Saturday, December 5, 2015

The Tribalist Liberal Losers Who Want Virtue On The Cheap (In Short, Liberals Are Hypocrites) ^ | December 5, 2015 | John Hawkins 

It's not that all liberals are stupid; it's just that liberalism makes them sound stupid.

For liberals, it's not about being open-minded; it's saying things they believe an open-minded person would say. It's not about being smart; it's saying things they believe a smart person would say. It's not about being virtuous; it's about saying things they believe a virtuous person would say.

Since their solution for everything is "higher taxes, more spending and bigger government," you'd think liberals would care more than anyone else about making sure our tax dollars are well spent and that government runs smoothly. Unfortunately, that would require logically evaluating programs they advocate and making adjustments and they've become such prisoners of their own doctrine that they're incapable of doing it.

For liberals, it's never about whether a program works or whether a position makes sense; it's about showing solidarity with their tribe, hurting enemies of their tribe, feeling better about themselves or virtue signaling.

Have you ever noticed that even though liberals always talk about "scientific consensus" when it comes to global warming, 90% of them are incapable of making any kind of scientific argument about global warming and most of the others do it badly?

That's because saying you want to "fight global warming" is all about showing you "care about science" and "want to take care of the earth." Even if you take private jets, ride in SUVs and produce a carbon footprint the size of a small town every year like Al Gore, you supposedly "care more" and are "more scientific" because you regularly blather on about climate change.

Why do liberals crassly demand 'gun control" when there's still blood drying on the ground after a mass murder? Because it's their way of signaling not just that they care, but that you don't. You can point out that the policies they're calling for wouldn't have stopped the shooting all day long, but it won't faze them because they don't really care about stopping shootings; they care about signaling their virtue to their liberal friends.

Why were there huge anti-war protests when Bush was in office that disappeared after Obama took over? Because it was never about "the war." It was about showing that they didn't like Bush, who was the greatest enemy of their tribe.

How is it that liberals refuse to acknowledge all the poor Americans who are put out of work by minimum wage policies? It's not about the policy; it's about signaling that they're enlightened people who want to help the poor by raising their wages. If people get fired, that's the fault of the "greedy" business owners; so they can still feel good about themselves.

Why do liberals always advocate for more welfare, more food stamps and more giveaways despite all the damage they do to the people who are taking handouts? Because they get to claim you're "heartless" for not wanting to do that, which they think makes them "compassionate" in comparison. Is that true? Does it make sense? Of course not, but as Doug Bandow noted, "Years ago Marvin Olasky wrote how compassion traditionally meant to 'suffer with.' Over the years it turned into writing a check. Now it means making other people write checks."

With liberals, it's always about virtue on the cheap without their having to sacrifice anything personally. They want to help those poor Syrian refugees by sending them to red states that don't want them. It's liberals flanked by a squad of armed bodyguards saying you don't need a gun. It's Hillary Clinton demanding that we take every woman who claims to be a victim of sexual assault at her word except the ones accusing her husband.

When you're a liberal, freedom is your enemy because most people aren't part of your tribe; they don't agree with your way of thinking and they're not going to do what you want them to do. This is why liberals love to control people with big government so much. It.s the tool they use to promote their tribe, hurt the enemies of their tribe and "show their virtue" to the world without actually having to do anything. At the end of the day, liberals are the living embodiment of the troublemakers Eric Hoffer described when he said,

"We all have private ails. The troublemakers are they who need public cures for their private ails."

326,000 Native-Born Americans Lost Their Job In November: The Most Important Jobs Chart

Zero Hedge ^ | 12/5/15 

We were talking about the chart showing the cumulative addition of foreign-born and native-born workers added to US payrolls according to the BLS since December 2007, i.e., since the start of the recession/Second Great Depression.
Curiously, it is precisely this data that got absolutely no mention following yesterday's job report, about which the fawning mainstream media only noted, in passing, one negative aspect to the report: the fact that 319,000 part-time jobs for economic reasons were added in November. However, with Trump and his anti-immigration campaign having just taken the biggest lead in the republican primary race, we are confident that the chart shown below will soon be recognizable to economic and political pundits everywhere.
And here is why we are confident this particular data should have been prominently noted by all experts when dissecting yesterday's job report: according to the BLS' Household Survey, while 375,000 foreign-born workers found jobs in November, a whopping 326,000 native-born Americans lost theirs.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

After San Bernardino: How political correctness could get us all killed!

Fox ^ | December 4, 2015 | K.T. McFarland 

The FBI announced Friday that the San Bernardino massacre this week is an act of terrorism. The California attack is now the single deadliest terrorist attack on U.S. soil or on U.S. citizens -- since September 11, 2001.
Yet, throughout the week, the president stubbornly refused to acknowledge even the existence violent Islamic extremism.
His willful blindness to the threat has left Americans more anxious about their security, and jihadists more confident about their prospects. The President may dismiss this and say we're not at war with Islam, but radical Islam is in a global war with us. And it's a war we're not winning.
First, there is no way we can defeat radical Islam, be it Al Qaeda, ISIS, Al Shabab or any of the other witches'’ brew of violent religious extremism, unless we are willing to call it what it is.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

BREAKING: France Just Made This MASSIVE Move Against THOUSANDS Of Muslims… ^ | December 5, 2015 | Dean James 

Say what you will about the French but one thing they are doing right is taking care of business when it comes to the Jihad attacks in Paris that rocked the world on November 13.
Unlike Obama, France has taken immediate action against radical Islam. Obama? He declares that it's workplace violence. He just want's to take away our guns while totally denying that OUR Jihad attacks are perpetrated by his Muslim brothers and sisters. Frankly it's disgusting.
French counter-terrorism forces have already raided 2,235 homes and buildings, arrested 232 people and seized 334 weapons including 34 'war-grade' weapons, according to reports from French media.
"In 15 days we have seized one-third of the quantity of war-grade weapons that are normally seized in a year," French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve reported.
In addition to the arrests and seizure of weapons, police have confiscated illegal narcotics at 165 locations.
Cazeneuve also reported that they have closed down 3 mosques. While conducting searches police found weapons, hidden hard drives, a life insurance policy and documents about JIHAD!
BOOM- bulldoze that building and get those terrorists the hell out!
Here's the thing. France recognizes that ISLAMIST RADICALIZATION is responsible for the TERRORIST ATTACKS! No political correctness. At least they are honest to the citizens and are taking action unlike HUSSEIN.
"Operations are being carried out against hate preachers and self-proclaimed imams," the minister said.
Answering critics who have suggested that the state of emergency could be lifted, Cazeneuve responded saying that the "state of emergency was needed and is still required," adding that "it is terrorism that threatens freedom today, not the state of emergency."
So, the French are now more aggressive than THE UNITED STATES! Barack Obama can't even utter the words "Islamic terrorism."
Obama is a nightmare that isn't fit to run a taco stand let alone our great country.

Is Liberalism Good for Poor People? ^ | December 5, 2015 | John C. Goodman 

When is the last time you heard Hillary Clinton talk about poverty? How about Barack Obama? Or Bernie Sanders?

Granted, they use the word "middle class" a lot. But when is the last time you heard them talk about what they want to do for the "poor"? I can't remember.

Take housing. On any given day about 565,000 people in the United States are homeless. That problem isn't going away any time soon. In fact, at the current rate of progress it will take 40 years before the homeless disappear from our shelters and streets. I don't recall any Democratic proposals to change that.

Ironically, the chronically homeless decreased more under President Bush (30%) than under President Obama (21%)Hillary Clinton actually charged a group of homeless veterans $500,000 to give a speech. (I have no idea where they got the money.)

When they talk about the problem at all, liberal Democrats invariably say we need to spend more money. But that's not the answer. Like the problems of education, transportation, medical care and lack of job opportunities, the housing problems of the poor are largely the creation of bad government policies. The cheapest, most efficient way to solve these problems is to change the bad polices.

In 1900, more than half the population was living in poverty, using today's definition. That was a time when there were huge influxes of people into the cities and urban areas. So where did all those people live? Were they all sleeping under bridges? Since we had a largely free market for housing, the private sector seemed to do quite well at meeting people's needs.

Not many of today's readers would want to live in the tenements that housed families 100 years ago. But at least they were housed. They weren't sleeping on the streets.

One way in which the private sector created housing space is with single room occupancy or single resident occupancy dwellings usually called SROs:

[These are] a form of housing in which one or two people are housed in individual rooms (sometimes two rooms, or two rooms with a bathroom or half bathroom) within a multiple-tenant building… SRO tenants typically share bathrooms and/or kitchens, while some SRO rooms may include kitchenettes, bathrooms, or half-baths… many are former hotels … primarily rented as a permanent residence.

These were born out of urban overcrowding, as cities scrambled to meet housing demands produced by industrialization and the urban population explosion of the early 20th century. But today, they are largely illegal. As Mariana lonova writes:

[T]he number of legal SROs in New York City has dwindled dramatically, with some 175,000 units disappearing between the 1950s and today. Single-room dwellings also fell out of favor in other urban centers across the country, which led in the loss of nearly 1 million SRO units nationwide. Between 1960 and 1980, Chicago lost 80 percent of its 38,845 SROs, while Seattle saw 15,000 units disappear. In San Francisco, more than 10,000 units were converted or demolished between 1960 and 2000….

Today, there are only 30,000 legal SROs in New York City, but there are an estimated three times that many illegal units meeting an ever increasing demand:

… poverty in New York has persisted and even worsened — today nearly a fifth of New Yorkers live in poverty, compared to less than a sixth in 1969. Meanwhile, changing gender and family norms have meant a massive increase in the number of single-person households in the city, which rose from 185,000 in 1960 to more than 700,000 in 1987 to an estimated 1.8 million today.

That city and state housing polices contribute to a housing shortage in places like New York and San Francisco and exacerbate the problem of homelessness is not even controversial. Here is a whole speech on the matter by Jason Furman, President Obama's chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors. (HT: John Cochrane.) And here is an editorial on the issue by Paul Krugman.

Yet, neither Furman nor Krugman makes the point I made in "How Liberals Live." The worst housing shortages, the most homelessness and the worst inequality exist in the cities that are the most Democratic and the most liberal.

Ted Cruz Is the One Candidate Who Can Face down Washington — And Win [NRO!!!] ^ | ANDREW C. MCCARTHY 

To protect American national security we must first understand what threatens American national security. We must grasp who our enemies are, what animates them, and how they work together - despite their internecine rivalries - to destroy us from without and within. We must stop trying to define "true Islam" and start restoring our own principles as our guide: liberty, equality of opportunity, the rule of law, and peace through strength.
The vast majority of Americans still believe in these principles. It is Washington that has lost faith. It is Washington that looks at liberty's enemies and sees friends; that looks at anti-Western Islamic supremacists and sees "moderates" it can play ball with; that looks at lawbreakers and tut-tuts that "the system is broken."
Reinvigorating American principles will require taming Washington. It calls for restoring the Constitution as a vital limit on government, not a relic...or an obstacle. Ted Cruz gets this. Many Republicans talk the talk - we hear it in every election season, right up until it is time to stop campaigning and start governing. Senator Cruz walks the walk. That is why I believe he should be the next president of the United States.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Loretta Lynch (Obama) Says to Muslims ‘We Stand with You in This’! ^ | 12/4/15 | William Bigelow 

On Thursday, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, speaking at the Muslim Advocate’s 10th anniversary dinner, shockingly refused to focus on the Muslim community after the terrorist attacks committed by Muslims in San Bernardino and Paris, instead. She reassured her audience, “We stand with you in this.”
In another astonishing moment, Lynch said that since the Paris attacks, her greatest concern has been the “incredibly disturbing rise of anti-Muslim rhetoric … that fear is my greatest fear.” One humdred thirty people were massacred by Muslim terrorists in Paris last month, added to the 17 killed in the Charlie Hebdo and kosher supermarket attacks in Paris, plus the 14 slaughtered in San Bernardino, the 13 soldiers murdered at Fort Hood, and the four Marines killed in Chattanooga. Lynch would not say how many Muslims have been killed in the United States because of backlash.
Lynch pontificated, “When we talk about the First Amendment we [must] make it clear that actions predicated on violent talk are not American. They are not who we are, they are not what we do, and they will be prosecuted … My message not just to the Muslim community but to all Americans is ‘We cannot give in to the fear that these backlashes are really based on.’”
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Ted Cruz Vows to ‘Kill the Terrorists’ in Ad Timed to Big Football Game

NYTimes ^ | 12/5/15 | Joanthan Martin 

Senator Ted Cruz will begin airing a new ad in Iowa on Saturday in which he vows to "kill the terrorists," the latest indication of how national security is emerging as the dominant issue in the Republican presidential race.
Mr. Cruz, speaking directly to the camera, says that if he becomes president, "every Islamic extremist will know: if you wage jihad against us, you're signing your death warrant."
The bellicosity is a response to the Islamic State's assault on Paris and the mass killing in San Bernardino, Calif., which the F.B.I. is treating as terrorism. But Mr. Cruz is also attempting to defuse Senator Marco Rubio’s effort to portray him as insufficiently tough on national security. Mr. Rubio has been criticizing Mr. Cruz's support for ending the collection of metadata by the National Security Agency, and a group run by a supporter of Mr. Rubio is airing an ad in Iowa that claims Mr. Cruz voted to "weaken America's ability to identify and hunt down terrorists." Mr. Cruz makes no mention of that commercial or Mr. Rubio in his ad.
Mr. Cruz's 30 second ad will debut during the Big 10 Conference's football championship game Saturday night, which features the undefeated University of Iowa Hawkeyes and promises to be one of the most heavily watched live television events in the state in the weeks before the Feb. 1 caucuses.
A spokesman for Mr. Cruz said the ad would continue to air next week on broadcast television, covering nearly every market in the state.
The ads will be interspersed with another new spot Mr. Cruz is releasing during today’s football game: a testimonial from Representative Steve King. Mr. King, a hard line conservative who represents much of western Iowa, endorsed Mr. Cruz last month.
"He understands that we need to ...
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

5 Awkward Questions About Islam Barack Obama Doesn’t Want You To Ask!

Against a background of terror attacks committed by Muslims on every continent, Western governments and their propaganda merchants in the mainstream media continue to repeat the mantra that Islam is actually a religion of peace. They insist that jihadists who commit violence in the name of Islam are distorting the faith and are not true Muslims.
It’s a narrative most people in the West are desperate to believe mainly because they’re terminally welded to the ideology of Multiculturalism and its doctrine of equality. They also know that if they ever dare to question the narrative, they will be smeared as hate-filled, Islamophobic racists.
I strongly oppose the Multicultural ideology – more accurately described as cultural Marxism – and I refuse to surrender my powers of critical thinking to gullible, intolerant rainbow disciples wielding their pernicious Orwellian thought-control weapon. I also refuse to abandon rational thinking out of irrational obedience to the multicult ideology. Such a surrender would render myself psychologically ill because it involves ignoring the warning signs reality keeps on flashing, inconveniently at odds with the childish multicultural “we’re all equal” fantasy. Something is clearly wrong, as anyone with a degree of intellect can observe. Comfortable silence is an option for brainwashed zombies who meekly embrace their own demise, something I am simply not prepared to do.
There are a number of awkward questions about Islam that desperately need to be asked and more importantly answered and here I’m going to ask just five of them.
1. Many Muslims claim to be opposed to the barbaric acts of terror committed by jihadists in the name of Islam. Additionally, liberals and leftists will assert that most Muslims are opposed to Islamic State. However, there’s a glaring contradiction, an elephant in the room these apologists are desperate to avoid.
Muhammad, the revered prophet of Islam stated:
“I have been sent with a sword to fight people until they say there is no God but Allah.” Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387.
In Islam Muhammad is regarded as “the ideal man, the perfect model of conduct.” This prophet and his army of devout Muslims waged jihad against infidels and he PERSONALLY spread Islam by the sword. He and his band of brigands did not distort, twist or misunderstand Islam as they waged war against Jewish tribes in the Middle East, beheading their enemies and raping their women. So let’s ask our first uncomfortable question:
To those Muslims who say violence is against Islam: If ISIS truly is “nothing to do with Islam” then is Muhammad also unIslamic and do you condemn and reject his violent “perfect example”?
Liberals and leftists can make as many excuses for jihad as they like but the fact will remain: The mujahideen of ISIS are emulating the “perfect example” set by Muhammad described in the holy texts of Islam, the Sunnah and hadith, and are also obeying the numerous commands in the Quran to wage war on infidels until the world belongs solely to Allah.
How can Muslims who revere the “perfect example” of Muhammad, a warlord who beheaded people, who raped infidel women, who tortured people, who had an old woman torn apart and who claimed: “I have been madevictorious by terror” possibly oppose violence in the name of Islam?
History shows Islam has a 1400 year history of non-stop violent jihad against unbelievers. Are we really to believe all of those Muslims who waged jihad over the centuries misunderstood and distorted peaceful Islam INCLUDING the prophet of Islam, Muhammad, and his army of mujahideen?
2. The claim that Islamic State is unIslamic doesn’t stand up to further scrutiny at all.
Duplicitous self-serving Western politicians who imported Islam into their nations and their lickspittle lackeys in the mainstream media go to great lengths to focus on ISIS as if they are the only Muslims committing violence in the name of Islam. Not so. In Saudi Arabia, beheadings are a legal punishment and bloggers who are critical of Islam are flogged. Rape victims are criminalized and also flogged. Poets are sentenced to death for blasphemy and apostasy. Unbelievers – the lowest of the low – literally filth in Islam – are forbidden to enter the holiest places in Islam, Mecca and Medina.
All of these harsh punishments are enshrined in the Islamic legal system the Sharia. ISIS implement Sharia in the same way as the Saudis.
This begs a second uncomfortable question:
Do the Saudis twist, distort and misunderstand Islam as Islamic State is accused of doing?
They’re committing the same barbaric horrors as ISIS yet somehow, Saudi Arabia is regarded by the West as an ally and even has a seat on the United Nations Human Rights Council. But nobody is accusing Saudi Arabia of distorting and perverting Islam. Probably because if they did they’d be regarded as unhinged.
3. Another narrative deployed to excuse terrorism committed by Muslims in the name of Islam is that violent jihad is a response to acts committed by the West. Acts such as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and now, bombing ISIS in Syria.
In fact, violent jihad against infidels began in 622 when Muhammad the prophet of Islam started it. Since then, Muslims have continued to spread Islam by the sword. India has faced jihad since 638 and over 80 million Hindus have been killed. Muslims invaded Africa in the seventh century and began raping, killing and enslaving infidel Africans. These savage atrocities are still continuing today, committed by devout jihadists of Boko Haram, Al Shabaab, Al Qaeda and ISIS.
Jihad came to Europe in 710 and Muslim armies conquered Andalucía in 711. It took 800 years of fighting to free Spain from Islamic hegemony. Muslims brought violent jihad to Christian Anatolia in 650 and conquered it into Dar al Islam with the sack of Constantinople in 1453 being particularly brutal. Eastern European countries were also hit by Islamic jihad with Serbia still facing it today having been forced by NATO to surrender its sacred ground of Kosovo to Muslims. The Islamic terror group the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) committed the same barbaric acts as ISIS yet Britain, The United States and The European Union all backed the jihadists with catastrophic consequences. Buddhists have been ethnically cleansed from Afghanistan and are fighting against the jihad in Myanmar. Thailand is blighted by jihad as is Israel. Jews have been hit by jihad from 622 to today. The Zoroastrians have almost been wiped out in Iran and Christians are relentlessly persecuted in the Middle East. Thanks to mass immigration from Islamic states, devout Muslim mujahideen are raping and slaughtering infidels in European and North American cities.
It’s odd that a “religion of peace” has such a long, bloody history of warfare against unbelievers from so many faiths. And just why, exactly, are Muslims still slaughtering infidels today as Muhammad and his men did in 622, brutal acts emulated by devout Muslims throughout Islam’s history?
Let’s have our third uncomfortable question:
If the attacks on USA, France, Britain, Spain, Mali are in return for actions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria what are the excuses for the jihad that began in the Middle East in 622, jihad against India started in 638, the conquest of Spain, the jihad that transformed Christian Anatolia into Islamic Turkey, the jihad against Serbia started in 1389 and the genocide of an estimated 2 million Armenians committed by the Turks between 1915 and 1923?
Let’s be honest here. None of these acts of jihad had anything to do with the acts of the West and nor do the acts of the West have anything to do with the jihad being waged today. Jihad has everything to do with Islam just as it always has.
4. After devout Muslims had slaughtered Charlie Hebdo cartoonists and Jewish shoppers in the Paris attacks of January 2015, millions of Muslims around the world took to the streets in protest. Not against the murders of innocent people but against the West’s response to it, in particular, the “Je Suis Charlie” defence of free speechand particularly the right to criticize and mock all ideologies including Islam.
This outraged millions of Muslims around the Islamic world just as the infamous cartoons mocking Muhammadpublished in the Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten in October 2005 did. Indeed, this video of the London protestwas the “road to Damascus” moment for your humble author who was once a liberal to his core. Back then I strongly believed all religions were the same but watching that disturbing video shook me out of my slumber.
This leads to our fourth uncomfortable question:
Why don’t millions of outraged Muslims ever take to the streets to protest against acts of violent jihad and the slaughter of “innocent” infidels?
I mean, if the vast majority of Muslims are opposed to violence committed by mujahideen in the name of Islam where the heck are the millions of outraged Muslims protesting against ISIS as they did against cartoons of the murdering, raping, terrorist Muhammad and the Charlie Hebdo defence of the right to free speech?
5. Finally, let me ask: Why is it only Muslims commit terror attacks on civilians in reprisals for offending Islam or for attacks on Islamic states?
Are they the only people who have grievances? Where are terrorist attacks committed by Christians in response to persecution across Africa and the Middle East? Where are the revenge attacks from British, Swedish, Germans and Norwegians for the gang rapes of their women and girls by Muslim males? Where are the Buddhists blowing up Muslim civilians in response to the jihad waged against them? Same applies to Hindus and Sikhs. And what about angry Serbs shooting up restaurants in London or Berlin in response to the criminal bombing of their country by NATO? Where are Greek-Cypriot terrorists slaughtering Turkish citizens because of Turkey’s illegal occupation of Cyprus? They never happen. So why is it only Muslims committing these atrocities year in, year out, month in, month out on every continent?
That’s five awkward questions about the religion of peace. I challenge anyone on the left, any Muslim, any liberal defender of Multiculturalism to answer them. Without resorting to abuse, name calling, insults or violence.