Lefty Hatred Unleashed By San Bernardino Jihad (John Hayward)

Lefty Hatred Unleashed By San Bernardino Jihad – John Hayward


The Left has gone stark raving mad since the San Bernardino shootings.

If you were online, you could watch it happening in real-time, as the early confident predictions of white redneck Christian-fascist shooters – complete with wishcasting about the distance to the nearest Planned Parenthood clinic – gave way to the realization it was another jihad attack.

At that moment, political necessity, opportunism, and deep-rooted prejudice combined to send raging lightning storms of defective neurons hissing and crackling through every liberal’s mind. The actual killers blurred out of existence in the mind’s eye of the Left, until they saw only guns floating in midair, firing themselves at people who… well, let’s be blunt: liberals are working hard on some narratives about how the victims had it coming, and the jihadi couple were the real victims.

The most nauseating example of this vicious idiocy, the maraschino cherry atop a hot-fudge sundae of fear and loathing, comes from Linda Stasi at the New York Daily News. (Between this and their cover calling Wayne LaPierre of the NRA a terrorist, the NYDN should be formally registered as a “hate group.” Get cracking, Southern Poverty Law Center!) Marvel at the darkly comic irony of someone whose last name sounds like the East German secret police writing hateful drivel like this:

They were two hate-filled, bigoted municipal employees interacting in one department. Now 13 innocent people are dead in unspeakable carnage.

One man spent his free time writing frightening, NRA-loving, hate-filled screeds on Facebook about the other’s religion.

The other man quietly stewed and brewed his bigotry, collecting the kind of arsenal that the Facebook poster would have envied.

What they didn’t realize is that except for their different religions they were in many ways similar men who even had the same job.

One man, the Muslim, was a loser who had to travel all the way to Pakistan to get himself an email bride. (I refuse to add to their fame by using the killer and his murderous wife’s names.)

That wife radicalized him and fueled his hatred. The FBI is investigating her ties to Al Qaeda and ISIS. Go to the Middle East, meet your new wife, meet some terror leaders, begin your wedded bliss back in the USA.

The other man, the victim, Nicholas Thalasinos, was a radical Born Again Christian/Messianic Jew, who also connected with his future wife online and had traveled across the country to meet her.

The killer, however, became half of an Islamic Bonnie & Clyde, while the other died as the male equivalent of Pamela Geller.

Liberals told themselves Pam Geller had it coming, too. They pumped out halfwit “think pieces” about how the murder of someone who alienated an officially-designated Oppressed Victim Group like Muslims would be, perhaps, a bit unfortunate, but also understandable.

It was a major bit of signaling in the Left’s tactical alliance with radical Islam, a way of letting them know American liberals were fully on board with their quest to restrict the free-speech rights of U.S. citizens. A transaction was offered: we’ll give Islamists pride of place in our new speech-control regime, in exchange for political support. It’s the deal of the century for us, because we’re giving up nothing of value. We weren’t interested in drawing cartoons of Mohammed or insulting Islam anyway.

Even Secretary of State John Kerry, fumbling in his slow-witted way for a politically-correct means of denouncing the Paris terror attacks, settled on the bizarre claim that the previous Parisian bloodbath at the offices of Charlie Hebdo magazine were sort of… understandable. A grievance he could wrap his head around had been violently expressed – a grievance the Obama Administration is interested in negotiating with radical Islam. He even used the word “legitimacy,” until he realized what he was saying, perhaps noticing the horrified expressions spreading across his audience at the U.S. embassy in Paris.

There’s more than just the usual left-wing racial pander politics at work here. (No, Islam is not a “race,” but liberals most assuredly think of it as one – they even say it out loud occasionally, when they’re really worked up.) There’s also the necessity of distracting American voters from the catastrophic failure of the Obama Administration, and the dangerous delusions of the Democrat Party. Entire governments have come tumbling down over bungles less deadly and obvious than San Bernardino.

Mrs. Jihad waltzed right through Obama’s vaunted “screening” process, the one he says American voters are bigots and fools to express reservations about, when it comes to flooding the United States with Syrian refugees. Mr. Jihad somehow eluded the all-seeing eye of our trillion-dollar Surveillance State, even though he was chatting with terrorists online and checking out ISIS propaganda. The killers swore fealty to the Islamic State at literally the same moment Obama was offering confident assurances ISIS could never pull off a Paris-style terror attack in the United States. Confronted with these failures, the Democrat Party – to a man and woman – has absolutely no idea what to do, other than smear law-abiding Americans who had nothing whatsoever to do with the crime.

And that’s where the raw, slavering hatred comes in. It’s palpable right now. The Left hates decent Americans so very, very much. They hate your religion, your independence, your stubborn refusal to submit. They hate your prosperity, your resourcefulness, and your refusal to believe their fairy tales about an Almighty State that can take care of everyone’s needs in a fair and just manner. They hate that you keep noticing their failures. They hate that you won’t let them import a more pliable electorate from other countries without putting up a fight. They’re furious that you won’t accept their sacred religious belief that everything is your fault, and you deserve generations of punishment for the sins of your fathers.

The very first reaction of liberals – the knee-jerk response of lefties with keyboards and Internet connections – was to attack Christians for daring to offer “thoughts and prayers” for the victims of the shooting. They did so with a speed and volume that strongly suggests coordinated effort.

These same liberals rushed to hold every pro-lifer, and indeed every Christian and Republican, in America responsible for the crazed actions of Robert Dear in Colorado. They were still pounding out op-eds along those lines when police scanners in California lit up with the name “Farook,” and it suddenly became necessary to spin on a dime and insist the ideology, religion, and political objectives of murderers are entirely irrelevant.

The New York Times headlined its profile of the Colorado lunatic, “For Robert Dear, Religion and Rage Before Planned Parenthood Attack.” Think they’ll be using a headline like that for the San Bernardino couple? “For Farook and Malik, Religion and Rage Before Christmas-Party Attack.” Of course not, because the Left has issued a fatwa that religion has nothing whatsoever to do with Islamist terrorism.

The Left is most focused and direct in their hatred of your guns, my fellow Americans, because they are a symbolic representation of everything else that is wrong with you. The Second Amendment (and, increasingly, the First) are viewed by liberals as archaic, irrational barriers against their power. They are united in their contempt for the idea that Government, the divine incarnation of Law and the General Will, could be restrained by laws. How can the makers of law be subject to it? Why, the very idea is perverse! When smart people with big hearts see the urgent need to Do the Right Thing and enact Common-Sense Laws, they should face no centuries-old speed bumps, or listen to modern-day libertarians whining about “due process.”

That’s how you get to the New York Times running an editorial that due process and the Second Amendment should simply be ignored at this moment of crisis. That’s how you get the emerging liberal dogma that Congress can be ignored, after refusing to give a far-Left President what he wants after repeated demands. The Constitution is anathema to the Left’s preferred system of government-by-crisis, in which they get to define the crises, and the “solution” always involves compromising the liberty of law-abiding citizens.

Guns are also an unacceptable totem of skepticism for the sacred State. Gun owners are frank about their desire to protect themselves, and their families, in the absence of police, who are rarely able to arrive at a crime scene in time to save every victim, despite their most sincere efforts. This is absolutely unacceptable to the Left, which views dead law-abiding citizens as acceptable collateral damage – indeed, they’re practically human sacrifices to the god of the State. (Elite liberals hold this belief, in part, because they’re convinced they personally will not be sacrificed, especially when they have armed personal guards.)

At this point, it should be clear that nothing terrifies Democrats more than the possibility that the next terror attack will be thwarted by an armed citizen. That would be absolute narrative apocalypse for them. They’ve put a lot of effort into cooking up phony statistics and writing tortured reports to “prove” that guns in the hands of lawful citizens are a net minus to public safety. If the next Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik take two in the chest from some NRA member with a concealed-carry permit… why, it would ruin hundreds of carefully-prepared Democrat gun control speeches!

If something like that happens, the Good Guy With a Gun had better be prepared for the mother of all online vettings – a hundred times more energetic than anything Democrats would demand for a presidential candidate from their own Party – and God help the hero if he ever said anything derogatory about Islam in public or online.

There’s an old joke about a drunk who insists on searching for his lost car keys beneath a streetlamp, even though he knows he didn’t drop them there, because the light is better. That’s how the Left predictably reacts at a moment like this: they make a feral lunge for the nearest group of law-abiding American citizens with politics they dislike. Power is most easily deployed against the law-abiding; statist threats work best against people with something to lose. Hate screeds are most easily written against people who have been culturally gagged from responding. Team Obama is worse than useless against terrorists, but they excel at threatening Americans who dare to use their Constitutional rights in disapproved ways.

Fighting Islamist terrorism is hard, as years of Obama’s failure can attest. Beating up good Christians and the NRA is easy, fun, and profitable. When a pair of well-prepared Islamist terrorists launches a planned attack on a Christmas party with pipe bombs and guns, the problems to be attacked are obviously the Christmas party and guns. That other stuff is too difficult to discuss, and it’s too obviously a result of Big Government failure.

The most incompetent President in American history, the man whose multi-trillion-dollar government can’t launch a website, demands absolute faith and the scourging of unbelievers. His demands grow more strident as they become more absurd. Innocent American citizens will be sacrificed to his true religion, the religion of the State – unless he and his Party are confronted and decisively defeated.



Obama’s ‘Cash For Clunkers’ Unleashed ‘Environmental Nightmare’

Obama’s ‘Cash For Clunkers’ Unleashed ‘Environmental Nightmare’ – Big Government

In a classic tale illustrating the “law of unintended consequences,” a new report concludes that President Barack Obama’s $3 billion “Cash for Clunkers” taxpayer-funded boondoggle artificially drove car prices up, not down, and unleashed an “environmental nightmare” through shredding, not recycling, many of the 690,000 cars people traded in for an up to $4,500 car credit.

In 2009, Mr. Obama proudly declared that his Cash for Clunkers program, officially known as the Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS), was a stunning success. “There were skeptics who weren’t sure that this ‘Cash for Clunkers’ program would work,” said Mr. Obama. “But I’m happy to report that it has succeeded well beyond our expectations and all expectations, and we’re already seeing a dramatic increase in showroom traffic at local car dealers… So I’m very pleased with the progress that’s been made in the House today on the “Cash for Clunkers” program.”

But as Yahoo News notes, the program’s decision to shred, not recycle, many of the trade-in vehicles unleashed an “environmental nightmare”:

Shredding vehicles results in its own environmental nightmare. For each ton of metal produced by a shredding facility, roughly 500 pounds of “shredding residue” is also produced, which includes polyurethane foams, metal oxides, glass and dirt. All totaled, about 4.5 million tons of that residue is already produced on average every year. Where does it go? Right into a landfill.

E Magazine states recycling just the plastic and metal alone from the CARS scraps would have saved 24 million barrels of oil. While some of the “Clunkers” were truly old, many of the almost 700,000 cars were still in perfectly good condition. In fact, many that qualified for the program were relatively “young,” with fuel efficiencies that rivaled newer cars.

A study conducted by Resources for the Future further underscored the program’s failure economically and environmentally:

Approximately 45 percent of the spending went to consumers who would have purchased a new vehicle anyway. Our results suggest no gain in sales beyond 2009 and hence no meaningful stimulus to the economy. In addition, the program will reduce CO2 emissions by only 9 to 28.4 million tons, implying a cost per ton ranging from $91 to $288 even after accounting for reduced criteria pollutants.

And E – The Environmental Magazine says the Department of Transportation’s declaration that Cash for Clunkers was a success is simply a case of smoke and mirrors:

The Department of Transportation reported that Cash for Clunkers was an environmental success… In general, drivers traded in inefficient SUVs and trucks for more efficient passenger cars. However, it’s quite easy to negate this small difference in gas mileage purely by the fact that people will be more likely to drive a vehicle that takes less money to fill up with gas. It’s an efficiency paradox: as we get more efficient at using energy, the overall cost of energy goes down, but we respond by using more of it. Auto emissions of carbon dioxide are directly proportional to gasoline consumed. With only 690,000 fuel-efficient vehicles purchased and over 250 million cars registered in the U.S., that is a negligible difference in overall greenhouse gas emissions.

As the Washington Post even conceded, Mr. Obama’s Cash for Clunkers scheme was an economic and environmental failure: “So were the naysayers right?” asked the Post. “It seems so.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story