Tuesday, January 27, 2015

A Rebuttal To Islam: Top 5 Arguments

Russian Financiers Employ Environmentalist to Derail U.S. Fracking

Well, what do you know?  Russian financiers have been funding environmentalist groups in order to derail U.S. companies from fracking.  Our enemies know who to employ when it comes to their interest.  Here is an excerpt from the Washington Free Beacon:

A shadowy Bermudan company that has funneled tens of millions of dollars to anti-fracking environmentalist groups in the United States is run by executives with deep ties to Russian oil interests and offshore money laundering schemes involving members of President Vladimir Putin’s inner circle.

One of those executives, Nicholas Hoskins, is a director at a hedge fund management firm that has invested heavily in Russian oil and gas. He is also senior counsel at the Bermudan law firm Wakefield Quin and the vice president of a London-based investment firm whose president until recently chaired the board of the state-owned Russian oil company Rosneft.

In addition to those roles, Hoskins is a director at a company called Klein Ltd. No one knows where that firm’s money comes from. Its only publicly documented activities have been transfers of $23 million to U.S. environmentalist groups that push policies that would hamstring surging American oil and gas production, which has hurt Russia’s energy-reliant economy.

Not only do we have Russians financing environmentalist groups, so does the EPA under the auspices of the Obama administration.  Coincidence, anyone?


Remembering 70 years since the Auschwitz liberation

The Road to Hell Passes Through Venezuela

The road to hell passes through Venezuela.  Has anyone read or watched a feel good story out of that socialist paradise in South America?  Grocery stores are under military protection.  People are rioting in the streets for want of basic necessities.  And it’s only going to get worse!

 "Scarcity is getting worse in Venezuela. Basic products are so hard to get," said Josseline Viera, a doctor in Venezuela. "It used to be that certain products were scarce, now it's basically everything."

Viera says shortages have made it impossible for hospitals to find essential medical products such as gauze and acetaminophen.

"I basically have to send patients to other hospitals," she said. "But patients have to go to a lot of clinics and hospitals before they find the medical supplies they need for their care. I feel very sorry for my country."

Experts predict the situation in Venezuela will worsen as early as the first half of 2015.

"It will be a year of extreme scarcity," Venezuelan economist Angel Garcia Banchs said. "What's coming to Venezuela is chaos that will probably lead to barbarity and people looting."

The state of the Venezuelan economy is the result of years of economic mismanagement that the government, for years, was able to cover up by pumping oil revenues to support its populist policies. But this was when oil was at more than $100 per barrel, and despite declining oil production in Venezuela, revenues were enough to keep people happy.

But since this summer, Brent fell from above $115 per barrel to $70, thanks in part to North America's shale boom, and oil analysts predict oil prices will keep declining below $70 for Brent and even more for crude.

Even their capitol building is falling apart!  Imagine that.  The holy temple of socialism is crumbling like the Tower of Babel.  News crews had to run for their lives. 

Hugo Chavez, the patron saint of Venezuelan socialism, couldn’t have exited from the stage at a better time.


King vs. Burwell: A Precedent That Could be Venezuelan

The Supreme Court will decide the fate of Obamacare this year when they rule on King vs. Burwell.  This should be a no brainer since the law unequivocally dictates that only an exchange setup by a state is eligible for federal subsidies.  However, the Supreme Court is just as much a political animal as the other two branches.  No one can predict how they’ll rule, even when a law is as straight forward as this.

Striking down Obamacare would free millions of Americans from onerous penalties, save trillions in taxes, and relieve businesses of ridiculous and unconstitutional mandates.  It would mean the beginning of the end of a dictatorial law forcing citizens to buy a product that does not pertain to their needs.

We must remember that these federal exchanges are unlawful.  When 36 states refused to setup an exchange, the Obama Administration ordered the IRS to offer subsidies through a federal exchange.

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of this administration, the implications are dire.  Federal bureaucracies already have the power, through the Administrative Procedures Act, to create rules and regulations that have the force of law without going through the legislative process.  Can you imagine if they can openly defy an actual law written by Congress and approved by the Executive?

Folks, we already have a runaway bureaucracy.  A Supreme Court sanctioned ruling in favor of this administration would be an unimaginable precedent.  It would be Venezuelan.


Obama Thugs Plot Against Netanyahu

Barack Obama and his cadre of commies are plotting a bloodless coup in Israel.  Binyamin Netanyahu has embarrassed the man-child one too many times.  I guess the Anointed One is threatened by a real leader who doesn’t wear mom jeans. 

Haaretz reporter Roy (Chicky) Arad revealed in an article in the Hebrew edition today that the foreign funded organization, “One Voice”, is bankrolling the V-2015 campaign to defeat Binyamin Netanyahu’s national camp in the March 2015 Knesset Elections.

One indication of the generous financing is that it has now flown in a team of five American campaign experts (including Jeremy Bird, the Obama campaign’s national field director) who will run the campaign out of offices taking up the ground floor of a Tel Aviv office building.

V-2015 is careful not to support a specific party – rather “just not Bibi”. As such, the foreign funds pouring into the campaign are not subject to Israel’s campaign finance laws

I don’t believe the American people would tolerate a president of a foreign country trying to influence our elections with a bunch of thugs knocking on our doors telling us who to vote for.  Hopefully, this will backfire.


Jonathan Gruber Suspected of "Phantom Billing"

Jonathan Gruber, the acclaimed Obamacare architect and suspect grafter, is under investigation for “phantom billing.”  It just keeps getting better and better.  Breitbart.com reported the following:

On Monday Darcie Johnston, head of Vermonters for Health Care Freedom, told Breitbart News that Gruber may have a “phantom billing” problem.
 “Jonathan Gruber has failed to provide any evidence that the $80,000 he’s been paid by the state of Vermont for 800 hours of work he claimed was performed by unidentified research assistants was actually performed, or that these research assistants even exist and were paid,” Johnston told Breitbart News.
 “There’s a term in health care for the practice of billing for services not provided. It’s called ‘phantom billing,’ and when doctors or health care providers do this, they face criminal charges.”
Johnston’s comment expands the potential number of legal problems which Gruber may face in connection with his lucrative consulting business, from which he earned an estimated $5 million over the past four years in federal and state contracts.

On Friday, white collar criminal defense attorney Brady Toensing told Breitbart News, “if [an] investigation uncovers sufficient evidence that Gruber padded his bills, he could be charged by the state with contract fraud or by the feds with mail or wire fraud.”

Will an Obama crony get jail time for fraud?  I doubt it.  Too bad, they don’t go after all the green energy grafters that have raided the U.S. treasury.


Monday, January 26, 2015

Intellectual Froglegs - Obama's Basketball Diary

Conservatives Right Again on Extended Unemployment Benefits

A day barely goes by without an example where a conservative assertion is vindicated and a liberal idea crashes and burns.  Does anyone remember the debate about extended unemployment benefits for the recalcitrant?  Oh yeah, tea partiers and conservatives were called heartless bastards by every newspaper editor across the country.  We were accused of stealing food out of the mouths of children and throwing people out on the streets. 

How dare we demand people get a job in an economy like this?  Well guess what?  The job creation rate Barack Obama took credit for had nothing to do with his policies.  It happened because we took away the teat.  The Washington Examiner reported the following:

Sixty percent of job creation in 2014 was caused by the expiration of unemployment benefits, according to a new working paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

In late 2013, a standoff between Republicans and Democrats led to the abrupt expiration of long-term unemployment benefits. Democrats warned that the expiration would have disastrous ramifications, but Republicans had long argued that allowing Americans to collect unemployment benefits for an indefinite period of time provided a disincentive for them to work.

The new new working paper found that the expiration of benefits was responsible for the creation of over 1.8 million jobs. Nearly 1 million of those jobs were created by workers who would have otherwise stayed out of the labor force if unemployment benefits had been extended. Overall, almost 3 million jobs were created in 2014

“The negative effects of unemployment benefit extensions on employment far outweighs the potential stimulative effects often ascribed to this policy,” the study said.

It found that "the dominant impact of the benefit cut on employment was not driven by a contraction in the labor force —unemployed dropping out of the labor force because they were no longer entitled to benefits — but instead by those previously not participating in the labor market deciding to enter the labor force."

So 60% of job creation was caused by people getting off the public dole and getting a job.  Well, who’d a thought that?  Not the Observers that infest the state of North Carolina.  Here is an excerpt from the News and Observer:

 The unemployed searching in a still tight job market will have less time to find a job in their field or one that suits their skills. When their shrunken unemployment checks run out, they’ll have to take whatever job they can find, usually at a pay level well below what they previously earned.

This is a Dickensian level of callousness toward North Carolinians facing an income crisis, but what makes it particularly irksome is that Republicans are hailing it as a jobs program. In July 2013, Republican lawmakers began punishing the jobless who were fortunate enough to qualify for unemployment benefits. The federal government was offering to pay for extended unemployment benefits so long as states didn’t change their unemployment programs. North Carolina’s lawmakers changed the program anyway, cutting off about 70,000 people from the federal benefits. North Carolina was the only state to do so.

And this one:

Surely there are some in the tea party movement who have at one time been unexpectedly unemployed or have known people who were. And yet the “movement,” such as it is, continues to lead the Republican Party down a hard-line and, yes, hard-hearted path.

Specifically, tea partyers don’t like a federal program that extended unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed. The anti-attitude was that people were goofing off and not looking for work because they could stay on the unemployment compensation dole. In North Carolina, Republican legislators altered the benefits, lowering the time people could receive help and cutting the maximum payment, on the misguided logic that if people ran out of benefits, they’d be more motivated to seek work.

It looks like they were motivated to seek work!  Is that Dickensian?  I would say more like Ayn Randian.  How many strikes does it take for a liberal to admit they are constantly wrong?  Definitely, not three. 


JESUS VS. MUHAMMAD!! (Qur'an Challenge II)


Charlotte Observer Editorial Writer Wins Know Nothing Award

Progressives are in a state of panic.  Their world view is crumbling before their very eyes as one policy after another is being exposed as a fraud and failure.  Newspaper editors are lashing out in ways that are sad and comical at best. 

Taylor Batten, at the Charlotte Observer, inked an editorial that is amusing and replete with ad hominem attacks on anyone who has the audacity to question his mythical beliefs.  I am no fan of Rep. Robert Pittenger, but I will defend his assertions.  Here is an excerpt from Mr. Batten’s rant:

I’m excited to announce that this month’s winner is U.S. Rep. Robert Pittenger, R-N.C., of Charlotte. Many of you know Robert, as he is a long-time member of our Know Nothing caucus. He earned this month’s citation with his comments last week on WBT radio. I quote them to you now.

 “The mind of the eastern liberals who are educated in these northeastern schools is, you know, government is the most important element. They believe in centralized planning.”

Shortly before that, Pittenger told the station’s listeners: “(President Obama’s) only solution is wealth redistribution and more government programs. He’s tried it, you know, the last six years, the typical, you know, progressive, liberal, socialist – however you want to define it – policies.”

Brother Pittenger sets a fine example for us all. In just a few short sentences, he dismisses an entire region of the country and puts the lie to the idea that those diploma mills like Harvard, Princeton and MIT have been among the world’s leading educational institutions for centuries. You know and I know that Ivy League schools are not rigorous universities preparing young adults in all areas of endeavor, but rather a thinly disguised cabal designed to push centralized planning on America. Thank you, Brother Pittenger, for pointing that out.

This month’s honoree also marvelously articulates for the world what we’ve long believed: That there is no difference between progressive policies and socialist ones. Does anyone still believe that socialism is an economic system in which the government controls the means of production and distribution? Of course not! We encourage all our members to use “progressive” and “socialist” interchangeably, as Brother Pittenger does

I would say the Know Nothing Award goes to Taylor Batten.  Administrative Studies was advocated by Woodrow Wilson, a leading progressive of his time and president of Princeton University.  Wilson wrote extensively about his contempt for the Constitution and our founding principles.  He desired an elite corps of bureaucrats to run “the government” without interference from a “meddlesome” populace.  And what better place to train these pencil pushers than universities?  Besides, don’t most of these D.C. creatures hail from Ivy League schools? 

And yes, we can use progressive and socialism interchangeably, because progressives/socialists are trying to control the means of production and distribution through taxation and regulations.  Maybe Mr. Batten, the head socialist at the Charlotte Observer, should read some of his past editorials.

And of course, what is a libtard without global warming hysteria?  Here is a beauty.  Keep in mind the sarcastic tone in which he writes:

Some of you may have seen the latest fiction being perpetrated by the world’s so-called scientists. NASA scientists, based on readings from 3,000 weather stations around the globe, reported last week that 2014 was the hottest year on record. This is damn inconvenient for us and we must refute it immediately. Our campaign contributors insist.

Toward that end, some of our members have already helpfully pointed out that while 2014 may have been hot as blazes, it was only a tiny bit hotter than 2010, an amount within the margin of error. It’s true that the underlying scientific report made that clear, but the NASA press release didn’t, which gives us an opening. Most importantly, Margin-Of-Error-Gate helpfully distracts from the other inconvenient finding by the world’s leading scientists: that the three hottest years on record are 2005, 2010 and 2014

The hottest on record you say?  And it’s based on 3,000 weather stations around the world?  And when were these datasets operable?  Did you say the LATE 1970’S!  Of course you didn’t, Mr. Batten.  That would require honesty.  It would probably be helpful if you told the reader that these 3,000 weather stations aren’t distributed evenly across the planet, too.

And of course, Mr. Batten forgot to include that an array of scientist are claiming NASA/NOAA misled, deceived, and outright lied about 2014 being the hottest year on record.  Also, he left out the fact that satellites have recorded an 18 year global pause in temperature. 

So what are we to believe?  I know who I don’t believe: Taylor Batten, Charlotte Observer’s editorial page editor.


Kurds Winning the Real "War on Women"

Kurds are winning the real, “War on Women.”  ISIS is getting their asses handed to them by brigades of women who refuse to become sex slaves to the Islamic Ummah.

Beirut (AFP) - Kurdish militia have driven Islamic State group militants from the Syrian border town of Kobane after months of heavy fighting, a monitor and spokesman said Monday, dealing a crucial blow to the jihadists

Across the border in Iraq meanwhile, a top army officer announced troops had "liberated" Diyala province from IS jihadists.

In Syria, the Kurdish advance marked the culmination of a battle lasting more than four months in which nearly 1,800 people were killed.

The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights monitor said the Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG) had pushed IS militants from all of Kobane.

They "expelled all Islamic State fighters from Kobane and have full control of the town," Observatory director Rami Abdel Rahman said.

"The Kurds are pursuing some jihadists on the eastern outskirts of Kobane, but there is no more fighting inside now.

H/T:  Weasel Zippers

'American Sniper' Befuddles Liberals

Liberals are apoplectic over the box office smash, ‘American Sniper.’  They can’t believe this movie is breaking records.


The usual suspects, who make their living denigrating traditional values and American exceptionalism, couldn’t wait to throw their weight around.  Michael Moore didn’t disappoint.  Fat Bastard huffed and puffed with the following tweet:

“My uncle killed by sniper in WW2. We were taught snipers were cowards. Will shoot u in the back. Snipers aren’t heroes. And invaders r worse.”

Howard Dean actually paid tea partiers a backhanded compliment.  The Daily Caller reported the following:

“There’s a lot of anger in this country, and the people who go see this movie are people who are very angry,” Dean said on “Real Time with Bill Maher” on Friday.

“This guy basically says, ‘I’m going to fight on your side,’” Dean said of Kyle, who was the most prolific sniper in U.S. military history. The legendary sniper was murdered at a Texas gun range in 2013.

“I bet you if you looked at the cross-section of the tea party and people who see this movie there’s a lot of intersection,” the former governor of Vermont continued.

The Clint Eastwood-directed film, which is nominated for an Oscar for Best Picture, has earned nearly $200 million at the box office since its release last week, making it one of the highest-grossing films ever released during the month of January

That’s a lot of tea partiers.  Maybe, Washington D.C. should start listening, instead belittling and marginalizing us.


The Nazis Were Socialists, Not Right-Wingers

I’ve had this same argument with my socialist neighbor for years.  He can’t wrap his mind around it.  I point out the parallels between Nazi policies and today’s liberal democrats.  He dismisses it.   Here is one of my post outlining their similarities:

The Progressive Gospels

The 14th Amendment: A Repudiation of our Founding Principles

A majority of Americans take pride in their history and heritage.  Those principles, stated in our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution, resonate to this day.  However, I’m here to say Americans unwittingly rejected those principles a long time ago.

Whatever you may think of the American Civil War, the rejection of the Declaration of Independence was self-evident.  The North invaded, defeated, and occupied the South.  Southerners who participated in the rebellion were disenfranchised.  They were not allowed to hold public office or vote; therefore, they were at the mercy of ravenous carpetbaggers and scalawags.  Life, liberty and property were in peril.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

The 14th Amendment facilitated the disenfranchisement of the South, even though, it didn’t pass constitutional requirements through the ratification process; yet, was promulgated and enforced by radicals in Washington D.C. 

Was the intent by the authors of the 14th Amendment a repudiation of a limited central government as was dictated by our founders?  The Bill of Rights was meant to restrain the central government, and indeed was a prerequisite for ratification by the States; yet, those moorings have been turned on the States.  They’ve become bound by the very tools they demanded as a means to protect themselves from an abusive central government that they instinctively knew would abrogate States’ sovereignty and self-determination.

Not only is the 14th’s legitimacy in question, so is its intent.  Many unscrupulous politicians employ broad language to deceive the general population. Section One is a perfect example of ambiguity in a law.   Statists argue that the 14th Amendment dictates that the Bill of Rights applies to all States and not just the federal government; therefore, states’ laws and constitutions will constantly be under the purview of the federal government.  This is just the opposite of what our founding fathers intended.

I ask, did northern states willingly agree to abdicate self-governance and determination to a distant capitol?  Did they want an unaccountable federal judiciary declare their laws and constitution, unconstitutional?  I don’t think so.

So we are left with intent vs. construction of the First Section in the 14th Amendment of which the principle author is Congressman John Bingham of Ohio.  Detractors state Bingham was a muddled thinker, a confused man, and Section One is a reflection of the man himself.

I contend Bingham was a typical politician who hid behind broad language to conceal his true intent, and that is a strong central government that would wield power over the states.  If you read the rest of the 14th Amendment, there is no ambiguity.  Here is the 14th Amendment:

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article


There is no ambiguity in subsequent sections.  Southerners who participated in the rebellion were not allowed to vote or hold public office.  Southerners were forced to pay Northern war debt, including pensions for their soldiers, while at the same time having to pay their own without any recourse from the federal government.  Yet, we are left with an ambiguous Section One and a continuous debate about intent vs. construction.

I believe we know the intent of its authors.  It was to use broad, ambiguous language as a means to shield politicians from the wrath of their constituents.  Their true intent was to unleash a central government that would use its arbitrary authority to exercise power over states and its citizens.  Ultimately, it was a repudiation of our founding principles.   


Saturday, January 24, 2015

Gov. Scott Walker Wows Iowans

There are only a handful of politicians who I believe have the fortitude and record to take on the entrenched self interest and good ole boys network in Washington D.C.  

Governor Scott Walker is one of them.  Not only did he defeat progressives in a blue state, he did so three times without compromising his conservative principles.  And believe me, people respect a man who stands for what he believes in.

Here is an excerpt from the Hill.com on Governor Scott Walker’s reception in Iowa:

 The Wisconsin governor, in rolled-up shirtsleeves, paced the stage as he blasted big government and touted a long list of conservative reforms he's pushed through in blue Wisconsin.

The governor also showed a rhetorical flourish that's largely been absent from his previous campaigns, drawing the crowd to its feet multiple times.

"There's a reason we take a day off to celebrate the 4th of July and not the 15th of April," he said, almost yelling as his voice grew hoarse. "Because in America we value our independence from the government, not our dependence on it."

And then this:

When he said he won reelection as Milwaukee County Executive in an area where President Obama won by a two-to-one margin, some in the audience gasped.

 "If you get the job done the voters will actually stand up with you," he said before contrasting his record with Washington's deadlock.

Yes, voters will stand with a principled, conservative politician who practices what he preaches.  It’s too bad we didn’t have one in the past two presidential elections 

H/T:  Weasel Zippers