Joseeph Leatherwood

National Review is kind of like Glenn Beck - they are not really defenders of Liberty anymore and they have lost the influence they once had. They believe they are the National Review of William F. Buckley but they're not ...

I quit subscribing and reading it years ago. I had been a subscriber for many years ... But dropped them when Buckley left and too many "conservatives" in name only - David Frum, Rich Lowery, etc. started writing for the magazine.

I think NR will be shocked when people actually rally behind Trump following this hit piece. NR has actually done Trump a favor. This hit piece is the last act of a desperate magazine seeking to be relevant again.

It will show no one reads or listens to NR anymore - like me - and the way this looks - they will be viewed as an establishment tool and an act of desperation. This is not good for National Review - could be very bad news for the rag that was once a great magazine.

I am not a Trump supporter but for a once proud magazine to stoop to this kind of desperation and tactic (bordering on Alinskyite tactics) is really sad to see. I am a believer in and supporter of Liberty-based systems and constitutional government, but with this hit piece I know longer see NR as a reasoned or rational voice in the debate over who should be the republican nominee.

Sorry, NR this gamble is not going to work or revive your "legend" among Liberty loving Americans.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:37 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 270 words, total size 2 kb.

Dana Mathewson

They aren't all bad...

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/01/22/kenyans-honor-muslim-man-who-shielded-christians-in-attack.html

Kenyans are donating to the family of a Muslim man who was fatally wounded by Islamic extremists while shielding Christians during an attack on a bus.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:35 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 37 words, total size 1 kb.

Dana Mathewson

OK, lemme get this straight now. This means that after she wiped her server, she had to have the cloth burned in a special incinerator. She couldn't just toss it into the recycling bin. Right?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/21/clinton-emails-so-secret-some-lawmakers-cant-read-them.html

Some of Hillary Clinton’s emails on her private server contained information so secret that senior lawmakers who oversee the State Department cannot read them without fulfilling additional security requirements, Fox News has learned.

End excerpt.

A NOTE FROM TIM:

What kind of yoga and wedding planning was Hillary doing, anyway? If table centerpieces and downward facing dog rate above top secret...

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:51 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 108 words, total size 1 kb.

Timothy Birdnow

Comrad Putin and his Dancing Teeth are playing a strange game indeed. On the one hand, Putin is best buds with Iran, and his geopolitical strategy is to support both Iran and Syria as a way to dominate energy and to give his navy friendly ports on both the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf. And while Russia has struggled with Islamic terrorism via Chechen rebels or in Dagestan and others, Putin has supported the very terror masters who help fund and train and promulgate the terrorism that has smote his nation on more than one occasion.

Meanwhile, Muscle Beach Misha has attempted to claim the mantle of a sort of cultural Christian heritage, making himself the St.Michael to Christendom. According to The New American:

"The world has indeed been turned upside down. Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, a career apparatchik in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and a loyal agent of the Soviet secret police, the KGB (and head of its successor, the FSB), now not only proclaims himself to be a Christian, but has donned the mantle of global protector of Christianity and morality — to the rejoicing huzzahs of many Christians and conservatives in the West."

[...]

"Well, it is true, is it not, that President Vladimir Putin stands virtually alone among national leaders of the major powers in publicly proclaiming his Christian identity, and in condemning homosexual "marriage” — while leaders of the so-called Christian West have adopted the politically correct line that these unnatural unions are now sacrosanct? And is it not true that Putin and the Russian government have been spending hundreds of millions of dollars to rebuild hundreds of Russian Orthodox churches destroyed during the militant atheism of the Soviet era? Has he not restored sacred holidays of the Julian Christian calendar? Did he not sign a national law last year outlawing advertisements for abortion? To which we must answer: yes, yes, yes, yes; true, true, true, true.

Additional "facts” can be cited to paint an even more striking image of Putin as pious champion of Christianity: crossing himself and kissing the icon of the Blessed Virgin Mary that he presented to Pope Francis during his 2013 visit to the Vatican; numerous appearances with (and blessings and endorsements from) Patriarch Kirill of the Russian Orthodox Church and other Christian church leaders; signing into law a "ban on the propaganda of homosexuality and pedophilia” directed at children, while President Obama promotes the LBGT agenda at every level."

End excerpts.

So Putin is playing both sides of the clash of civilizations, defending Christianity and at the same time promoting Islam. But wait! The plot thickens.

Putin is now inviting Jews to resettle in Russia.

According to American Thinker's Thomas Lifson:

"

A delegation for the European Jewish Congress (EJC) Tuesday met in the Kremlin with Russian president Vladimir Putin:

Issues raised during the discussion included the rise of anti-Semitism around the world and the threat of global terror, which is frequently aimed at Jewish targets.

"While Jews were once again a prominent target for global terror during 2015, the attacks in Paris, the US, and the mass murder of Russians on an airline in the Sinai show that the terrorists target us all,” EJC President Dr. Moshe Kantor said during the meeting.

Photo credit: Kremlin

They received a startling offer:

According to Russian news outlet RT, Putin replied: "Let [the Jews] come to us then," adding that "during the Soviet period they were leaving the country, and now they should return."

Kantor reportedly called Putin's proposal a "new fundamental idea” that the EJC will take up for debate.

Pardon my cynicism, but Russia is currently aligned with Iran, whose leadership wants to wipe Israel off the map. Russia does not have a good history in its treatment of its Jewish population, and not only during the Soviet period. If Europe’s Jews seek a safe haven, Israel welcomes them, even if the United States would not (for people to be granted refugee status in the United States, they need to be subject to official persecution, not just street violence and terrorism).

That said, Putin’s Russia has taken some steps:

At Putin's initiative, the Duma (Russian Parliament) recently passed a law outlawing "distorted and/or extremist" commentary of Scriptures.

The purpose of the unusual law, it is widely understood, is the prevention of cynical advantage being taken of Biblical verses for anti-Semitic purposes.

Putin has long been known to oppose anti-Semitism, and violent attacks against Jews in his country have in fact been on the decline in recent years. He also conducts warm relations with Israel – even as he does the same with Iran.

The new law is not at all in the American tradition of freedom of religion, to say the least. But it may be taken as evidence by some as to Putin’s intentions.

The one thing that must be stated is that unlike Western Europe (and many in the United States), Russia is willing to overtly defend the Western religious tradition.

A delegation for the European Jewish Congress (EJC) Tuesday met in the Kremlin with Russian president Vladimir Putin:

Issues raised during the discussion included the rise of anti-Semitism around the world and the threat of global terror, which is frequently aimed at Jewish targets.

"While Jews were once again a prominent target for global terror during 2015, the attacks in Paris, the US, and the mass murder of Russians on an airline in the Sinai show that the terrorists target us all,” EJC President Dr. Moshe Kantor said during the meeting.

Photo credit: Kremlin

They received a startling offer:

According to Russian news outlet RT, Putin replied: "Let [the Jews] come to us then," adding that "during the Soviet period they were leaving the country, and now they should return."

Kantor reportedly called Putin's proposal a "new fundamental idea” that the EJC will take up for debate.


End excerpt.

What is going on here? Putin seems to be the penultimate ecumen, a champion of every religious creed. Is that the case?

Well, first off Judaism is no stranger to the land of Gog and Magog; the Turkic Khasars converted to Judaism (likely to avoid being forced to choose between two hostile religous camps - Islam and Christianity) and the Khazaria at it's peak fuled the north shore of the Black Sea all the way to the Ukrain. According to the Russian Chronicle, describing a visit of Khazar missionaries to Kiev in the year 986

"The Khazar Jews came to the court of Prince Vladimir and said: 'We have heard that Bulgarians (Muslims) and Christians came to teach you their religion... We, however, believe in the one God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.' Vladimir asked them: 'What kind of law do you have?' They answered: 'We are required to be circumcized, we may not eat pork or hare meat, and we must observe the Sabbath.' And he asked: 'Where is your land?' They answered: 'In Jerusalem.' And again he asked: 'It is really there?' They answered: 'God got angry with our fathers and therefore scattered us all over the world and gave our land to the Christians.' Vladimir asked: 'How is it that you can teach people Jewish law even while God rejected you and scattered you. If God had loved you and your law, you would not be scattered throughout foreign lands. Or do you wish us Rus'ians to suffer the same fate?'" -

And Khazaria was known as an enlightened kingdom. But she allied with the Byzantines to fight the Sassanids and suffered from the crippling economic impact of those wars. Invading Verangian Russians forced them out of Ukraine onto the Steppe, where a series of wars decimated their kingdom (the Byzantines turned against them). They were finally overrun by the Mongols. Kazaria was, by the 12th century, describes as a place of desolation and forlorn.

But some of the people remained, and others fled to different locals. They are in Russia to this very day.

And Russia has always had it's share of immigrant Azkharia Jews.

Now Russia holds one eighth of the Earth's inhabited land area, and yet her population is small by those standards. With 142,423,773 (July 2015 est.) people, most of whom are located in the western (European) portion, the Russians are in danger of being overtaken by Chinese or other powerful countries. In fact, Russia has had a serious problem with illegal Chinese immigration, a purposeful plan by the Chicoms to settle Siberia and simply take it away from their old enemy. The Russians pretty desperately need people to settle on their sparsely inhabited territory.

And at the same time they need educated, smart people, not laborers.

In the movie "The Right Stuff" a comment is made about the Space Race with the Russians "our Jews are better than their Jews" meaning we got the smarter German scientists after the war, largely because Jews fled Nazi Germany to the west, rather than to anti-Semitic Russia. The result? We moved steadily ahead of the Soviet Union in terms of technology.

Now, we won these battles because our system of free enterprise is superior to Soviet Socialism, but a man like Putin would refuse to see that; he was a Communist, and there is no reason to believe he isn't one now. Oh, the way the Bolsheviks did things doesn't suit him; he is following the maxim "first Brown then Red" which many Marxists in the West argued when Nazism reared it's evil head. Putin is the boss of a Fascist economy, one where a few top crony types own most of the wealth and the government calls the shots. This is precisely what a Communist in fallen Russia would adopt.

And it seems likely Putin would not believe that the failure of the U.S.S.R. was tied to her system. I suspect he believes the U.S. won the Cold War because "our Jews are better than theirs". Had only Stalin gotten the better Jews...

So Putin is offering a safe haven for the Children of Israel.

I suspect there is more to it than history and demographics. Yes, Russia has stabilized her population, which had been dropping precipitously. But she is still in peril, and Putin knows it. He needs more people, bot fewer. But he has another problem.

The Muslims worldwide hate Israel, absolutely despise it. They all hold to the notion that where Islam has set foot it shall never be removed, and Israel is the ultimate "Crusader Kingdom", a land where the Muslim does not rule but rather must obey laws made by infidels. This is intolerable, and Israel must be destroyed. The Muslim world will never stop seeking that destruction. The old Soviet Union was allied with Islam against America and her "little Satan" Israel, and Putin cannot walk away from that alliance, as he needs it for his geopolitical strategy. So, he needs to straddle a fence here, and the best way to do it is to suggest that israel pull up stakes and settle in Russia! They have plenty of empty land, and they even were once a Jewish kingdom.

Granted, the Zionist Jews won't come, and when they are wiped from the face of the Earth with an Iranian nuke, so be it! The Muslims will be placated. In the meantime Russia can increase her population and obtain some very smart, very ambitious, hard working people.

Essentially he's employing the strategy of triangulation, befriending Christians, Jews, and Muslims at the same time. What he understands is that Europe is about to be swallowed by the Islamic tide, and he has to swell his non-Islamic population, even whle supporting the Muslims. This is a very dangerous game, one the Russian People may sorrow over in years to come.

It was just this sort of balancing act that led to World War I and the horrors of the 20th Century.

Let us pray Putin does not succeed.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 11:02 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 1997 words, total size 13 kb.

Dana Mathewson

I'm laughing so hard at this my dog's looking at me really oddly. But I s'pose Hillary ain't no-ways t'ahrd, she c'n try t' con all them blacks. Wonder if Juan Williams will have anything to say about it? I'll be at Bible Study and won't get to see him.

https://apple.news/AmHN0su8XN_KbCT8doEVPhw

Bernie Sanders’ Popularity Forces Hillary Clinton to Focus on South Carolina Black Voters
Breitbart News

Hillary Clinton is looking to black voters in South Carolina in a desperate attempt to avoid three early primary season losses against rival Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:29 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 97 words, total size 1 kb.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 02:44 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 10 words, total size 1 kb.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 02:40 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 36 words, total size 1 kb.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 02:39 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 198 words, total size 2 kb.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 02:38 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 110 words, total size 1 kb.

By Selwyn Duke

New York City values are going through the roof. And it’s not just real estate. A prime story the last many days has been the GOP debate dustup between Donald Trump and Senator Ted Cruz. After the senator impugned "New York values” in an effort to call into question the businessman’s conservative bona fides, Trump responded with an impassioned defense of New Yorkers’ character. Trump won the exchange on style with rhetorical effectiveness, but, frankly, Cruz was right on substance.

This is not a commentary on whether Trump exemplifies NY values. In fact, I love most of what The Donald is saying; furthermore, while I have great respect for Cruz, the fact that no other candidate Thursday night could join Trump in supporting a halt to Muslim immigration -- a common-sense measure -- calls their qualifications for the presidency into question. But this isn’t a commentary on that, either, or on NY values, although I will touch on them. This article is about something far deeper.

All of us generalize. And most of us bristle at generalizations we don’t like -- whether true or not. It’s then that we, waxing emotional, may complain about the "folly of generalization.”

Now, it may come as a shock to the critics of mine who suppose I live in West Virginia and eat chicken-fried steak, but I was born in NY and grew up in NYC — the Bronx, to be precise. And believe me, there are NY values (along with an ever decreasing number of NY virtues). Moreover, as Cruz said, most people know what they are. Trump certainly does; after all, he referenced his NY values in a 1999 interview.http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/01/known_by_their_fruits_.html And while radio host and Trump supporter Michael Savage, another man I greatly respect, took exception to Cruz’ remarks, I remember when he complained on air that Vermont was ruined and became Sandersized when too many New Yorkers moved there.

What are NY values? Well, state residents elected a governor who said in 2014 that pro-life, pro-Second Amendment conservatives "have no place in the state of New York http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/19/gov-cuomo-pro-life-conservatives-have-no-place-new/, because that’s not who New Yorkers are’”; and the Big Apple elevated to mayor Bolshevik Bill, a Marxist who honeymooned in Cuba and once raised money for the Sandinistas.http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/deblasio-sandinistas-cuba-honeymoon/2013/09/23/id/527225/ You figure it out.

My real concern here, however, is not how people value New Yorkers or Cruz or Trump, but how they value generalization itself. For our refusal to properly generalize is one of the characteristic faults of our time — and a dangerous one at that.

Here’s a good example: if it’s wrong to generalize about New Yorkers because, in principle, it’s wrong to generalize, how can we then generalize about terrorists or Muslims? Doesn’t it make it harder to justify a halt to Muslim immigration if generalization is taken off the table? So some may get offended and say "Not all New Yorkers are liberals,” but this is reminiscent of liberals opposing common-sense profiling and saying "Not all Muslims are terrorists” (or "Not all terrorists are Muslim”). In point of fact, the percentage of Muslims who are terrorists is lower than the percentage of New Yorkers who are liberal, but this is irrelevant. The fact that virtually all the terrorists bedeviling us are Muslim is significant and indicates the importance of honest examination of Islamic values — which, like NY values, certainly exist.

The reality is that "not all _____ are _____” is not a valid argument against generalization, only reflective of a misunderstanding of it. If I say "Men are taller than women,” it’s silly to respond "But not all men are taller than all women!” After all, I didn’t say "all” and wasn’t implying the absence of individual variation; rather, I was referring to men and women as groups. And just as we must judge every individual as an individual and not paint everyone with the same brush, we must judge an individual group as an individual group and not paint every one with the same brush.

In fact, the only reason we can even identify groups as "groups” is that there are differences among them. And barring the rare cases in which groups are differentiated solely by location (as when dividing a class of boys into two groups placed at different tables), those differences are often neither arbitrary nor insignificant. Is location the only thing differentiating Afghans from Americans? Is location the only thing differentiating New Yorkers from Alabamans? Just as there’ll be very different government if you replace the 320 million Americans in the U.S. with 320 million Muslims, there’ll be very different state government if you replace the 4.8 million Alabamans in Alabama with average New Yorkers.

In fairness, most NY counties without big population centers are red. http://townsquarenewyork.com/new-yorks-electoral-map-county-breakdown-what-counties-changes-parties-between-2008-and-2012-presidential-elections/"Aha,” you say, "what about those rural values in the Empire State?!” Yes, there can be sub-groups within groups, and there is a general ideological divide between the woods and the hoods. But the point is that speaking of "rural values” is a generalization, too — and a correct one.

Why does this matter? Question: who’s in closer touch with reality, someone who only understands individual variation or someone who also understands group variation? In fact, the latter is necessary for survival. Just as being able to judge individual character (as when choosing a babysitter) is important, so is being able to judge group character (related to this is being able to properly judge what faults are found mostly in a given group, even if they’re exhibited by only a minority in the group). This is especially true given that understanding group character aids in assessing individual character.

This is not synonymous with prejudice. It rather is part of profiling, which, to paraphrase Dr. Walter Williams, is a method by which we can make determinations based on scant information when the cost of obtaining more information is too high. For example, since an Israeli airport-security agent can’t spend a month living with and becoming acquainted with every traveler, he must make judgments based on group associations; thus, knowing not all Muslims are terrorists but virtually all Mideast terrorists are Muslim, he’ll scrutinize a Muslim flier more closely.

We all make such generalization/profiling-based judgments. A stranded woman motorist may refuse to roll down her window and accept aid from a young man with greasy hair who’s peppered with tattoos and body-piercings; of course, he could conceivably be well-meaning, but this is a situation where she really does have to judge the book by its cover. Likewise, she may refuse to lower her window for any man, knowing that while most men aren’t rapists, most all rapists are men. I’m not hiring a member of the Communist Party USA as a babysitter no matter how pleasant the person appears. And not all dogs bite, but it’s still a good policy to not pet strange dogs.

Doctors also must consider group characteristics, to do their patients justice. For example, understanding that Pima Indians have the world’s highest diabetes rate and that black men’s prostate-cancer rate is twice white men’s can serve as indicators for screening. And only women are routinely examined for breast cancer even though men occasionally develop the disease.

Of course, no good person wants generalization to descend into prejudice, a fault man so often exhibits. But to consequently dismiss generalization, and thus throw out of the baby with the bathwater, is much like dispensing with medical diagnostics merely because witch doctors have existed. Moreover, note that since "prejudice” is defined as "an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason,” such an uninformed, unfavorable opinion of generalization is a prejudice itself. And it’s a prejudice that can get you killed.

New York City values are going through the roof. And it’s not just real estate. A prime story the last many days has been the GOP debate dustup between Donald Trump and Senator Ted Cruz. After the senator impugned "New York values” in an effort to call into question the businessman’s conservative bona fides, Trump responded with an impassioned defense of New Yorkers’ character. Trump won the exchange on style with rhetorical effectiveness, but, frankly, Cruz was right on substance.

This is not a commentary on whether Trump exemplifies NY values. In fact, I love most of what The Donald is saying; furthermore, while I have great respect for Cruz, the fact that no other candidate Thursday night could join Trump in supporting a halt to Muslim immigration -- a common-sense measure -- calls their qualifications for the presidency into question. But this isn’t a commentary on that, either, or on NY values, although I will touch on them. This article is about something far deeper.

All of us generalize. And most of us bristle at generalizations we don’t like -- whether true or not. It’s then that we, waxing emotional, may complain about the "folly of generalization.”

Now, it may come as a shock to the critics of mine who suppose I live in West Virginia and eat chicken-fried steak, but I was born in NY and grew up in NYC — the Bronx, to be precise. And believe me, there are NY values (along with an ever decreasing number of NY virtues). Moreover, as Cruz said, most people know what they are. Trump certainly does; after all, he referenced his NY values in a 1999 interview. And while radio host and Trump supporter Michael Savage, another man I greatly respect, took exception to Cruz’ remarks, I remember when he complained on air that Vermont was ruined and became Sandersized when too many New Yorkers moved there.

What are NY values? Well, state residents elected a governor who said in 2014 that pro-life, pro-Second Amendment conservatives "have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are’”; and the Big Apple elevated to mayor Bolshevik Bill, a Marxist who honeymooned in Cuba and once raised money for the Sandinistas. You figure it out.

My real concern here, however, is not how people value New Yorkers or Cruz or Trump, but how they value generalization itself. For our refusal to properly generalize is one of the characteristic faults of our time — and a dangerous one at that.

Here’s a good example: if it’s wrong to generalize about New Yorkers because, in principle, it’s wrong to generalize, how can we then generalize about terrorists or Muslims? Doesn’t it make it harder to justify a halt to Muslim immigration if generalization is taken off the table? So some may get offended and say "Not all New Yorkers are liberals,” but this is reminiscent of liberals opposing common-sense profiling and saying "Not all Muslims are terrorists” (or "Not all terrorists are Muslim”). In point of fact, the percentage of Muslims who are terrorists is lower than the percentage of New Yorkers who are liberal, but this is irrelevant. The fact that virtually all the terrorists bedeviling us are Muslim is significant and indicates the importance of honest examination of Islamic values — which, like NY values, certainly exist.

The reality is that "not all _____ are _____” is not a valid argument against generalization, only reflective of a misunderstanding of it. If I say "Men are taller than women,” it’s silly to respond "But not all men are taller than all women!” After all, I didn’t say "all” and wasn’t implying the absence of individual variation; rather, I was referring to men and women as groups. And just as we must judge every individual as an individual and not paint everyone with the same brush, we must judge an individual group as an individual group and not paint every one with the same brush.

In fact, the only reason we can even identify groups as "groups” is that there are differences among them. And barring the rare cases in which groups are differentiated solely by location (as when dividing a class of boys into two groups placed at different tables), those differences are often neither arbitrary nor insignificant. Is location the only thing differentiating Afghans from Americans? Is location the only thing differentiating New Yorkers from Alabamans? Just as there’ll be very different government if you replace the 320 million Americans in the U.S. with 320 million Muslims, there’ll be very different state government if you replace the 4.8 million Alabamans in Alabama with average New Yorkers.

In fairness, most NY counties without big population centers are red. "Aha,” you say, "what about those rural values in the Empire State?!” Yes, there can be sub-groups within groups, and there is a general ideological divide between the woods and the hoods. But the point is that speaking of "rural values” is a generalization, too — and a correct one.

Why does this matter? Question: who’s in closer touch with reality, someone who only understands individual variation or someone who also understands group variation? In fact, the latter is necessary for survival. Just as being able to judge individual character (as when choosing a babysitter) is important, so is being able to judge group character (related to this is being able to properly judge what faults are found mostly in a given group, even if they’re exhibited by only a minority in the group). This is especially true given that understanding group character aids in assessing individual character.

This is not synonymous with prejudice. It rather is part of profiling, which, to paraphrase Dr. Walter Williams, is a method by which we can make determinations based on scant information when the cost of obtaining more information is too high. For example, since an Israeli airport-security agent can’t spend a month living with and becoming acquainted with every traveler, he must make judgments based on group associations; thus, knowing not all Muslims are terrorists but virtually all Mideast terrorists are Muslim, he’ll scrutinize a Muslim flier more closely.

We all make such generalization/profiling-based judgments. A stranded woman motorist may refuse to roll down her window and accept aid from a young man with greasy hair who’s peppered with tattoos and body-piercings; of course, he could conceivably be well-meaning, but this is a situation where she really does have to judge the book by its cover. Likewise, she may refuse to lower her window for any man, knowing that while most men aren’t rapists, most all rapists are men. I’m not hiring a member of the Communist Party USA as a babysitter no matter how pleasant the person appears. And not all dogs bite, but it’s still a good policy to not pet strange dogs.

Doctors also must consider group characteristics, to do their patients justice. For example, understanding that Pima Indians have the world’s highest diabetes rate and that black men’s prostate-cancer rate is twice white men’s can serve as indicators for screening. And only women are routinely examined for breast cancer even though men occasionally develop the disease.

Of course, no good person wants generalization to descend into prejudice, a fault man so often exhibits. But to consequently dismiss generalization, and thus throw out of the baby with the bathwater, is much like dispensing with medical diagnostics merely because witch doctors have existed. Moreover, note that since "prejudice” is defined as "an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason,” such an uninformed, unfavorable opinion of generalization is a prejudice itself. And it’s a prejudice that can get you killed.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prejudice?s=t

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:19 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 2581 words, total size 17 kb.

Timothy Birdnow

Hillary Clinton supporters eagerly signed a petition to get rid of the Bill of Rigths from the U.S. Constitution.
http://constitutionalrightspac.com/articles/clinton-supporters-sign-petition-to-repeal-bill-of-rights

Any wonder why this country is failing?

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:59 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 38 words, total size 1 kb.

Timothy Birdnow

There has been a farming bubble in this country for years now, driven by artificially high prices thanks to the ethanol mandate for fuel and too easy credit terms driven by the government. Now it appears it may be bursting.

From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

"CHICAGO • With agricultural lenders fearing a tidal wave of farm bankruptcies as soon as this spring, lawyers in the Midwest say they want U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa to raise the debt limit for so-called "family farmer" bankruptcies.

Farmers in states like Illinois, Indiana and Iowa are scrambling to secure lending for the 2016 growing season at a time when prices for their corn have halved from three years ago.

Many younger farmers, who tend to be more cash poor than their elders, are expected to be among the hardest hit by stubbornly high input costs such as fertilizer and seeds and souring export sales"

[...]

"The U.S. Department of Agriculture has estimated that net farm income plummeted in 2015 to $55.9 billion, down nearly 55 percent from an all-time high in 2013. The final data is set for release next month.

The USDA has also forecast that the data will show farmers' debt-to-asset ratio grew to 12.8 in 2015 from 11.3 in 2013.

Last spring, some farmers took the extreme step of breaching their lease contracts, reducing how much land they will sow this spring and risking years-long legal battles with landlords.

Since then, leading players in the agricultural sector have seen their businesses hurt by lower farm income and grain prices. These include tractor maker Deere & Co., seeds and chemical leader Monsanto Co. and top grain buyer Archer Daniels Midland Co."

End excerpts.

Is this any surprise? The Obama Administration has waged a war on the family farmer, with Byzantine regulatory regimes imposed on farmers (such as forcing dairy farmers to treat spilled milk as a toxic waste spill) and mismanaging water sources to a point where we have artificial floods and droughts. The floood on the upper Mississippi was one such example. We've also seen EPA land grabs such as the "wetlands" business, and the squeeze being put on farmers by the Bureau of Land Management (remember Cliven Bundy?)

Now those chickens are coming home to roost. This was a purposeful plan by Obama, who is seeking to create an Hydraulic Empire. And the plan is to get the farmers further indebted to the government.

Control food and you control the People.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 04:18 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 418 words, total size 3 kb.

Timothy Birdnow

The Left has ranted for years about a "culture of rape" on college campuses and in American life. We have been told that one out of four college women will be raped over the course of her collegiate experience (a ridiculous number that is far higher than the rape levels in the worst neighborhoods; clearly they are gaming the definition of "rape" to artificially inflate the numbers.) We've had Mattress Girl, we've had the abuse of male LaCrosse players by Liberals who took the word of a drug addled stripper with no physical evidence and a history of crying rape, The War on rape seems to be more a war on men.

And yet the liberals who are so concernted about the virtue of the tender darlings on campus care nary a wit about real rape.

Here is an example.

I know; this is in Europe, not America, but where are the rape advocates when it involves Muslim men actually forcibly sodomizing young women? The "culture of rape" that the liberal hags whine about actually exists in the Muslim community and here they remain silent. Why isn't Mattress Girl lugging her Sealy over to Sweden in solidarity with her sisters?

Because this has never been about rape or sexual assault and all about power. There is power in accusing someone of raping them. A man who denies he raped a woman is in an impossible position;; he has to prove a negative. Fear is the endgame, fear on the part of men so women may force them to obedience. This is female supremacy, not safety, not decency, not justice. These hags want power over men.

I dare them to speak up about Muslim rape. But they won't.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 11:26 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 298 words, total size 2 kb.

Timothy Birdnow

Every election cycle we hear the same arguments from the RINO/Establishment class. These claims cannot be justified in any way, and yet they are articles of faith, venerated words of wisdom, absolutes in the political world, and the Establishment asks us, nay demands, we follow their prescribed political program lest disaster overtake us. These overarching truths have little to no evidence to support them, and at this point, given the utter failure of their employment in the real world of electoral politics, can be classified as outright lies. Their purpose is to anesthetize the Conservative base, to lull us back into our collective intellectual coma, to force us off the field so that the elites can continue to run the show. What, pray tell, are these lies?

Lie #1 - There is a Conservative Litmus test for candidates and we refuse to accept any but the most pure of heart.

This particular error was recently promoted at American Thinker by Mark Griswald http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/01/reagan_was_a_rino.html who stated:

"And Republicans, or should I say a subset of Republicans, engage in a quadrennial event referred to by some as the conservative litmus test, or the circular firing squad, in which they enjoy comparing their chosen Republican presidential candidate to Ronald Reagan and comparing every other Republican candidate to Karl Marx (or possibly Groucho Marx). The length of this festival of futility usually runs from late November in the year preceding a presidential election and can end as late as the first Wednesday in November of the following year if the Democrat ends up winning the general election."

End excerpt.

This is demonstrably false. At this very moment in the political season Donald Trump is well in the lead of the Republican field. Trump is in no way Ronald Reagan; he doesn't even play him on TV. Trump has never been a staunch Conservative, and yet he is wildly popular among many of these benighted litmus test shooters. The reasons for Trump's popularity are outside the scope of this essay, but suffice it to say it is largely because he is not Jeb Bush, or any subset thereof. And he stands for something, rather than offering the same content-free kumbaya speeches we have come to expect from our betters in the GOP. People will overlook a lot for some refreshing honesty. (I personally don't see it with Trump, but that just illustrates how wrong the claim of a litmus test really is.)

Those who make this "purity" claim ignore the many Conservative supporters of George W. Bush in 2000, ignore the fact that the very same Conservatives supported his father - a proven RINO. Apparently not letting the Establishment choose the candidate is somehow, in the eyes of the RINO wing, a type of treason, as though Conservatives have no right to ask for someone who mirrors their ideals.

And given the fact that Conservatives have been betrayed over and over by people who have been our best friends until they get into office, is it any wonder we seek someone who appears honest? Take John Boehner; he was a lion of Conservatism, a man who railed against his own party for being squishy and weak. In the end Boehner morphed into Gerald R. Ford with a tan. He is not alone in this; Eric Cantor did the same. John Kasich used to be a staunch Conservative and now he bashes our side. So did Newt Gingrich. Pat Toomey. In point of fact, we have a dreary history of Washington swallowing our best and brightest (Nikki Haley being the most recent example of a turncoat Tea Party member, but there are plenty of others.) Since we cannot trust politicians to keep faith, we must find a candidate we believe will at least be honest and not just use us to get elected.

Traitors used to be executed by firing squad. If there is a circular firing squad it is a citizen's duty.

Reagan himself was once a Democrat, by the way, and he never stopped being one. As The Gipper himself put it, the Party left him. And Reagan made some huge errors, such as signing Simpson Simpson. But we forgave him because his heart was in the right place; he wasn't just lying to us then turning his colors.

Lie #2 - An Angry Candidate turns off voters and is unelectable.

Is that so? What evidence is there to support this claim, at least at the Presidential level.

We just don't know because the GOP has not run an angry candidate. Was Romney angry? McCain was an angry man - angry at the GOP base, but lovey-dovey with the media and the Democrats. Bush Jr.? Bob Dole? Bush Sr.? All of these candidates eschewed anger for reasonableness, for clear-headed policy wonkishness and comity. People have forgotten, but Ronald Reagan actually WAS an angry man in many ways; Reagan coined the term "liberal" as an insult, for example. Reagan called the Soviet Union an "Evil Empire" and mocked Jimmy Carter with "there you go again!".

What RINO's fail to grasp is there is a huge difference between being angry and being nasty. Reagan was righteously angry. He saw America being destroyed by the Left and by the petty power dreams of Democrats and fellow traveler-Republicans. He would never have been elected had he NOT been angry. But he was not nasty, and he balanced his anger with his optimism. Sadly, we are told to not be angry and to hold a false sense of optimism. These things are evident to voters, who can smell b.s. A Republican who is NOT angry comes across as a smarmy politician, someone who doesn't believe in what he says but is simply trying to win votes for his political fortunes. Barack Obama has wrecked the country; that must make one angry.

And Reagan proves the point that there is no Conservative Litmus test.

Richard Nixon was seen as an angry man, and yet he was elected to office. Only Barry Goldwater could be defined as an angry GOP loser.

So there really is no evidence that being angry means you are going to lose.

American Thinker's local Establishmentarian James Arlanson thinks so. In his AT piece he states:

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/01/the_debate_how_it_all_went_down.html

"Trump:

He was much smoother this time – getting better each time. His bluntness appeals to certain voters. Was Nikki Haley right about loudest voices and anger from some in the GOP? Yes, Trump says. "I am angry!" Then he gave a rundown of the country's mess, saying our country is run by incompetent people"

[...]

"The selfie voters and forty-two percent see, I believe, exactly what he says: an angry man. Will this appeal to them? Highly doubtful."

End excerpt.

And yet Trump is the epitome of a crossover candidate, one who is appealing to new demographics.
http://spectator.org/articles/63765/are-reagan-democrats-becoming-trump-democrats#!

#3 - Republican candidates must appeal to the center to win the general election.

Alanson also argues that point in his piece:
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/01/the_debate_how_it_all_went_down.html

"What do the selfie- voters and the forty-two percent see? A confident man. But is he too conservative for them? The primary voters need to take that into consideration. They also see someone who, in my view, is not that appealing in the externals. He seems a little too scary, as if he would move too fast as president."

End excerpt.

What does James Alanson base this determination on? In the usual RINO fashion he is saying we cannot win with bold colors, but must rather offer soft pastels. Conservatism is not a popular thing, we are told, and we must move to the center, be all things to all people, and coax the voters with likeable personalities and content-free campaigns.

How well has that worked out for us? Since 1984 the GOP has offered this same campaign stratagem, and it has been at it's absolute best a recipe for a photo finish. Bush Sr. won only because he claimed the mantle of Reagan. Bush Jr. actually lost the first election and won by a slim margin his re-election - at a time of war when Americans are loathe to change horses midstream. We've had a parade of "bum of the month" candidates; Romney, McCain, Dole. Prior to Reagan we had milquetoast candidates such as Gerald Ford. The GOP has offered only three actual Conservatives since the Roaring '20's and Calvin Coolidge, and only one of them lost. But we are told with absolute confidence that Conservatism is a loser.

Where is the evidence?

(By the way, what does "move to fast as President" mean? Has Mr. Arlandson missed the fact that Barack Hussein Obama moved faster than a jackrabbit in love and was re-elected by a solid majority?)

#4 We have to choose our candidate based on "electability".

Robert Morrison appeals to this RINO argument at AT as well:
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/01/rubio_or_cruz.html

"But we cannot discount likeability. George W. Bush doubtless owes his two squeaker elections to things like Al Gore’s impatient sighs in the 2000 debates and blueblood John Kerry’s haughty disdain for his opponent four years later.

Ted Cruz has made a point of his willingness to buck the Establishment in Washington. That’s certainly positive. But he has seemingly bucked everyone else, too. There are virtually no endorsements of Cruz from any of his congressional colleagues. He also seems not to know how far to take his criticisms. He called his own Majority Leader a liar on the floor of the U.S. Senate. That conduct used to get a senator censured. Question: If he cannot get along with his own party members, how likely is he to get along with any of the Opposition?"

End excerpt.

Who exactly decides the "likeability" factor? It is generally the news media, the Democratic Party, and the Establishment wing of the GOP.

Mr. Morrison seems to think that being unpopular with his colleagues makes Ted Cruz "unlikable" but isn't that rather a testament to his honorable nature? During the election of 2008 we were told about how John McCain's "maverick" status was such a boon, and yet now Ted Cruz's same status is "unlikeability". McCain WAS unlikable; a testy old codger who would have been yelling at children on his lawn had he not been running for President. And McCain's most unlikable feature was his tendency to knife his own friends in the back. McCain's "maverick" status was conferred on him because he bucked his conservative base on numerous issues. Cruz bucks his RINO colleagues in the Senate to fulfill his campaign promises. Who is the more likable?

So often the RINOs cite William F. Buckley's polemic about supporting the most conservative candidate who can win. I would suggest we modify that adage to say we should support the most delectable Conservative who won't betray us. Recent history has been most unkind in that regard, and as a result far too often we end up with a Progressive instead of a Conservative. America has continues it's long, horrible slide into the abyss precisely because we keep nominating candidates who are great lions until they get into office then move to the left. We cannot make any headway in rolling back any of the things the Left has shoved down our throats because our side is afraid to fight. Even if we are going to lose, better to die as brave men, with one swift stroke of the sword, than cowering in our beds, hemorrhaging from a thousand paper cuts.

Morrison also argues that we must be immigration friendly to a fault, which brings us to RINO lie #5:

"We cannot restrict immigration - either legal or illegal - or we will suffer political catastrophe".

Morrison argues at the end of his piece that a desire to restrict immigration is a political loser and the Party will suffer. He claims Eisenhower and Reagan prove that being immigration friendly is critical to success.

Interesting; Ike kicked nearly three million people out of the country with Operation Wetback. Reagan tried to tighten border security after the Simpson Rizzoli Simpson amnesty, and he always called that his biggest blunder. Calvin Coolidge signed the Immigration Act of 1924, shutting immigration down completely.

The "Know Nothing" Party opposing immigration in a nation with a large frontier that is labor starved is a world of difference to a reasonable desire to stop millions of people from pouring in illegally at a time when our nation is heavily populated and unemployment or underemployment is rampant, when America is threatened by terrorists who can walk across the border, where political correctness and multiculturalism guarantees that the new immigrants are unassimilatable. America is the third most populous nation on Earth, yet we take in the highest number of immigrants of any country by far. Any reasonable person asked believes we should restrict people from breaking and entering. Nobody is asking for restricted LEGAL immigration (which, frankly, we need to restrict at this point and is popular with the American people https://www.numbersusa.com/news/poll-majority-americans-do-not-favor-higher-legal-immigration-recognize-current-levels). But that isn't good enough for the RINO class, the whores to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce who want foreign labor because it is cheap. Closing the border is popular with the public, no matter what the GOP elites would have us believe. Even legal immigrants like the idea.

And nobody except Muslims and politicians worry about pausing immigration from ISIS controlled territory. This is entirely common sense, yet the GOP Establishment argues we have no right to stop anyone from coming here.

But the RINO position is that we must not stop people from coming here - period.

And this is justified by the argument that we must have the Latino vote to win elections. Well, first off, what does that actually accomplish? Our purpose is to unify the country. Pandering to a Balkanized voting block does nothing but feed the current crisis. Also, it is not true that we need Hispanics to win; Mitt Romney would still have lost had he garnered a majority of Hispanic votes. He would have had to win the whole enchilada; he was too weak with his traditional base for Hispanic votes to matter.http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-winning-hispanic-vote-would-not-be-enough-for-gop/article/2528730 The GOP can win without the Latinos. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-winning-hispanic-vote-would-not-be-enough-for-gop/article/2528730

There are other lies that are endlessly repeated, but these are the top five. We hear them every two years, and frankly, they are getting stale. I wish the RINO community would at least try to update their arguments, give us something fresh fro a change.

Better yet go away. We've had enough of your condescension.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:15 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 2421 words, total size 15 kb.

Paul Driessen

Dwight and Steven Hammond got in trouble with the feds because they started a "backfire” to create a fire break and protect their home and ranch from a major fire and accidentally burned 139 acres of federal land in Oregon. They put the fire out, but could still have been charged under a 1948 law that provides penalties for setting a fire on government lands without permission. Instead, the Obama Justice Department charged them as terrorists under the 1996 Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act – and got them sentenced to five years in prison.

Activists protesting that unfair sentence and federal land mismanagement in general have occupied the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters building, also in Oregon. Although they praised Occupy Wall Street actions and excused the Ferguson, MO riots, the White House and news media have sharply criticized the Malheur occupation. John Kerry added to the hypocrisy, saying: with Charlie Hebdo there was "perhaps … a rationale … [and] you could say, okay, they’re really angry because of this and that.” So twelve Hebdo staffers murdered by Islamist terrorists might be labeled "rational,” but occupying a federal building is intolerable.

You figure it out. I can’t – though I’ve tried to in this week’s commentary.

Life under an iron fist

Federal government overseers threaten property and livelihoods of hardworking westerners

Paul Driessen

Activists protesting federal land mismanagement and the imprisonment of Dwight and Steven Hammond recently occupied the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters building in Oregon. Some facts, context and perspective may help people understand what’s really going on here.

At its core, this is about the often callous, iron-fisted hand of the federal government being slammed down on American citizens. Examples abound – from the IRS targeting 200 conservative groups, to the seizure of cars and bank accounts of innocent business owners, to heavily armed Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) agents bursting into Gibson Guitar facilities over phony exotic wood violations, to EPA destroying tens of thousands of coal industry jobs to "prevent climate chaos.” Making these outrages even more intolerable, those responsible are almost never held accountable, much less liable for damages.

Problems like these can become exponentially worse for people in one of the twelve western states where the federal government controls 30% (Montana), 49% (Oregon) or even 85% (Nevada and Alaska) of all the land. These government lands total 640 million acres: 28% of the entire 2.27-billion-acre United States.

Though they are often, incorrectly called "public” lands, the "public” has no fundamental right to enter them or utilize their water and other resources. They are federal government reservations, administered and controlled by agencies that increasingly want economic, motorized and many other activities prohibited and eliminated – under laws interpreted, implemented and imposed by officials in the FWS, Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Park Service and other federal agencies.

The feds also exercise effective, often punitive control over millions of acres of state and private lands located next to or in the midst of these government fiefdoms. People living in those areas rely on the federal reserves for forage, water, timber, energy, mineral and other resources that are increasingly made off limits, on the ground that "beneficial uses” might impact wildlife, scenic or environmental values.

However, millions of people do have valid, existing, longstanding, protected rights to these lands and their resources, in the form of "appurtenances” conveyed to them by deed or will from the first settler or miner. The forage, water rights, range improvements, easements, rights of ways, mineral rights and other property interests that the first settlers created or were granted to these western lands are constitutionally protected and have been preserved in every federallandlaw ever enacted by Congress. Those rights cannot be summarily taken away – though federal agencies increasingly try to do so.

As an 1888 congressional report explained, the original idea for these lands involved use and protection: settlements, harvesting of commercial quality trees, watershed protection, and no land monopolies. Various laws allowed mining, oil drilling, ranching, farming and other activities, to supply food, energy and raw material needs, while early environmentalists wanted certain areas preserved as national parks and wilderness.Of course, modern resource use and extraction methods are far more responsible and environmentally sound than their predecessors, so impacts can be much better limited and repaired.

Nevertheless, "wise use” or "multiple use” is under attack, and such uses are now rare or nonexistent across many western and Alaskan government lands. Landowners who remain are barely holding on.

Imagine the feds owning half of Ohio or Pennsylvania – and gradually, systematically closing off access, taking away water and forage rights, banning economic uses, charging higher fees for remaining rights, forcing landowners into years-long courtroom battles, and refusing to pay up when courts order them to compensate owners for attorney fees and lost income. That’s the situation facing rural westerners.

The Hammonds got in trouble because they started a "backfire,” to burn combustible material, create a "fire break” and protect their home and ranch from a raging fire. They accidentally burned 139 acres of federal land before they put the fire out. Now they are serving five years in prison, even though Senior Federal Judge Michael Hogan felt a year or less was fair and just under the circumstances.

They could have been charged under a 1948 law that provides for fines or jail terms up to five years for setting a fire on government lands without permission. But they were not. Instead, the Obama Justice Department charged them under the 1996 Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act – as though what they did, in an honest attempt to protect their property, was an act of deliberate terrorism. That law requires a minimum five-year sentence. Judge Hogan’s lighter sentence was thus overruled.

Why would the DOJ do that? Probably because the feds never forget or forgive. Some years earlier, the Hammonds had removed a barrier the BLM had installed to block access to water they thought was legally theirs. Turns out it was. But they had failed to fully adjudicate their rights to the water – an oversight that they then fixed, thus safeguarding their rights. The Hammonds were also the only ranchers who refused to go along with a BLM "cow-free wilderness” plan. The feds were determined to get even.

Why would the Hammonds just give up and go back to prison? Because the DOJ wouldn’t budge, and they could not afford the huge expense of continuing to battle a  HYPERLINK "https://www.superstation95.com/index.php/world/723"
vindictive federal behemoth. So now a middle-aged mom and elderly grandmother must run their 6,000-acre ranch, pay $200,000 more in fines, and hope they can avoid bankruptcy, which would result in BLM getting the Hammond ranch.

It is absurd, outrageous and infuriating. The Obama DOJ refuses to call Fort Hood, Boston, San Bernardino and other massacres terrorism – but it labels a backfire "terrorism.” But it gets worse.

Harney County, Oregon, where the Hammonds live, is over 6.4 million acres (over 10,000 square miles, ten times the size of Rhode Island), and 72% of it is controlled by the federal government. A 2012 wildfire in the county burned 160,000 acres! A 2015 fire in the county next door burned 800,000 acres!

Still worse, the BLM has often lit fires in Harney County and elsewhere (often on private land) that got out of control, burned extensive private property and even killed cattle. No one can recall the feds ever compensating ranchers for their lost livestock, fences or forage. In 2013, the Forest Service started two "prescribed burns” in South Dakota that blew out of control and torched thousands of acres of federal and private land. No federal employee has ever been prosecuted for any of those destructive fires.

To top it off, many of these fires are ultimately due to lousy management practices that restrict or prohibit tree cutting, tree thinning and insect control. That leaves vast tinderboxes of dry, rail-thin trees and brush ready to explode in superheated conflagrations that immolate wildlife and incinerate soil nutrients and organisms, ensuring that what’s left gets washed away in storms and spring snow melts. So the feds "protect” our treasured national forests from ranchers and miners by letting them go up in smoke.

But despite all these outrages, and not content with its already vast landholdings, the feds are trying to gain absolute control over all private lands still left in Harney County, and elsewhere. As Congressman Greg Walden noted in a  HYPERLINK "http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2016/01/post_227.html"
January 5 speech, they are trying to drive ranchers and even joggers out of the Malheur Refuge. Failing that, President Obama might turn 2.5 million acres into a national monument.

The twisted saga is reminiscent of travesties under Stalin, Mao, Castro and other dictators. And it is just one of hundreds, some of which I will profile in future articles. It’s no wonder people are frustrated and angry – and some support Ammon Bundy and other activists who took over the Malheur headquarters. History will judge whether that peaceful occupation of federal property was wise, helpful or justified.

But many in the Obama Administration, news media, academia and general public certainly support or justify the seizure of college administrative offices, Occupy Wall Street encampments, and even Black Lives Matter kill-the-cops rants, Ferguson, Missouri riots, Palestinian attacks on Israelis, and Obama BFF  HYPERLINK "http://www.conservapedia.com/William_Ayers"
Bill Ayers’ criminal activities.  HYPERLINK "http://hotair.com/archives/2015/11/17/john-kerry-on-paris-at-least-with-the-charlie-hebdo-attack-there-was-a-certain-legitimacy-i-mean-rationale-to-the-attack/"
John Kerry went so far as to say, with Charlie Hebdo there was "perhaps … a rationale … [and] you could say, okay, they’re really angry because of this and that.”

So twelve Hebdo staffers murdered by Islamist terrorists is "rational” or excusable, but occupying a federal building is intolerable. We are dealing with a festering, growing, open wound. Congress, the courts and our next president need to heal it, and address the root causes, before things get out of hand.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (HYPERLINK "http://www.CFACT.org"www.CFACT.org) and author of HYPERLINK "http://www.amazon.com/Eco-Imperialism-Green-Power-Black-Death/dp/0939571234/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1433540490&sr=1-1&keywords=paul+driessen+%2B+eco+imperialism&pebp=1433540499327&perid=01JDAJ8XPWAV9VND8SDE"Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death. © January 2016

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:14 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 1682 words, total size 12 kb.

Dana Mathewson

I have three bottles of this at home right now. It is absolutely "to die for!"

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/01/15/michigan-approves-beer-with-baby-on-label.html

A brewery's beer featuring a baby on the label now has official approval in Michigan

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:07 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 36 words, total size 1 kb.

The EPA broke the law in producing propoganda. This from ALG:

EPA violated federal law with covert propaganda

By Nathan Mehrens

As the EPA was considering the "Waters of the U.S." regulation, the agency engaged in a pattern of advocacy that encouraged the public to lobby on it, violating prohibitions passed by Congress. This is the conclusion from the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) in an opinion dated December 14, 2015.
https://cl.publicaster.com/ClickThru.aspx?pubids=6812%7c899871%7c628283%7c246&digest=BYIdJg%2fPZopLydVTY7HgWQ&sysid=1

The GAO was asked whether these activities violated the prohibitions on propaganda that exist in federal law. The GAO concluded that in at least one instance, the answer is yes. That instance involved the use of Thunderclap by the EPA to push its narrative on the regulation. As noted in the opinion, "Here, because EPA created a Thunderclap message that did not identify EPA as the author to those who would read it when Thunderclap shared the message across social media accounts, we consider whether the EPA's use of Thunderclap constituted covert propaganda."

Apparently the EPA was so desperate to move public opinion in favor of its controversial regulation that it hid its identity in order to make it look like these communications were not organized from the top down, but were rather an organic grass roots uprising.

The opinion states further, "EPA constructed a message to be shared by others that refers to the EPA in the third person and advocates support of the Agency's activities." These messages apparently reached 1.8 million users.

The EPA certainly knew what it was doing, after all, it was the communications director for the Office of Water that engaged in many of these activities. The EPA's activities encouraged the public to engage in lobbying activities. As noted by the opinion, "When EPA hyperlinked to the NRDC and Surfrider Foundation webpages using an official communication channel belonging to the EPA and visually encouraged its readers to visit these external websites, EPA associated itself with the messages conveyed by these self-described action groups."

In general, an attempt by a federal agency to convince the public to engage in lobbying is an activity that is prohibited by law. Thus, the conclusion from the GAO stating, "We conclude that EPA violated the anti-lobbying provisions contained in appropriations acts for FY2015 when it obligated and expended funds in connection with establishing the hyperlinks to the webpages of environmental action groups."

Additionally, because the EPA violated the appropriations laws, a violation of the Antideficiency Act occurred as well. As noted by the opinion, "Because EPA obligated and expended appropriated funds in violation of specific prohibitions, we also conclude that EPA violated the Antideficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. § 1341(a)(1)(A), as the agency's appropriations were not available for these prohibited purposes."

Such violations of the Antideficiency Act require a report which is provided to the President, Congress, and the Comptroller General. It remains to be seen whether the EPA will file this report and come clean on its activities in this area.

In order to further inform the public regarding the EPA's activities in this area, Americans for Limited Government Foundation has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the EPA. The request seeks copies of communications between the EPA's Office of Water and the NRDC and Surfrider Foundation. Based on previous FOIA work from our office we know that the EPA does frequently coordinate with outside environmental groups and has a very chummy relationship with many of them. We will provide an update on this issue in the future, and will work to bring more of these situations to light so that the public can know how their government is attempting to shape the debate, both before them and before Congress, on environmental issues.

Nathan Mehrens is President of Americans for Limited Government Foundation

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 11:05 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 634 words, total size 4 kb.

Dana Mathewson

And, in business news as we watch another Democratic state shoot itself in the foot again... though why GE decided to move to deep-blue MA is beyond me...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/14/conn-gov-state-dems-under-fire-as-ge-ships-up-to-boston.html

Democratic Gov. Dannel Malloy is facing growing criticism from lawmakers, business leaders and residents after General Electric, one of the state’s largest employers, announced it would relocate to neighboring Massachusetts.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:24 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 64 words, total size 1 kb.

Jack Kemp forwards this:

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/01/the_lefts_endgame_hits_the_wall.html
January 14, 2016
The Left’s Endgame Hits the Wall
By Dan Gorski
If there is such thing as a "hockey stick” graph, it charts the disappearance of freedom, opportunity, prosperity and hope of the American middle class during the last 50 years. In 2008 Americans sleepwalked to the polls and elected a man who by his history, family, friends and even his own words left little doubt that his mission was to destroy everything that America has traditionally stood for. We entered the steep part of the graph.
The slow motion suicide that America has been committing since the mid 1960’s is no longer slow motion. In 2012 with Republican help they did it again. He has been remarkably successful and, astonishingly, it was a bi-partisan effort. Honesty, intelligence and common sense seem to have completely fled the field and are nowhere to be seen. Nothing being said or done by the so-called leaders and opinion makers computes with what we see going on right before our eyes. With fresh blood still on the floor in Paris, the three stooges, Obama, Kerry and Al Gore tell us that global warming is the greatest threat mankind has ever faced. We see millions of ignorant, unskilled, inassimilable people from dysfunctional third world societies flooding our country.
"They are here to do the jobs Americans won’t do”, reply our betters when asked. We are tempted to believe that the reason Americans won’t do those jobs is because they are sitting home watching TV, drinking beer and smoking pot on the 50% or so of our income that somehow disappears from our paychecks every month. We shell out thousands of dollars a year for schools with lavish facilities, administrators who knock down six figure salaries, athletic budgets running in the millions, yet produce graduates who would make the average medieval English villein look erudite.
The high profile behavior of the Lords of the tech world gets more cracked every day; the thinking of these great shapers of millennial opinion would fit right in to Orwell’s 1984, or maybe Frankenstein. We sit dumbfounded while supposedly "serious” people discuss whether or not a man should be woman of the year. We watch our military turn into a downsized, feminized, homosexualized, transgendered social experiment while China and Russia sharpen their bayonets. Islam happily tells us that they will cut all our heads off when they get here and our President helps them get here. All this is too bizarre to even be called Kafkaesque, this is the twilight zone.
It does not take an Ivy League degree to understand why all these calamities are descending on us. What is happening is living proof of the famous statement by Edmond Burke, "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” Beltway Republicans and the toothless conservative punditry, who were supposed to defend us have always gone along to get along, rationalizing the left's objectives as only establishing benign and soft European socialism. They were whistling past the graveyard.
This is not Sweden and the American left are not benign social democrats. These are the violent heirs of Lenin and Stalin and they are out for blood, ours. Their objective is the destruction of the middle class and the imposition of top down tyranny, it always has been. They will enlist Islamic terrorism, race war, class envy and any other deadly tool to achieve the destruction of hated Amerika. These nihilists care nothing about their people or their civilization, only their warped worldview. You need look no further than at our president’s mentors, the misbegotten, hate filled spawn of the 1960’s anti-war movement who now run your government and your life.
Code words such as "populist,” "southern," "redneck," "nativist" and "racist" all mean white Middle America and their culture -- the tough minded Scots-Irish traditions of honesty, hard work, honor, patriotism, and military ferocity. This is the left's nemesis, what they hate and fear the most. These characteristics that for 150 years powered the ascendency of America are being dangerously corroded by a toxic mix of "white guilt,” "sex, drugs and rock and roll,” welfare, and an education system that that actively suppresses knowledge, especially historical knowledge.
All this crap has been dished out by the left with a purpose. If they can destroy your sense of historical place and nation, ethnicity, and yes, race, they have turned you into a rootless, apathetic slave. The feeling of hopelessness and powerlessness that afflicts white America is not an accident. Does the term "Frankfurt School” ring any bells? The left has used Americans’ inherent decency and incredible naiveté regarding its motives, objectives and methods, to worm its way, unopposed, into our institutions, co-opting them one by one. Federal bureaucracies, foundations, universities, NGO’s, the corporate boardroom and now the military have succumbed to this fifth column. Our traditional culture is all that is left standing and the left has been tirelessly working to destroy it since the 1920’s. They are damn close to getting it done.
Middle America is awakening from its 50 year coma. The only thing missing is a leader who will bluntly point out the obvious, who can understand and channel the pent up rage, fear, and frustration that we are feeling after 50 years of being insulted, stolen from and now physically threatened. Up until now, by their control of all the media, the left has made us feel that we were isolated and alone. The new media is changing that. It is one of the ironies of history that Mr. Facebook, Mr. Google and Mr. Twitter and several others have created the instrument of their own destruction. You can apply Lenin’s statement that "they will sell you the rope you will hang them with” to describe their plight.
Enter Donald Trump. Individuals have and always will change the course of things, unpredictably and suddenly. Trump has consciously or unconsciously punched our red button. Trump is real and he is emotive. Wonkish analysis and reasoned debate do not fuel mass movements, emotion does; mass movements are like the periodic fires that tear through an old, rotting, bug infested forest and start a new cycle of vitality. This country is too far gone to resurrect any other way. It is time to awaken the sleeping giant and let the chips fall where they will. Trump has tossed the match into the powder keg.
The genie is out of the bottle now and even if Trump falters there will be another to take his place. He or she will have to be irrevocably committed to turning this country inside out and not be squeamish about how it is done, starting at the school board and ending at the White House. If he or she ever utters the word "compassion,” it will be all over. We are so sick of that word it makes us want to throw up when we hear it. He or she had better not ever apologize for anything, anytime, anyhow. We don’t care about anyone’s personal foibles, we have to win and don’t particularly care about how it’s done. And there is another little matter of holding accountable those who inflicted this damage on us. They cannot be allowed to "walk.” The American Republic is in its endgame. Let the game begin.
The dinosaur left, drunk with the success of conning America into twice electing an incompetent, Marxist stooge for President simply because was black, is totally surprised and is coming unhinged. They believed that traditional America was down and out. In their detached world of the beltway, green room and faculty lounge, they had assumed that anyone who would support Donald Trump was part of some marginal fringe group -- which to their horror turns out to be most of America, or at least the part that counts. Their "playing the race card” to squelch any inconvenient truth that intrudes into public consciousness is not working anymore. None of their slogans of the past apply anymore. They can’t rail against "the man” because they are "the man.” They own this mess and no amount of lying by the incredible shrinking news media can hide it. They are looking more like Louis the XVI everyday.
These are not your grandfather's Marxists'. These are not the deadly, self-sacrificing, true believers of Lenin's time. Joe Biden is not Leon Trotsky, Hillary Clinton is not Rosa Luxemburg. Time has taken its toll on their movement. It has evolved into a stinking mélange of government corruption and crony capitalism and self-interest. Their hatred of traditional America is unabated but they are old and soft and have not had a new idea in fifty years. Their entire political base is on the take and is bought and paid for with our money. Tenured, overweight, overaged, academic leftovers from the 60's and 70's. Taxpayer funded race hustlers, the professional grievance industry, and all the other assorted thugs, criminals and perverts we see on TV every night. The beer drinkers and pot smokers sitting home living on your back. The young inmates of our university system, a bunch of overeducated, overindulged, overprotected, overmedicated punks who will vanish like the morning fog at the first drop of sweat or first pang of fear. Self-aggrandizing celebrity and media air heads who equate a tight ass with intellect.
This movement has no grassroots, unless it refers to what is being smoked. Other than environmental crap they have no ideological underpinning. They are simply the mother of all kleptocracies. Their soldiers will not march to the sound of cannon. They are ripe for a fall. They are as vulnerable as they are stupid and will be as inept at defending themselves as they are at running your life.
We don’t need an intellectual, a debater, a legislator or a compromiser. Legalistic niceties be damned. We want a man of action who will "fix bayonets” and lead us over the top.
Dan Gorski is a Mining Executive, Veteran, a Texan and NRA member.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:23 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1688 words, total size 10 kb.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 04:01 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 135 words, total size 1 kb.