It's Sunday in America

"I feel confident that I could persuade a millionaire on a Friday to subsidize a revolution for Saturday out of which he would make a huge profit on Sunday even though he was certain to be executed [by the revolution he financed] on Monday."

          Saul Alinsky

Here's the good news as we pass the baton from 2014 to 2015:  The stock market is at record highs.  GDP finally grew at a healthy rate of five percent in the third quarter of 2014.  Cheap labor is flooding across our borders.  Oil is historically cheap.  Unemployment has reached normal levels.  Quantitative Easing has eased (but has not been reversed).  The US dollar is on a tear.  Tax revenues are at all-time highs. Interest rates remain at all-time lows.  Corporate profits are at record highs.  Banks are flush with cash and profits.  High-end real estate is fetching record prices.  In short: good times for Alinsky's "millionaires".  

If there's one thing Barack Obama has proven in his time on the national stage it's that, more than anything else, he is a committed disciple of Saul Alinsky's.  It is precisely this steadfast adherence to Alinsky tactics which explains Barack Obama's ability to both implement his agenda and confound his detractors at every turn.   No quote of Alinsky's explains as much as the one above when it comes to where we are today.

Why did the private insurance industry support Obamacare,  even though Obama and the Democrats had publicly proclaimed that their ultimate goal was a "single-payer" system, which would eventually eliminate the private insurance industry altogether?  Why does the Republican establishment support Obama's executive amnesty, even though the majority flooding our borders will absolutely vote Democrat amounting to the demographic end of the Republican party?  Why won't Republicans defund Obamacare even though they know there are better free-market based solutions for the health of all Americans, and that big government entitlements like Obamacare will always inure to the benefit of Democrats?  Why do big corporations and big banks give far more money to Democrats and Obama despite their support for radical violent movements like Occupy Wall Street that seek their demise?  Why does Hollywood, which relies on the first amendment,  almost unanimously support Barack Obama with its vast wealth and personal attention when he actually jailed the maker of a YouTube video he didn't agree with, and effectively denounced the first amendment in a speech at the UN?        

One need look no further than the above Alinsky quote.  Indeed, it is Sunday in America.

Happy New Year!  

[Video] NoMoreClintons.org

The Palin Tax Cut

In 2008 Sarah Palin made waves during a debate with Joe Biden by prominently repeating the Republican  chant, "Drill, baby, drill!".  Biden was mocking the idea that increased oil supply could lower prices and make us more energy independent.  In doing so he misquoted the slogan saying, "drill, drill, drill".  Palin corrected him, "The chant is ""drill, baby, drill", and that's what we hear all across this country..." Her supporters loved the comeback.

Fast forward after six years of "drill, baby, drill" and we are now under $60 a barrel, are enjoying virtual energy independence, and taxpayers are enjoying the equivalent of a $60 billion tax cut.  None of this is thanks to the federal government.  All the new supply is coming from private land where it is being extracted under state laws that allow advanced techniques like horizontal drilling, hydraulic fracturing, and steam injection.

Sarah Palin may not have won the election, but she was right about the economics of oil, and she should be credited for shepherding this massive tax cut.

          
Here's Palin explaining the policy and leading the chant in 2008:


And here's some typical mockery of the policy from the left:

[VIDEO] True story: How my dog did more to get bin Laden than Barack Obama (or any Democrat)!

ICYMI

Barack Obama and Adolf Hitler (yes, I'm going there)

The overall economy may only be growing by about 2% under Barack Obama, but the race industry is blossoming like never before.   If race is an industry, just what is it that this industry produces?  Political power.  Not power earned through consensus, reality, truth, or any public good.  Rather it is power earned through division, incoherence, lies, polarization, violence, fantasy, deception, and evil.  I hate to go all "Godwin" on y'all, but this is exactly what happened in Nazi Germany.   It doesn't lead to anything good.

(Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies states that any heated online discussion will eventually lead to someone making a Nazi analogy.)  

Consider the incoherence of the current racism uprisings (Kristallnacht, anyone?)  emanating from the two cases, Michael Brown and Eric Garner:

• The President, his administration, and the bulk of the Democrat Party have called these incidents evidence of rampant racism among the American people, the police, and the judicial system.  
• There is zero evidence of racism being a factor in the deaths of Michael Brown, Eric Garner, or either grand jury decision.
• Both men were resisting arrest and had just committed crimes against minority victims.  (Brown had stolen from and assaulted a minority shop keeper, and Garner had been interfering with minority owned businesses who complained to police.)  
• "Hands Up, Don't Shoot!" is a proven myth unsupported by the forensic evidence and refuted by numerous credible black eyewitnesses.
• Two black alleged eyewitnesses have been murdered since the grand jury decision, allegedly because they testified and corroborated the officers account.  The media has not reported these murders and the alleged retribution connection.   (Presumably they will if the connection is confirmed, but I wouldn't hold my breath.)
• Garner's arrest was overseen by a black female Sergeant and approved by a black male Chief of Police.  
• It was Garner's 32nd arrest.  31 others had occurred without him dying.  
• Both grand juries had representative minority members. 
• Eric Garners own wife and daughter have stated that they believe his death had nothing to do with racism. 
• Clearly Garner died due to police errors, but the only people who heard all the testimony ruled it was not a crime, not due to racism, and not worth indicting.   

None of this matters because political power is at stake.  The race industry and the Democrat Party, along with CEO Barack Obama, need division, passion, anger, hatred, and the threat of violence to continue enacting their agenda. 

Consider the following quotes:  

All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach.

All great movements are popular movements. They are the volcanic eruptions of human passions and emotions, stirred into activity by... distress or by the torch of the spoken word cast into the midst of the people.

Hate is more lasting than dislike.

It is not truth that matters, but victory.

Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.

If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.

Great liars are also great magicians.

The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one.

Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way round, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise.

All of the above quotes are often attributed to Adolf Hitler.

No, I'm not suggesting Barack Obama is about to annex territory, build gas chambers, or launch a World War like Hitler.   But looking back on his embrace of the politics of deception and division as personified by ACORN, Alinsky Community Organizing, Occupy Wall Street, disingenuously crying racism,  stirring hatred and violence, etc., it is hard to discern any tactical differences.   

Eric Garner, Michael Brown, and Racism

OK, now we have another case of "white cop kills unarmed black man" without an indictment.  Did the police make errors?  Most people would agree they did, especially in the Garner case. Were criminal acts committed by the police?  In both cases the only people who heard all the evidence said no.  Say what you will about whether or not justice was done, there is zero evidence that these two deaths were the result of racism.  In both cases there is evidence of resisting arrest, which means both these men would be alive today if they had obeyed the police.  Nevermind.  Barack Obama, Eric Holder, Al Sharpton, NY Mayor Bill de Blasio, and NY Governor Andrew Cuomo are all convinced these two cases are evidence of racism on the part of the police and the judicial system.

It would be helpful for the state of NY to release the grand jury transcripts as was done in the Brown case.  But that will not change the minds of the opportunists who are committed to the racism narrative.  Anyone wondering how this could possibly happen in the age of Barack Obama, our first black president who promised to unite us, should pick up copies of Saul Alinsky's books and read them carefully.

Charging racism in these cases is political opportunism, and it's a very dangerous game.

(UPDATE:  The arrest of Eric Garner was overseen by a black female sergeant.)            

Obama's three strikes on Ferguson

On 8/15/14, after Barack Obama made his first comments in the wake of the Ferguson riots, I wrote:

I have no idea what happened in Ferguson, MO, and neither do you.  And we all agree any unnecessary death is a tragedy.  But we have a judicial system to deal with bad cops, if that turns out to be the case.  Rioting, looting, Molotov cocktails, death threats, and the like, should be singled-out as inexcusable no matter what the facts turn out to be.  Justice can only be served through our judicial system and that takes time, patience, civility, and wisdom.  Instead of making that case convincingly and emphatically, as a president should,  Barack Obama spoke to the nation in bland platitudes and equivocated.
America, we have a problem.

Four days later, after he commented again, I wrote:

Obama spoke to the nation again yesterday (8/18) and again equivocated.  If he wanted to avoid further violence, looting, anger, and hate, he could have explained to those calling for "death to Darren Wilson!" that we have a judicial system and that the facts will come out as they do in every public case, especially when there are dozens of eye witnesses as there are in this case.  But this case should not be tried on TV, or in the streets,  or from the pulpit, or with molotov cocktails.  Instead he drew a moral equivalence between our judicial system and looting rioters.  Think about this America -- The President of the United States, for political reasons, does not want to prevent further violence, looting, anger, and hate.

Tonight , 11/24/14, the grand jury spoke and the case is now closed.   The officer, Darren Wilson, was not charged with any crime because the jury believed he acted with justifiable use of force.

Again the president spoke and again mistook his role for that of agitator.  He accused the judicial system of racism.  He made no mention of the fact that Michael Brown would be alive today if he had obeyed officer Wilson.  He made no mention of his faith in the grand jury or the public servants who worked this case according to the law.  He made no mention of the officer whose life has also been upended by Michael Brown's belligerence.  He made no mention of the fact that moments before the incident officer Wilson had helped save the life of an infant.  And finally, he made only bland equivocal calls for peace and non-violence.

It's a shame this isn't baseball, because on Ferguson alone I count three strikes.

(I put the images at the top of the page together because you will not see them in the pop media.  But they are real and should be part of the record.  What they mean is up to you to decide.  Of note: neither was raised by his father, and all seem to have issues with authority.)

Dictator

You probably don’t think of Barack Obama as a dictator.  He was democratically elected to be the president of a constitutional republic after all, so he cannot be a totalitarian dictator, right?   But consider this:  there are two ways a country can end up with a dictator:  a leader or faction can seize totalitarian power by force, or the people can grant totalitarian power to an individual or faction.  For all intents and purposes, Barack Obama has been granted totalitarian dictatorial powers by the latter route.  In fact, he is arguably the most powerful dictator the world has ever known. 

Think about it:  Barack Obama is commander-in-chief of the worlds most powerful military, and is uniquely able to wage war without congressional approval or opposition from pacifists; he has carte blanche to selectively enforce laws;  he has carte blanche to create and modify laws;  he dissolves borders unilaterally; he creates treaties unilaterally; he has weaponized every tentacle of the federal government to persecute his enemies; he is politically untouchable and unimpeachable;  he lies to the country with impunity; his deputies have been found in contempt of congress without repercussion; his policies have failed without repercussion.  And…his dictatorship has been granted almost complete support from the news media, academia, and pop culture.

The world has never seen a dictator with this much power and latitude.  

Must see Grubergate video compilation...

This is really hitting home for me since I just received notice of a 20% premium increase and some mandatory changes to the plan I liked, but can no longer keep.  Period.




(Thanks to AmericanCommitment for compiling this, and hat tip to those spreading it around like HotAir.com,  John Ekdahl of Ace of Spades HQ, etc.)  

Why impeachment should be the first item in the new congress...

I keep hearing GOP leaders and strategist announcing that impeachment is not an option.  The reasoning goes something like this:  "Yes, Obama has certainly committed numerous impeachable offenses, but impeachment is a political maneuver, it never works, and it will certainly backfire on the GOP, especially with this historic president."  Fair enough.  But what about doing your job?  Is it not the job of congress to impeach if warranted?  At what point does impeachment become the right thing to do for the future of constitutional governance in the US regardless of the consequences?  Is there ever a point where doing the right thing trumps doing the politically expedient thing?

(As far as what the articles of impeachment should be, that is beyond the scope of this post.  Suffice it to say there are books on the subject.  Two good examples are Aaron Klein's and Andrew McCarthy's.)  

A similar refrain repeats itself when talking about defunding.  Excuse me if I missed something, but the GOP just won an historical election AFTER the supposed embarrassment of Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and a few others doing the right thing on Obamacare in 2013.  Where is the evidence that they did anything but long-term good for their party?  Who else stood for what was right at the time, and now turns out to be even more right in light of the recently exposed "Grubering" of the American people?

Remember, Bush beat Gore AFTER the Clinton impeachment.  Then he won again.