[VIDEO] CLARKE: ‘SHAME ON THE LEFT’ FOR ‘EXPLOITING’ WDBJ SHOOTING ‘TO PURSUE A POLITICAL AGENDA’

Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke (D) declared, “shame on the left” for “exploiting misery and tragedy for a — to pursue a political agenda” on Thursday’s “Hannity” on the Fox News Channel.

Clarke said, “Well, shame on the left, shame on the Democrats for once again exploiting misery and tragedy for a — to pursue a political agenda. Shame on the president of the United States to invoke terrorism into this horrific incident that happened in Virginia.”

He continued that the Constitution should not be used in a “knee-jerk” fashion, and is not designed to protect from horrific acts, but is rather designed to “freedom and liberty.”

Clarke then argued that the real solution to crime is to arrest criminals, try them, and then give them the harshest sentence allowed by law. He then criticized President Obama’s pardons of federal prisoners.

He added, “This was a chance for the president, Sean, to bring the country together, and once again, the divider-in-chief goes out and further separates us.”

Clarke also said that people should be more “humble” about their ability to prevent every bad incident, but that improving mental health screening and background checks would help.

He concluded that if the president thinks “this is so easy,” he should eliminate his Secret Service protection so he has to fend for himself. And “I am done asking people in my community to outsource their personal safety to the government.”

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading.....

'Anchor Baby' Flap Shows Left Losing Grip

“You said that you have a big heart, and that you’re not mean-spirited,” queried ABC reporter Tom Llamas. “Are you aware that the term ‘anchor baby,’ that’s an offensive term? People find that hurtful.” The target for Llamas’s pique, of course, was presidential candidate Donald Trump.

Yes, “hurtful” and “offensive.” Llamas joined ABC less than a year earlier, but he had already mastered the rudiments of progressive patois, the language of victimization. As ABC’s designated Hispanic avatar, he felt free to spell out the left’s newly revised semantic codes to the insufficiently ethnic Trump.

“You mean [anchor baby] is not politically correct, and yet everybody uses it?” said Trump defiantly. “You know what? Give me a different term.” Llamas had swung at the wrong piñata.

There was no good answer to Trump’s question. Said Llamas lamely, “the American-born childs [sic] of undocumented immigrants.” This suggestion was so foolishly cumbersome even his fellow reporters snickered. Trump scoffed, “You want me to use that? Okay. I’ll use the word ‘anchor baby.'” Game, set, match -- Trump.

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading....

Left Uses Bullying Tactics to Shut Down Opposition

“End of discussion!” is what those on the political left yell in your face when they know they are losing an argument. It is also the name of a compelling new book by Mary Katharine Ham and Guy Benson with the revealing subtitle of “How the Left’s Outrage Industry Shuts Down Debate, Manipulates Voters, and Makes America Less Free (and Fun).”

While it is true that attempts to marginalize political opponents isn’t the exclusive domain of progressives, in the last couple of decades it is the political left which has perfected these tactics to an art form.  Perhaps it is because these latest efforts reflect a full manifestation of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.  An important strategy from this famous anarchist is to avoid at all costs an honest debate over whether socialist policies actually work.

And it’s not just conservatives who are sounding the alarm.  Bill Maher, the left of center host of his own show on HBO has said that liberals are too easily offended and that an overly politically correct society actually breeds more hostility between the parties.  Jerry Seinfeld, lifelong Democratic and famous comic, has said that he doesn’t play college campuses anymore because students have been brainwashed into being offended at almost anything.

While political correctness is a national problem, it is much worse in California.  Indeed, for all the alleged “openness” of the California lifestyle, here are the three things about which you cannot possibly have a rational discussion with a liberal:  Global warming, immigration and traditional marriage.

Let’s just look at global warming.  How many times have you heard Al Gore, President Obama, Jerry Brown or Tom Steyer say “the debate is over?”  As I have advised college students on both the right and left numerous times, when someone says “the debate is over” that usually means the debate is just beginning. While there is substantial evidence (mostly based on computer modeling) that man’s activities might have an impact on the earth’s climate, there are simply too many ancillary questions and unknowns for anyone to say the “debate is over.”  Shockingly, even noted environmentalists including a co-founder of Greenpeace and Bjorn Lomberg, former head of the Environmental Assessment Institute in Copenhagen, have been savaged by the global warming alarmists for suggesting that the hype might be overstated.

On immigration, if one dares to raise the very legitimate issues of the costs to taxpayers that flow from unregulated immigration you are immediately branded as a racist.  Despite being far more open to legal immigration than others in America, I have personally felt the wrath of this unfounded accusation.

The progressives are not interested in hearing anything that deviates one iota from their rigid orthodoxy.  And they don’t want others to hear any contrary message either.  Somalian Ayaan Hirsi Ali was disinvited to speak at Brandies University because she dared speak out against Islamic extremism.  These are prime examples of the “heckler’s veto” even before a speech begins.  Other luminaries “disinvited” from commencement speeches due to left leaning pressure include International Monetary Fund Director Christine LaGarge and Condoleezza Rice.

And our final California example of shutting off debate is an embarrassing incident in the California Capitol when Rodger Hernandez, Chairman of the Assembly Labor and Employment Committee would not even allow the Republican Vice Chair, Matthew Harper speak on one of the most contentious and dangerous bills emanating from the California Legislature – Senate Bill 3, a huge increase in the state’s minimum wage.  Hernandez even went so far as to order the Sergeant at Arms to take away Harpers’ microphone.  Talk about “end of discussion!”

So how should we respond to this wave of political correctness run amok and efforts to limit debate?  First, realize it won’t be easy as the main stream media is rarely on our side.  Second, it is entirely fair to call out these tactics for what they are and challenge our adversaries to debate the issues honestly.  Third, appeal to the desire for truth.  Scripture tells us veritas vos liberabit — the truth will set you free. Or, as Andrew Breitbart said, “The truth isn’t mean. The truth is the truth.”

Jon Coupal is president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association — California’s largest grass-rootstaxpayerorganization dedicated to the protection of Proposition 13 and the advancement of taxpayers’ rights. Originally posted on HJTA.

Via: California Political Review

Continue Reading....

The Democrats Turn Left

Between the 2010 midterms and President Obama’s re-election in 2012, the conventional understanding of political polarization was that Republicans had shifted sharply to the right, while Democrats had remained essentially where they were, or maybe edged ever-so-slightly leftward. The argument that polarization is largely a Republican-driven phenomenon—that the two poles are drifting apart, but that the red pole is moving much faster than the blue one—looked weaker after the 2012 election, when Obama came out swinging for an ambitious liberal agenda in his inaugural address. Now, as the 2016 election gets underway, this narrative will likely need to be scrapped entirely. The New York Times recently reported on the Democratic Party’s leftward lurch, and how frontrunner Hillary Clinton is adapting to it:

Nearly 20 years after President Bill Clinton declared that “the era of big government is over,” Hillary Rodham Clinton is proposing muscular federal policies that would require hundreds of billions of dollars in new spending and markedly expand Washington’s influence in a host of areas, from universal prekindergarten to Alzheimer’s disease research…

Against the sweep of Democratic Party history, Mrs. Clinton’s proposals reflect a decided return to vibrant liberalism.

The government programs of Franklin D. Roosevelt – whose presidency Mrs. Clinton regularly invokes – and Lyndon B. Johnson aimed to transform the lives of poor and elderly Americans with jobs, health care, and retirement benefits. But the consecutive electoral losses of Jimmy Carter, Walter F. Mondale, and Michael S. Dukakis in the 1980s – as well as President Ronald Reagan’s framing of government as “the problem” – gave rise to centrist Democrats like Bill Clinton who envisioned federal programs as safety nets rather than solutions to every social ill.

During the 2012 election, Barack Obama memorably attacked the Republicans’ rightward shift, saying that Ronald Reagan could not win a modern Republican presidential nomination. That may be true, but it’s also true that Bill Clinton could not win a modern Democratic presidential nomination—as evidenced by the fact that Hillary Clinton has had to renounce the majority of her husband’s positions in order to be competitive.

This left-populist resurgence comes even as the nation might be poised to drift rightward, for two reasons. The big challenge—and opportunity—facing America today is the decline of the postwar welfare and managerial state beginning in the 1970s (what we call the “blue model”). The Democratic party’s orthodox response to this trend is to try to shore up what’s left of that model, and rebuild some of what’s been lost. But as Walter Russell Mead has documented at length, the blue decline traces, at least in part, to economic and demographic factors like globalization, technological change, and the aging of the population that simply can’t be put back in the genie’s bottle

Via: The American Interest

Continue Reading....

Hillary Clinton Warns People Not To “Diss The Government”…

I’m old enough to remember when the left’s mantra was “dissent is the highest form of patriotism.”

Via: Weasel Zippers

Continue Reading....

The Left Can’t Handle An Inconvenient Truth

Identity politics is a prized possession in the Left’s arsenal until someone uses certain identities in a way in which the Left disapproves. They initially shout: “Be who you believe you are, and present yourself in the way you want!” Only, they’re lying. They don’t mean be free to be your (chosen) self. They really mean be free to be your (chosen) self only if it’s what they allow at that moment and in line with the narrative they wish to promote. This is why the situation involving Spokane, Washington NAACP President Rachel Dolezal is making the Left so defensive. It shows the hypocrisy of their convenient tolerance.

Many of us immediately noticed the outrage at Rachel’s “blackness” from those who praised Bruce Caitlyn Jenner’s surgical and supplemental transformation. We clearly see if someone is praised (and soon to be ESPY awarded) for being transgender, then why can’t the same be done for someone who is transracial? If identity is determined by an individual, then questioning that individual’s choice should never enter into the picture, right? I mean, those are their rules. Of course, I believe the trans community seeks to address mental and emotional issues incorrectly. Instead of addressing internal issues internally, they conclude that addressing said issues superficially leads to true freedom. The exact opposite is true. Surgical/cosmetic addition and subtraction is a mask, never a solution.

But don’t worry, the Left is disgusted by the idea that we compare Jenner and Dolezal. Didn’t you know it is completely different? Or something? As some have concluded:

Rachel Dolezal didn’t “choose her race,” she committed fraud by lying about her background. She can choose to adopt whatever culture she wishes, but that’s not what happened here. She lied about her background, not just to the public but apparently also on job applications. That’s fraud. The people who are trying to use this case to draw analogies to, or mostly just to make stupid, snarly comments about, the issues raised last week by the Caitlyn Jenner story, are just being obnoxious jerks.

Well, consider me an obnoxious jerk. It doesn’t matter if she hid (rather poorly) her natural identity for years. Bruce Caitlyn Jenner hid his desire for female identity for years. Both cases are fraudulent. But put aside my offensive opinion, what does Rachel Dolezal say about herself? Just this rather inconvenient admission:

“Yes, I do consider myself to be black and that’s because … you know, that’s how I identify,” she told the station.

Via: Red State

Continue Reading.... 

The Intentional Buffoonery of the Progressive Left

Goldilocks wrote: So how are beginning workers and poor people supposed to advance economically?Obama Wage Hike is Obamacare by 'Other Means'

Dear Comrade Goldi,

I can tell you one way to make it more difficult for “beginning workers and poor people” to advance. If you raise the minimum wage, they’ll be likely to be hurt worst, first.

People advance economically by gaining experience and thus bringing more value to an employer, not by passing capricious laws.

According to a BLS survey done in 2011, only 5 percent of workers who make hourly wages are at or below the federal minimum wage to begin with. Of the 1.7 million people who receive minimum wage salaries, 54 percent are aged 24 or below even as 80 percent of the workforce is 25 and above. So despite accounting for only 20 percent of the workforce, we see that minimum wages are more concentrated in those “beginning workers and poor people.”

When you are younger and lack skills you make less money.

Only a liberal would have difficulty understanding this obvious fact.

Powerful or Pitiful?

Curiously-- and damningly too-- 2.1 million of the 3.8 million at or below the minimum wage are accepting wages below the federal minimum.

Via: Townhall

Continue Reading.....

The Childishness of the American Left

The American left is the most self-indulgent, arrogant, and spoiled group of people on the face of the earth.  They live in a nation facing national bankruptcy and societal upheaval -- a country presently subsisting on the residue of past economic achievements.  Yet the only things that matter to them are their lifestyles and imposing their self-determined superiority on rest of the American people.

The true indebtedness of the United States now exceeds $222 trillion.  Appearing on National Public Radio in August of 2011 Professor Laurence J. Kotlikoff of Boston University said:

If you add up all the promises that have been made for spending obligations, and subtract all the taxes we expect to collect, the difference is $211 Trillion.  This is the fiscal gap.  That is our true indebtedness.

Since that interview, the indebtedness has increased by another $11 trillion.  Yet these estimates do not include the full impact of ObamaCare, which could add another $17+ trillion.  On the other side of the ledger: the annual Gross Domestic Product (the value of all economic activity in the U.S.) is $15.6 trillion.  The indebtedness to GDP ratio is a staggering 14.2 to 1 and guaranteed to further accelerate if Barack Obama is re-elected.

The United States is not facing bankruptcy, it is bankrupt.  The primary factor that has kept the nation afloat over the past four years is that the dollar, albeit temporarily, remains the world's reserve currency, thus allowing the Federal Reserve to print enormous sums of money to cover the Obama budget deficits and flood the global market with near worthless cash.  Today itrequires $100.00 to purchase the same goods $10.00 purchased in 1950.

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading...