DEAD SOULS OF A CULTURAL REVOLUTION

Pat Buchanan: 'Interracial violence is overwhelmingly black-

on-white'

Last Friday, Christopher Lane, a 22-year-old Australian here on a baseball scholarship, was shot and killed while jogging in Duncan, Okla., population 23,000. He died where he fell.

Police have three suspects, two black and one white. The former said they were bored and decided to shoot Lane for “the fun of it.”

As Lane was white and the shooter black, racism has surfaced as a motive. Thursday came reports that killing a white man may have been an initiation rite for the black teens in joining some offshoot of the Crips or Bloods.

What happened in Oklahoma and the reaction, or lack of reaction to it, tells us much about America in 2013, not much of it good.

Teenagers who can shoot and kill a man out of summertime boredom are moral barbarians, dead souls.

But who created these monsters? Where did they come from? Surely one explanation lies in the fact that the old conscience-forming and character-forming institutions – home, church, school and a moral and healthy culture fortifying basic truths – have collapsed. And the community hardest hit is Black America.

Black mobs routinely terrorize cities across the country, but the media and government are silent. Read the detailed account of rampant racial crime in “White Girl Bleed a Lot: The Return of Race Riots to America”

If we go back to the end of World War II, 90 percent of black families consisted of a mother and father and children raised and disciplined by their parents. The churches to which these families went on Sundays were stronger. Black schools may have been largely segregated, but they were also the transmission belts of patriotism and traditional values rooted in biblical truths and a Christian faith.

Though such schools graduated hardworking, law-abiding and productive citizens, today they would be closed as unconstitutional.

Indeed, all of those character- and conscience-forming institutions of yesterday are in an advanced state of decline today.

Via: WND

Continue Reading....

Obama proposes bigger federal role in college funding

Obama: “At Some Point The Government Will Run Out of Money”…

Saying the rising costs of college are punishing students who’ve played by the rules, President Obama on Thursday said he’ll ask the federal government to take a broader role in lowering tuition costs by rating schools based on their educational value, and trying to tie future taxpayer aid to how well schools do.

Mr. Obama, speaking at the State University of New York-Buffalo, said he’ll cap student loan repayments at 10 percent of their future paychecks, but will also take steps to punish students who are attending school on federal grants by doling out the money in chunks to make sure they stay in school.

---

SEE ALSO: Obama’s gaffes: ‘This is what happens when you get to be 52’

---

The announcements came as part of a two-day bus tour the president is taking through New York and Pennsylvania as he tries to breathe life back into his domestic agenda, which has stalled amid budget and partisan battles on Capitol Hill.

To counter that, Mr. Obama returned to the rich vs. poor theme he struck on the campaign trail last year, saying his efforts to control education costs are in line with his other moves, such as raising taxes on the wealthy, signing his health care law, and bailing out automobile manufacturers.

“We can’t price the middle class and everybody working to get into the middle class out of a college education,” Mr. Obama said. “We can’t go about business as usual.”

Via: The Washington Times

Continue Reading...

Keystone XL Lobbying: Too Important to Fail Again

Pipeline supporters 

must argue from strength.

It is crucially important to the security and prosperity of the United States and Canada that President Obama approve the Keystone XL pipeline, a multibillion dollar project to bring Albertan oil sands bitumen to refineries in Texas. However, with loud, well-funded climate activists in his base opposed to XL because it will encourage expansion of the oil sands, a project they are determined to kill, it is anything but certain that the president will give the green light to the pipeline.

More than anything, Obama does not want to be remembered as the president who “ruined the climate.” That science shows that practically nothing America does will have substantial impact on global climate is immaterial; it is all about perception when it comes to presidential legacies. Consequently, oil sands and pipeline supporters must present arguments that are seen to be unquestionably correct and difficult to defeat, and relate directly to Obama’s main concern — climate change. Otherwise, he will almost certainly turn down the project just as he did last year.

In the past week, pipeline proponents have seized upon the conclusion of the report by energy consultancy IHS CERA Inc. that the project will have “no material impact” on oil sands greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions. But IHS’s arguments — which were essentially the same as those made by the State Department several months ago — should not be used.

They are far too easy for pipeline opponents to counter.

IHS asserted the following in a news release about the report:

In the absence of the pipeline, alternate transportation routes would result in oil sands production growth being more or less unchanged.

That is naïve. IHS is apparently assuming that climate change campaigners will be unsuccessful at blocking other proposed oil sands bitumen transportation-system expansions. In reality, all of these plans — Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline to Canada’s west coast, the expansion of the Kinder-Morgan pipeline (also to the B.C. coast), Energy East pipeline across Canada, and expanded rail transport — are under serious threat due to the actions of activists. Their disdain of new pipelines is well known, but few in the public are aware that environmentalists are fighting rail expansion as well. The Sierra Club, Greenpeace and 14 other environmental groups warned the head of CN rail in an open letter in January:

Should CN decide to try to move forward with its proposal, it would face major opposition and risks to the company. We urge you to stop any forward movement with shipping tar sands oil by rail through British Columbia.

Their opposition is not surprising. Climate campaigners want to stop all methods of transporting bitumen to refineries because they are determined to block Canada’s oil sands projects entirely. They believe GHG emissions, specifically carbon dioxide (CO2), from the oil sands will wreck the climate.

Via: PJ Media

Continue Reading... 

Defunding Obamacare 101

There’s a lot of confusion over defunding Obamacare and shutting down the government. I think Karl Rove, on the DON’T DO IT side, andBill Wilson on the STAND FIRM side both misunderstand the mechanics of shutdowns and defunding.

The background: On Sept. 30, the fiscal year ends, and so funding for government runs out, absent new appropriations bills. The planned vehicle for funding fiscal year 2014 is a “continuing resolution” — basically continuing the current year’s spending levels, and thus punting any budget fights.

If no CR passes by Oct. 1, we get a government shutdown.

Here are some things you should know about this debate:

• Shutting down the government won’t defund Obamacare: Almost all Obamacare spending is “mandatory spending.” Obamacare authorized that spending until the end of time, and it doesn’t need to be appropriated every year. So under a government shutdown, we’d run out of discretionary spending, but most of Obamacare would keep humming.
• A continuing resolution could defund Obamacare: Just because it’s “mandatory” doesn’t mean it’s invincible. A continuing resolution could contain a “policy rider,” as appropriations bills often do, which really does defund Obamacare.
• Defunding Obamacare would require cooperation of the Senate and the White House: Because you’d need to pass a CR defunding Obamacare to actually defund the mandatory-spending portions of Obamacare, that would need to pass both chambers and get the White House signature. You can’t defund Obamacare without Obama.
• Conservatives say they think Obama can be coerced into defunding Obamacare. Will Obama let his whole government go defunded just to save

I think Obama will let the government shut down rather than defund Obamacare. David Freddoso puts it well:

If you think you can get the Democratic Senate to pass (and Obama to sign) a bill that funds the government while defunding Obama’s absolute top priority without first going through a prolonged government shutdown — and we’re talking weeks or months here, not days — then you’re just not being serious. This has no chance of success unless you shut the government down for a very long time.The guy already lost the House so that he could get Obamacare — do you really think he’s going to cry uncle one week into a few embassy closures? Obama cries uncle only when tens of thousands of government employees start having their homes foreclosed because they’re not being paid.

It’s one thing to think you can gain some ground in a shutdown-showdown by haggling over levels of spending or even forcing a delay to the individual mandate or something like that. But this isn’t going to happen here, and that’s probably why there won’t be nearly enough votes to carry out this threat.

Via: Washington Examiner

Continue Reading....