Sunday, May 24, 2015

If I Was A Black Man I Wouldn’t Fear White Devils -- I’d Fear Blacks! ^ | May 24, 2015 | Doug Giles 

If I was a black dude I wouldn’t be sweating getting offed by some pasty skinned white devil who listens to Cold Play and shops The Gap; or some buzz cut, “creepy-ass cracker” cop wearing Aviators.

Why wouldn’t I sweat such Caucasians?

Well … as a 52yr. old “black man” it’s primarily because of these six things:

-- I’m not selling narcotics.

-- I’m not carrying a switchblade.

-- I’m not shaking down store clerks after they catch me stealing fists full of Swisher Sweets.

-- I’m not beating the stuffing out of a cop after I dared him to run over me as I defiantly slow-trolled down the middle of the street.

-- I’m not looting stores.

-- I’m really not breaking any law (aside from an occasional speed limit) or hanging out with anyone doing shady stuff.

Ergo, as a hypothetical brother, I wouldn’t fear a Caucasian at anytime, anywhere, for anything. I’m cool … you see?

However, my teens were a wee bit different story chocked full of phobias. Righteous phobias, mind you.

As the theoretical black teen and twenty-something, I definitely would fear The Cracker because, back in my day, I was hell on two skinny legs.

Yep, as a “black teen” I would dread the white man, or any man for that matter, especially those sporting a badge -- and here’s why: I did stupid, lawless, evil and wicked stuff with great regularity, that’s why.

Indeed, my fears would’ve been justified because I dealt drugs, burglarized homes and businesses, vandalized property, treated people like dirt and got into enough trouble for twenty punks.

It took a collision course with Johnny Law and Jesus Christ to wake my dumb-butt up.

What I’ve learned after over half-a-century of schlepping this third rock from the sun is this: If I don’t do whacked stuff then, generally speaking, I don’t have to fear people or police … duh.

That said, continuing with the “if i was a black guy I wouldn’t fear the white man” motif, I must say, given the empirical data of late, that if, as a black man, I had to fear anyone for anything at anytime it would be a black person – because the black on black crime is way more a threat to a black person than any thing a white dude is currently doling out. Read this if you think I’m full of crap.

Finally, I will let Chris Rock explain what he, as a law-abiding black man, truly fears. Remember, he said it. I didn’t.

Why I love 'hate speech' ^ | May 24, 2015 | Mallory Millett 

I love Pamela Geller. I have known and loved her for years. She is a great American! If only everyone who has the honor of calling himself American could grow courage like hers we would be un-terrorizable as a nation. Pamela gets that we are at war and stands as an example for those of us who have lost our way.

Many of you under fifty have been educated by the whackerino indoctrinators crowding reality out of our High Schools and Universities. These liars and fantasists are so busy obliterating, truncating or revising history (when they're not entirely ignoring it), that our true history has drifted out the window like so much smoke wafting in the wind. As a consequence there are few Americans left to say, "Hey, whoa, that's not the way it goes...that's not the way it is"; especially when it comes to our Constitution.

The First Amendment is in the Constitution because not one scintilla of it could be taken for granted; it's an anomaly which needed to be boldly, emphatically, unequivocally stated due to it's being nonexistent in all of the places from which we ran to reach sanctuary on this continent. There seems to be some grand misunderstanding that human rights or free speech has ever existed anywhere elseBut, the thing didn't!
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

What We Owe Our Troops ^ | May 24, 2015 | Paul Jacob 

At some point on this Memorial Day weekend, stop a minute to remember all those Americans who have fallen in all the wars this nation has waged. And then, next, let’s contemplate what we ought do, if there is any action we might take, in memory of those who didn’t come home alive.
There are indeed numerous charities caring for veterans and their families, which are worthy of support, should you have the time or money to contribute.
But as citizens, we still owe something more to those who have given, as President Lincoln spoke at Gettysburg, “their last full measure of devotion.” More even, than our appreciative applause for the troops on airplanes and at professional sporting events . . . with their high-priced, taxpayer-paid military promotions.
First, the wounded among the more than 67,000 American soldiers killed and wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan are fully entitled to the medical care they were promised. So are Vietnam vets and Korean War vets, etc. This is simply upholding contract law.
What a scandal that these suffering vets have been systematically shortchanged by the Veterans Administration — too often effectively denied medical care. And a further one that official Washington gets away with meandering along merely changing suits at the VA and claiming it’s fixed, without making real progress to uphold what is a legal and a moral and sometimes a life-and-death responsibility to these soldiers.
Just last week, Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) complained about continued substandard care with the quip: “If only the VA did half as good a job taking care of our veterans as they do their own bureaucrats.”
Second, let’s ask every man and woman seeking to be the president, and, therefore, the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, more than a few what-if and if-you-knew-then questions on foreign policy and the use of military force. We might want to compare the answers before we “pick” the next president.
As you know, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush had some surprising trouble recently with the hypothetical: If you knew then what we know now, would you have launched a U.S. invasion of Iraq?
After a few days, and a few answers, the presidential aspirant settled on: “No.”
While some attacked the hypothetical nature of the inquiry, on Meet the Press Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) defended it: “Well, I think it’s an important question and I don’t think it’s a historical anecdote. I don’t think it’s something that’s a hypothetical question. I think it’s a recurring question in the Middle East. Is it a good idea to topple secular dictators? And what happens when we do? I think, when Hussein was toppled, we got chaos. We still have chaos in Iraq.”
Sen. Paul then pivoted to a more recent military intervention, one both conceived and conducted by the Obama Administration, when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State: “But I think the same question, to be fair, ought to be asked of Hillary Clinton, if she ever takes questions. They should ask her, ’Was it a good idea to invade Libya? Did that make us less safe? Did it make it more chaotic? Did it allow radical Islam and ISIS to grow stronger?’”
The NATO air war — dubbed “leading from behind” by the O Administration, itself — succeeded in toppling the Gaddafi regime. But that successful regime-change then also led to continued chaos in Libya.
“[B]y all objective measures, it is a disaster. I call it a jihadist wonderland,” Rand Paul told a recent audience. “Our ambassador was assassinated, a third of the country pledges allegiance to ISIS, I would call it a failed state.”
Yes, now and throughout the 2016 presidential campaign, let’s talk about what happened in Libya and Iraq and Afghanistan, openly, honestly, critically . . . and at length. That’s what is best for our troops, now and in the future.
The third thing we owe those who have fought and died is to answer another question, a very non-hypothetical question: Are we today at war against the Islamic State?
We really should know . . . I mean, on Memorial Day and all.
We know our planes are bombing in Syria and Iraq, that US commando missions into both countries have occurred, that when politician after politician says “no boots on the ground,” they’re all lying (we have 3,000 troops on the ground as “advisors”), and that we’re still spending money hand-over-fist.
So we’re conducting what amounts to a war. But is it lawful?
President Barack Obama claims he has the constitutional power to engage militarily in Iraq and Syria against the Islamic State under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed by Congress in 2001.
But that War on Terror authorization was for “all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons. . . . ”
A number of legal scholars point out that doesn’t apply to the new Islamic State.
Which may be why, back in February, Obama asked Congress to pass a new AUMF to cover military action against the Islamic State. Congressional Republicans balked, though, complaining the president’s proposed AUMF isn’t strong enough.
Of course, nothing prevents congressional Republicans from passing a stronger version.
Or better yet, pass no such AUMF. Instead, demand that President Obama keep American boys and girls out of harm’s way in Iraq and Syria.
The Islamic State may wish to be at war with the U.S., but we don’t have to humor them. Let Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran defend themselves and their territory from this gang of cutthroats.
In 1964, before President Lyndon Johnson foolishly escalated U. S. involvement in Vietnam, when he was also engaged in seeking his first popular election to the presidency, he spoke common sense about American military intervention abroad: “We are not about to send American boys nine or ten thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves.”
Same goes for “Arab boys.”
This is their battle, not ours.
We owe it to our fallen, our current soldiers, our vets — not to mention our children — to know the difference.

Barack Obama’s War On Police

Politically Short ^ | May 20, 2015 | Politically Short 

On December 18, 2014, Barack Obama officially began the war on police as he signed an Executive Order establishing the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing. Since the signing of this Executive Order, 55 Officers have been killed in the line of duty. 

Yet, this mattered little to Obama who justified his Executive Order as he spoke about “the distrust that exists between too many police departments and too many communities – the sense that in a country where our basic principle is equality under the law, too many individuals, particularly young people of color, do not feel they are being treated fairly.” In the name of equality, the President wrote that the purpose of his task force was to identify and “bring unity and consensus on best practices to a nation with 18,000 separate law enforcement agencies.”
On March 4, 2015, the task force released its interim report on 21st Century Policing in which the report identified “six pillars on how policing practices can build public trust and promote effective crime reduction” based upon “input from community members, law enforcement officers, associations, stakeholders, academic experts, and civic leaders across the country.” In order to implement the strategies identified in the report, the federal government will “provide funding for state and local police, dependent upon such police departments meeting requirements established by the federal government.” In short, what this means is that the administration will attempt to gain federal control of local police practices via conditions placed on the receipt of federal funds.
According to a multitude of recommendations under the report, the administration stresses the need to change the culture in which police do their work noting that “the use of disrespectful language and the implicit biases that lead officers to rely upon race in the context of Stop and Frisk”, must be abolished. Moreover, the report recommends that the “Federal government create a Law Enforcement Diversity Initiative to help communities diversify Law Enforcement departments to better reflect the demographics of the community…with discretionary Federal funding for Law Enforcement programs influenced by that departments efforts to improve their diversity.”
Lastly, the report notes that the “U.S. Department of Justice should charge its office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) with assisting the law enforcement field in addressing current and future challenges by establishing benchmarks and best practices for Federal, State, and Local police departments.” The report goes on to conclude that the President should “prioritize grant funding to departments meeting benchmarks.” Thus, creating the incentive for over 18,000 separate law enforcement agencies to follow the federal guidelines in order to receive funding.
In order to bring about the systemic reform of policing called for in the report, multiple activist organizations aided by the Civil Rights Division in the Department of Justice, have gone about exploiting local police communities throughout the country by using actual and perceived instances of injustice to reform entire police departments. Last week, James Cadogan, a senior counselor to the U.S. assistant attorney general, took to the United Nations’ Human Rights Council to highlight and condemn our police on the international stage for their “racism and brutality.”
Cadogan highlighted the past cases which have been exploited by the DOJ beginning with, “The tragic deaths of Freddie Gray in Baltimore, Michael Brown in Missouri, Eric Garner in New York, Tamir Rice in Ohio and Walter Scott in South Carolina.” Cadogan then noted that these cases “have renewed a long-standing and critical national debate about the even-handed administration of justice” as “these events challenge us to do better and to work harder for progress — through both dialogue and action.”
Cadogan concluded by adding that the Department of Justice has opened more than 20 investigations in the last six years — including an investigation into the Baltimore Police Department — as well as the release of a report of the Presidential Task Force on 21st Century Policing in March, which included more than 60 recommendations. A glaring theme becomes apparent within each of the cases that Cadogan highlighted, primarily that being the exploitation of local police communities by Vanita Gupta, the head of the DOJ Civil Rights Division.
On Tuesday, Gupta spoke to the Colorado Lawyers Committee in remarks about the work of the Civil Rights Division. Gupta explained that the source of mistrust between police and the communities they serve couldn’t be “explained away as the kneejerk reaction of the ill-informed or the hyperbolic.” Gupta then went on to state, “It’s in part the product of historical awareness about the role that police have played in enforcing and perpetuating slavery, the Black Codes, lynchings and Jim Crow segregation.”
This fringe viewpoint by Gupta epitomizes the mainstream view among the leftists who populate not only the Civil Rights Division but the Department of Justice as well. “It was no accident that these same leftists produced an absurd self-fulfilling report on Ferguson”, writes J. Christian Adams of PJMedia. “But that hasn’t stopped Gupta from trumpeting the report, or better still, using the report to shake down police departments across the country to change their ways or else.”
Gupta illustrates this point by concluding her speech to the Colorado Lawyers noting that, “in many ways, Ferguson is not an anomaly. Through our work around the country, we know there are similar police and court practices in many places..[and] cities around the country are beginning to re-examine their policing and municipal court practices, though we know there is much more work to do.”
Its unprecedented that our own DOJ would continue to use the example of Ferguson to highlight the need for changes within police communities given the fact that Michael Brown was in no way innocent of the actions that led to his death. The entire narrative that surrounded his death was fabricated and built upon a lie that to this day the media, the DOJ, and the Obama administration continue to peddle. Moreover, by attempting to claim that slavery, Black Codes, Jim Crow, and lynchings are apart of the “implicit bias” and historical context in which police today continue to enforce, the DOJ justifies the actions of thugs whom have used this same argument in order to commit acts of violence against our officers.
This view of our police officers is becoming the norm under the Justice Department, which at the same time is set to further exacerbate this hatred as Obama is set to unleash and fund community organizers on crime filled cities across the nation. By awarding $163 million in grants to various community-activist groups in order to combat urban crime and reduce tensions between racial minorities and the police. The Justice Department is looking for 10 localities to participate in a “collaborative reform” process to serve as a model for the rest of the country, emphasizing “procedural justice” and “implicit bias training.” This will only fuel further unrest by funding many of the so-called “community organizers” responsible for creating anti-police sentiment in American cities.
It should come as no surprise then that in the wake of recent events and events to come that law enforcement officers are at a “tipping point” that could spell dangerous consequences for the communities they serve. Testifying before a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Tuesday, Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke articulated this point. Clarke noted “We’re at a tipping point and it is something that I expressed not too long after what happened in Ferguson, Missouri, about the psyche of the police officer who watches these things go on, just like anybody else does, and the constant bashing and maligning of the profession is starting to take its toll.” According to Clarke, the result of the constant and unrepentant backlash against law enforcement by the Obama administration is inevitably leading to an erosion of “self-initiated” police work.
This is what the war on police looks like, officers are forced to second guess their actions out of fear of being exploited for simply doing their jobs. Look no further than officer Darren Wilson to confirm this fear. To make matters even worse it appears the war against our officers is only just beginning as the president ramps up his effort to polarize, dehumanize, and ultimately destroy the will power that is so essential to each and every individual police officer throughout the country.

Democrats Seeking Pell Grants for Inmates at the Expense of the Law Abiding

Red Statements ^ | May 23, 2015 | Steven Ahle 

Six democrats are seeking to grant Pell Grants to inmates in prison. 

They claim that it will make them desirable applicants to companies when they get out of prison. Hey liberals, believe it or not companies aren’t clamoring for graduates of Stu’s University online even if they haven’t knocked off a bank or raped small children. So, why would these cons be employable? Of course, if they were to take computer classes they might stop mugging senior citizens and join the growing identity theft industry.
It’s also important to know that there is not an endless pool of money in the Pell Grant program. Since the proposal covers all state and federal prisoners in the United States (332,000 in 2014) that could mean that a sizable portion of America’s youth, who never even considered knocking off a liquor store could be denied a Pell Grant, especially since we know liberals will give a preference to criminals. (Out of professional courtesy)
The liberals behind this brain storm are Rep. Donna Edwards, Reps. Danny Davis, Barbara Lee, Robert Scott, Rosa DeLauro, and Cedric Richmond. Edwards released the following statement:
“The REAL Act is about restoring education opportunities for our nation’s prisoners so they will have the opportunity to reintegrate as productive members of the community post-incarceration. We know that helping economically challenged individuals work toward post-secondary study and training provides a better future for all Americans. We should provide such opportunities to all to ensure that the cyclical process of repeat incarceration does not continue.”
When you consider that 755 of college graduates of STEM (Science,Technology, Engineering and Math) cannot find work. STEM students are not able to find work because politicians like Marco Rubio favors bringing in foreign workers to take those jobs. In fact, Rubio is currently sponsoring a bill to triple the amount of foreign workers allowed in the STEM field. These prisoners, even if they successfully pass courses in any field, they will find themselves competing against cheap illegal alien labor.
Soon, parents will be encouraging their children to steal their neighbor’s car so they too can get an education.

In Flanders Fields

In Flanders Fields 
By: Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae, MD (1872-1918) 
Canadian Army
In Flanders Fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
In Flanders Field - Copy of Signed Original
Courtesy of Bee MacGuire
Obtained From TheMcCrae Museum of The Guelph Museum 

Good Riddance to David Letterman: A lefty sycophant limos off into the sunset.

Frontpage Mag ^ | 05/22/2015 | Daniel Greenfield 

David Letterman’s departure isn’t the end of an era. The era of late night talk shows ended a while back. In Johnny Carson’s final week in the nineties, he played to an audience of twenty million. Lately, Letterman has been lucky to get 2 million. His final shows have played to around 5 million viewers.
Late night talk shows still exist, but their intended audience mainly watches viral clips from them the next day. The average age of Letterman’s audience is 54. CBS hopes that the equally smarmy Stephen Colbert will be able to bring his younger audience demo with him, but even Jimmy Fallon couldn’t bring down the average age demo all that much. Colbert will shave a few years off and then spend his time getting old and stale. Even before then, the networks will collapse and take his new job with it.
The Late Show isn’t a beloved American institution. It was created by Letterman’s inflated sense of entitlement. It failed in its purpose, as Letterman lost to Leno, and it won’t outlive Letterman by long.
The tributes to Letterman carry heavy doses of media self-importance and self-pity. And these days the two are one and the same. The media isn’t really nostalgic for Letterman’s smarmy laugh; it’s mourning the loss of a time when limited options maintained captive audiences for every fellow media dork awarded a big three network microphone and its incredible power of nationwide prime time airtime.
It’s a power that doesn’t seem all that impressive now when worldwide audiences are a click away.
That’s why the controversies over Brian Williams or George Stephanopoulos are tempests in a broken teapot. The days when a Walter Cronkite could embody the news are gone. The days when a David Letterman sneer could drive public opinion have gone with it. In his last years, Letterman was trying and failing to compete, not with Jay Leno, but with a world of YouTube base jumping and cat video clips.
Younger hosts are slobbering over Letterman to be able to pretend that they too are a direct link to Dick Cavett or Johnny Carson, instead of glorified Buzzfeed employees whose real job is producing 2-minute clips viral enough that next morning mobile users will wait through a 30-second ad to watch them.
Like the leftovers of the media, Letterman’s job had become a comfortable sinecure. He said all the right things about how awful Republicans were, even if no one was paying attention, and in return his colleagues in the media avoided asking too many uncomfortable questions about his sexual harassment, the resulting manufactured blackmail incident and the toxic environment behind the curtain.
It’s this same culture of complicity that allowed Brian Williams to get away with telling so many crazy lies for so long or allowed George Stephanopoulos to play journalist. The mafia has nothing on the media when it comes to keeping quiet about the sins of progressive colleagues. He may have been a sleazeball who had issues with women, but like the BBC’s Jimmy Savile, he was their sleazeball.
When Letterman compared Sarah Palin [2] to a “slutty flight attendant” or joked about her 14-year-old daughter being “knocked up”, that was the host that female employees had complained about being applauded for his behavior by a progressive audience and its media gatekeepers.
It was okay because the target was a right-wing foe. But to Letterman, it was just okay. Period.
Dave’s media pals forgave his many sins. The biggest of these may have been that he wasn’t funny. No matter how much the media tried to prop him up as the thinking man’s late show host, audiences knew better. A decade in, Letterman had fallen into the bad habit of many successful comedians of beating a routine into the ground. But his awkward fumbling comedy had never been funny to begin with.
Beating it into the ground only made it worse.
Letterman survived his lean years by fawning over Democrats. He could be counted on to pitch softball questions to Hillary Clinton or ridicule every objection to Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Now he is being replaced by Stephen Colbert who embodies Letterman’s sole virtue of mocking Republicans. Colbert exists entirely in the negative space occupied by Letterman’s humorless sneering.
Comedy has become politically tribal. The only safe subjects for humor are jokes at the comedian’s own expense and the ridicule of outgroups in order to reinforce the prejudices of the ingroup community. The showy insecurity or awkwardness of progressive comedians like Jon Stewart and Letterman serves as cover for the degraded state of their comedy which consists of pointing and laughing at the other tribe.
Letterman had anticipated the progressive direction of comedy. He had been ahead of his time in realizing that the only truly safe jokes in a politically correct media environment are aimed at Republicans. He had understood that arch knowingness counted for more than sharp comedic timing or a quick wit because it would seem like intelligence and even sincerity to duller audience members.
He knew that the media would not care if he was funny, only that he carried forward its agenda. If he didn’t, it would call him a sellout and a hack. If he did, it would pretend to laugh at all his jokes.
Most of all he realized that politically correct comedy needs an edgy façade to mask its cowardice.
Progressive comedy is above all else lazy and Letterman was the laziest man in comedy. He had more staffers than Eisenhower all to deploy the thousandth itineration of the same joke. He used his power to fill the time slots after him with hosts who couldn’t possibly compete with him to avoid being Conaned.
He was not a liberal by conviction, but out of laziness. When challenged by guests like Bill O’Reilly, he quickly folded. His politics were not thought out, they were unthinking. For all his pretense of eccentricity, he was a conformist who understood that if he played the game, he would get paid. His comic personality, the folksy skepticism and detached disdain served up in measured doses to viewers, was calculated to cover up this essential attribute that defined his enormously lucrative career.
Letterman is a professional sycophant who limos off into the sunset to the strains of the sycophantic braying of a dying industry. As audiences dwindle, the media has become its own audience, mourning the passing of its glorious past by taking hits of nostalgia from its heady days of power and privilege.
The mournful tributes piling up in his wake aren’t about him. Network television is dying. Letterman was one of its last national figures. If you think mainstream media outlets are carrying on over his exit, wait until network television dies its inevitable demographic death.
Then the media will really have something to cry about.

Gallup: Americans Overestimate Gay Population 6-Fold

Cybercast News Service ^ | May 22, 2015 | 4:30 PM EDT | ( Staff) 

Americans believe that there are six times as many gays and lesbians in the population as there actually are, according to new data released by Gallup.
According to Gallup’s tracking surveys in the first four of 2015, 3.8 percent of the U.S. adult population says they are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.
However, in a survey conducted May 6-10, Gallup asked: “Just your best guess, what percent of Americans today would you say are gay or lesbian?”
On average, Americans said it was 23.2 percent. …
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Problem solved

A flesh wound!