guns will fail. The numbers will once again prove the Left’s arguments are built on lies and distortions.
In the coming weeks disingenuous liberals will try to use the tragic murders of 20 children and 6 staff at a Connecticut grade school to justify curtailing our Second Amendment rights to own firearms. That this horrific crime was committed by a likely paranoid schizophrenic will mean nothing to the gun grabbers.
That the ACLU recently defeated a Connecticut law which might have involuntarily put the monster that killed these innocent victims in an institution safely away from the rest of us, will mean nothing to them either.
In knee jerk fashion they will claim anyone who does not want to limit Second Amendment rights must be in favor of killing innocent children and the media will run with these lies.
Both the liberals and their media mouthpieces will ignore any evidence (however strong) that derails their cherished ultimate goal of confiscating all guns in America.
They want to bring us closer to the “enlightened” position on firearms ownership held around the world and especially Europe.
The Left will ignore the data from Kennesaw Georgia where a city ordinance which has been in effect for thirty years requires each home to have a gun.
Kennesaw consistently reports crime rates below those of the national average.
Moreover during the years immediately following the 1982 passage of its firearms requirement, home burglary rates dropped by 82% and other crimes followed suit.
There will be no discussion of the mass murders of innocent unarmed people in gun control happy Norway where 77 people were methodically slain by a single armed killer…..
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...

WaPo/ABC poll: Compromise on fiscal cliff — but without cuts

Hot Air ^ | 9:41 am on December 18, 2012 | Ed Morrissey

If you want to see why American politics are so dysfunctional, just take a look at American voters. In a new Washington Post/ABC News poll, there is a broad consensus that Barack Obama and Republicans should reach a compromise to fix the fiscal cliff. Only a third believe that Obama has a mandate to insist on his own policies as an exclusive response to the crisis. And, oh, by the way … spending cuts are unacceptable.
In other news, next week Santa Claus will come to deliver a solution, in partnership with the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny:
Most Americans want President Obama and congressional Republicans to compromise on a budget agreement, though they, too, are unhappy about the options that would avert the “fiscal cliff,” according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
The strong support for compromise belies widespread public opposition to big spending cuts that are likely to be part of any deal.
Most Americans oppose slashing spending on Medicaid and the military, as well as raising the age for Medicare eligibility and slowing the increase of Social Security benefits, all of which appear to be on the table in negotiations. Majorities call each of these items “unacceptable.”
Er, what? Do people believe that we can fix the problem by tax hikes alone? That would at least explain these results, but the answer is no. Only 4% believe that we can fix the problem with tax hikes alone; only 29% think we can fix it with spending cuts alone. Almost two-thirds (65%) think we need a combination of both, and a plurality (47%) think we need to cut more spending than raise taxes, while only 41% think we should do both equally and just 10% think we need more tax hikes than spending cuts.
And yet, large majorities oppose reforming the programs that actually drive the deficits that have created the fiscal cliff. Six in ten oppose raising Medicare eligibility to 67; the same percentage opposes a move to chained CPI to slow down cost-of-living increases. These are two of the mildest reforms on the table. Talk about magical thinking. Where else are we supposed to cut? Oh, yeah — the Pentagon, whose entire budget only comprises about 65% of the entire annual deficit — and even there, 55% believe further cuts are unacceptable. Every choice of cuts and reform is deemed “unacceptable” by a majority in this poll.
And here’s more magical thinking: despite the incoherence of the electorate on the fiscal cliff, 52% believe it very or somewhat likely that Obama and Boehner will reach a fiscal-cliff deal in time. That will be true only if they’re more educated on the issues and options we face than the voters are, and it would be almost impossible not to be.

Why the gun is civilization

http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com ^ | MARCH 23, 2007 | MARKO KLOOS

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

New Imaging System Could Make America's Stealth Technology Obsolete

Business Insider ^ | Dec. 18, 2012, 10:33 AM | Robert Johnson

The stealth technology of America's fifth-generation jet fighters, the F-22 and the F-35, could be obsolete after a new discovery from the University of Rochester in New York.
One main goal of fifth-generation aircrafts is to slip through skies over enemy lines without being targeted. It's not invisible, but elusive, and digitally feisty.
The F-35's lineup of electronic tools, work toward that end, by using a variety of sophisticated and devastating radar defeating moves. Combined with internal weapons storage, special composite skin, and reduced angles of design, the fighter does all it can to work past the weaknesses in today's aircraft detection. Lockheed Martin designers, however, did not plan for this University of Rochester research.
The U of R doesn't look to use a radar wave but instead a quantum image gleaned through a string of photons that boomerang out and back, telling operators everything they've seen. This process can't be jammed, confused, or eluded and rather than get absorbed, reflected, or even restructured to look like something else the photons supposedly report back with only the facts.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...

Myths of Health Care Reform

AAPS ^ | Aug 31, 2010

Myth 1: An electronic medical record could save your life in an emergency

Information technology does not stop bleeding, start IVs, defibrillate the heart, or put in a breathing tube. In an emergency, those are the things that save your life. If you need them, the doctor does not have time to look at your EMR.
In an emergency, the doctor needs to know your blood sugar NOW, not what it was 6 months ago. Ditto for your chest xray. If the test needs to be done STAT, the old results are probably irrelevant, and if it doesn’t need to be done STAT, there’s time to make a phone call and ask for a faxed report.
The most important information in an emergency is what just happened to you, and that will not be in your EMR.
If you have a serious allergy or other problem that your doctor needs to know in an emergency, wear a MedicAlert bracelet or something else attached to your body. In a bad emergency, your ID may be lost, the computer may be down, or the power may be off.
The EMR is being promoted for the convenience of bureaucrats and lawyers, and for the profits of vendors. Sometimes it helps doctors; sometimes it’s a hindrance. Only the doctor can decide.
The EMR costs a huge amount of money, and the costs never stop. It might save a few dollars in preventing unnecessary tests for people who have bad memories or can’t keep track of paper records.
The whole record could be destroyed by a power surge (especially if it’s an electromagnetic pulse or EMP). Or it could become unreadable; tapes, disks, and other media become obsolete and are not necessarily durable. On the other hand, it can be nearly impossible to extirpate errors.
The EMR may prevent some errors, but introduce others, especially ones caused by identity theft, sloppy data entry, poor typing skills, confusing software, dry-labbed information entry by macro, and failure to check data once entered. It could even kill you.
EMR systems are a nonconsented experiment, the results of which may be kept secret by the vendors.
If you’re desperately ill or critically injured, you need a doctor, not a computer. Your doctor needs to be able to keep his records in a way that works for him, and to choose his own tools, computers included.

Read more at:   AAPS 

Latino Groups Warn Congress to Fix Immigration or Else!

NY Times ^ | December 17, 2012 | Julia Preston

WASHINGTON — The nation’s largest Latino organizations warned Congress on Wednesday that they will keep a report card during the immigration debate next year, with plans to mobilize their voters against lawmakers who do not support a comprehensive immigration bill. “Make no mistake, we will be watching,” said Eliseo Medina, international secretary-treasurer of the Service Employees International Union, which led one of the most extensive Latino voter drives. The report card will show “who stood with us and who stood against us” on immigration reform, Mr. Medina said."

(Excerpt) Read more at thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com ..

New Obama offer moves toward Boehner (another episode of 'As the Stomach Turns'?)

SFGate.com ^ | 12/17/12 | David Espo and Jim Kuhnhenn | Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama has agreed to curtail future cost-of-living increases for recipients of Social Security and softened his demand for higher taxes at upper income levels as part of accelerating negotiations with House Speaker John Boehner to avoid a "fiscal cliff," people familiar with the talks said Monday.
Speaking a few hours after Obama and Boehner met at the White House, these people said the president was now seeking a higher tax rate beginning at incomes over $400,000, up from the levels of $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples that were cornerstones of his successful campaign for re-election.
Obama's willingness to reduce future cost-of-living increases in Social Security, government retirement and numerous other programs marked another clear concession to Boehner, although it came with an asterisk. The president wants lower-income recipients to receive protection against any loss from scaling back future cost of living increases, these officials said.
Nor did Obama's offer include raising the age of Medicare eligibility from 65 to 67, a Republican goal that has drawn particularly strong objections from Democratic liberals.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...

Can the Republican Party Remain Relevant?

American Thinker ^ | December 17, 2012 | Steve McCann

Does the Republican Party want to remain relevant? Or are they willing to be cast, by the not so subtle scorched earth tactics of Barack Obama, the Democrats and the mainstream media, into permanent second class status, and eventual oblivion?
The only political weapon, but a potentially powerful one, the Republicans have is control of the House of Representatives. The Speaker of the House thus becomes, by default, the national spokesman and face of the Party. This person is the one sitting alone across the table from the twin juggernaut of Barack Obama and his celebrity persona and the sycophantic mainstream media, with their predisposition against all things conservative.
It is extraordinarily difficult to hold one's own against this two-headed dragon. However, if the United States is to regain its once lofty economic and societal stature, there is no choice as there must be a guerilla action over the next four years to delay and stop Obama's plans to transform America. This requires a Speaker of the House with a persona that is not overshadowed by the President, who is unafraid to take on the media and is able to coordinate messaging with not only Republican House members but other conservative voices. But above all, a Speaker willing to confront Barack Obama directly and forcefully.
The current Speaker, John Boehner, while a decent man and a hard working representative for his district in Ohio, is not the right person for the job at this critical juncture in American history. In a cogent and insightful analysis of Mr. Boehner, Peter Ferrara writes:

Boehner is no match for Obama on the national stage. He cannot press the economic arguments articulately. He does not have a compelling personality. Obama is running circles around Boehner with outrageous falsehoods, and Boehner cannot raise a...

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

Good weapons are expensive!

In Israel, teachers and parents who serve as school aids are armed with semi-automatic firearms whenever they are on school grounds.

Let the teachers unions pay for the weapons (yes, good weapons are expensive) and the extra guards out of the dues money.

Society Is Crumbling Right In Front Of Our Eyes And Banning Guns Won’t Help

.thedailysheeple ^ | 12/17/12 | Michael Snyder

What in the world is happening to America? I have written many articles about how society is crumbling right in front of our eyes, but now it is getting to the point where people are going to be afraid to go to school or go shopping at the mall. Just consider what has happened over the past week. Adam Lanza savagely murdered 20 children and 6 adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. 42-year-old Marcus Gurrola threatened to shoot innocent shoppers and fired off more than 50 rounds in the parking lot of Fashion Island Mall in Newport Beach, California. After police apprehended him, he told them that he “was unhappy with life”. Earlier in the week, a crazy man wearing a hockey mask and armed with a semi-automatic rifle opened fire on the second floor of a mall in Happy Valley, Oregon. He killed two people and injured a third. On Saturday morning, a lone gunman walked into a hospital in Alabama and opened fire. He killed one police officer and two hospital employees before being gunned down by another police officer. So have we now reached the point where every school, every mall and every hospital is going to need armed security? How will society function efficiently if everyone is constantly worried about mass murderers?
In response to the horrible tragedy in Connecticut, many in the mainstream media are suggesting that much stricter gun laws are the obvious solution.
After all, if we get rid of all the guns these crazy people won’t be able to commit these kinds of crimes, right?
Unfortunately, that is not how it works. The criminals don’t obey gun control laws. Banning guns will just take them out of the hands of law-abiding American citizens that just want to protect their own families.
Adam Lanza didn’t let the strict gun control laws up in Connecticut stop him from what he wanted to do. Connecticut already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, and Adam Lanza broke at least three of them.
However, if there had been some armed security officers or some armed teachers at that school, they may have had a chance to protect those dear little children from being brutally gunned down.
If gun control was really the solution to our problems, then cities that have implemented strict gun control laws should be some of the safest in the entire country.
But sadly, just the opposite is true.
For example, Chicago has very strict gun laws. But 10 people were shot in the city of Chicago on Friday alone. Chicago is now considered to be “the deadliest global city“, and the murder rate in Chicago is about 25 percent higher than it was last year.
So has gun control turned Chicago into a utopia?
Of course not.
And it won’t solve our problems on a national level either.
You can find more statistics about the futility of gun control right here.
Well, how would things be if we did just the opposite and everyone had a gun?
Would gun crime go through the roof?
That is what liberals were warning of when the city of Kennesaw, Georgia passed a law requiring every home to have a gun. But instead of disaster, the results turned out to be very impressive…
In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw – responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of “Wild West” showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender.
The crime rate initially plummeted for several years after the passage of the ordinance, with the 2005 per capita crime rate actually significantly lower than it was in 1981, the year before passage of the law.
Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available – for the year 2005 – show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189.
When criminals know that everyone has guns, they are much less likely to try something. And often armed citizens are able to prevent potential mass murderers from doing more damage. You can find several examples of this right here.
But of course most of our politicians are not interested in common sense. Instead, they are obsessed with the idea that gun control will make our country “safe” again.
Senator Diane Feinstein says that she is ready to introduce a strict gun control bill in January that will “ban the sale, the transfer, the importation and the possession” of many types of firearms.
Will such a law keep the criminals from getting guns?
No way. Just look at what is happening with the cartels down in Mexico. The criminals are always able to get guns.
If our “leaders” were really interested in stopping these mass murders, they would take a look at the role that mind-altering pharmaceutical drugs play in these incidents. If you look at the mass murders that have occurred over the past several decades, in the vast majority of them the murderer had been using mind-altering pharmaceutical drugs…
The Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP) has raised concerns about severe acts of violence as side effects of anti-psychotic and antidepressant drugs not only on individuals but on society as well.
Just a month ago PRWeb described drug induced violence as ”medicine’s best kept secret.”
And the Citizens Commission on Human Rights International (CCHRI) is calling for a federal investigation on its web page which links no less than 14 mass killings to the use of psychiatric drugs such as Prozac and Paxil.
And guess what?
According to the Washington Post, one neighbor says that Adam Lanza was “on medication”.
But will our politicians ever consider a law against such drugs?
Of course not. The big corporations that produce those drugs give mountains of money to the campaign funds of our politicians.
So the focus of the debate will remain on guns.
And a lot of liberals would have us believe that our society could be transformed into some type of “utopia” if we could just get rid of all the guns.
Unfortunately, that is simply not true. Our society is in an advanced state of moral decay, and this moral decay is manifesting in our society in thousands of different ways. The corruption runs from the highest levels of society all the way down to the lowest.
For those that believe that gun control would somehow “fix America”, I have some questions for you…
Down in Texas, one set of parents kept their 10-year-old son locked in a bedroom and only fed him bread and water for months. Eventually he died of starvation and they dumped his body in a creek.
Would banning guns have kept that from happening?
A pastor in north Texas was recently assaulted by an enraged man who beat him to death with an electric guitar.
Would banning guns have kept that from happening?
Police up in New Jersey say that a man kept his girlfriend padlocked in a bedroom for most of the last 10 years.
Would banning guns have kept that from happening?
A 31-year-old man up in Canada was found guilty of raping an 8-year-old girl, breaking 16 of her bones and smashing her in the face with a hammer.
Would banning guns have kept that from happening?
According to the FBI, a New York City police officer is being accused of “planning the kidnap, rape, torture and cannibilization of a number of women”.
Would banning guns have kept that from happening?
A Secret Service officer that had been assigned to protect Joe Biden’s residence has been charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl.
Would banning guns have kept that from happening?
Over in Texas, a very sick 29-year-old man stabbed his girlfriend to death and then burned his one-year-old baby alive because she had gone to court and filed for child support.
Would banning guns have kept that from happening?
Over in Utah, a 21-year-old man is accused of stabbing his grandmother 111 times and then removing her organs with a knife.
Would banning guns have kept that from happening?
There are more than 3 million reports of child abuse in the United States every single year.
Would banning guns keep that from happening?
An average of five children die as a result of child abuse in the United States every single day.
Would banning guns keep that from happening?
The United States has the highest child abuse death rate on the entire globe.
Would banning guns keep that from happening?
It is estimated that 500,000 Americans that will be born this year will be sexually abused before they turn 18.
Would banning guns keep that from happening?
In the United States today, it is estimated that one out of every four girls is sexually abused before they become adults.
Would banning guns keep that from happening?
If there was a way to take all of the guns away from all of the criminals, I would be all in favor of it. Unfortunately, no government on the planet has been able to do that.
Instead, we have seen that criminals thrive whenever gun bans are instituted and the guns are taken away from law-abiding citizens.
But the bottom line is that our social decay will not be solved either by more guns or less guns.
Our social decay is the result of decades of bad decisions. We have pushed morality out of our schools, out of government and out of almost every aspect of public life. Now we are experiencing the bitter fruit of those decisions.
And this is not a problem that our government is going to be able to fix. Violent crime increased by 18 percent in 2011, and this is just the beginning.
As our economy gets even worse, the rot and decay that have been eating away the foundations of America are going to become even more evident. The number of Americans living in poverty grows with each passing day, and millions upon millions of people are becoming very desperate.
Desperate people do desperate things, and crime, rioting and looting are going to become commonplace in the United States in the years ahead.
So you can pretend that the government is going to be able to keep our society from crumbling all you want, but that is not going to help you when a gang of desperate criminals has invaded your home and is attacking your family.
We definitely should mourn for the victims in Connecticut. It was a horrible national tragedy.
But this is just the beginning. The fabric of our society is coming apart at the seams. The feeling of safety and security that we all used to take for granted has been shattered, and the streets of America are going to steadily become much more dangerous.
I hope that you are ready.

With one shot!

Eowyn - Return of the King Pictures, Images and Photos 
Good job lady warrior, Lisa Castellano.

Man Attempts to Open Fire on Crowd at Movie Theater, Armed Off-Duty Sheriff’s Deputy Drops Him With One Bullet

The Blaze
December 17, 2012

With one shot, an off-duty sheriff’s deputy, Lisa Castellano,  took down a gunman who attempted to opened fire at a crowded movie theater lobby during a late night showing of “The Hobbit” in San Antonio, WOAI reports!

Defense Free Zone

Posted Image

Decisions, Decisions

Posted Image

On the Job

Posted Image


Posted Image

Job Discrimination?

Posted Image


Posted Image


Posted Image


Posted Image


Posted Image

Makers vs Takers

Posted Image

The Second

Posted Image

Playing Different Games

Posted Image

Laid Off

Posted Image


Posted Image

Our Kids

Posted Image


Posted Image


Posted Image

Teacher's Union

Posted Image

Harry Belafonte

Posted Image

What's the Difference between Socialists and Communists?

Reaganite Republican ^ | 18 December 2012 | Reaganite Republican

Joke from communist-era Poland still rings-true...

Teen: 'Father, what's the difference between
socialists and communists?'

Dad: 'The communists shoot you right in the head,
while socialists torment you through your whole life.'

More dark humor from behind the iron curtain at
Mayakas: she was there...

I particularly enjoyed Maya's 'Truth' series on what life was like living in communist Czechoslovakia: it's a colorful first-hand account that provides a feeling for the captive environment and daily battles of living in the kind of 'progressive' socialist state that historically-clueless Obama groupies seem to think is so cool: