January 13, 2016

Obama Plans More Barbarian Invasions of America

Timothy Birdnow

Obama plans to flood America with more people from Central America, according to the Washington Post.

From the article:

"In a speech at the National Defense University, Kerry said the expansion of the Refugee Admissions Program will be directed toward people from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, to "offer them a safe and legal alternative to the dangerous journey many are currently tempted to begin, making them easy prey for human smugglers who have no interest but their own profits.”

The United States already plans to admit 85,000 refugees from around the world in the fiscal year that began in October, but only 3,000 spaces are set aside for Central Americans. The total allotment is 15,000 more refugees than in the previous year, and includes 10,000 Syrians referred by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees under a special vetting process that typically takes 18 to 24 months. The ceiling for refugees is even higher for 2017, when it will rise to 100,000.

[White House invited Syrian refu­gee to Obama’s State of the Union address]

Kerry did not say how many more Central American refugees would be admitted and when the expansion would take effect."

End excerpt.

To paraphrase Edward Longshanks in the movie Braveheart "the problem with America is too many Americans. If we can't get them out we'll breed them out". Longshanks was constrained to Primus Noctis, the right of "first night' hoping a Scottish bride would get pregnant with an English baby. Obama thinks much bigger!

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 03:31 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 246 words, total size 2 kb.

January 12, 2016

Hillary on the Brink

Dana Mathewson

Whoo boy! Hillary's gotta be sweating now, and those folks who say she'll skate MUST be starting to wonder. This sounds serious!


The FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of private email as secretary of state has expanded to look at whether the possible "intersection” of Clinton Foundation work and State Department business may have violated public corruption laws, three intelligence sources not authorized to speak on the record told Fox News.

A note from Jack Kemp

Bernie Sanders is ahead in Iowa. NH is a lock for him, being from the neighboring state. The more primaries Hillary loses, the more the Dem. Party has incentive to "retire" her to an Orange Jumpsuit facility.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 11:48 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 121 words, total size 1 kb.

Obama Wrong about "Only Americans have Gun Violence" Claim - Iraqi Mass Shooting

Dana Mathewson

Y'mean Barack didn't impose gun control before we pulled out? How short-sighted!


Iraqi officials: Gunmen attack Baghdad mall, killing 10 and taking hostages.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 11:47 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 39 words, total size 1 kb.

Penn in Peril

Dana Mathewson



Sean Penn’s new real-life role as investigative reporter could land him in big trouble with Mexican drug runners, the DEA, or both.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 11:46 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 29 words, total size 1 kb.

January 11, 2016

The Trumpet that Forever Calls Retreat

Timothy Birdnow

Recently I blogged about the pucillanimous approach of the Catholic - and other Christian - Church. Catholic churches have become no-go zones for thought or moral courage, empty vessels full of the thin vapors of political correctness and happy horse poop, places where toddler wisdom dominates. I have made the argument that this complete failure of the Church to stand for anything is a result of fears of government cutting off their tax-free status and fears of offending some of the few attendees who still show up on Sundays.

What is interesting is that this cowardice, this fear of saying anything and taking a stand, is almost identical to the fear and cowardice we see in the Republican Party. I would argue the causes are precisely the same.

First, the Church has been under attack since the 18th Century at a minimum. This started with the post-Reformation era, when the Liberal movement came into existence. The Liberals were essentially Protestant reformers without any Christianity. They saw how the Reformation was successful in rebelling against the Catholic Church; the printing press had given the Protestants a tactical superiority in terms of propoganda, and they were able to win in the political arena as much as in the spiritual. The Liberals understood exactly what had happened, and so they were keen enthusiasts on establishing newspapers and other organs of propoganda. They also saw the power of schools, and they founded many institutes of learning, both for children and at a higher level.

The rebellion broke the power of the catholic Church and in the end has laso largely destroyed the Protestant. Liberals kicked Christianity out of the public square and has been assaulting it ever since.

So many Christians act as if they are ashamed of their faith. The same holds true for the GOP, where the Establishment is ashamed of the hillbilly base, prefering the accolades of their political opposition - and the media they control - to the spears and arrows of outrageous fortune that one must take if one is to take a stand. Beter to kiss the fanny of the bully than be his next victim.

But I fear it is deeper than just fear of being beaten; I suspect that both Repubicans and Christians have simply lost their faith, being overcome by the endless flood of propoganda and lies put forth by the Enemy of All Mankind.

Sun Tzu, the ancient Chinese military tactician, said that the acme of military skill is to defeat the enemy without fighting, and this is precisely what the Left has done to both the Church and the public at large. They have so cowed those who have a duty to stand for the truth that our side surrenders before even engaging the enemy. We declare defeat before we even reach teh field of battle and look with longing to the next fight, planning our surrender before we even have left the entry to the current field.

God and America have been in full retreat for years, and that is entirely the fault of the post-modern belief that reality is subjective, a matter of what one believes and not what God ordaines.

The idea of moral relativism comes to us through Nietzche and the other 19th century German philosophers, who preached a gospel of self-willedness, of a malleable reality. They were powerfully buttressed by the discoveries of Einstein and Quantum physics, which illustrated the imortance of the observer in a physical event.

But what the Left has done is turn an observation about our ability to perceive events into a claim that events have no concrete, independent reality. Quantum mechanics and Relativity are scientifically valid hypotheses, but they are about the MEDIUM in which we observe the perceptual universe rather than the reality itself. We perceive reality through our senses, and what occurs in Relativity and Quantum mechanics represents a reality we may not be able to grasp.

Here is my point; liberals are interpreting a great movie based on the pixles they perceive. Pixles are the medium that transmits the movie to our senses; they are not the reality itself but the building blocks of the images we see on the television screen. Liberals concluded reality is the pixles, that we cannot judge a thing in the movie because it is composed of pixles that someone else may interpret differently.

So, because we cannot know both the position of an electron and it's energy state we cannot KNOW anything! If time moves differently at different speeds or under different gravitational gradients then we cannot know what time means. All is but a subjective view.

We saw this in the Star Wars movies; the ghost of Obi Wan Kenobi told Luke Skywalker that "many of the Truths we cling to are dependent on our point of view" which is purely moral relativism, the notion that there is no ultimate truth. But this is the opposite of older thought which argues that the physical is the ephemeral, that there are eternal truths that transcend our physicality. Liberal have twisted that notion on it's head, arguing FOR materialism by pointing out the ephemeral nature of matter.

This has become modern thought. We cannot judge because we cannot claim there is any thing that transcends personal opinion. We therefore have come to believe that reality is what we choose it to be; if we want to believe we are a 12 year old girl, even if we are a 55 year old construction worker, who can say otherwise? Nature no longer means anything; only what we choose to believe.

This was a long-held goal of some people, and indeed was the goal of the angels who rebelled against God in the beginning. Someone who creates their own reality is a god.

And our side has fallen victim to this, too, becoming moral relativists or at least not willing to impose a system of universal truths. Christianity and conservativism have absorbed this viewpoint.

Until God is placed back on the throne, until we stop being ashamed of believing in Truth, we will continue to be beaten.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 12:03 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1028 words, total size 6 kb.

Argument Against Natural Born Clause a Triumph of Post-Nationalist Progressivism

Timothy Birdnow

Jonathan Keiler, normally a solid conservative writer, pens an indefensible piece at American Thinker.

Seems Mr. Keiler believes that the Natural Born clause in the Constitution is outdated and should be removed. Why? The nearest i can make out is his father - an immigrant - couldn't run for President.

From the article:

"I heard a lot about this test from a young age. My father was born in Czechoslovakia and grew up in Germany, moving to the U.S. when he was ten. He arrived in the magical "linguistic window” so that he spoke American English like a native and still retained his native fluency in German. He served honorably as an American naval officer in World War II and after that held several federal government jobs that required a high security clearance. Yet, as he rarely tired of telling me, he could never become president.

Marcus gives a brief historical rundown of the particulars of how this rule came to be, focusing on fears in the early republic that unscrupulous foreigners would run for office and try to undo the radical American experiment in freedom and democracy. That, she claims, as have many others, is no longer really relevant in a strong and stable nation of immigrants. It leads to odd anomalies as to who can or can’t become president, based on nothing but the accident of birth.

It is also worth noting, if for no other reason than historical interest, that this rule might be dubbed the creole addition to the Constitution. By that I don’t mean andouille sausage and cayenne pepper, but rather a rule that embodied some of the resentments that the founding fathers had for their former colonial masters. The founding fathers were, almost to a man, creole, meaning that they were British citizens born in the American colonies. All the European colonial powers distinguished between native-born citizens and those born in the colonies, even when the colonials came from good, established aristocratic families, making these colonials second-class citizens. The term creole was used by the Spanish and French to make this distinction, and adopted by historians to also describe British colonists. Under this classification, a son born in the Americas was not the equal of his father born in Europe."

End excerpt.


It is precisely because America has traditionally allowed high levels of immigration that the Natural Born clause was put in place; the fledgeling United States did not want foreign agents taking her over, making the U.S. a sort of protectorate of a foreign power. That objection still holds.

I cannot imagine how Mr. Keiler could make this argunent in the face of Barack Hussein Obama, whose Natural Born credentials are somewhat murky and who proves the entire point, as Mr. Obama has pursued an alien and unAmerican program since attaining office. Had he had to prove his eligibility he may never have reached the position he is currently in - and America would be far the better for it.

The Founders put that prohibition in to keep foreigners from taking charge of one third of the U.S. government. The Founders always believed the Executive branch was the most likely to become despotic, and they did not want someone who had been inculcated with alien ideas to be in a position to execute those notions.

I'm sorry but little has changed since then. On the contrary, it is more important than ever to uphold this restriction, as Congress has completely abdicated its role as a check on the Executive Branch. The President of the United States is far more powerful than at any time in history, and more than ever we need someone who is clearly, unequivocally an American.

Keiler continues:

"I could be president, but my father, though every bit as qualified as me, never could. In reality, my dad, a quiet and private man, never had an interest in running for any political office, but the fact that in principle he could not rankled him. It should not rankle qualified Americans anymore"

End excerpt.

And I will never be Prime Minister of canada; why should that rankle anyone? Keiler's argument makes the fundamental assumptions made by the internationalists, that nations are obsolete and we shouldn't have any restrictions on where people live, who they hold allegiance to, and how they are governed. This is a post-historical vision, the notion that we shoud have an international order that supercedes the old idea of nations. Why have borders? Why have voting restrictions? When we start down this path we are opening the door to the New World Order.

This is a dreadful idea, a slippery slope argument that presupposes the Leftist ideals. I cannot believe someone from American Thinker would make this argument in light of the last few years.

Imagine during the Cold War if we hadn't had that provision; the Soviets would have finances a sleeper agent to run for President, with no way to stop them. Ain immigrant may be a wonderful, devoted American, but there is always the danger he may be a covert agent. This may not stop an American who is native born from likewise being in the pay of a foreign power, but at least we know he was fully exposed to America and not rather a fellow with foreign ideas.

Would Keiler want Sacco or Venzetti to be able to run for President?

How long does Mr. Keiler think it will be before illegal aliens demand the right to vote based on this? "If a naturalized citizen can be President, why can't an immigrant without papers vote?"

As it stands the Natural Born clause is not really enforced anyway; certainly Obama is an example. (I think he is Natural Born but he never had to prove it, something that should have been required. There is no controling legal authority save Secretaries of State in the individual states, and of course the Courts.

Take Roger Calero, born in Nicaragua and a naturlaized U.S. citizen. He ran for President of the United States in both 2000 and 2008, appearing on the ballot despite being ineligible to assume the office of President. He was also a convicted felon, but that didn't prevent his being placed on the ballot.

As Al Gore would say, there is no controlling legal authority.

At least the socialist Calero would have been prevented from taking office (or would he have been? SCOTUS keeps denying status for suits against Obama.)

Why should a radical like Calero be denied the Presidency? Once we begin to ask such questions we no longer really have a country, but are a mere provincial area, a governing entity of a world body.

Do we have a country or not? If so then we have every right, indeed a duty, to restrict such things.

That Keiler can't see that is quite a fearful thing. Have Americans so forgotten who we are as a people that we can't understand the need to restrict the top job in the nation to someone born here or born to people born here?

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 11:29 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1191 words, total size 7 kb.

The War of Four Roses; Canada, Demark Fight for Island with Gifts of Liquor

Dana Mathewson

Thank goodness we're not playing this game. We'd probably leave Budweiser.


2 countries have been fighting over an uninhabited island by leaving each other bottles of alcohol for over 3 decades
Business Insider

Jeremy Bender Jan 10, 2016 | 11:30 AM ET Hans Island. Creative Commons Far in the Arctic North lies the barren and desolate Hans Island. The uninhabited, half square mile of land, possessing no apparent natural resources, is a bizarre sliver of territory for two countries to fight over. However, since the early 1930s, this nondescript rock has been at the center of an ongoing disagreement between Canada and Denmark. According to World Atlas, Hans Island is located in the middle of the 22 mile

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:42 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 135 words, total size 1 kb.

January 10, 2016

The Meek Shall Not Inherit the Earth; Stupidity in the Face of Evil

Timothy Birdnow

Writing at American Thinker this morning, Thomas Lifson chronicles a candidate for the Darwin Awards.

From the article:

"ISIS generally doesn’t respond well to music.

But that isn’t stopping James Twyman, an author and musician based in Portland, Oregon, from planning a trip to ISIS-held territory in Syria later this month to help bring peace to the region through the power of a musical-prayer concert."

End excerpt.

This article about a dim witted peace activist overwhelmed by the notion that warfare and hatred are the results of a misunderstanding and that peace will come through comity and soft-hearted tenderness brought my mind back to the thoughts I had at my local Catholic mass last night.

I attended the 4:30 Saturday evening Mass so as to avoid having to go out on the coldest day this season. The priest, a fine boring old fellow, droned on about the favorite topic of priests throughout the St. Louis Archdiocese (and probably across America); how we need to be gentler, less bellicose, nicer. His sermon consisted of complaining about the coming acrimony of the election season, and how the anger and finger pointing is somehow anti-Christian. We are, he firmly instructed us, charged to bring people together, to be a bridge, to soften the blows of an angry political electorate. Viva la moderation! A good Christian charges the hill shouting "middle ground and tolerance for all!"

The Catholic Church in America is unable to grasp why so many pews are empty in the churches.

The problem is exactly the problem with this dim-wit who believes that everything is but a misunderstanding and that we can all come together. But it is not a Christian concept; Jesus said "I come not to bring peace but the sword" and he meant it. Nothing Jesus did was to promote peace. He is called the "Prince of Peace" because He brings peace to the individual, to the family, to the local community of believers. But Jesus did not come to end war, anger, bitterness or strife but rather to increase it.

Why? Because Jesus came to bring Truth and Righteousness, two concepts that Mankind, fallen and largley evil, despise. Think about it; Jesus was threatened on more than one occasion with stoning, and had to flee. He infuriated his followers, who all left when He was speaking (except the 12). He called Pharisees hypocrites and vipers regularly. He smarted off to Caiaphas, the High Priest, to Herod, and to Pontius Pilate, a situation that ended in His torture and execution. He refused to follow certain laws and customs; dining with tax collectors, whores, Samaritans, and Romans. He grew quite wroth with the money changers in the Temple, overturning their tables and kicking them out bodily.

Jesus was not in any way about blandness, mildness, or finding middle ground.He was about Truth. He was about Righteousness. People hate that.

And what so amazed the Jews of the day was the way Jesus preached with assuredness, with strength, confidence, and authority. This was quite at odds with the Rabbinic tradition of counterargument, balance, and moderation. Many saw Him as wreckless and immoderate.

So when Catholic priests stand up on the altar and exhort us to moderation and spinelessness I cringe; Jesus would be disgusted. In fact I know He is, because in the Book of Revalation His message to the Church of Laodecia is "you are neither hot nor cold. I wish you were hot or cold, but as you are not I will spew you forth from my mouth>' Jesus wants passion. He does not want this "middle ground" imbecility.

And to have that one must have the Truth and fight for it. The Church has largely given up on that mission. Time was the Church worried about SOULS, and labored to keep people out of Hell. Jesus spoke extensively about Hell (moreso than about Heaven) and warned about the terrible nature of winding up in that place. The purpose of the Church was to save people from going there. Sin is the cause of damnation, and the Church preached against it as Smokie the Bear preaches against leaving burning camp fires unattended. Fire and brimstone sermons were common, and Sin was called out for what it was. No more; now all the priests talk about the glories of submissiveness, of being nice to one another. Churches have become the playground for spiritual Barney the Dinosaurs, a place bereft of content or spirituality or purpose.

There are never important things discussed. The Church teaches that homosexuality is a Sin, one leading to damnation, and yet, despite the promotion of gay marriage and it's being made law by SCOTUS, there is nary a peep abouot it. The priests never speak about abortion except at certain times, even though it is a horrible sin. How many parishoners have had them? There is no mention of so many things that should be brought up as a matter of Faith and Morals. The welfare state, for instance, is inherently immoral; it empowers the politically connected to steal from some people to give to others. Welfare is a sin. So too is deficit spending, a thievery of the wealth of the future. Refusing to enforce border laws is sinful, a betrayal of authority, a disobedience of the laws of the land. So many issues are in fact moral problems and the Church is duty-bound to address them, but they are afraid, partly because they fear losing parishoners, but also because they are afraid of losing their tax-exempt status.

That SOB among SOB's, Lyndon Baines Johnson, changed the tax exemption code for just this purpose. He was taking a hit from the pulpit, so he made changes to the tax code to allow bigger exemptions for churches provided they stay completely out of politics. The result? Content free sermons and a complete abdication of the duty of the Church to push back against the rising tide of leftism.

So the god of money has taken the altar of the Most High.

But what of losing parishoners? Surely it is our duty to coax them in, so they can accept the message?

Jesus says no.

He was most explicit; "if a place does not accept you, shake the dust of the town off your feet and move on". No coaxing, no begging, no cajoling - present the Truth and they can either take it or leave it. If they leave it then they accept the consequences. Christians are supposed to proseletyze, but not beg.

Which is precisely what the fellow in the American Thinker article is doing. He is begging, guitar in hand, on the theory that a.all people are inherently good (a Progressive, non-Christian belief - Christians believe in Original Sin) b.we must cajol people by pleasing them and c. human hatred is a mere misunderstanding between peoples. None of these notions are true, and none of them are Christian. But this is fundamentally what the preist in Church last night was preaching, and it doesn't work.

People who hold strong beliefs, even if they are delusions, will not be swayed by kind words and easy charities. On the contrary, a hard and devoted people like the Muslims will despise such individuals as weak, cowardly, hypocritical.

America is going to die. America's death is not going to be because we spent to much money, or allowed too many immigrants to come in, or were weak militarily. It will not be Barack Obama who brings us down. These are all symptoms of a spiritual and moral malady; our fall will be because we accepted moral relativism, came to believe in the absolute truth of nothingness. We were told we cannot judge, no matter how worthy of judgement a thing may be. We were told we cannot be firm, must be flexible and willing to compromise. We have compromised the Truth to liars, and the result is we find ourselves beset on all sides by problems that stem from our immoral beliefs. We havre been lulled by the enemy of our souls into dullness, blandness, pussilanimity, all in the name of comity and getting along. America has become Rodney King personified. Getting along is the highest goal, no matter if we must surrender our nation, our heritage, and our souls.

Who are we as a people? If the upcoming political season ISN'T a time for acrimony and bitterness, what is? Happy idiots are precisely that, and making peace while we are being assaulted is the penultimate stupidity. And it is not christian.

If this musician really wants to help in the Middle East he should learn to use a gun and not a guitar. As it has been said, those who beat their swords into plow shears will wind up plowing for those who kept their swords. This fellow should go to the Kurds.

And so should the Catholic Church. There is a time for every season under Heaven, and sometimes there is a time for war. We are in such a time. Sadly, the Catholic Church thinks we are still in the world of Ozzie and harriette.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 12:21 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1536 words, total size 9 kb.

Gun Control and Border Control; Two Completely Different Approaches by the Obama Administration

Timothy Birdnow

A quick thought; Mr. Obama is attempting to implement gun control via Executive Order. What is the ostensible purpose? To reduce killing and violence. In other words, to influence behavior by taking away the tools employed by bad people. His reasoning (if taken at face value) is that guns provide too easy a route to killing, and that by removing guns from the equation there will be less shootings.

In the final analysis his plan is to influence BEHAVIOR.

Why, then, doesn't this same reasoning apply to illegal aliens? Instead of reducing the attractions of America, the things that draw illegals to the United States, he wants to expand them, offering an amnesty and a "path to citizenship". If gun control will reduce violence than shouldn't a reduction in social services and benefits reduce the number of illegals? Why does gun control work but not border control?

The centerpiece of Obama's planned usurpation of the Second Amendment (a fundamental enumerated right in the Constitution) is predicated on background checks and mental health reviews - and would impose a 'no fly list" for gun owners who may be on a terrorist watch list (even if named Bill Jones). Yet Obama will not impose the same restrictions for illegal aliens.

Here are the President's proposals for executive gun control. Notice how he has federalized what is clearly a local issue - firearm sales. Yet he fails to federalize border control - clearly an enumerated responsibility of the United States central government.

Why do restrictions work for gun violence but not for border violations? Illegal aliens are people, who can be reasoned with, influenced, and encouraged to go home. Criminals and maniacs are harder to reason with, and can find alternatives fairly easily to using guns. There are bombs, poison gas, fire (molotov cocktails, flamethrowers, etc.), IED's, knives, swords, machetes, blow darts, axes, cleavers, hatchets, chain saws. The 911 terrorists hijacked several planes with BOX CUTTERS, razor blades inside of safety tools. You could poison food. You could poison water. You can manufacture your own guns.

Jamaica confiscated firearms in the 1970's, yet has worse gun problems than does America despite a total restriction on them. Gun control does not stop violence. Violence is a moral and spiritual malady; it is a problem in the human heart.

But getting people to leave who do not belong here is much easier; dry up their income, make it less attractive to colonize America, and they will leave.

The disconnect between these two issues is striking.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:54 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 435 words, total size 3 kb.

Norks Fly B-52 Over South Korea

Dana Mathewson

And the beat goes on...


A B-52 bomber flew over South Korea on Sunday, a clear show of force as the rift between Seoul and North Korea have deepened even further following Pyongyang’s fourth nuclear test.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:24 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 45 words, total size 1 kb.

High School Kid Threatened for Not Supporting Black Lives Matter

Daana Mathewson

Whatever happened to "I disagree with what you said, but I will defend to my death your right to say it?"


Philadelphia High School student Michael Moroz was prepared for backlash over his op-ed that ran in the school newspaper, but what he didn’t expect were the threats made on his life.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:10 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 65 words, total size 1 kb.

Norks Threaten War

Dana Mathewson

Oh, puh-LEEZE!


North Korea warned of war Saturday as South Korea continues to blast anti-Pyongyang propaganda across the rivals’ tense border in retaliation for the North’s purported fourth nuclear test.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:09 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 36 words, total size 1 kb.

The heat is on!

Paul Driessen

What Rush likes to call the drive-by media is already in full throttle – doing all it can to ensure a successful regulatory blitzkrieg from every corner of the Obama Administration, before it leaves office a long 375 days from now. A typical example is a recent Washington Post editorial that wails about the dangers of manmade climate change, warns Republicans not to "discredit” any "mainstream” scientists like Michael Mann and James Hansen, and says Republican claims on global warming are mere "bluster” and "buffoonery.”

My column this week offers an alternative viewpoint – and wonders why government con artists and emissions fraud should not be treated the same way as Volkswagen is for its deceptive emissions software. For one thing, the costs and stakes are much higher when government defrauds us.

The heat is on!

Why should Volkswagen be investigated for emission deception, but not government agencies?

Paul Driessen

The heat is on! Not the unusual winter warmth in much of the United States – but the unrelenting heat generated by propaganda and pressure campaigns that the White House, EPA, Big Green and news media are unleashing in the wake of the Paris climate agreement … and as a prelude to the 2016 elections.

A recent Washington Post editorial laid out the strategy. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2015-a-year-of-progress-and-buffoonery-on-climate-change/2016/01/02/9ad6955c-af33-11e5-9ab0-884d1cc4b33e_story.html The long-term warming trend is "concerning.” Maybe we can’t blame this year’s strong El Niño "squarely on climate change,” but "one paper” says the number of strong El Niño years could double. Obama’s "landmark” carbon dioxide regulations "played a key role” in securing an "unprecedented” international climate deal that could eventually compel all nations to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, to "avoid serious risks” of climate catastrophes.

Above all, we must "build on 2015’s climate progress.” There must be no backpedalling on the Paris accord, EPA regulations, or replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy. Above all, no "fishing expeditions designed to personally discredit scientists and undermine peer-reviewed research” that supports the elimination of carbon-based fuels. Republican claims are mere "bluster” and "buffoonery.”

Never mind that White House and EPA events, the Paris climate conference, the Vatican climate summit and even Science magazine have offered virtually no forum for numerous scientists who contest claims that humans are causing "dangerous manmade climate change” to present their case or debate alarmist witnesses and officials. Never mind that climate chaos claims look increasingly flimsy.

A fundamental principle is at stake here: policies and rules that affect our lives, livelihoods and living standards must be based on honesty, accountability and verifiable scientific evidence.

The Justice Department has sued Volkswagen on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency. They want up to $18 billion dollars in penalties, because VW installed special software that caused its diesel cars to emit fewer pollutants during tests used to ensure compliance with emission regulations. The falsified tests allegedly duped American consumers into purchasing 580,000 diesel-powered vehicles.

Federal prosecutors are also conducting criminal probes of Volkswagen and its executives. Countless other civil and criminal investigations and prosecutions have companies and citizens in their crosshairs. Such actions are often warranted, even if the draconian incarceration and monetary penalties are not.

No one should be victimized by fraud or other criminal activities, by private companies – or by government agencies and bureaucrats, or third parties they hire and use to validate their policies.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:08 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 560 words, total size 4 kb.

January 09, 2016

Mrs. Cosby 1997 Angers - and Mine

Jack Kemp

Recently the problems in Bill Cosby's married life have expanded to discuss the reaction of his wife, Camille. In a recent NY Post piece it was reported that:

With the aide of a cane and his attorneys at his side, Bill Cosby stumbled into a Pennsylvania courtroom last week, nearly tripping over a raised cement sidewalk amid a horde of photographers and reporters.

Conspicuously absent was the disgraced comedian’s wife of more than a half-century, Camille Cosby, who has vowed to no longer be her husband’s crutch, family insiders told The Post.

"My husband doesn’t deserve jail, but he does deserve every bit of the hell he’s going through now even though he is still pretending that this hell doesn’t exist,” the anguished Camille confided, according to a close family source...

The source, who’s been close to the family for more than two decades, said the infidelities of "America’s Dad” were well-known to Mrs. Cosby, 71, who simply insisted that her husband be discreet and not shame her.

"But, she has been thoroughly humiliated and believe me, her anger isn’t directed at the women,” the source said. "Bill has humiliated her, and the affairs he’s had have gotten out of hand and this [criminal charge] is him reaping what he’s sown.”


In light of this public admission of her long time seething angers, I cannot help but recall Camille Cosby's anger - and her dubious public remarks - after the murder of her son Ennis on a Los Angeles Freeway late one night. She blamed White America - all of it. Here below are Mrs. Cosby's comments about that murder, roughly a year after it happened.


Bill Cosby's Wife: Racism Killed My Son
by Joal Ryan Thu, Jul 9, 1998 4:15 PM

Camille Cosby, entertainer Bill's longtime wife, lays the blame for their only son's murder on racism.

"I believe America taught our son's killer to hate African Americans," Mrs. Cosby writes in an essay for USA Today.

Tuesday, reputed gang member Mikail Markhasev, 19, was found guilty of the January 1997 shooting death of graduate student Ennis Cosby, 27, on a Los Angeles freeway.

Shortly before his arrest, Markhasev, a Ukrainian immigrant, reputedly told friends: "I shot a nigger. It's all over the news."

"Presumably, Markhasev did not learn to hate black people in his native country...where the black population was near zero," Mrs. Cosby writes.

But here in the United States, she reasons, "racism and prejudice are omnipresent and eternalized in [the nation's] institutions, media and myriad entities."


To anyone such as myself whose family came from Eastern Europe or is a student of Eastern European History, it well known that the many white ethnic groups have had a strong mutual hated of one another, such as the Poles and the Russians, hatreds that involve military invasions. And the Ukrainians are well known antisemites in the Old Country, as were other Slavic people. It was - and to a real extent is - a round robin hatefest over there at a level we do not often see in America. I'm not
saying this hatred was true of all Poles, Ukrainians, Russians, etc., because it wasn't. Some Christians hid Jews at the risk of their own death at the hands of the Nazis. But that hatred was significant and a major factor in Jews fleeing to America in the early part of the Twentieth Century. Ukrainians were also commonly found in WWII as concentration camp guards and were the spearhead group marching into the Warsaw Ghetto when the Nazis decided to start a military action to liquidate all the Jews and in that ghetto. Mrs. Cosby's remarks caused me to laugh - bitterly.

While it may be true that Mikail Markhasev learned to hate blacks in America, his family probably wasn't all that free of hate of other peoples before his family got to the U.S. The following is anecdotal but I remember my dad and myself watching a Polish boxer fighting an American black during a 1960s or 1970s Olympics. My dad remarked how he heard back in Poland insulting remarks about the very few blacks they either encountered or just read about or saw in a picture. Also, when my parents were at a checkpoint fleeing Poland after WWII, a Russian officer believed their act of pretending to be Southern Europeans who were forced to work for the Nazis in Poland or Russia and now were traveling overland to return home across several borders. The officer said to my parents, when they pretended to not understand his language, that they were "Greeks, the worst people in the world!" My parents had to suppress a laugh as they escaped to the West. The idea that Eastern Europeans are noble and decent people whose children, when they become Americanized, quickly become monsters who hate blacks to the point of wanting to murder them, is pure simplistic and cartoonish thinking on Mrs. Cosby's part. They were practically a license to hate all white people because they supposedly all had a hand in the horrific murder of her son.

Mrs. Cosby has a Masters Degree from the University of Massachusetts which means she knows - politically - that the type of emotional argument she made about all whites would resonate well with the self-flagulating liberal wine/whine and cheese crowd in both the media and academia. But the fact is her son's murderer was a crack user, according to the NY Daily News, http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/cosby-suspect-tied-drugs-article-1.764530 and was probably thinking to rob Ennis Cosby and perhaps steal his $130,000 Mercedes car as well. The murderer also encountered Ennis Cosby's woman friend in a different car but she quickly drove away as he threatened to kill her. Perhaps the murderer feared she would then use her cell phone to call police and identify the Mercedes if he stole it, so the thug decided to flee the scene quickly, murdering Ennis Cosby in his frustration of not getting an easy chance to steal a Mercedes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Ennis_Cosby ; Had Ukrainian immigrant Mikhail Markhasev found a white person with a flat tire on his $130,000 Mercedes on the roadside, does anyone, including Mrs. Cosby, really believe Markhasev would have thought, "Oh, I cannot rip this guy off or shoot him. He's white like me and I have to show White Solidarity and White Privilege with him because I'm an honorable white crack user and street thug! I'll just wait here until I find a black person parked on the side of the road." - is that likely? Apparently Mrs. Cosby felt that her argument, painting all of White America for her problems, was one that the liberal media would buy hook, line and sinker. And she was one hundred percent right about that. After all, she has a Masters Degree from the U. of Massachusetts, don't you know. I have know Polish Jewish immigrants with six grades of education who know more than Mrs. Cosby but don't have her platform in the media to influence public opinion.

Today, as Mrs. Cosby's husband Bill sees his public troubles mount in the courts and in the press, we find that Camille Cosby has started to talk about her decades of building inner rage at her husband that most probably preceded the murder of her son. Sadly, her son's murder gave her a valid public media platform and easily acceptable release valve to express her mounting frustrations about her life. But not limiting her 1997 anger to her son's murderer, she also felt compelled to blame all of White America for this crime. Once again, the murderer of her son was a crack user, the NY Daily News article stated. If a black crack user murders a fellow innocent black how is much different than a white (arguably) racist crack user murdering an innocent black? Noting the skin colors of the murderers and victims in the two examples is merely making an academic, statistical Distinction Without A (real world) Difference.

If a white Los Angeles police officer, even the famous and maligned "n-word" user Mark Fuhrman of O.J. Simpson trial fame, would have first found Mrs. Cosby's son by the side of the highway with a flat tire, I suspect the young man would have made it home that night and been alive today - and Mrs. Cosby would have lost her platform to blame all of White America for her problems.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:46 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1414 words, total size 9 kb.

The Nine Billion Names of Obama

Timothy Birdnow

"I have so many names. Call me dad"

John Milton, The Devil's Advocate

Here is an interesting and perhaps tortured bit about our dearest leader, father of us all, Barack Hussein Obama (peace be upon him.) According to Josh Rogan at Bloomberg:

"As we traded notes about the current U.S. policy on Syria, it struck me that they all had picked up the habit of referring to U.S. President Barack Obama as "Abu Hussein."

The nickname, the Syrians explained to me, has two meanings. Obama's middle name is Hussein, and it was his grandfather's first name. When Syrians first started calling him "Abu Hussein" in 2008, it was out of affection. ("Abu" technically means "father of" in Arab nomenclature, but is often used more loosely in nicknames.) The moniker grew out of hope that an American president with one Muslim parent might make progress in repairing U.S. relations with the Arab world. Obama himself had the same goal.

But since the Syrian crisis erupted in 2011, those opposed to the Bashar al-Assad regime have resurrected the nickname with quite a different connotation. "Amongst the Syrian street, Obama is viewed as having capitulated to Iranian and Shia extremist interests in Syria," said Oubai Shahbandar, a former senior adviser to the Syrian National Coalition. "Hussein is a venerated saint amongst the Shia Iranians. Hence Abu Hussein."

End excerpt.

So Barack Obama is known as "father to Hussein" in Syria. Interesting because his last name is, well, I am mindfull of Moammar Khadaffi refering to Obama as Abu Oumama. The word Oumama is Urdi and, according to Muslim Kid Names means:

Umama is a Muslim name for baby girl and meaning is Proper name..

Meaning in English, Proper name.
Meaning in Urdu,
Gender, Girl

End excerpt.

Umama is also an urban slang insult (yes, I am kidding; get over it!)

So Obama is father to both Hussein and Oumama, a little girl. Also, here is an interesting Wikipedia entry that may shed more light on the name:

"Umama (or Umayma) bint Abdul Muttalib was an aunt of Muhammad.

She was born in Mecca, the daughter of Abdul Muttalib ibn Hashim and Fatimah bint Amr al-Makhzumiya.[1]

She married Jahsh ibn Riyab, an immigrant from the Asad ibn Khuzayma tribe,[2][3] and they had six children.

1. Abdullah.[4][5][6][7]
2. Ubaydullah.[8][9][10]
3. Zaynab, later a wife of Muhammad.[11][12][13][14][15][16]
4. Abd, who was always known as an adult by his kunya, Abu Ahmad.[17][18][19][20]
5. Habiba, also known as Umm Habib.[21][22]
6. Hamna.[23][24][25]

It is not recorded that Umama ever became a Muslim, and she did not accompany her children on their Hijra to Medina in 622.[26] She was still alive in 628, when Muhammad assigned her an annual pension of 40 wasqs of dates from Khaybar.[27]

I found this for Hussein:

Hussein (/huːˈseɪn/; also spelled Husein, Husain, Hussain, Husayin, Hussayin, Hüseyin, Huseyin, Husseyin, Huseyn, Hossain, Hosein, Hossein, or Husseyn) (Arabic: حُسَين‎, Ḥusayn), is an Arabic name which is the diminutive of Hassan, meaning "good", "handsome" or "beautiful".

End excerpt.

So Barry's name has the connotation of a father but also of little girls and perhaps of beauty. Given certain rumors about Mr. Obama's preferences - and his attachment to masculine womyn - one wonders at the amazing fitness of his name.

So Il Duce has names associated with Umayma, the aunt of Muhammad, who was the daughter of Fatimah, a name recycled by Muhammad for his own daughter, MOTHER OF HIS GRANDSON hUSAYNE.

Then let us look at the Luo surname Obama. It comes from the root word for "to bend or lean" and is certainly fit for the man whose path is most crooked, who bends like a pretzel and leans all over us.

Then of course there is the name Barack. An obvious Arab version of Baruch, the Hebrew name meaning "blessed". (Frankly, if it isn't Baruch before Obama gets ahold of it it soon will be. He breaks every blessed thing he gets his hands on.)

Death by a Thousand Papercuts has a more detailed analysis:

"(1) The name Barack is a form of the Arabic word Baraka or Barakah, meaning blessing (from the root "Brk"), specifically, the "meaning of Barakah in an Islamic sense" refers to "the presence of divine blessing in an object and increasing those blessing." (http://forums.almaghrib.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=1121)

So what contains Barakah? The Qur'an and The Prophets, according to the following site.

So where might find the name of a Qur'an prophet?

End excerpt.

DBATT concludes with this:

"The name Barack (blessing) prepended on the second name Hussein (grandson of Mohammed) modifies Hussein like an adjective, and Barack Hussein Obama literally means "Blessing of Al-Husayn" Obama.

Again, Al-Husayn was son of the muslim Prophet Mohammed's daughter Fatima (and Ali ibn-Abi-Talib,), who was massacred at Kerbela on October 10, 680.

The name Barack is Arabic in origin, and when isolated is not necessarily muslim. The name Hussein is muslim in origin, and when combined the name Barack Hussein Obama is muslim."

End excerpt.

But we're not done yet! This fellow has more names than an Indian statue has arms. We must now consider his pre-political monickers.

Barry is an Irish name, and what the family called Barack before he became the god of crooked lines. According to Behind the Names:

Meaning & History
Anglicized form of BAIRRE. It is also sometimes used as an Anglicized form of BERACH.
Expand Name Links
Related Names
See All Relations
Show Family Tree
VARIANTS: Bairre, Barra, Berach, Barrie, Bearach (Irish), Barrie, Berry (English)
DIMINUTIVES: Baz, Bazza (English (British))

End excerpt.

Notice Barry is a variant of the Irish name Barach, a homonym of Obama's very own first name. Babynames.com claims the name Barry means "fair haired" but I also found it to mean "pointed or sharp" in the Gaellic word Barack. It is used in the connotation of a spear head or arrowhead. This may be coincidence, but Obama's mother was a student of Anthropology and an Irish-American lass who may well have known of the connection and called him Barry for just that reason.

Then too, it may be a variant on the word which means to house or garrison i.e. a barracks, which likely came from the Gaellic word for "to brag" - something quite fitting for Mr. Obama.

According to The Irish Times:

"Where I come from to barrack means to consistently interrupt a person who is speaking. In Ulster the verb means to brag, to be boastful of one’s fighting powers.

The English Dialect Dictionary (EDD) has, from Co Antrim, "One boy will say to another, ‘He’s only barracking.’” Hence barracker, a braggart; and the verbal noun barracking, bragging."

End excerpt.

Fitting for our President, indeed!

Another interesting possible etymology of the word:

" Barroughed is an interesting Co Antrim word, used for a cow having the hind legs tied together, or by tying the hind leg to an iron stake or pin driven into the ground. A cow tied by the horns was said in Co Down to be barroughed. I am told that the word is probably obsolete now in Ulster. Consider the Scots burroch, "a band put round the hinder legs of a vicious cow, when milking, to prevent her kicking.”

J Paterson’s Ballads and Songs of Ayrshire has "In the byre she’s aye cannie, nor e’er needs a burroch.”

The verb means "To fasten a cow’s legs to prevent her kicking. Hence burrochit, "restrained” and burrochless, "wild, untractable, without restraint.”

End excerpt.

Clearly old Barry is wildly unrestrained, and in need of a fettering.

But let us move on to Zippy's adoptive name Soetoro. The website lame Cherry has this to say:

"There has been so much written and conjecture on the forced out into the open Obama passport documents that I have not had much interest in exploring them in the name Soebarkah which appears on the document as one of the listed names of Barack Hussein Obama.

As an exclusive as only found here though, the name Soebarkah is a confirmation of adoption, Obama's Muslim status and a sort of strange Islamic prophecy of the day Barry was adopted by Lolo Soetoro in that it was not in the stars to last.

Soetoro in the name, in the prefix of SOE links the name to Javanese roots and not Indonesian alone. Why this matters is that Indonesian names reflect region, family and often religion. It is quite obvious or should have been by now in no one has noted it, that the name Soebarkah is a combination and not one word.
The name is Soe Bar Kah.

Soetoro signifies the adoptive father as Lolo Soetoro. Bar is obvious in Barack, but also links to the Islamic Aramic in bar means SON. So we have confirmation of this is the Son of Soetoro.

The Kah is interesting in Indonesian, KAH translates as WAS. In names, KAH is added as a suffix to form a question of "Who?"

So what SOE BAR KAH means is literal, and I'm genuinely surprised with even Indonesian "experts" asked to explain all of this, that none of them had any comprehension of the language of their own nation.

Soe Bar Kah means literally Who is this, but the son of Soetoro."

End excerpt.

This gives me a chuckle; it is reminiscent of the Biblical "I Am Who Am" . Soebarkah is listed on Obama's Indonesian passport as his adoptive name, and indicates he was adopted by Soetoro (and likely holds Indonesian citizenship.)

Lame Cherry goes on:

"This name Soebarkah is the legal document which would hold up in Indonesian courts as it requires no other documentation. It appearing on a US document signifies it was in use as Obama's defining name outside these United States."

End excerpt.

Here is a less fanciful interpretation of the name:

"Soetoro is a typical Javanese name, pronounced [sutoro]. As we saw in the case of the fancifully named Batman bin Suparman, the Su- or Soe- prefix (from a Sanskritic root meaning 'good, fortunate') is very common in Javanese names"

End excerpt.

And fortunate the man has been; completely unqualified to be President, Obama benefitted from the rise of political correctness and the reverse racism of modern America. He would, at best, be working as an adjunct professor somewhere, or more likely would never have received his law degree at all but instead would be working some middling job, perhaps a clerk at Fastscripts or whatnot, had he not benefitted from Affirmative Action and the slobbering praise of academia and the media.

Fortunate indeed!

I could go on, but I think I have spent enough time on this. The point is, Barack Barry Hussein Obama Abu Umama Soebarka Soetoro has a disturbingly large number of names, one more befitting a pharoah or some sort of pseudo deity.

Frankly I think the man should be called Hot Wind.

The title of this piece comes from a story by Arthur C. Clark - the Nine Billion Names of God. Look it up; it is well worth your time.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:02 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1846 words, total size 13 kb.

January 08, 2016

Can Trump Restore America?

Daren Jonescu

Aristotle teaches that while we must love our friends, we must love truth more. Today, I am probably going to lose some good friends, which is painful. Nevertheless, my admiration for everything America was, everything modern civilization was, compels me to bite the bullet.

Donald Trump may win the Republican presidential nomination. He may even be elected President of the United States -- stranger things have certainly happened recently. However, while his popularity is understandable, an essential question remains: Is Trump the kind of leader who might begin to restore a crumbled constitutional republic?

His appeal is obvious, and has been articulated well by others: he says the kinds of things normal, reasonable people say in their living rooms, but that politicians rarely say. He vindicates the reasonable man's judgments by giving them public voice, after generations of that man being told, in every corner of public life, that his common sense opinions are small-minded, extreme, or unsophisticated.

Radical Islam is gaining new energy, territory, and victims with each passing day. Major European cities are under siege by masses of unintegrated, often lawless, Muslim immigrants. At this moment, the U.S. Federal Government, including the leadership of both major parties, eagerly welcomes thousands of poorly vetted young Muslim refugees. In this climate, and in response to a new Islamist attack on American soil, Trump somewhat rashly promises to freeze immigration from Muslim nations. The usual establishment voices denounce his idea as extremist, racist, and illegal. Meanwhile, the normal, reasonable person at home is exclaiming, "Wow! Trump just said the same thing I was saying last night at dinner!" (That, at least, was my personal experience, and I suspect I wasn't alone.)

The Washington establishment is united, from the Democrat hard left to the Republican corporate cronies, in pushing forward with amnesty for illegal aliens. The reasonable person is thinking, "How can a nation already on life-support expect to survive a sudden influx of millions of new citizens (voters) with no political, moral, or educational background for living in a free republic?" Trump says, "Send them all home (and then bring the good ones back)!" A little gruff, perhaps, but mild compared to the quiet revolution the establishment is trying to force on America through mass amnesty.

The media says, "Donald, you're saying wild things that no respectable politician can get away with saying." Trump replies, in effect, "Up yours!" Don’t we all sometimes want to say the same to the establishment media's agenda-definers, from The New York Times to Fox News? Aren't reasonable people everywhere sick and tired of being trained to self-censor every off-the-cuff thought or politically incorrect idea that crosses their minds? Why should we take intellectual marching orders from people who have built successful careers as shills for the very establishment machine that is destroying modern civilization? Trump doesn't listen to them, and people appreciate that.

Such are the good reasons for his success. (There are undoubtedly bad reasons as well: the cult of celebrity, misdirected anger, the deluded equation of business savvy with political intelligence. But that's no knock on the candidate himself; many people probably voted for Reagan for silly reasons, too.) Against his critics, Trump's supporters insist they know he is not perfect (name a candidate, Obama excepted, whose supporters have not said that), but that he wants to make America great again (name a candidate, Obama excepted, who has not said that). Many of them even admit that he is not a conservative -- they could hardly do otherwise, given his long associations with leading Democrats and leftist policies. But his supporters claim that the plusses I have just outlined are so refreshing that they trump (sorry) normal considerations of principle and policy.

Having said that, it seems to me there is still a question that Trump's conservative supporters are conveniently overlooking, and that even non-supporters are beginning to evade as the likelihood of his nomination increases: Does he understand what has happened to America, and what would have to be done to reverse the damage?

Put more positively, does he know what a constitutional republic is, and why it matters? For if he does not, then his supporters must explain how voting for a non-conservative who has no interest in the Constitution is substantially different from the "hold your nose and vote for the R" compromise that so sickened those same voters in past elections. That one may succumb to that compromise at the end of the primaries is one thing; buy why choose it at the beginning?

Is refreshing bluntness enough? Teddy Roosevelt was a tough-talking populist -- and founded the Progressive Party to rival an incumbent Republican President in 1912, thereby helping Woodrow Wilson win. Lyndon Johnson was a tough-talking Texan who would even resort to physical intimidation in "talks" with allies -- and who presided over America's greatest lurch to the left since FDR, fostering the generation that gave rise to Obama.

The Tea Party rose up as a constitutionalist resistance movement grounded in certain beliefs: that the essence of America is housed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution; that if not living by the permanent principles found in those documents, America is effectively extinct; that saving those documents from the progressive fire requires radical steps that can only be initiated by reviving public discussion of America's founding and history; that those steps involve a short-term strategy of supplanting the methods and men of the current Washington political establishment, and a long-term project of unraveling the entire hundred-year old entitlement and administrative state in order to shrink the federal government to its constitutionally-limited functions; and that this project, the only road to salvaging a great nation in mortal peril, requires rejecting that long-standing submission to the GOP establishment that has enabled the growth of a deeply anti-American progressive-corporate ruling elite.

An "anti-establishment" candidacy that lacks a basic understanding of those goals, principles, and requirements would be unlikely to make meaningful strides against a progressive ideology deeply insinuated into all the society's major institutions. Perhaps, then, we may gain some insight into whether a Trump presidency would serve those constitutionalist aims by considering how he engaged the Tea Party at what was probably its zenith as a unified movement, the 2011-12 GOP primary season. Here, for those caught up in the current Trump whirlwind, is a recap of Trump for President, Round 1:

Trump flirted with a presidential run in 2011 as essentially a single-issue candidate. That issue was Obama's birth certificate. Clever enough to divine that the Tea Party was the place to be in 2011, but lacking any conservative bona fides or beliefs, he latched on to the one issue that had a fervent grassroots base, but no prominent public champion, thus becoming that champion. When the issue blew up in his face, as the White House released a document they alleged was Obama's long form birth certificate, Trump responded the way men tend to do when publicly embarrassed: He tried to claim the defeat as a victory by declaring that he alone had forced Obama to release the document, where others had failed. Of course, what had actually failed was his campaign, based as it was on an issue that the White House had now effectively trumped (sorry again).

Trump tried to reinsert himself into the GOP primaries by playing kingmaker, first by arranging his own debate immediately before the Iowa caucuses -- the event was cancelled when few candidates agreed to waste the time in a campaign already over-saturated with debates -- and later, at the moment of truth, by publicly endorsing his preferred candidate.

This second effort to grab the spotlight deserves the careful attention of potential Trump supporters. Immediately after the Florida primary (February 2012), Trump arranged a formal announcement of his endorsement. Anticipation of this event was stoked with banner headlines on the Drudge Report. At the time, there were three candidates remaining in the primaries: Newt Gingrich, in many ways the candidate most similar to Trump -- great for anti-establishment quotes, but often an advocate of (market-friendly) big government solutions -- though with a record of real political achievement; Rick Santorum, the last of the Tea Party candidates -- underfunded, ridiculed by the Washington elite, but the only remaining entry speaking convincingly about the Constitution, the entitlement behemoth, and religious freedom; and Mitt Romney, the establishment's man from day one, the most compromised candidate on the major Tea Party issues (health care, limited government, anti-globalism), and the only one easily labelled a "RINO" or a "Rockefeller Republican." Romney was the GOP establishment's face in 2012, and therefore represented everything against which principled constitutionalists were fighting.

Trump endorsed Romney. And this was no mere concession to inescapable trends, for he also used his announcement to threaten a third party run if Romney were not the nominee. In other words, he threatened to undermine any other Republican and hand re-election to Barack Obama if Tea Party voters did not stand down and let the establishment have its way. He played enforcer for the Washington elite.

That was less than four years ago.

This time around, he chose his campaign's seminal issue more intelligently. Immigration is not a minority concern or one that can be ridiculed by the mainstream. Constitutionalists almost across the board are united in objecting to the bestowal of citizenship rights on millions of people with no allegiance to American principles. Events have also thrown a national security issue into Trump's lap by tying his immigration focus to radical Islam. The smart businessman sensed the investment opportunity of a lifetime, and grabbed it. The combined force of these related issues, which he now owns outright, may actually carry him to the presidency.

And then what? Let's imagine he is actually able to use the bully pulpit to force Congress to water down amnesty, to build a wall along the Mexican border, to deport some illegal immigrants, and even to limit entry to the U.S. from Arab Muslim countries. Will those actions, desirable as they may be, address the fundamental problems facing a nation on the brink of implosion?

The crony capitalist alliance with big government has reached levels of paternalistic oligarchy that would have made J.D. Rockefeller blush. The modern benchmark of this oligarchy was the Bush-Obama "bailouts," which sparked the rise of the Tea Party movement. Trump supported the bank bailout with this flippancy: "Maybe it works, and maybe it doesn't. But certainly it is worth a shot." And in April 2009, on Larry King Live, he went much further regarding Obama and the banks:

I do agree with what they're doing with the banks. Whether they fund them or nationalize them, it doesn't matter, but you have to keep the banks going. [Emphasis added]

Nationalizing the banks -- a basic Marxist principle -- "doesn't matter," as long as it "works." If you needed evidence of America's "fundamental transformation," consider that the man who made that statement in the first months of Obama's presidency is now the leading Republican presidential candidate. (In that same interview, by the way, Trump was asked about Obama himself, and answered: "Well, I really like him. I think that he's working very hard…. Here's a [black] man that not only got elected, I think he's doing a really good job.")

Government-controlled healthcare is one of the defining goals of socialists everywhere. Wherever it is achieved, it reconfigures politics by fundamentally altering the relationship between citizen and state, while gradually weakening morality with respect to personal responsibility, family obligation, and the value of individual life. Trump addresses Obamacare using the old McConnell-Boehner language of "Repeal and Replace." When asked, in September 2015, whether he still supports a Canadian-style single-payer system as he once did, he squirmed away from his former position by saying "it works in Canada. It could have worked in a different age." By "a different age," does he perhaps mean the early 1960s, when Canada's inhumane system was developed -- and when Ronald Reagan was already giving speeches explaining what is morally wrong with socialized medicine? Does Trump understand that government micromanagement of citizens' physical lives and well-being is not primarily an efficiency issue, but a freedom issue?

An unconstitutional administrative state dominates American life, making a mockery of all notions of liberty and representative government, exactly as it was designed to do by Woodrow Wilson and friends. This is not a matter of bad management; it is the intentional usurpation of the people's right of self-government. Will Trump want to do anything about this, or have any idea what to do?

That's the essential concern about Donald Trump. He speaks as if all political issues boil down to "what works," rather than "what is right." His focus, therefore, is necessarily restricted to policy pragmatism. He says he would negotiate a "better" trade deal with China. The Iran deal is a "disaster." Obamacare is a "disaster." His answer on virtually every issue, immigration excepted, is that he's a professional negotiator, so he'll make better financial deals than those chumps in Washington.

But are better deals enough? Is Washington's problem poor negotiating skills? Does America need another President who believes he is the boss of a vast administrative state, and should just be allowed to tell everyone what they need to do, and to hurry up and get it done?

Trump supporters argue that although he lacks sound constitutionalist principles, his tough character is what America needs right now. It seems to this distant observer that what America needs right now, assuming it isn't too late, is much more than a clever negotiator who talks tough, knows how to claim a hot issue, but ultimately defers pragmatically to business as usual, to what "works," principles be damned. She needs a raft of men and women dedicated to the principles entrenched in her founding, supported by the philosophical heritage that gave rise to the great liberal traditions of limited, representative government, individual rights, and a civil society grounded in moral rectitude and respect for the value of the individual soul. She needs a new generation of young people educated for liberty and morality -- not for corporate success, but for principled national renewal -- and prepared to fight for it at all costs.

Could Donald Trump lead that fight? Would he even want to? His history and recent statements, which portray a pragmatist willing to say anything that "works" this month, would suggest otherwise.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:16 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 2412 words, total size 16 kb.

Congress to Empty Prisons

This from Americans for Limited Government:


By Rick Manning

Watching Congressional Republicans bemoan President Obama's executive actions on gun control reminds me of the Adam Sandler, Drew Barrymore movie "50 First Dates." The Sandler, Barrymore comedy is based on the premise that a woman suffers from a malady which causes her to forget everything that transpired for most of her life every time she goes to sleep at night. When she wakes up the next day, she has to start over from scratch. Sandler meets Barrymore and falls for her and hilarity ensues.

The only question is whether Congressional Republicans think that the public has fallen prey to Barrymore's ailment or are they unknowing sufferers?

As Republicans posture en masse claiming that they are going to use the power of the purse to rein in Obama one month after giving him a virtual blank check for most of the remainder of his time in office through the omnibus spending bill, they either think the collective memory is so dim or the eggnog so thick that few will remember their recent catastrophic failure.

What is worse however, is that while they are talking about President Obama enforcing the laws against criminal misuse of firearms that are on the books, Congressional Republicans are moving forward with plans to pass legislation reducing sentencing guidelines for those caught possessing a gun while committing a drug offense.

That's right. At a time when Baltimore broke its annual homicide record and Chicago has returned to the days of Capone with eleven murders in the first week of the new year, a bi-partisan supported criminal justice reform measure would put a Republican rubber stamp on the release of thousands of major drug dealers back onto the streets from which they were forcibly removed.

What could go wrong?

On top of this Republican proposed release program, President Obama is drastically increasing Justice Department staff to handle the expected massive increase in pardons and clemency that the President is expected to issue beyond the 40,000 plus convicts he began releasing starting in Oct. 2015.

And into this mix, Congress is trying to pass legislation, which the President will sign, that retroactively cuts mandatory sentences of those still serving time in the federal penitentiary.

This might make sense if federal prisons were overrun with people who were caught up, arrested and convicted of simple possession of drugs charges. But that is not the case, in fact, according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission as of the end of 2014, only 15 U.S. citizens were serving in federal prison for "simple possession," and most were likely plead down from more serious charges.

The federal mandatory minimums are reserved for high-level traffickers. To earn a 10-year mandatory minimum, a person must possess at least one kilogram of heroin, the equivalent of 10,000 individual fixes and countless lives destroyed. Possession of five kilos of cocaine will get you the same 10-year mandatory minimum with a street value of almost $150,000. If you possess a ton of marijuana, you are 204 pounds short of what is needed to qualify for the 10-year mandatory.

People in federal prison under the mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines for drug possession are not the kid in high school who sells his buddy a joint. Republicans would be releasing, on a bi-partisan basis as if that absolves them of culpability, the kingpin who is running a distribution network that is claiming the lives of hundreds if not thousands of people who fall into the snare of drug addiction.

Anyone who with a lick of sense and is paying attention would consider it lunacy to flood the streets of America with high-level drug dealers, many of whom are guaranteed to want to reclaim their place in the drug distribution system.

Dealing illegal drugs is a dangerous business. Gangs fight over neighborhoods and street corners and murder is the inevitable outcome. Passage of the proposed criminal justice early release bill in Congress will result in even higher homicide rates.

How do I know? A 2014 Bureau of Justice Statistics study tracked 404,638 state prisoners from 30 states released in 2005, 76.9 percent of drug offenders were re-arrested within 5 years (78 percent of possession offenders and 75 percent of trafficking offenders), with 25 percent of the recidivating offenses (for which they were arrested) being violent crimes. That's a minimum of 100,000 more violent crimes.

Does this mean that our nation should lock them up and throw away the key?

No, but it does mean that Congress would be foolish to proceed with retroactively lowering the sentences of those already in prison for high-level drug trafficking or having a gun in their possession while they were engaged in the crime.

It means that before swinging the prison doors wide, Congress needs to consider that President Obama's response to Ferguson and elsewhere has created a climate where police are unable to safely do the same job they did a few years ago. What's more this creates the added problem that the law-abiding in the community are less likely to cooperate with the police out of fear of retaliation for collaborating with the enemy.

It is the wrong time for Congress to proceed with its dangerous and ill-advised criminal justice reform plan. This is one bi-partisan bill that Congressional Republicans should just say no to.

When a pre-released violent offender inevitably murders someone, the American public will not be suffering from daily amnesia like in the Sandler, Barrymore movie. And if they did, political consultants would be putting the thirty second Willie Horton-style ad assigning culpability on a continual loop to remind them.

Rick Manning is the President of Americans for Limited Government.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:59 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 952 words, total size 7 kb.

January 07, 2016

Judge Roy Moore Bans Gay Marriage in Alabama, is Attacked by Media

Timothy Birdnow

Judge Roy Moore, the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court who made news for putting the Ten Commandments in his courtroom, has issued an order banning gay marriage in the State of Alabama.

According to CBS News:

"CBS affiliate WIAT in Birmingham reports Moore issued an administrative order statewide Wednesday on marriage licenses that stated: "Until further decision by the Alabama Supreme Court, the existing orders of the Alabama Supreme Court that Alabama probate judges have a ministerial duty not to issue any marriage license contrary to the Alabama Sanctity of Marriage Amendment or the Alabama Marriage Protection Act remain in full force and effect."

It is a very similar order issued last year by Moore after Alabama's anti-same-sex marriage laws were ruled in federal court to be unconstitutional, and it's not clear what practical effect the order has had previously."

End excerpt.

Judge Moore became a national figure when he refused to remove a plaque featuring the Ten Commandments.

In a vile display of character assassination the CBS story details drug charges against Moore's twenty five year old son, who was arrested for possession of prescription drugs and marijuana. Gay marriage has nothing to do with drugs, but CBS thought it germaine to mention the matter anyway. Strange; CBS has always supported drug usage elsewhere and was not at all disturbed that Barack Obama (Peace be upon him) was a regular pot smoker in college.

Liberals aren't even trying to hide their hypocrisy now.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:35 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 260 words, total size 2 kb.

Russia is Mordor According to Google

Dana Mathewson



Russia is home to the Lord of the Rings’ fiery, evil kingdom of Mordor, and its foreign minister is a "sad little horse,” according to a Google Translate "technical error” that left the search giant scrambling.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:13 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 46 words, total size 1 kb.

Judge Rules Against Copyright for Monkey - Perhaps bans him from Voting as Well

Dana Mathewson forwards this:


A federal judge in San Francisco has ruled that a macaque monkey who took now-famous selfie photographs cannot be declared the copyright owner of the photos.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:12 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 45 words, total size 1 kb.

<< Page 3 of 4 >>
111kb generated in CPU 0.08, elapsed 0.3058 seconds.
32 queries taking 0.2336 seconds, 136 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.