15 Ways Liberals Are Like Bratty Kids (John Hawkins)

15 Ways Liberals Are Like Bratty Kids – John Hawkins

.

.
1) No matter what they fail at, it’s always someone else’s fault. George Bush did it, the Republicans are mean, the dog ate Obama’s homework. It’s not his fault that he’s flunking every class!

2) They don’t read history, they think their parents are stupid, and they don’t need to know anything other than how they feel to make a decision. So despite the fact that everyone tells them that tying a towel around their neck will not allow them to jump off the roof like Superman, they’re going to do it anyway.

3) THE BAD MAN WON’T CHANGE THE NAME OF THE REDSKINS EVEN THOUGH I DON’T LIKE IT! HE’S SO MEAN! WAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!

4) Half their vocabulary seems to consist of the words, “That’s not FAIR!” It’s not FAIR that they’re not allowed to lie as much as they want! It’s not FAIR that other people get to have opinions, too! It’s not fair that after yelling at someone for 30 minutes, someone said something back to them. It’s not fair! It’s not fair! It’s not FAIR!

5) They demand to be treated like adults, but the moment they get an adult responsibility – like being President – they quit doing it the right way five minutes in because it’s “boring” and wander off to find something more “fun” to do (like golfing or campaigning).

6) Yes, they would jump off that Obamacare cliff if their friend Barack did it, too!

7) They have no concept of how money works – at least when it comes to government. Either get them the Playstation 4 AND the Xbox One AND the ten games they want or you’re a BIG MEANIE who HATES THEM and they’re going to THROW A TANTRUM in the middle of the store until they get what they want.

8) Like a little brat who’s obsessed with a cartoon character (everything in my room must be Pokémon!), whatever they’re not interested in is treated as stupid, worthless, and boring. They don’t care about Christianity, patriotism, or guns; so anybody who likes or values those things must be “dumb.”

9) Everything is a zero sum game to them. If Janie has the ball, then Sally can’t have the ball. If America is successful, we must be doing it by taking things that belong in other nations. If you’re white, you must be better off because you hurt people who aren’t white. If you’re rich, then you must be making someone else poor.

10) They think they deserve a Nobel Peace Prize just for showing up and blessing everyone with their presence, regardless of how badly they perform.

11) When they don’t like something, they throw a tantrum and demand that other people change their behavior to work around their attitude problem.

12) Their universe is made up of “nice” people who agree with them on everything, protected classes of “pets” who are too stupid to get along without them, and mean old poopyheads who don’t cater to their every whim. That’s about as nuanced as their worldview gets.

13) They really do believe the world – more specifically, the taxpayers – owe them a living whether they feel like working for it or not.

14) Little kids believe in Santa Claus. Liberals believe big government works. Both beliefs are equally dumb.

15) They torment, bully, and provoke other people at every opportunity until someone hits them back, at which point they start crying and demanding sympathy.

.

.

6 Arguments Only A Liberal Could Believe (John Hawkins)

6 Arguments Only A Liberal Could Believe – John Hawkins

.
…………

.

“Arguing with liberals… it’s like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board and strut around like it’s victorious.” – Anonymous

“If you can somehow force a liberal into a point-counterpoint argument, his retorts will bear no relation to what you’ve said – unless you were in fact talking about your looks, your age, your weight, your personal obsessions, or whether you are a fascist. In the famous liberal two-step, they leap from one idiotic point to the next, so you can never nail them. It’s like arguing with someone with Attention Deficit Disorder.” – Ann Coulter

It’s almost impossible to have any kind of meaningful discussion with a liberal because while you’re trying to come up with logical points to support your position, he’s trying to come up with new ways to convince people you’re Hitler. Modern liberalism has turned into a willful embrace of stupidity. It’s all about setting reason and intellect aside in order to take an emotionally-satisfying position that makes a liberal feel better about himself. This is how people who are undeniably intelligent can feel good about taking brainless positions that hurt a lot of people. While liberals have emotionally blinded themselves so totally that they believe they’re taking compassionate, intellectual, well-crafted stands, this is how they sound to everyone who’s not a liberal.

1) Everyone who disagrees with a liberal is racist! The Tea Party? Racist! Republicans? Racist! Fox News? Racist? Black conservatives? Racist! Barack Obama’s grandma? Racist! Do I think Social Security is solvent? My position on that is that “You’re a racist!” What do I think about flattening the tax code? Sarah Palin is a racist! Do I like potatoes? Well, Republicans eat potatoes sometimes; so potatoes are racist! Racist, racist, racist!

2) We’re all going to die because man is causing global warming! Proof? It’s science! Granted, no one can explain the science that proves global warming. But, science isn’t about science, it’s about repeating the word “science” over and over again like a magic incantation. Science, science, sciencey, sciencey science! See? It’s science and scientists agree that it’s science! Why do you hate science so much? Why do you want polar bears to die? Oh, and science!

3) (Before Obamacare was passed) Everyone should support Obamacare because it will cover all of the uninsured, it’ll save you money on health care, you’ll get to keep your doctor and it’ll be super convenient! It’s going to be the greatest thing ever! (Now) Sure, Obamacare mostly insures people it knocked off of their existing insurance, it costs a lot more, you can’t keep your doctor and the website is insanely difficult to deal with, but it’s the greatest thing ever!

4) Guns cause crime and if we take guns away from people who haven’t broken the law yet, then criminals will also not have guns somehow. Gun-free zones also protect people from criminals, who we’re sure won’t enter “gun-free zones” for some reason. Unless they do…. Which proves the problem is actually law abiding gun owners somehow or another. And that’s why we need more and more gun laws until all the people who obey gun laws can’t have guns any more, which will save us from criminals and crazy people who don’t care about the law.

5) You can’t expect black people to get voter ID. I mean, white guys? Sure. Hispanics? No problem. Asians and Jews? Obviously. But, have you met any black people in your life? You really think they’re capable of going to a government office with the proper paperwork and coming out with identification with their name on it? These guys? Seriously? Seriously? Okay, well, right after you run across a black American who can figure out how to get his own ID, why don’t we set up classrooms to teach cats how to do Algebra. Hey, Mr. Kitty, 3x + 10 + 2x = 12 + 4x? Black people getting IDs? Geeze…

6) Republicans are waging a war on women! You can tell because they oppose killing female babies and think women should buy their own birth control, just like men! Also, they’re so mean to women! For example, they oppose Hillary Clinton becoming President – obviously because she’s a woman. All criticism of women from conservatives is based on gender. Not like criticism of that @%$#^ Sarah Palin, who is so incredibly, unbelievably stupid that she only managed to become a mayor, a governor, a VP candidate, put out best selling books, had a successful TV show and became a wealthy, sought-after speaker while getting married and having 5 kids. She’s almost as bad as those @#$%!*$ – Michelle Malkin, S.E. Cupp, and Dana Loesch, although a little more evil than Ann Coulter and Megyn Kelly and more of a @#%@^$%^ #@$%^&(*^ @#$%^ than Laura Ingraham and Jan Brewer! Also, conservatives call women names!

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

The 20 Most Annoying Liberals Of 2013 (John Hawkins)

The 20 Most Annoying Liberals Of 2013 – John Hawkins

Honorable Mentions: Bob Beckel, Joe Biden, Bill de Blasio, Michael Bloomberg, Barbara Boxer, Cher, Bob Costas, Al Gore, Alan Grayson, Chris Hayes, John Kerry, Paul Krugman, Ezra Klein, Sheila Jackson Lee, Bill Maher, Mike Malloy, Meghan McCain, Michael Moore, Michelle Obama, Dan Savage, Ed Schultz, Chuck Schumer, Andrew Sullivan, Joan Walsh, Elizabeth Warren, Anthony Weiner

20) Nancy Pelosi: After being displaced as Speaker of the House, Pelosi returned to Mordor, reformed herself as a giant eye and the legends say her minions prepare for war and eternally search for a magic ring that will allow her to return to power.

Defining quote: “Our view of the law is that it – if somebody is here without sufficient documentation, that is not reason for deportation.” – Nancy Pelosi

19) The Southern Poverty Law Center: Ironically, the Southern Poverty Law Center used to do good work cataloguing hate groups around the country, but it’s since become little more than a hate group itself. Floyd Lee Corkins tried to murder people at the Family Research Council because the Southern Poverty Law Center falsely labeled them a hate group. You might think almost getting people killed might make the SPLW reconsider labeling people as hate groups for the sake of politics, but it continued the practice in 2013, even as Corkins faced 25 years in prison for the attempted mass murder that it inspired. That’s why the Southern Poverty Law Center is just as much of a hate group as the American Nazi Party, the KKK or the New Black Panthers.

Defining quote: “While interviewed by the FBI, Corkins admitted that he wanted to ‘kill as many as possible and smear the Chick-Fil-A sandwiches in victims’ faces, and kill the guard.”

I was one of those people who could have been his victim. I was on the 6th floor of the FRC building working on my pro-life internship assignments. I could have lost my life. My dear friend Rosa and everyone else in the building, including my boss Jeanne Monahan, now president of March for Life, could have lost their lives.

…It saddens me and brings tears to my eyes that a person like Corkins would resort to violence out of political disagreement, especially on the topic of gay marriage. It breaks my heart that Southern Poverty Law Center facilitated his intent to commit such a horrific act of violence by labeling FRC as a ‘hate group.'” – Anna Maria Hoffman

18) Piers Morgan: The last time there were Brits in America who were this annoying, Andrew Jackson drove them out of New Orleans during the War of 1812. Morgan’s pretentious caterwauling about guns would be irritating under any circumstances, but if we wanted to be told what to do by Brits, we wouldn’t have poured their tea in Boston Harbor to begin with.

Defining Tweet:

James O’Keefe
@JamesOKeefeIII

Hey, @piersmorgan, can you please explain these signs on your Beverly Hills property? http://www.twitpic.com/cghoe4

2:44 PM – 2 Apr 2013
686 Retweets – 170 favorites
————————————————————————————————————————

17) Jay Carney: It’s a little bit of a cheap shot to pick on a White House Press Secretary since by definition, they’re always playing Waylon Smithers to the Mr. Burns in the White House. Yet and still,Carney is such a petulant lick-spittle that it’s hard not to hold him in contempt as you look into his dead little eyes while he spouts lies at each and every press conference.

————————————————————————————————————————
Defining Tweet: Carney blows more smoke than a Rastafarian death rattle.
– Dennis Miller Show (@DennisDMZ) May 14, 2013

————————————————————————————————————————

16) Wendy Davis: Nobody fought harder to kill babies in 2013 than Abortion Barbie. Now she’s trying to turn her lust for dead children into a springboard to make her the next governor of Texas. Good luck with that, Killer!

Defining quote: “The left is in a tizzy on twitter for my referring to pink shoes wearing Texas State Senator Wendy Davis as “Abortion Barbie.” It sums her up perfectly. All the nation knows about Wendy Davis is that she is ignorant of the horrors of Kermit Gosnell, wears pink shoes, and filibustered legislation to save the innocent in Texas. She joined the long line of Democrats before her to oppose legislation to protect other people while using property rights arguments to do so.” – Erick Erickson

15) Kathleen Sebelius: She would be the hapless “Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job” mope of the Obama administration if there was anybody competent on staff to use in comparison. However, she stands out, even in a Three Stooges administration because she’s so far over her head trying to implement Obamacare that it would almost be tempting to feel sorry for her if she weren’t wrecking the lives of tens of millions of Americans in the process.

Defining Tweet:

Brian Kelsey
@BrianKelsey

RT @memphisdaily: TN Sen @BrianKelsey gave Kathleen Sebelius “Websites for Dummies” during #Memphis #healthcare event

5:36 PM – 1 Nov 2013
293 Retweets – 104 favorites
————————————————————————————————————————

14) Alec Baldwin: Baldwin was already known as such a pretentious, homophobic creep that conservatives were calling on Capital One to fire him for his gay slurs BEFORE MSNBC ever hired him. Then, MSNBC brought him on board, he allegedly exploded with more gay slurs, and MSNBC execs sent him packing. Why were they shocked? It wasn’t like they didn’t know he was prone to doing that already.

Defining quote: “C**ksucking f*g.” – Alec Baldwin allegedly to a member of the paparazzi in an outburst that cost him his job at MSNBC.

13) Debbie Wasserman Schultz: She’s a bit of a puzzler in that she’s habitually dishonest, nasty, annoying, and generally unlikable; yet she’s risen to become the Chair of the Democratic National Committee. Also, did I mention she’s delusional as well?

Defining quote: “…Democratic candidates will be able to run on ObamaCare as an advantage leading into the 2014 election!” – Debbie Wasserman Schultz

12) GLAAD: These hypocrites stood strongly behind Alec Baldwin when he shouted homophobic slurs in public, but regularly try to destroy Christians for refusing to toe the liberal line on gay marriage. GLAAD is every bit as much of a rabidly anti-Christian group as it is a pro-gay rights organization. Even people who agree with GLAAD on gay rights shouldn’t be supporting such a hateful, hypocritical group of bullies.

Defining quote: “Is GLAAD’s position so weak, so intellectually indefensible, that it cannot prevail in reasoned debate, and therefore all opposition must be bullied into silence? This is how America becomes divided and balkanized; because groups like GLAAD make civil disagreement impossible.” – V the K at GayPatriot

11) Oprah Winfrey: Oprah Winfrey built a net worth of more than 2 billion dollars on the backs of her white female fans, but suddenly America became an awful, racist country because she had a movie to promote. If this is such a horrible, bigoted country, how is it that Oprah was able to become the most successful black woman on planet earth while living here? Is she just that much more wonderful than everyone else?

Defining quote #1: “There’s a level of disrespect for the office that occurs. And that occurs in some cases and maybe even many cases because he’s African American. There’s no question about that and it’s the kind of thing nobody ever says but everybody’s thinking it.” – Oprah Winfrey

Definining quote #2: “You know, as long as people can be judged by the color of their skin, problem’s not solved. As long as there are people who still, there’s a whole generation – I say this, you know, I said this, you know, for apartheid South Africa, I said this for my own, you know, community in the south – there are still generations of people, older people, who were born and bred and marinated in it, in that prejudice and racism, and they just have to die.” – Oprah Winfrey

10) Chris Matthews: Aside from constantly claiming to hear the same racist dog whistles that everyone else on MSNBC does (Maybe everyone at that network should get his ears checked), Matthews may be the biggest Obama fanboy on the planet. I’m not entirely sure if Sasha and Malia Obama love their daddy the way Chris Matthews does and if those horrible rumors about the Obama marriage crack-up in the Enquirer turn out to be true, we do know at least one “journalist” who’d be happy to let Bo crash on his couch for as long as he wants.

Defining quote: “I look at Obama as a perfect American,” Mr. Matthews said, according to the show’s transcript. “I don’t mean politically… But as a citizen. The guy went to school, he never broke a law. He did everything right. He raised a wonderful family. He’s a good husband, a good father. My God, I don’t think he’s ever gotten a speeding ticket. The guy does everything right.” – Chris Matthews

9) Hillary Clinton: Wow, what a role model! She married a guy who screwed half of Arkansas behind her back, leveraged people’s pity for her into a Senate seat in New York and then turned a failed presidential run into an abysmal term as a Secretary of State that was most noteworthy because her incompetence got Americans killed in Benghazi. After all that, she wants to run for President again. Wheeeeeeeeeeee!

Defining quote: “With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night decided to go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?” – Hillary Clinton on her department’s lies to the American people about an Al-Qaeda attack.

5, 6, 7 & 8) Michael Eric-Dyson / Jesse Jackson / Al Sharpton / Toure': All of these men are listed together because they’re such indistinguishable professional race hustlers that they don’t even merit their own entries. All four of these men have managed to turn finding new and creative reasons to call people racists into a profession that’s probably only slightly more reputable than professional kidnapper or puppy torturer (Saddam Hussein probably had one of those, right?).

Defining Conversation: “Matt Lewis: It took 10 minutes – 10 minutes to get to the race issue. Clearly that’s why Republicans -

Michael Eric-Dyson: Sir, sir – I didn’t interrupt you when you were offering bromides.

Matt Lewis: I didn’t accused anybody of being -

Michael Eric-Dyson: Hold on, I didn’t interrupt you. Don’t interrupt me.

Martin Bashir: Matt, Matt -

Michael Eric-Dyson: Don’t deploy the very principles of white privilege to silence a black man on the panel because you don’t want to talk about race. So be quiet.” – Michael Eric Dyson plays the “white privilege card” on Daily Caller writer, Matt Lewis

4) Martin Bashir: Happily, in the unlikely event that Bashir is ever remembered in the history books, it will be as the cable news host who was fired from MSNBC for suggesting that someone defecate in Sarah Palin’s mouth.

Defining quote: “One of the most comprehensive first-person accounts of slavery comes from the personal diary of a man called Thomas Thistlewood, who kept copious notes for 39 years… In 1756, he records that ‘a slave named Darby catched eating canes; had him well flogged and pickled, then made Hector, another slave, s-h-i-t in his mouth.’ This became known as ‘Darby’s Dose,’ a punishment invented by Thistlewood that spoke only of the slave owners’ savagery and inhumanity… When Mrs. Palin invoked slavery, she doesn’t just prove her rank ignorance. She confirms that if anyone truly qualified for a dose of discipline from Thomas Thistlewood, then she would be the outstanding candidate.” – Martin Bashir explains why Sarah Palin should have someone crap in her mouth.

3) Harry Reid: Reid spent 2013 picking on kids with cancer and driving a dagger through the heart of the filibuster, which will make our system of government considerably less stable from here on out. In other words, he’s both a terrible human being AND a terrible Senate majority leader.

Defining quote: “If you can help one child who has cancer, why wouldn’t you do it?,” Bash asked.

“Why would we want to do that?” – Harry Reid

2) Melissa Harris-Perry: It’s tempting to lump Melissa Harris-Perry in with the other race hustlers, but her tampon earrings, mockery of Mitt Romney’s adopted child and her creepy, fascistic desire to see children pried away from their parents sets her apart. It’s like Al Sharpton mixed with Leon Trotsky, all rolled up in one hateful package!

Defining quote: “We have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families, and recognize that kids belong to whole communities.’ – Melissa Harris-Perry

1) Barack Obama: America’s worst President offered up another year of lies, division, vacuous speeches and selfies to go along with what may be the worst government program in America’s history. Ironically, even as his administration proved to be completely incompetent in every facet of governance and utterly lawless, Obama demanded more power over gun laws, immigration, our taxes and our health care. We should be grateful he spends so much time on vacation because the country is safer every time that nincompoop goes out of town.

Defining quote #1: “Now, if you have or had one of these plans before the Affordable Care Act came into law and you really liked that plan, what we said was you can keep it if it hasn’t changed since the law passed.” – Barack Obama lies about his “If you like your plan, you can keep it” lie.

Defining quote #2: “Well, you’ve touched on it to a degree. (Obama) made so many promises. We thought that he was going to be – I shouldn’t say this at Christmastime, but – the next messiah.” – If you want to know how a buffoon like this could spend two terms in the White House, this quote from Barbara Walters offers up a lot of insight.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

10 Quotes That Help Explain Why So Many Conservatives Don’t Trust The Republican Party (John Hawkins)

10 Quotes That Help Explain Why So Many Conservatives Don’t Trust The Republican Party – John Hawkins

.

.
If things are going badly, we’re told the GOP should compromise on what it believes in to start winning elections again. If things are going well, we’re told we must turn a blind eye to the GOP abandoning its beliefs so as not to ruin the great year we’re going to have. The establishment Republicans who are always arguing in favor of trading off dearly held principles in return for magic beans always claim they’re doing it to win elections, but it’s hard to miss the fact that they don’t actually seem to be any better at winning elections than the grassroots conservatives they seem to write off as amateurs. Setting that aside, winning elections isn’t an end unto itself. You win elections in order to implement your agenda, which win or lose, the GOP never seems to be all that interested in. If you disagree with that, point out all the great domestic victories we achieved when the GOP controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. When Democrats pulled that same trick off, they attempted to fundamentally transform America while Republicans passed tax cuts and then moved on to big government wish list items like Medicare Part D, raising spending on the Arts and the now universally hated No Child Left Behind.

The sad fact of the matter is that while liberals have a very good idea of where their representatives stand on almost everything, there’s NOT A SINGLE ISSUE where conservatives can just trust Republicans to live up to their campaign promises. If the Republicans could simply be counted on to do what they said they were going to do and showed a modicum of respect for the people who put them in office, there would be very little intraparty fighting. Instead, politicians in D.C. incessantly do things to aggravate their own supporters and then ask the people who put them in office to set aside their disappointment in the name of party loyalty. That seems a little backwards given that the politicians and the Party don’t elect the base; the base elects the Republican Party. The politicians who make promises to get elected are the ones who owe people, not the grassroots conservatives who put them in office and are now dismayed at their behavior.

If the Republican Party wants to end all these primary challenges, stop the intraparty fighting and get everyone to sing Kumbayah, it’s really not that hard to do. Do what you say you’re going to do, treat the opinions of your base with respect, and stop picking fights with the people who put you in power by saying things like…

1) “Read my lips: no new taxes.” – George H. W. Bush’s famous pledge not to raise taxes, which he broke.

2) “The Budget Control Act (Sequestration) represents a victory for those committed to controlling government spending and growing our economy. I applaud Speaker Boehner’s leadership in stopping tax increases on job creators, rejecting President Obama’s demands for a blank check to keep borrowing, and advancing real spending cuts and controls. The agreement – while far from perfect – underscores the extent to which the new House majority has successfully changed Washington’s culture of spending. No longer can Washington endlessly spend money it does not have.” – Paul Ryan, who just worked with Democrat to gut the sequester cuts he called a “victory” and “real spending cuts and controls.”

3) “I am strongly against amnesty. The most important thing we need to do is enforce our existing laws. We have existing immigration laws that are not being adequately enforced. Nothing will make it harder to enforce the existing laws, if you reward people who broke them. It demoralizes people who are going through the legal process, it’s a very clear signal of why go through the legal process, if you can accomplish the same thing if you go through the illegal process. And number two, it demoralizes the people enforcing the laws. I am not, and I will never support any effort to grant blanket legalization/amnesty to folks who have entered, stayed in this country illegally.” – Marco Rubio, who led the charge for a path to citizenship in 2013.

4) “They were elected, nobody believes that there was a corrupt election, anything else,” McCain said. “But I also think that when, you know, it’s always the wacko birds on right and left that get the media megaphone.” Asked to clarify, McCain said he was referencing ”Rand Paul, Cruz, Amash, whoever.” – Former GOP Presidential nominee John McCain on the most popular conservative politicians with the conservative grassroots.

5) “Frankly, I just think (conservative groups have) lost all credibility.” – House Minority Leader, John Boehner on conservative groups who, unlike him, actually believe in all the things he campaigns on when he runs for election.

6) “And then, he says, the next president, whoever he is, ‘would have to call a truce on the so-called social issues. We’re going to just have to agree to get along for a little while,’ until the economic issues are resolved.” – Former Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels suggested we blow off tens of millions of social conservatives who make up part of the core of the GOP base.

7) “I’ll just say this about the so-called porkbusters. I’m getting damn tired of hearing from them. They have been nothing but trouble ever since Katrina.” – Former Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott complains about the Porkbusters group that demanded he cut spending and kill earmarks.

8) “With his record of reform in Florida, I know that Governor Crist will bring a fresh perspective to Washington in our efforts to fight for lower taxes, less government, and new job creation for all Americans.” – Senator John Cornyn, the Senate’s Minority Whip, endorsing Charlie Crist, who ended up switching parties and speaking at the Democrat Convention.

9) “The problem with the Tea Party, I think it’s just unsustainable because they can never come up with a coherent vision for governing the country. It will die out.” – Lindsey Graham

10) “I’ve abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system.” – George W. Bush explaining his support for the corporate bailouts in TARP.

Incidentally, the solution to all of this is not to leave the Republican Party. To the contrary, it’s to treat the Republican Party like a puppy that’s having difficulty with house training. When Republicans do the right thing, praise them, support them and do what you can to help them out. When they do the wrong thing, rub their noses in it. Attack Republicans who betray their principles relentlessly, primary them at every opportunity and take over the Republican Party so we can shove the politicians who won’t listen to us to the side. While we will never be able to build an entire party full of men like Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and Rand Paul, we can make it miserable enough for bad actors that the go-along-to-get-along Republicans will conclude it’s better to work with us than face primaries and incessant attacks from their own side in the new media. Most people don’t realize it, but we have already started moving the Republican Party to the Right and the time will come when Republicans are just as afraid of their base as Democrats are of Planned Parenthood and the unions. It’s not going to happen overnight, but if we keep going after Republicans who sell us out, even the ones that are as hostile as John McCain, Peter King and Lindsey Graham will eventually have to get on board if they want to keep their jobs.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Your Daley Gator Anti-War-In-Syria Op-Ed Roundup

Unserious About Syria – Thomas Sowell

Why are we even talking about taking military action in Syria? What is that military action supposed to accomplish? And what is the probability that it will in fact accomplish whatever that unknown goal might be?

What is painfully clear from President Obama’s actions, inactions, and delays is that he is more or less playing by ear what specifically he is going to do, and when. He is telling us more about what he is not going to do – that he will not put “boots on the ground,” for example – than about what he will do.

All this is happening a year after issuing an ultimatum to the Bashar Assad regime in Syria against the use of chemical or biological weapons. When the president of the United States issues an ultimatum to another sovereign nation, he should know in advance what he is going to do if that ultimatum is rejected.

But that is not the way Barack Obama operates. Like so many people who are masters of lofty words, he does not pay nearly as much attention to mundane realities. Campaigning is his strong suit. Governing is not.

With the mainstream media ready to ooh and aah over his rhetoric, and pass over in silence his policy disasters as president, Obama is home free as far as domestic politics is concerned. But, on the world stage, neither America’s enemies nor her allies are hypnotized by his words or his image.

Nations that have to decide whether to ally themselves with us or with our enemies understand that they are making life-and-death decisions. It is not about rhetoric, image, or symbolism. It is about whether nations can count on the realism, wisdom, and dependability of the American government.

Make no mistake about it, Barack Obama is a very clever man. But cleverness is not wisdom, or even common sense.

When he was in the Senate, Obama – along with Senators Joe Biden, Chuck Hagel, and Hillary Clinton – was critical of the Bush administration for not being favorable to the Assad regime.

Hillary Clinton said that she and other lawmakers who visited Assad considered him a “reformer.” Back in 2007, when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, both Senator Biden and Senator Hagel chided her for not being more ready to negotiate with Assad.

Senator John Kerry in 2009 said, “Syria is an essential player in bringing peace and stability to the region.”

Some people said that having Joe Biden as vice president meant that President Obama had someone with many years of foreign-policy experience. What they ignored was that Biden had decades of experience being wrong on foreign-policy issues time and time again.

Biden opposed President Ronald Reagan’s military buildup that countered the Soviet Union’s buildup and helped bring about both the end of the Cold War and the end of the Soviet Union. General David Petraeus’s “surge” strategy that greatly reduced the terrorist attacks in Iraq was opposed in 2007 by Senator Biden, who said, “We need to stop the surge and start to get our troops out.”

Senator Hillary Clinton not only opposed the surge from the outset, she was among those who refused to believe that it had succeeded, even after all the hard evidence had convinced most other people.

The grim reality is that the people in key positions to shape our foreign policy during the Obama administration – the president, the vice president, two secretaries of state, and the current secretary of defense – all have a track record of grossly misconceiving the issues, our enemies, and our national interest.

This is the administration that is now asking for a blank check from Congress to take unspecified military action to achieve unspecified goals. “Military action” is a polite phrase for killing people. It would be nice to believe that this has some purpose other than saving Barack Obama from political embarrassment after he issued an ultimatum without having thought through what he would do if that ultimatum was ignored.

He has the authority to take military action if he wants to. The question is whether he can sucker the Republicans into giving him political cover by pre-approving his unknown actions and unknown goals.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

——————————————————————————————————————————–

Clear-Cut Stupidity On Syria – Jonah Goldberg

‘The genius of you Americans,” the Arab-nationalist and one-time president of Egypt, Gamal Abdel Nasser, once explained, “is that you never make clear-cut stupid moves, only complicated stupid moves which make us wonder at the possibility that there may be something to them which we are missing.”

I’ve long taken patriotic pride in such statements of befuddlement from foreigners. America is a gloriously complicated thing. We often confuse our national creeds for universal principles. We are a Jacksonian people (that’s Andrew Jackson, in case you were wondering) in love with Jeffersonian ideals and legalistically committed to Madisonian mechanisms. Like a guard dog that would rather not leave the porch, we are quick to anger but not necessarily quick to fight, and we are just as eager to forgive.

So from the vantage point of foreign brutes, bullies, and buffoons, it’s understandable that America’s methods could be confused for stupidity. This is why I love the old expression, “America can choke on a gnat, but swallow a tiger whole.”

So I am trying very hard to hold onto this perspective as I watch the president of the United States behave in a way you don’t have to be a pan-Arab autocrat to think is incredibly stupid.

Where to begin? Perhaps with Obama’s initial refusal to support the moderate rebels seeking to overthrow Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, a puppet of Iran and bagman for Hezbollah. Or we might start with Obama’s refusal to support the Green Movement in Iran, which sought to overthrow the Iranian regime, which would have been a triumph for both our principles and our national interests.

These were odd choices, particularly given his decision to help depose Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi, an indisputably evil man, but also a dictator who posed no threat, who abided by our demands to relinquish WMDs, and whose domestic death toll was a tiny fraction of Assad’s.

“We cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people there will be no mercy… where innocent men and women face brutality and death at the hands of their own government” was Obama’s justification for an attack on Libya – without congressional approval. But when Assad killed tenfold as many men, women, and children, Obama refused to act for nearly two years. And when he finally decided it was imperative to attack Assad – after the dictator crossed a chemical-weapons “red line” drawn by Obama himself – he suddenly discovered the need for congressional authorization.

Sort of.

Obama doesn’t believe he needs authorization from Congress to strike Syria, he just wants it. He’s like a kid desperate for a prom date, but too vain to admit it. In Libya, Obama had the U.N. and NATO on each arm, so he didn’t bother with asking the dog on Capitol Hill for a date. But now, faced with the prospect of going it alone, he’s in effect telling Congress, “Hey, it’s not like I need your company, but you’d be crazy not to go to war with me.”

Whoops. As even Nancy Pelosi’s own grandkid now knows, we mustn’t call it a war. “The president is not asking you to go to war,” Secretary of State John Kerry told Congress. He’s merely asking them to authorize a sustained cruise-missile attack on military installations to “degrade” the regime’s “capabilities.”

But, according to Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman General Martin Dempsey, no one has asked the military to do anything that might change the “momentum” of the Syrian civil war. This is like saying you’re going to attack a runaway car barreling toward a crowd of kids, but do nothing to actually, you know, slow it down. What good does it do to trash the radio and rip out the cup holders on an out-of-control car?

Meanwhile, according to numerous accounts, Assad is moving military assets into civilian areas and civilians into military areas, even as the Obama administration insists it makes no difference militarily to wait for Congress to debate. That’s not just stupid; it’s an outright lie that will be fact-checked with blood.

I understand the attraction the buddy system has for a man who, as a state legislator, perfected the art of voting “present” on hard questions. But it’s hard to see this as anything other than rank political cowardice.

The buck stopped with Truman. For Obama, the buck is kryptonite.

In Stockholm on Wednesday, the president said that the credibility of the world, America, Congress, and the international community is on the line. Everybody is on the hook for his red line, except for the one person who actually drew it.

I’d love to see the genius in that argument, but it looks like clear-cut stupidity to me.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

——————————————————————————————————————————–

Community Organizer Goes To War – Ann Coulter

Oh, how I long for the days when liberals wailed that “the rest of the world” hated America, rather than now, when the rest of the world laughs at us.

With the vast majority of Americans opposing a strike against Syria, President Obama has requested that Congress vote on his powers as commander in chief under the Constitution. The president doesn’t need congressional approval to shoot a few missiles into Syria, nor – amazingly – has he said he’ll abide by such a vote, anyway.

Why is Congress even having a vote? This is nothing but a fig leaf to cover Obama’s own idiotic “red line” ultimatum to President Bashar al-Assad of Syria on chemical weapons. The Nobel Peace Prize winner needs to get Congress on the record so that whatever happens, the media can blame Republicans.

No Republican who thinks seriously about America’s national security interests – by which I mean to exclude John McCain and Lindsey Graham – can support Obama’s “plan” to shoot blindly into this hornet’s nest.

It would be completely different if we knew with absolute certainty that Assad was responsible for chemical attacks on his own people. (I’m still waiting to see if it was a Syrian upset about a YouTube video.)

It would be different if instead of killing a few hundred civilians, Assad had killed 5,000 civilians with poison gas in a single day, as well as tens of thousands more with chemical weapons in the past few decades.

It would be different if Assad were known to torture his own people, administer summary executions, rapes, burnings and electric shocks, often in front of the victim’s wife or children.

It would be different if Assad had acted aggressively toward the United States itself, perhaps attempting to assassinate a former U.S. president or giving shelter to terrorists who had struck within the U.S. – someone like Maj. Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood terrorist.

It would be different if Assad were stirring up trouble in the entire Middle East by, for example, paying bounties to the families of suicide bombers in other countries.

It would also be different if we could be sure that intervention in Syria would not lead to a multi-nation conflagration.

It would be different if we knew that any action against Syria would not put al-Qaida or the Muslim Brotherhood in power, but rather would result in a functioning, peaceful democracy.

And it would be different if an attack on Syria would so terrify other dictators in the region that they would instantly give up their WMDs – say, Iran abandoning its nuclear program.

If all of that were true, this would be a military intervention worth supporting!

All of that was true about Iraq, but the Democrats hysterically opposed that war. They opposed it even after all this was known to be true – indeed, especially after it was known to be true! The loudest opponent was Barack Obama.

President Saddam Hussein of Iraq had attempted to assassinate former president George H.W. Bush. He gave shelter to Abdul Rahman Yasin, a conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. He paid bounties to the families of suicide bombers in Israel.

Soon after Bush invaded Iraq in 2003, Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi was so terrified of an attack on his own country, he voluntarily relinquished his WMDs – which turned out to be far more extensive than previously imagined.

Al-Qaida not only did not take over Iraq, but got its butt handed to it in Iraq, where the U.S. and its allies killed thousands of al-Qaida fighters, including the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Iraq became the first genuine Arab democracy, holding several elections and presiding over a trial of Saddam Hussein.

Does anyone imagine that any of this would result from an Obama-led operation in Syria? How did his interventions work out in Egypt and Libya?

As for chemical weapons – the casus belli for the current drums of war – in a matter of hours on March 16, 1988, Saddam Hussein slaughtered roughly 5,000 Kurdish civilians in Halabja with mustard, sarin and VX gas. The victims blistered, vomited or laughed hysterically before dropping dead. Thousands more would die later from the after-effects of these poisons.

Saddam launched nearly two dozen more chemical attacks on the Kurds, resulting in at least 50,000 deaths, perhaps three times that many. That’s to say nothing of the tens of thousands of Iranians Saddam killed with poison gas. Indeed, in making the case against Assad recently, Secretary of State John Kerry said his use of chemical weapons put him in the same league as “Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein.”

Not even close – but may we ask why Kerry sneered at the war that removed such a monster as Hussein?

There were endless United Nations reports and resolutions both establishing that Saddam had used chemical weapons and calling on him to give them up. (For the eighth billionth time, we did find chemical weapons in Iraq, just no “stockpiles.” Those had been moved before the war, according to Saddam’s own general, Georges Sada – to Syria.)

On far less evidence, our current president accuses Assad of using chemical weapons against a fraction of the civilians provably murdered with poison gas by Saddam Hussein. So why did Obama angrily denounce the military operation that removed Hussein? Why did he call that a “war of choice”?

Obama says Assad – unlike that great statesman Saddam Hussein – has posed “a challenge to the world.” But the world disagrees. Even our usual ally, Britain, disagrees. So Obama demands the United States act alone to stop a dictator, who – compared to Saddam – is a piker.

At this point, Assad is at least 49,000 dead bodies short of the good cause the Iraq War was, even if chemical weapons had been the only reason to take out Saddam Hussein.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

——————————————————————————————————————————–

Say No On Syria – Dick Morris

Congress should reject President Obama’s appeal for authorization to attack Syria in retaliation for its alleged use of chemical weapons.

Just as state Sen. Barack Obama opposed the use of force resolution against Saddam Hussein in 2002, Congress should turn aside the president’s appeal to attack now that his particular “red line” has been crossed in Syria. If he was against drawing the line against Hussein, what is the need to draw the line with Bashar Assad?

In “The Great Deformation,” former Budget Director David Stockman writes eloquently about the costs of a “welfare” and a “warfare” state, noting that they both drain our national economy – the warfare state particularly. With our economy trembling on the brink of a major crash, in the opinion of many economists, this is no time for another expensive military operation.

Above all, it is wrong to commit our nation’s military to a confused and contradictory conflict. How can we fight when The Wall Street Journal attributes to a Pentagon official the fear that “the wrong groups in the opposition would be able to take advantage of [an American bombing campaign]?” He said that the administration did not want to topple Assad from power – just to punish him for using gas.

This kind of half-in, half-out mission is exactly the kind of intervention we must avoid. It creates its own momentum and leads to ever greater involvement, regardless of the initial intent.

Former Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) has said that we would become “al Qaeda’s airforce” should we attack Assad. The evidence is overwhelming that al Qaeda is the alternative to Assad in Syria. The illusion of a liberal, democratic alternative is as ephemeral in Syria as it has proven to be in Egypt. In bombing Assad, we would inevitably become involved on the wrong side of a civil war. Not that Assad is the right side; there is no right side, and we should stay out.

Why is the president asking for congressional approval of his intervention? Is it a sudden concern for the limitations of executive power? Or is it a desire to use the gas episode to get a Gulf of Tonkin-style open-ended OK for intervention in this civil war? Could it be related to his desire to appease the Saudi monarchy by backing the rebels that Riyadh desperately wants to win?

We must all step back, at this juncture, and question what five decades of war have accomplished. Vietnam was, unquestionably, a total waste of men, money and political credibility. We lost, and we would have accomplished nothing had we won. The fall of the Soviet Empire would not have been hastened one day by defeat or advanced one day by victory. The war between China and Vietnam within years of the end of U.S. involvement showed how flawed the domino theory really was.

The first Gulf War, obviously, achieved nothing. It left Hussein in power and we had to go in again. The second Gulf War is increasingly appearing to be destructive in its impact. We seem to have succeeded only in giving Iran a staunch ally in the Middle East. The recent killing of 52 Iranian dissidents in Camp Ashraf – the sanctuary we established for opponents of the Ayatollah – reportedly by Iraqi forces, shows how flawed our involvement was.

The Afghan War has degraded al Qaeda’s ability to fight, but the broader effort at nation-building has only really propped up a regime that non-governmental organization Transparency International rates as the second most corrupt on Earth.

Libya? The jury is still out, but the activity of al Qaeda there, as evidenced by the Benghazi raid, indicates it may have a similarly disappointing outcome.

It is plainly time to say no. It is time to heed the warning of President Eisenhower against limited wars, unbalanced budgets and the military industrial complex.

Syria is, indeed, the time to draw a red line. But the line should be against military adventures.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

——————————————————————————————————————————–

Why Many Republicans Won’t Support Obama On Syria Attack – Byron York

Early signs say it will be hard for President Obama to win congressional authorization for military action in Syria. That could change; lawmakers might re-write the president’s draft authorization into something they can live with, ultimately allowing Obama to go forward. But whatever happens, Republicans have a compelling case for rejecting the president’s request. Based on off-the-record conversations with some of them, this is it:

1) The chemical weapons evidence. The Obama administration appears to believe that conclusive proof that the Assad regime used chemical weapons against Syrian civilians creates an unassailable case for U.S. intervention. A few lawmakers will likely challenge whether the proof is really conclusive. But a far larger number will accept the evidence that Assad used chemical weapons – and still reject intervention.

Those lawmakers will argue that Obama did not intervene when Assad used conventional weapons to slaughter thousands of innocent people; the death toll in the two-and-and-half-year civil war is put at 100,000. What is different now? They will also point to the various atrocities and human rights violations around the world in which the United States has not intervened. American involvement, they will argue, should be contingent on a genuine U.S. national security interest, not the simple fact that an awful thing has been done.

2) The blank check problem. Lots of lawmakers, Republican and Democrat, believe Obama’s draft resolution gives the president too much power. The draft would grant Obama the authority to use armed force “as he determines to be necessary and appropriate” in connection with weapons of mass destruction in Syria, for the purpose of preventing the future use or spread of those weapons, or, more generally, protecting the U.S. and its allies.

For many lawmakers, that’s too broad a mandate. But a significant number of members might reject even a narrowed version of the resolution on the grounds that, once the use of force is authorized, Congress as a practical matter will have little control over how the president exercises it.

3) The nature of the Syrian opposition. Many Republicans will never be convinced the U.S. can come to the aid of good rebels in Syria without also helping bad rebels in Syria. It’s just too complicated, they believe, and there are simply too many bad guys. Why risk aiding al Qaeda or its affiliates? These Republicans remain unconvinced by arguments from fellow GOP lawmakers like John McCain, who point out that in the Libyan operation the U.S. essentially set up a safe area for good rebels in Benghazi. Given what happened later in that Libyan city, the skeptics will remain unconvinced.

4) The lack of confidence in Barack Obama. There’s no doubt the president has been extremely reluctant to take action in Syria. He also showed terrible judgment by painting himself into a corner with his 2012 “red line” comments on chemical weapons. For those reasons, and more, some Republicans will argue that they simply cannot entrust special warmaking powers to a president who they believe is not competent to use them.

5) The “first to die” dilemma. Some Republicans are so war-weary that they would be loathe to authorize any military action in the absence of an actual attack on the United States. When Sen. Rand Paul re-phrased John Kerry’s words from Vietnam – Kerry famously asked, “How do you ask a man to be the last to die for a mistake?” which Paul changed to “How do you ask a man to be the first to die for a mistake?” – the senator from Kentucky was signaling that there is virtually no way lawmakers like him will ever support a Syrian initiative.

How many Republicans hold some or all of these beliefs? Quite a few. Perhaps in anticipation of a close vote, a new argument is circulating among pro-interventionists which says that protecting the prerogatives of future presidents is so important that Republicans should support Obama’s Syrian action even if there is no good case for doing so.

Rejecting Obama could permanently weaken the presidency, argues political scientist James Ceaser in an article cited by influential conservative commentator William Kristol. Therefore, Republicans should vote to authorize force “even if they think that the president’s policy will prove ineffective, do no good, waste money, or entail unforeseen risks…even if they think he has gotten the nation into this situation by blunders, fecklessness, arrogance, or naiveté; and…even if, and especially, if they have no confidence in his judgment.”

That will be a very hard sell for Republicans. In the end, many will carefully consider all the evidence and then vote their instincts. And that will mean a vote against Barack Obama.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

——————————————————————————————————————————–

Unless He’s Serious, Vote No – Charles Krauthammer

Sen. Bob Corker: “What is it you’re seeking?”

Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: “I can’t answer that, what we’re seeking.”

- Senate hearing on the use of force in Syria, Sept. 3

We have a problem. The president proposes attacking Syria, and his top military officer cannot tell you the objective. Does the commander in chief know his own objective? Why, yes. “A shot across the bow,” explained Barack Obama.

Now, a shot across the bow is a warning. Its purpose is to say: Cease and desist, or the next shot will sink you. But Obama has already told the world – and Bashar al-Assad in particular – that there will be no next shot. He has insisted time and again that the operation will be finite and highly limited. Take the shot, kill some fish, go home.

What then is the purpose? Dempsey hasn’t a clue, but Secretary of State John Kerry says it will uphold and proclaim a norm and thus deter future use of chemical weapons. With a few Tomahawk missiles? Hitting sites that, thanks to the administration having leaked the target list, have already been scrubbed of important military assets?

This is risible. If anything, a pinprick from which Assad emerges unscathed would simply enhance his stature and vindicate his conduct.

Deterrence depends entirely on perception, and the perception in the Middle East is universal: Obama wants no part of Syria.

Assad has to go, says Obama, and then lifts not a finger for two years. Obama lays down a “red line,” and then ignores it. Shamed finally by a massive poison gas attack, he sends Kerry to make an impassioned case for righteous and urgent retaliation – and the very next day, Obama undermines everything by declaring an indefinite timeout to seek congressional approval.

This stunning zigzag, following months of hesitation, ambivalence, contradiction and studied delay, left our regional allies shocked and our enemies gleeful. I had strongly advocated going to Congress. But it was inconceivable that, instead of recalling Congress to emergency session, Obama would simply place everything in suspension while Congress finished its Labor Day barbecues and he flew off to Stockholm and St. Petersburg. So much for the fierce urgency of enforcing an international taboo and speaking for the dead children of Damascus.

Here’s how deterrence works in the Middle East. Syria, long committed to the destruction of Israel, has not engaged Israel militarily in 30 years. Why? Because it recognizes Israel as a serious adversary with serious policies.

This year alone, Israel has four times conducted airstrikes in Syria. No Syrian response. How did Israel get away with it? Israel had announced that it would not tolerate Assad acquiring or transferring to Hezbollah advanced weaponry. No grandiloquent speeches by the Israeli foreign minister. No leaked target lists. Indeed, the Israelis didn’t acknowledge the strikes even after they had carried them out. Unlike the American president, they have no interest in basking in perceived toughness. They care only about effect. They care about just one audience – the party to be deterred, namely Assad and his allies.

Assad knows who did it. He didn’t have to see the Israeli prime minister preening about it on world television.

And yet here is Obama, having yet done nothing but hesitate, threaten, retract and wander about the stage, claiming Wednesday in Sweden to be the conscience of the world, upholding not his own red line but the world’s. And, incidentally, Congress’s – a transparent attempt at offloading responsibility.

What should Congress do?

To his dovish base, Obama insists on how limited and militarily marginal the strike will be. To undecided hawks such as Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham, who are prepared to support a policy that would really alter the course of the civil war, he vaguely promises the opposite – to degrade Assad’s military while upgrading that of the resistance.

Problem is, Obama promised U.S. weaponry three months ago and not a rifle has arrived. This time around, what seems in the making is a mere pinprick, designed to be, one U.S. official told the Los Angeles Times, “just muscular enough not to get mocked.”

That’s why Dempsey is so glum. That’s why U.S. allies are so stunned. There’s no strategy, no purpose here other than helping Obama escape self-inflicted humiliation.

This is deeply unserious. Unless Obama can show the country that his don’t-mock-me airstrike is, in fact, part of a serious strategic plan, Congress should vote no.

John McCain changed the administration’s authorization resolution to include, mirabile dictu, a U.S. strategy in Syria: to alter the military equation (against Assad). Unfortunately, Obama is not known for being bound by what Congress passes (see, for example: health care, employer mandate).

When Obama tells the nation what he told McCain and Lindsey Graham in private – that he plans to degrade Assad’s forces, upgrade the resistance and alter the balance of forces – Congress might well consider authorizing the use of force. But until then, it’s no.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

——————————————————————————————————————————–

An Accidental War – Mark Steyn

I see the Obama “reset” is going so swimmingly that the president is now threatening to go to war against a dictator who gassed his own people. Don’t worry, this isn’t anything like the dictator who gassed his own people that the discredited warmonger Bush spent 2002 and early 2003 staggering ever more punchily around the country inveighing against. The 2003 dictator who gassed his own people was the leader of the Baath Party of Iraq. The 2013 dictator who gassed his own people is the leader of the Baath Party of Syria. Whole other ball of wax. The administration’s ingenious plan is to lose this war in far less time than we usually take. In the unimprovable formulation of an unnamed official speaking to the Los Angeles Times, the White House is carefully calibrating a military action “just muscular enough not to get mocked.”

That would make a great caption for a Vanity Fair photo shoot of Obama gamboling in the surf at Martha’s Vineyard, but as a military strategy it’s not exactly Alexander the Great or the Duke of Wellington. And it’s trickier than it sounds: I’m sure Miley’s choreographer assured her she was “just muscular enough not to get mocked,” and one wouldn’t want to see the United States reduced to twerking arrhythmically to no avail in front of an unimpressed Bashar Assad’s Robin Thicke. Okay, okay, that metaphor’s as thinly stretched as Miley’s talent, so what does unmockable musculature boil down to? From the New York Times: “A wide range of officials characterize the action under consideration as ‘limited,’ perhaps lasting no more than a day or two.”

Yeah, I know, that’s what Edward III said about the Hundred Years’ War. But Obama seems to mean it:

An American official said that the initial target lists included fewer than 50 sites, including air bases where Syria’s Russian-made attack helicopters are. The list includes command and control centers as well as a variety of conventional military targets. Perhaps two to three missiles would be aimed at each site.

Got that? So, if you’re a Syrian air-base commander, you might want to think about moving those Russian helicopters, or at least yourself – perhaps to that black-eyed cutie’s apartment, above the restaurant where the kibbeh with the pomegranate sauce is to die for, just for the night, until the Great Satan has twerked his ordnance at you twice or thrice and gone away to threaten the Yemenis or Somalis or whoever’s next.

In the world’s most legalistic culture, it was perhaps inevitable that battle plans would eventually be treated under courtroom discovery rules and have to be disclosed to the other side in your pre-war statement. But in this case it doesn’t seem to be impressing anyone. Like his patrons in Tehran and Moscow, Assad’s reaction to American threats is to double up with laughter and say, “Bring it, twerkypants.” Headline from Friday’s Guardian in London: “Syria: ‘Napalm’ Bomb Dropped on School Playground, BBC Claims” – which, if true, suggests that even a blood-soaked mass murderer is not without a sense of humor. Napalm, eh? There’s a word I haven’t heard since, oh, 40 years ago or thereabouts, somewhere in the general vicinity of southeast Asia.

The BBC footage is grisly; the British media have been far more invested in the Syrian civil war than their U.S. colleagues. But what’s the net effect of all the harrowing human-interest stories? This week, David Cameron recalled Parliament from its summer recess to permit the people’s representatives to express their support for the impending attack. Instead, for the first time since the British defeat at Yorktown in 1782, the House of Commons voted to deny Her Majesty’s Government the use of force. Under the Obama “reset,” even the Coalition of the Willing is unwilling. “It’s clear to me that the British Parliament and the British people do not wish to see military action,” said the prime minister. So the Brits are out, and, if he goes at all, Obama will be waging war without even Austin Powers’s Union Jack fig leaf.

“This House will not fight for king and country”? Not exactly. What the British people are sick of, quite reasonably enough, is ineffectual warmongering, whether in the cause of Blairite liberal interventionism or of Bush’s big-power assertiveness. The problem with the American way of war is that, technologically, it can’t lose, but, in every other sense, it can’t win. No one in his right mind wants to get into a tank battle or a naval bombardment with the guys responsible for over 40 percent of the planet’s military expenditures. Which is why these days there aren’t a lot of tank battles. The consummate interventionist Robert Kagan wrote in his recent book that the American military “remains unmatched.” It’s unmatched in the sense that the only guy in town with a tennis racket isn’t going to be playing a lot of tennis matches. But the object of war, in Liddell Hart’s famous distillation, is not to destroy the enemy’s tanks (or Russian helicopters) but his will. And on that front America loses, always. The “unmatched” superpower cannot impose its will on Kabul kleptocrats, Pashtun goatherds, Egyptian generals, or Benghazi militia. There is no reason to believe Syria would be an exception to this rule. America’s inability to win ought to be a burning national question, but it’s not even being asked.

Let us stipulate that many of those war-weary masses are ignorant and myopic. But at a certain level they grasp something that their leaders don’t: For a quarter-century, from Kuwait to Kosovo to Kandahar, the civilized world has gone to war only in order to save or liberate Muslims. The Pentagon is little more than central dispatch for the U.S. military’s Muslim Fast Squad. And what do we have to show for it? Liberating Syria isn’t like liberating the Netherlands: In the Middle East, the enemy of our enemy is also our enemy. Yes, those BBC images of schoolchildren with burning flesh are heart-rending. So we’ll get rid of Assad and install the local branch of al-Qaeda or the Muslim Brotherhood or whatever plucky neophyte democrat makes it to the presidential palace first – and then, instead of napalmed schoolyards, there will be, as in Egypt, burning Christian churches and women raped for going uncovered.

So what do we want in Syria? Obama can’t say, other than for him to look muscular without being mocked, like a camp bodybuilder admiring himself in the gym mirror.

Oh, well. If the British won’t be along for the ride, the French are apparently still in. What was the old gag from a decade ago during those interminable U.N. resolutions with Chirac saying “Non!” every time? Ah, yes: “Going to war without the French is like going hunting without an accordion.” Oddly enough, the worst setback for the Islamic imperialists in recent years has been President Hollande’s intervention in Mali, where, unlike the money-no-object Pentagon, the French troops had such undernourished supply lines that they had to hitch a ride to the war on C-17 transports from the Royal Air Force and Royal Canadian Air Force. And yet they won – insofar as anyone ever really wins on that benighted sod.

Meanwhile, the hyperpower is going to war because Obama wandered off prompter and accidentally made a threat. So he has to make good on it, or America will lose its credibility. But he only wants to make good on it in a perfunctory and ineffectual way. So America will lose its credibility anyway.

Maybe it’s time to learn the accordion…

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

——————————————————————————————————————————–

5 Reasons Not To Bomb Syria – John Hawkins

Barack Obama knows that America’s military is a big stick, but unfortunately Roosevelt’s advice about speaking softly doesn’t seem to have stuck. Because Barack Obama recklessly shot off his mouth about a “red line” in Syria, he’s demanding that our nation insert itself into a civil war between terrorist groups, both of which have chemical weapons, to protect his ego. Happily, the American people recognize what a foolish move this would be. A Reuters/Ipsos poll shows that only 9% of Americans currently support bombing Syria. This is why Barack Obama has punted his Syrian War to Congress. He’s hoping that it’ll be foolish enough to vote in favor of war to give him the political cover he needs to bomb. Not only should Congress vote against the war in Syria, if Obama bombs that country anyway, Congress should immediately cut off funds for the war and move to impeach him. Why?

1) We don’t have a son-of-a-b*tch in Syria. During the Cold War, America used to semi-regularly ally itself with some rather unsavory leaders and groups. The oft repeated rationale for supporting a dictator in those days was, “He may be a son-of-a-b*tch, but he’s our son-of-a-bitch.” In other words, both sides are bad guys, but this bad guy would work with us instead of the Soviets. In this case, we don’t have a dog in the fight. It’s a civil war between two groups that both despise us and will continue to hate us. Why risk American blood and treasure for people who will hate our guts no matter what we do?

2) Why act as Al-Qaeda’s Air Force? Barack Obama is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but even he should know that Al-Qaeda attacked America on 9/11. Well now, Bin Laden’s boys are teamed up with the rebels that are fighting Bashar al-Assad. We just spent a decade killing as many members of Al-Qaeda as humanly possible in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan; so how much sense does it make for Barack Obama to help Al-Qaeda take over Syria by bombing Bashar al-Assad? Bashar al-Assad may be our enemy, but we should be thrilled he’s killing Al-Qaeda and getting more of his terrorist pals in Hezbollah offed in the process.

3) What makes anyone think Obama can pull this off with no repercussions? What is there in Barack Obama’s tenure in the White House that makes anyone think he’s likely to handle this well? The fact that he didn’t kill a drone program George W. Bush set up? Because he was too distracted playing cards with Reggie Love to screw up killing Osama Bin Laden? Bush essentially won Iraq and Obama screwed up pulling out of that country and has put a hard-earned victory at risk. He’s also on track to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in Afghanistan. His incompetence got Americans killed in Benghazi, Libya. In Egypt, Obama helped get rid of a relatively friendly dictator in favor of anti-American, pro-terrorist theocrats who lasted just over a year before they were thrown out of power by an Egyptian public that seems to hate Obama almost as much as the Muslim Brotherhood. Yet, we now think Obama is going to insert himself into a terrorist-heavy civil war in the Middle East without creating as many problems as he solves? That’s like emptying a box of live spiders in a teenage girl’s slumber party and not expecting any screaming.

4) It invites retaliation from Iran and Hezbollah. Many conservatives believe that if we have a choice between bombing Iran or letting it acquire nuclear weapons, we’d be better off to bomb Iran. However, that is supposed to be a last resort after every other measure has failed. Given that Iran and Hezbollah are actively supporting Bashar al-Assad, bombing him means actively opposing both of them in a war. Could they retaliate against us with terrorist attacks? That’s certainly possible. Will they go after Israel to get at us? That’s highly likely. Will Israel respond to those attacks? Yes, Israel will. Could this set off a larger regional war? Again, that’s certainly possible. While Iran and Hezbollah have much more to fear from us than we do from them, you don’t walk up and kick a bee hive just because President Prissy Pants has worked himself into a huff.

5) It’s not in our national interest to bomb Syria. Costly though it may have been, it was in our national interest to overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan over 9/11 and to target an aggressive enemy of America like Saddam Hussein in Iraq. That being said, had we known in advance how long our troops would be stuck in Iraq, it’s highly doubtful that we would have ever invaded. On the other hand, what’s the rationale for bombing the side that’s fighting Al-Qaeda in Syria? Both sides hate America. Both sides cooperate with terrorists. If anything, since Al-Qaeda is determined to kill Americans and Assad is not, the current dictator in charge is probably the lesser of two evils. Moreover, encouraging other nations to join us in imposing harsh sanctions on Syria would be just as effective as bombing when it comes to discouraging the use of WMDs without being as provocative. So, what argument is left? Are we supposed to bomb Syria to avoid looking “weak?” Well, if people have that impression, they can ask Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, and Anwar al-Awlaki what they think about that if they’re willing to search through the bowels of hell long enough to find them.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

15 Moronic Things Liberals Call Racism Since Obama Was Elected (John Hawkins)

15 Moronic Things Liberals Call Racism Since Obama Was Elected – John Hawkins

Bizarrely, racism in America is no longer mainly about race. Sure, race is involved in a peripheral manner, but racism has mainly become an excuse, a dodge, a way to escape responsibility.

.
……….

When a black liberal is criticized, he cries racism. When liberalism fails, liberals cry racism. When the Democrat Party gets in trouble, liberals cry racism. It has become the ever present background noise of politics, like birds chirping in the forest.

Racism does still exist and always will, but once the Democrat Party joined the GOP in being opposed to racist policies, appealing to racism became a dead dog political loser in this country. The very fact that we’ve become so hypersensitive about it as a country is evidence of how far it has been pushed to the fringes.

Keep in mind that we live in a nation with a black President and a black Attorney General. Furthermore, the government is legally allowed to discriminate against white Americans based on the color of their skin and it happily does so; yet you can’t go a day in this country without hearing liberals howling about what a racist country they live in. It has almost become a circular, faith-based argument. America is racist because so many liberals say it’s racist because they’ve heard other liberals say the country is racist.

Well, if our country is so racist, why is it that the Left has to reach so far to find examples of racism? People didn’t have to do any reaching to find examples of racism in the fifties and sixties, did they? So, if racism is such an all powerful force in America today, how is it that liberals have gotten so desperate to see race in every issue that they’ve had to latch on to pitiful issues like these to support their claims?

1) Criticizing the IRS: “Republicans are using [the IRS scandal] as their latest weapon in the war against the black man. ‘IRS’ is the new ‘Nigger.'” – Martin Bashir

2) Having a Republican National Convention during a hurricane: “They are happy to have a party with black people drowning.” – Yahoo News Washington bureau chief David Chalian on the Republican National Convention, which was going on at the same time as Hurricane Isaac.

3) Wanting to own a gun to prevent break-ins: “I am loathe to bring up what is in our head because we don’t like to talk about it so much. But on this particular day, on Martin Luther King Day, I think this needs to be said. That imaginary person that’s going to break into your home and kill you, who does that person look like? You know, it’s not freckle-faced Jimmy down the street, is it really? I mean, that’s not what really, that’s not what really people, we never really want to talk about the racial or the class part of this, in terms of how it’s the poor or it’s people of color that we imagine that we’re afraid of. Why are we afraid? What is that, and it’s been a fear that has existed for a very, very long time.” – Michael Moore

4) Mentioning the “Constitution” or “respect for the Founding Fathers:” “The language of GOP racial politics is heavy on euphemisms that allow the speaker to deny any responsibility for the racial content of his message,” Williams wrote. “References to a lack of respect for the ‘Founding Fathers’ and the ‘Constitution’ also make certain ears perk up by demonizing anyone supposedly threatening core ‘old-fashioned American values.’” – Juan Williams

5) Calling Obama “angry:” “That really bothered me. You notice (Romney) said anger twice. He’s really trying to use racial coding and access some really deep stereotypes about the angry black man. This is part of the playbook against Obama, the ‘otherization,’ he’s not like us. I know it’s a heavy thing, I don’t say it lightly, but this is ‘niggerization.’” – Touré

6) Saying that Barack Obama lies: “Surrounded by middle-aged white guys – a sepia snapshot of the days when such pols ran Washington like their own men’s club – Joe Wilson yelled “You lie!” at a president who didn’t. But, fair or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!” – Maureen Dowd

7) Noting that Obama is privileged: “Spotlighting his elite education is tantamount to racial bigotry because it insinuates that ‘he took the place of someone else through affirmative action, that someone else being someone white.'” – Jonathan Capehart

8) Saying that unions boss Obama around: “The Republican Party is saying that the President of the United States has bosses, that the union bosses this President around, the unions boss him around. Does that sound to you like they are trying to consciously or subconsciously deliver the racist message that, of course, of course a black man can’t be the real boss?” – Lawrence O’Donnell

9) Supporting voter ID: “If you go back to the year 2000, when we had an obvious disaster and – and saw that our voting process needed refinement, and we did that in the America Votes Act and made sure that we could iron out those kinks, now you have the Republicans, who want to literally drag us all the way back to Jim Crow laws and literally – and very transparently – block access to the polls to voters who are more likely to vote Democratic candidates than Republican candidates. And it’s nothing short of that blatant.” – Debbie Wasserman Schultz

10) Saying “I want my country back:” “Do you remember tea baggers? It was just so much easier when we could just call them racists. I just don’t know why we can’t call them racists, or functionally retarded adults. The functionally retarded adults, the racists – with their cries of, ‘I want my country back. You know what they’re really saying is, ‘I want my white guy back.’ They apparently had no problem at all for the last eight years of habeas corpus being suspended, the Constitution being [expletive] on, illegal surveillance, lied to on a war or two, two stolen elections – yes, the John Kerry one was stolen too. That’s not tin-foil hat time. ” – Janeane Garofalo

11) Being fans of Herman Cain: “One of the things about Herman Cain is, I think that he makes that white Republican base of the party feel okay, feel like they are not racist because they can like this guy. I think he(he’s) giving that base a free pass. And I think they like him because they think he’s a black man who knows his place. I know that’s harsh, but that’s how it sure seems to me.” – Karen Finney

12) Fighting for the 2nd Amendment: “I believe the NRA is the new KKK. And that the arming of so many black youths, uh, and loading up our community with drugs, and then just having an open shooting gallery, is the work of people who obviously don’t have our best interests [at heart].” – Jason Whitlock

13) Republicans trying to keep Obama from being reelected: “Look at, look, the Tea Partiers, who are controlling the Republican Party… Their stated policy, publicly stated, is to do whatever it takes to see to it that Obama only serves one term. What’s, what does that, what underlines that? ‘Screw the country. We’re going to (do) whatever we (can) do to get this black man, we can, we’re going to do whatever we can to get this black man outta here.’… It is a racist thing.” – Morgan Freeman

14) Disliking the fact that Obama is President: “They can’t stand the idea that he’s president, and a piece of it is racism. Not that somebody in one racial group doesn’t like somebody in another racial group, so what? It’s the sense that the white race must rule, that’s what racism is, and they can’t stand the idea that a man who’s not white is president. That is real, that sense of racial superiority and rule is in the hearts of some people in this country.” – Chris Matthews

15) Disliking Barack Obama: “I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he’s African-American.” – Jimmy Carter

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Your Daley Gator Saturday Op-Ed Roundup Featuring John Hawkins, Mark Steyn, Stephen Hayes, Thomas Sowell, Michelle Malkin, Walter E. Williams And Jonah Goldberg

Everything You Need To Know About The Rubio/McCain Amnesty Catastrophe In 15 Quotes – John Hawkins

.

1) This is President Obama’s number one political agenda item because he knows we will never again have a Republican president, ever, if amnesty goes into effect. We will perpetually have a progressive, liberal president, probably a Democrat, and we will probably see the House of Representatives go into Democrat hands and the Senate will stay in Democrat hands. – Michele Bachmann

2) The bill is worse than universal healthcare. Listen to me, it is worse than universal healthcare, and in the coming days as we get closer, we will explain why it’s worse than universal healthcare. It is the death knell of the country, there is no recovery from this one. None. No recovery. – Glenn Beck

3) If Republicans are opposed to what mass immigration is doing to the country demographically, ethnically, socially and politically, there are, as Reagan used to say, “simple answers, just no easy answers.”

Those answers: No amnesty, secure the border, enforce laws against businesses that hire illegals, and impose a moratorium on new immigration so wages can rise and immigrants enter the middle class and start voting as did the children and grandchildren of the immigrants of 1890-1920 by 1972.

So what are the Republicans doing?

Going back on their word, dishonoring their platform, and enraging their loyal supporters, who gave Mitt 90 percent of his votes, to pander to a segment of the electorate that gave Mitt less than 5 percent of his total votes.

Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad. – Pat Buchanan

4) The nation’s plutocrats are lined up with the Democratic Party in a short-term bid to get themselves cheap labor (subsidized by the rest of us), which will give the Democratic Party a permanent majority. If Rubio’s amnesty goes through, the Republican Party is finished. It will be the “Nancy Pelosi Democratic Party” versus the “Chuck Schumer Republican Party.” – Ann Coulter

5) Instead of cracking down on the Administration’s abuse of power, S. 744 places unprecedented new restrictions on interior enforcement – making the current situation much worse and much more hazardous. It is as if S. 744 were explicitly written to handcuff law enforcement officials – binding their hands while giving virtually unchecked authority to executive branch officials to prevent future removals, including removals of criminal aliens. – ICE Council president Chris Crane

6) It doesn’t stop illegal immigration. If anything it makes the problem worse by not securing the border and by incentivizing future illegal immigration. – Ted Cruz

7) Creating more than 30 million new immigrants, including 11 million former illegals, and supplanting their numbers with another 20-odd million guest workers is from a sociological and demographic point of view quite radical: 30 million is roughly a tenth of the current population of the United States. How we handle immigration is of fundamental importance to questions ranging from national security to economic growth to the character of our nation itself. That we cannot get a couple of small-time performance benchmarks written into the bill suggests that this issue is not being treated with the intelligence and the prudence it deserves. – The Editors at National Review

8) This is the administration that has refused to enforce the law… they have created new law out of nothing. They’ve violated the law in a number of ways. And our guys are counting on the administration to all of a sudden actually keep their word on something like securing the border when they’ve never done it before and they believe it’s in their political interest to continue not to secure the border even if there’s a deal? I mean that’s crazy to think they’re going to start securing the border and until we secure the border everything else is completely meaningless. – Louie Gohmert

9) Should this be grounds to primary challenge every Republican who voted for this bill, and I mean every single one? I don’t care if they just got re-elected. Next time they’re up for re-election. Ann Coulter’s right. This is a single issue – this is a single-issue primary challenge. You know why? Because this is it. As Bill Kristol said on this show, as he said on this show, once you give this pathway to citizenship all these benefits, all this discretion to [Janet] Napolitano, it’s over. It’s too late to complain about it. It’s over. – Laura Ingraham

10) The federal judge in Crane v. Napolitano has ruled that the ICE agents are likely to prevail in their argument that the Obama administration is ordering them to violate federal law. Think about that: This administration is ordering career law enforcement personnel to break the law. Now, the administration is pushing for an amnesty bill that contains almost nothing to improve immigration enforcement. All that the American citizens will get in return for the amnesty is the promise from the Obama administration that they will try harder to enforce the law. The administration has already shattered that promise, doing exactly the opposite. This is a stark warning to Congress. I sincerely hope that they hear it. – Kris Kobach

11) Almost every requirement in this bill can be waived by Janet Napolitano: for instance, the time limits on when people can be legalized, the requirements on criminal activity or even the enforcement triggers. Those basically don’t mean anything if any of them is held up in court, still. …The litigation over the 1986 bill didn’t end until just a few years ago. The ACLU has been quite clear that it intends to sue to stop mandatory e-verify and probably sue to stop a bunch of other things. If, for instance, mandatory use of electronic verification is still in the courts 10 years after the bill passes, it’s entirely possible the Secretary of Homeland Security can just give everybody Green Cards on her own – and there are hundreds of other examples of that kind of discretion. It’s not too much of an exaggeration to say that this 1,000 page bill after all of the amendments could be boiled down to, “We trust you, Obama; just do the right thing.” – Mark Krikorian

12) The ‘Gang of Eight’ bill is not immigration reform. It is big government dysfunction. It is an immigration Obamacare. All advocates of true immigration reform – on the left and the right – should oppose it. – Mike Lee

13) Okay. So what does that mean, the republic is at stake? This is the ball game. I remember people saying that about Obamacare. Now they’re saying it about immigration reform. And they’re both right. In the case of immigration reform, it effectively wipes out the Republican Party. – Rush Limbaugh

14) Will they listen? Suicidal Republicans have supported illegal alien amnesties dating back to the Reagan era. They have paid a steep, lasting price. As bankrupt, multiculti-wracked California goes, so goes the nation. The progs’ plan has always been to exploit the massive population of illegal aliens to redraw the political map and secure a permanent ruling majority.

Now, in the wake of nonstop D.C. corruption eruptions, SchMcGRubio and Company want us to trust them with a thousand new pages of phony triggers, left-wing slush-fund spending and make-believe assimilation gestures. Trust them? Hell, no. There’s only one course for citizens who believe in upholding the Constitution and protecting the American dream: Stop them. – Michelle Malkin

15) On every major front, this legislation fails to deliver on its core promises. It delivers only for the special interest groups who helped write it. Should it pass, it would represent the ultimate triumph of the Washington elite over the everyday citizen to whom Congress properly owes its loyalty. – Jeff Sessions

.
——————————————————————————————————————————–
.

More opinion articles:

.
Big Politically Correct Brother – Mark Steyn

Excerpt – Every time I go on his show, my radio pal Hugh Hewitt asks me why congressional Republicans aren’t doing more to insist that the GOP suicide note known as “the immigration deal” include a requirement for a border fence. I don’t like to tell Hugh that, if they ever get around to building the fence, it won’t be to keep the foreigners out but to keep you guys in.

I jest, but only very slightly and only because the government doesn’t build much of anything these days – except for that vast complex five times the size of the Capitol the NSA is throwing up in Utah to house everybody’s data on everything everyone’s ever done with anyone ever.

Click HERE For Rest Of Article

.
——————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Our Disappearing President – Stephen Hayes

Excerpt – One might expect Keith Alexander to advocate on behalf of the two programs at the center of our national debate about terrorism and surveillance. He is, after all, the head of the National Security Agency, which runs them. “It’s dozens of terrorist events that these have helped prevent—both here and abroad-in disrupting or contributing to the disruption of terrorist attacks,” Alexander testified last week.

And it’s not entirely surprising that the four leading members of Congress on intelligence matters would argue on behalf of these programs, known as “215” and “702,” for the sections of the laws that authorize them.

Click HERE For Rest Of Article

.
——————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Who ‘Needs’ Immigrant Labor? – Thomas Sowell

Excerpt – One of the most common arguments for allowing more immigration is that there is a “need” for foreign workers to do “jobs that Americans won’t do,” especially in agriculture.

One of my most vivid memories of the late Armen Alchian, an internationally renowned economist at UCLA, involved a lunch at which one of the younger members of the economics department got up to go get some more coffee. Being a considerate sort, the young man asked, “Does anyone else need more coffee?”

“Need?” Alchian said loudly, in a cutting tone that clearly conveyed his dismay and disgust at hearing an economist using such a word.

Click HERE For Rest Of Article

.
——————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Barack Onama’s “Social Innovation” Slush Fund – Michelle Malkin

Excerpt – We all know now what the vengeful Obama IRS has been doing to conservative nonprofits the past four years: strangling them in the crib. But do you know how much pampering and largesse far-left welfare-state charities have received while limited-government groups suffered? You don’t know the half of it.

Before President Obama took office, I warned that Democrats planned to steer untold amounts of taxpayer dollars to his shady community-organizing pals. The Dems’ 2008 party platform proposed the creation of a “Social Investment Fund Network” to subsidize “social entrepreneurs and leading nonprofit organizations (that) are assisting schools, lifting families out of poverty, filling health care gaps and inspiring others to lead change in their own communities.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Article

.
——————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Unasked And Unanswered Questions – Walter E. Williams

Excerpt – Grutter v. Bollinger was the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld the University of Michigan Law School’s racial admissions policy. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, writing for the majority, said the U.S. Constitution “does not prohibit the Law School’s narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.” But what are the educational benefits of a diverse student body?

Intellectuals argue that diversity is necessary for academic excellence, but what’s the evidence? For example, Japan is a nation bereft of diversity in any activity. Close to 99 percent of its population is of one race. Whose students do you think have higher academic achievement – theirs or ours?

Click HERE For Rest Of Article

.
——————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Freedom: The Unfolding Revolution – Jonah Goldberg

Excerpt – “Why are there no libertarian countries?”

In a much-discussed essay for Salon, Michael Lind asks: “If libertarians are correct in claiming that they understand how best to organize a modern society, how is it that not a single country in the world in the early twenty-first century is organized along libertarian lines?”

Such is the philosophical poverty of liberalism today that this stands as a profound question.

Definitions vary, but broadly speaking, libertarianism is the idea that people should be as free as possible from state coercion so long as they don’t harm anyone.

Click HERE For Rest Of Article

.