Monday, May 12, 2014

Actor Richard Dreyfuss: If Someone Doesn't Believe In American Exceptionalism, Hit Them In The Mouth!

RealClearPolitics ^ | May 11, 2014 | RealClearPolitics
Academy Award-winning actor Richard Dreyfuss talks to FOX News' Mike Huckabee about the importance of teaching the constitution and American exceptionalism. "We were responsible for the greatest revolution in the history of civilization. We gave to 98% of the human race freedoms that they have been lashed for, lost fingers for or had their heads chopped off for and we gave it to them for free and we are the most revolutionary nation that has ever been and ever will be and we don't know enough about our constitution or our history to know why we should be proud of it," Dreyfuss said on FOX News' "Huckabee." "Whenever you hear someone say American exceptionalism [doesn't exist], you should turn to that person and say, 'if you don't prove that statement, I'm going hit you right in the mouth.' Because they don't prove it, and they can't," Dreyfuss said.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

White House wanted Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner to LIE to the public!

Mail online ^ | May 12, 2014 | FRANCESCA CHAMPERS
The White House wanted Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to lie on Sunday talk shows to downplay the part Social Security played in driving the deficit, it was revealed today. Geithner writes in his memoir Stress Test, out today, that the White House communications director asked him to downplay the long term cost of Social Security spending to mollify the Democratic Party's base. 'I remember during one Roosevelt Room prep session before I appeared on the Sunday shows, I objected when Dan Pfeiffer wanted me to say Social Security didn't contribute to the deficit. It wasn't a main driver of our future deficits, but it did contribute,' he says. 'Pfeiffer said the line was a 'dog whistle' to the left, a phrase I had never heard before. He had to explain that the phrase was code to the Democratic base, signaling that we intended to protect Social Security.'
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Why The Tea Party Won ^ | May 12, 2014 | Scottie Hughes

Tuesday's primaries are just another round of the Republican Party trying to figure out how we are going to be defined for the next 2 years going into the 2016 Presidential race. Much of the establishment would like to show certain losses as the reasons why the Tea Party/Conservative wing of the Party should not be given a seat at the table. However, we in the Tea Party see it differently. We don't have to win because as of now, we are controlling the conversation. We are making Republicans define themselves and be accountable for their votes. Speaker John Boehner won in Ohio by 68.7% which was down from his previous campaign of 81%. While a win is still a win, this much of a drop should be very concerning to the establishment and the Boehner camp considering his closest opponent only raised around $75K in comparison to the millions in the Speaker's campaign coffers. The real interesting part of this election is how serious grumblings from his traditionally loyal supporters in the House are being voiced over whether or not they will support him for Speaker again. Boehner either not running for speaker or losing the vote would be considered a win for us. In North Carolina, those in the Tea Party were hoping for a runoff between the establishment Tom Tillis and the Tea Party's Greg Brannon. The hope was that a runoff would give us more time for more primaries like the Chris McDaniel race in Mississippi to show the strength of the Conservative movement. Momentum is the key to winning the Grassroots effort. But let us not forget that North Carolina is truly a purple state and not one we would consider a Conservative strong State. We need to have good candidates represent the Conservative movement, hence why not all Tea Party groups have backed Matt Bevin's bid for Senate in Kentucky. In fact the same group, The Tea Party Leadership Fund, who had been working against Boehner in Ohio, endorsed Mitch McConnell. We need to have candidates who have already been vetted and have the actual means to win an election without sacrificing their integrity. We also need to make sure in future races, we only put one Conservative against one establishment candidate, as this is our common mistake, and the main reason why we continue to lose. Candidates in our movement have to remember that they might be able go back to their lives after a loss, and in some cases might even be able to profit on their gained name recognition; however, the movement will always have a notch in the loss column due to their campaign. We need to be smart. Not to discourage the grassroots candidates, but we need to make sure that we as Conservatives are honest enough to put our goal of putting a true Conservative in office, as priority instead of offering numerous choices. Remember, revolutions don't just happen overnight. It takes strategy and planning. This is not a sprint, we are in a long distant run to save our party. Although there are 100 senators, think about the power of one. One senator who is willing to stand and fight against a bankrupting health care system. One Senator who is willing to speak out to protect personal liberties. One senator who is not afraid to point out corrupt and misleading proposed laws because of his in depth knowledge of the supreme law. The light of one honest senator in a hall of darkness and corruption can save our country. Truth be told, neither the establishment nor the Tea Party will ever win a majority of elections again if we don't unite under the disasters of Obamacare, the 18 trillion dollars of debt, IRS targeting, the truth of Benghazi, etc. The establishment will not survive without the passion and hard work of the grassroots or the Tea Party. At the same time, the Tea Party cannot stand on its own without the structure and fundraising of the establishment. The Democrats’ biggest wish is to continue this divide as they know we are weak when separated.

The Day Obama’s Presidency Died

PJ Media's Belmont Club ^ | May 11, 2014 | Richard Fernandez
Almost nobody in Japan heard about the Battle of Midway until after the war. The Emperor Hirohito, upon hearing of the debacle ordered a comprehensive cover-up. The wounded were isolated on hospital ships. All mail was censored. Surviving enlisted men and officers were held incommunicado until they could be shipped off to distant battlefields from where it was hoped they would never return. The sunken ships themselves were gradually written off over the course of the war until their loss blended in with the general demise of the imperial fleet. In order to coordinate this effort Hirohito created a special office of cabinet rank. It worked perfectly. If the US had not won World War 2 Midway would never have existed in Japanese history. The average man of course read nothing in the papers, heard nothing on the radio, saw nothing in the newsreel. But perceptive Japanese ‘felt’ something momentous had happened though they could not identify its cause. It’s impact, though denied in the press, shuddered through the whole imperial fabric. From that day forward events seemed to take a downward trajectory. Only after the war did the Japanese know the root of their misfortunes. Midway. But the loss was worse than four carriers sunk. Jonathan Parshall and Anthony Tully in their classic account of Midway, The Shattered Sword, argued that the battle broke the Japanese empire in a fundamental way. It was the consequences of denial that really finished the Japanese military. Cohen and Gooch propose that all military failures fall into three basic categories: failure to learn from the past, failure to anticipate what the future may bring, and failure to adapt to the immediate circumstances on the battlefield. They further note that when one of these three basic failures occurs in isolation (known as a simple failure), the results, while unpleasant, can often also be overcome. Aggregate failures occur when two of the basic failure types, usually learning and anticipation, take place simultaneously, and these are more difficult to surmount. Finally, at the apex of failure stand those rare events when all three basic failures occur simultaneously-an event known as catastrophic failure. In such an occurrence, the result is usually a disaster of such scope that recovery is impossible. The Japanese did not want to accept what Midway meant about their strategic assumptions and therefore they suppressed it. That was more damaging than the naval losses themselves. It was that failure to adjust to reality which doomed the empire. The curious thing about September 11, 2012 — the day of the Benghazhi attack — is that for some reason it marks the decline of the Obama presidency as clearly as a milepost. We are told by the papers that nothing much happened on that day. A riot in a far-away country. A few people killed. And yet … it may be coincidental, but from that day the administration’s foreign policy seemed inexplicably hexed. The Arab Spring ground to a halt. The Secretary of State ‘resigned’. The CIA Director was cast out in disgrace. Not long after, Obama had to withdraw his Red Line in Syria. Al-Qaeda, whose eulogy he had pronounced appeared with disturbing force throughout Africa, South Asia and the Arabian Peninsula. Almost as if on cue, Russia made an unexpected return to the world stage, first in Syria, then in the Iranian nuclear negotiations. Worse was to follow. America’s premier intelligence organization, the National Security Agency, was taken apart in public and the man who took its secrets, Edward Snowden, decamped to Moscow with a laptop full of secrets. But it was all just a curtain raiser to the dismemberment of Ukraine and the disaster in Eastern Europe. DONETSK, Ukraine — Ninety percent of voters in a key industrial region in eastern Ukraine came out in favor of sovereignty Sunday, pro-Russian insurgents said in announcing preliminary results of a twin referendum that is certain to deepen the turmoil in the country. Roman Lyagin, election chief of the self-styled Donetsk People’s Republic, said around 75 percent of the Donetsk region’s 3 million or so eligible voters cast ballots, and the vast majority backed self-rule. The Ukraine has now been effectively partitioned. The Obama administration talk about inflicting “consequences” and “costs” on Russia turned out to be empty. Almost as if to add insult to injury, Iran has declared victory in Syria over Obama. “‘We have won in Syria,’ said Alaeddin Borujerdi, chairman of the Iranian parliament’s national security and foreign policy committee and an influential government insider. ‘The regime will stay. The Americans have lost it.’” And still there’s no acknowledgement of anything being fundamentally wrong. As with the Japanese at Midway, we’ve all felt a change in the beat of the engines; a difference in the progress of the hull. One person who might understand why the Obama boat is sputtering is fleeing the scene while avoiding an explanation is Hillary. Slate notes that she just had a fundraiser with a virulent critic of Obama. “De Rothschild is a multimillionaire who was reportedly introduced her husband, Sir Evelyn de Rothschild, by Henry Kissinger. She became nationally notorious during the 2008 election cycle as a Clinton supporter who refused to throw her support to Barack Obama after the primaries, vocally backing John McCain and calling Obama an ‘elitist’ without any apparent sense of irony. She later said the president is ‘a loser’ who ‘is going to bankrupt America’ and observed that ‘being half black’ did not qualify him to be president.” The Washington Post teasingly suggests there is a reason why Hillary is broadening her circle of friends. “Why Hillary Clinton will be rubbing elbows with a major Obama critic this month,” they ask. But the don’t say. But the New York Times has a theory: Hillary’s problem is Obama. The public is tired of seeing Obama’s mug, and ergo they want to see Hillary’s. The latest investigation into the Benghazi attack reminds us that the issue isn’t going away any time soon. Pundits are already speculating about potential damage to Hillary Clinton’s presidential prospects, but don’t believe the hype: Scandals rarely matter much in presidential election campaigns. A far more significant threat to her potential candidacy is Americans’ desire for new leadership after eight years of the Obama administration. A Pew Research Center/USA Today poll found this week that 65 percent of Americans would “like to see a president who offers different policies and programs.” Only 30 percent said they wanted ones “similar to those of the Obama administration.” Note the reappearance of Benghazi once again in the familiar New York Times “nothing happened” mode. Just move on and remember that what the voters want is Hillary’s fresh face. But since the NYT is offering a conjecture of surpassing thinness, why not offer another, so long as it is understood that it is merely guesswork. Here goes: the day the Obama presidency died. Benghazi had its roots in an alternative theory of foreign policy formed in Obama’s team at around the time of the Surge in Iraq. From that experience, Obama’s advisers persuaded him that it would be possible to “turn” America’s enemies by taking control of them instead of fighting them. It was a dazzling prospect which offered victory on the cheap. It was to be built on three pillars: covert action, targeted assassinations and diplomacy. The idea was simple, instead of relying on the regular military, the Obama administration would take over the most dangerous jihadi groups through intelligence agencies. Through this mechanism they would become their patrons and cement the relationship with diplomatic deals with their Gulf funders. Drones and hunter killer squads would be employed to promote chosen intelligence assets — American agents — to positions of responsbility in the terror cells. The drones would clear the way for designated jihadis to rise within the ranks. Eventually America would own the jihad and neuter it from within. America would out ISI the ISI. But of course there had to be a genuine political component as well. A bone needed to be thrown to genuine Muslim aspirations. Why not give the Muslim Brotherhood Egypt and hand over Syria to al-Qaeda? And why not use American diplomatic muscle to force a deal between Palestine and Israel. That way al-Qaeda could have their own countries and presumably be satisfied with that. This scheme has a certain superficial attractiveness. It sounds wildly daring, incredibly smart and its formulators must have felt like Cortez on a Peak in Darien. “Boy are we cool to have thought of this.” There is only one problem with this scenario. It could never be sold to a public who had given their sons to fighting the Jihad in Iraq and Afghanistan. It could never be peddled to crusty old guys who’d see it as a crazy-ass scheme. The solution to meeting the objections was simple. Don’t tell anyone and conduct a secret foreign and counter-terrorist policy, which when it succeeded could be unveiled as proof of Obama’s genius. All of this is conjecture, but conjecture in the same way that the New York Times’ argues there is nothing to Benghazi. Absent testimony and the disclosure of records, Benghazi remains a null value, something unmeasured. We don’t know what it is, any more than a blank address field in a database; we only know we don’t know what it is. So let me insert a guess into the field. Suppose Benghazi was the night when the administration’s secret policy fell apart. In one devastating attack Obama — and Hillary — realized they had been double crossed and their whole theory had been a dream. In an instant it was plain they could not control the jihad from the inside. That setback, by itself, was not necessarily a bad thing. Commanders in Chief can make mistakes so why couldn’t Hillary and Obama just admit they had this theory but it didn’t work in practice and just learn from it? Because they had pursued the policy secretly and possibly illegally. Because of 2012. Because like Hirohito, Obama could do no wrong, so there was nothing but to protect the Throne of Heaven from the accusation of fallibility and the guilt of cover-up. So they lied. Let us now return to Parshall’s observation that ”all military failures fall into three basic categories: failure to learn from the past, failure to anticipate what the future may bring, and failure to adapt to the immediate circumstances on the battlefield. ” It’s possible that Obama did exactly that on the night of September 11, 2012. He didn’t see the double cross coming; he had no Plan B for Syria, for al-Qaeda, having bet the farm on Plan A and he covered failure up. He went and committed all three categories of failure. ”Finally, at the apex of failure stand those rare events when all three basic failures occur simultaneously-an event known as catastrophic failure. In such an occurrence, the result is usually a disaster of such scope that recovery is impossible.” And now he’s living with the consequences of having to pursue a strategic assumption he knows is wrong but does not dare denounce. Suppose Benghazi was a catastrophic failure, made all the more dangerous by the possibility that Russia had a hand in it. If Putin, having studied how Reagan used the Jihad to bring down Soviet Union, played the same game on Barack Hussein Obama, it would explain many otherwise inexplicable things. The role of Snowden. The disgrace of Petraeus. The exile of anyone and anything to do with Benghazi. The kid-gloves treatment of the Ansar attackers. The strange enmity between Hillary and Obama. Each is bound by the same secret. Each lives in fear of the same smoldering fire burning in the bowels of the administration. The lie is much more dangerous than the truth. America can live with an Obama mistake. But it can’t live with an Obama who cannot acknowledge his mistakes.


Steyn Online ^ | 5/11/14 | Merk Steyn
It is hard not to have total contempt for a political culture that thinks the picture at right is a useful contribution to rescuing 276 schoolgirls kidnapped by jihadist savages in Nigeria. Yet some pajama boy at the White House evidently felt getting the First Lady to pose with this week's Hashtag of Western Impotence would reflect well upon the Administration. The horrible thing is they may be right: Michelle showed she cared - on social media! - and that's all that matters, isn't it? Just as the last floppo hashtag, #WeStandWithUkraine, didn't actually involve standing with Ukraine, so #BringBackOurGirls doesn't require bringing back our girls. There are only a half-dozen special forces around the planet capable of doing that without getting most or all of the hostages killed: the British, the French, the Americans, Israelis, Germans, Aussies, maybe a couple of others. So, unless something of that nature is being lined up, those schoolgirls are headed into slavery, and the wretched pleading passivity of Mrs Obama's hashtag is just a form of moral preening. But then what isn't? The blogger Daniel Payne wrote this week that "modern liberalism, at its core, is an ideology of talking, not doing". He was musing on a press release for some or other "Day of Action" that is, as usual, a day of inaction: Diverse grassroots groups are organizing and participating in events such as walks, rallies and concerts and calling on government to reduce climate pollution, transition off fossil fuels and commit to a clean energy future. It's that easy! You go to a concert and someone "calls on government" to do something, and the world gets fixed.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Obama Attacks ‘Climate Deniers’ For Wasting Time Debating ‘Fact’

The Daily Caller ^ | May 9, 2014 | Michael Bastasch
President Obama took time in his Friday speech at a California Wal-Mart to bash “climate deniers” for obstructing him by debating the science behind man-made global warming. “So unfortunately, inside of Washington we’ve still got some climate deniers who shout loud, but they’re wasting everybody’s time on a settled debate,” Obama said, doubling down on remarks made during his State of the Union Address this year by adding that, “Climate change is a fact.” “Here in California, you’ve seen these effects firsthand,” Obama told the audience at a Mountain View Wal-Mart. “You know what’s happening. And increasingly, more and more Americans do — including, by the way, many Republicans outside of Washington.” Obama’s speech to announce more executive orders to promote solar energy development and energy efficiency subsidies comes just days after the White House released the third National Climate Assessment (NCA). The NCA claimed that global warming was already happening and had caused the U.S. to warm about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit since 1895. The report also claimed that temperatures could increase another 4 degrees Fahrenheit and sea levels could rise 4 feet in the coming decades if no action is taken. “Hundreds of scientists, experts and businesses, not-for-profits, local communities all contributed over the course of four years,” Obama said. “What they found was unequivocally that climate change is not some far-off problem in the future. It’s happening now. It’s causing hardship now.”(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The original assault rifle!


We Love Ya'!

The Chart


The Video

Bird Fines


Voter Sense

The Left

The Difference

Life is short

The Standard Line.

Go away!

Tough Day?

Mothers Day

I Checked My Privilege, And It’s Doing Just Fine ^ | May 12, 2014 | Kurt Schlichter
Liberals have a new word for what normal people call “success.” They call it “privilege,” as if a happy, prosperous life is the result of some magic process related to where your great-great-great-grandfather came from. It’s the latest leftist argument tactic, which means it is a tactic designed to prevent any argument and to beat you into rhetorical submission. Conservatives, don’t play their game. It’s easy to see that this notion that accomplishment comes not from hard work but from some mysterious force, operating out there in the ether, is essential to liberal thought. To excuse the dole-devouring layabouts who form so much of the Democrat voting base, it is critical that they undermine the achievements of those who support themselves. We can’t have the American people thinking that hard work leads to success; people might start asking why liberal constituencies don’t just work harder instead of demanding more money from those who actually produce something. This “Check your privilege” meme is the newest trump card du jour on college campuses and in other domains of progressive tyranny. It morphed into existence from the “You racist!” wolf-cry that is now so discredited that it produces little but snickers even among liberal fellow travelers. After all, if everyone is racist – and to the progressives, everyone is except themselves – then no one is really racist. And it’s kind of hard to take seriously being called “racist” by adherents of a political party that made a KKK kleagle its Senate majority leader. So how do we deal with this idiocy? The proper response to the privilege gambit is laughter. The super-serious zealots of progressivism hate being laughed at, but there’s really no other appropriate response outside of a stream of obscenities. The privilege game is designed to circumvent arguments based on reason and facts and evidence, so the way to win it is to defeat it on its own terms. Call: “Check your privilege!” Response: “What you call ‘privilege’ is just me being better than you.” They won’t like it. It will make them angry. Good. Because tactics like “Check your privilege” are designed to make us angry, to put us off-balance, to baffle us and suck us down into a rabbit hole of leftist jargon and progressive stupidity. Don’t follow them. Mock them. Accuse them of adhering to a transphobic cisnormative paradigm and start shrieking “Hate crime!” Don’t worry about not making sense. They’re college students. They are used to not understanding what people smarter than they are tell them. Respectful argument should be reserved for those who respect the concept of argument. The sulky sophomores who babble about privilege do not. They only understand power. And we give them power when we give their nonsense the respect we would give a coherent argument. They deserve only laughter. And to laugh at them, we simply need to refuse to be intimidated. The plain fact is that what they understand to be “privilege” is really just what regular people understand is a “consequence.” It is a consequence of hard work, of delaying gratification and of sacrifice. No one came and bestowed this country upon us. We built it. Some of us died doing so. If we have privilege, it was earned at Bunker Hill, Gettysburg and Normandy. It’s not a function of skin tone or the number of vowels in your name; it’s a function of character. Unlike them, many of us have lived overseas, and often in rather bullet-rich environs. Our life experience consists of more than reading Herbert Marcuse and showing solidarity with oppressed Guatemalan banana pickers by boycotting Chiquita. What we have today in this country is not anything to be ashamed of or to apologize for, but to be proud of. Their poisonous notion of privilege is really just another way for liberals to pick winners and losers based not upon who has won or lost in the real world, but upon who is useful and not useful to the progressive project at any given moment. This is why you see young people descended from Holocaust survivors tagged as bearers of “privilege” when their tattooed, emaciated grand-parents landed here with nothing but the clothes on their backs. Others who grew up in luxury get to bear the label of “unprivileged” because ten generations ago some relative came from a particular continent. It’s idiocy. It’s immoral. We need to say so. For too long we’ve put up with this silliness. What’s particularly amusing when you push back on these clowns is that they are so surprised to experience resistance to their petty fascism. Many of them, being the special snowflakes that they are, have never had anyone express to them the notion that they might be wrong. University administrators are too terrified of these whiny pipsqueaks to correct them. Certainly their helicopter parents never did – Gaia forbid that their little psyches be harmed by confronting them with their foolishness. For too long we conservatives have played nicely, being good sports about being slandered and returning respect when offered contempt. It didn’t work. It’s time to try something new. And that something new is not taking guff from some 20 year-old gender studies major with a stupid tribal tatt, a sense of entitlement and a big mouth. What they say is privilege is what we say is a reward for doing more with our lives than waiting for Uncle Sucker to refill our EBT cards. “Privilege” is a result of not being a human sloth, of not doing drugs, of not having kids we can’t afford them, and of not living our lives as a practical exercise in chaos theory. Check my privilege? I just did, and it’s doing great. If you want some privilege too, maybe you ought to get your sorry behind a job.