On the Jon Stewart programs NY Mayor Bloomberg told Jon Stewart that one hundred percent of the 9/11 families agreed with him. Well, if you read how he worded it, you will see politics in action:
“And the family members that I’ve talked to – and I’m chairman of the board of the World Trade Center Memorial – 100 percent in favor of saying, ‘These people, if they want to build a mosque, can build a mosque. The lives of our loved ones were taken because the right to build a mosque or say what you want to say was so threatening to people.'”
Not to mention that in fact many of the 9/11 families are against this mosques chosen area (the red-herring is the Constitutional argument in this debate… no one is talking about that except those that want to obfuscate the issue):
Bloomberg also dismisses, as do others, the many, many Islamic faces that have come out against this mosque as well as the polls:
A recent CBS News poll found that 71 percent of respondents believe it is “not appropriate” to build the mosque a few blocks from Ground Zero, including a majority (57 percent) of Democrats. A Time poll found that 68 percent are following the issue “somewhat closely” or “very closely.” (NewsBusters)
Even though I disagree with the main point behind this following cartoon, it does make me smile as well — KEEP IT UP DEMS!
A horrible story that should hopefully finally get the Left to take a position… rather than suing Arizona over stopping this crime from coming across their border.
Mexican marines discovered the 72 bodies—58 men and 14 women —on Tuesday after the lone survivor of the massacre, a wounded migrant from Ecuador, stumbled into a Navy checkpoint the previous day and told of being shot on Monday at a nearby ranch, Mexican officials said on Wednesday.
When the marines went to investigate, they were met with a hail of gunfire from cartel gunmen holed up at the ranch, which sits 90 miles from the U.S. border. One marine and three alleged gunmen died during a two-hour battle, which ended when the gunmen fled in a fleet of SUVs, leaving behind a cache of weapons.
The Ecuadorean migrant told investigators that his captors identified themselves as members of the Zetas drug gang, said Vice Adm. Jose Luis Vergara, a spokesman for the Mexican navy.
“This illustrates that organized crime has no limits or moral qualms about what they are prepared to do,” Alejandro Poire, head of the government’s national-security council, told a news conference.
The incident highlights the extent to which Mexican drug gangs, which used to focus exclusively on ferrying narcotics such as cocaine to the U.S., have diversified into other lucrative criminal activities such as human smuggling and extortion.
At the going rate of $5,000 to $7,000 charged by smugglers to cross the U.S. border, the 72 people represented about $500,000 to the drug gang, said Alberto Islas, a Mexico City-based security consultant. The gang may have simply killed the migrants after they refused to give them more money than they had already given them, he said.
Mexican officials said they didn’t know why the migrants—believed to be from El Salvador, Honduras, Ecuador and Brazil—were killed. Mexican newspapers, citing an unnamed federal official, speculated that the migrants were killed for either refusing to give the drug gang more money to cross the border, or for declining to join the gang’s criminal activities as drug couriers, gunmen or prostitutes….
This comes from Media Research, and is a great point about Left-Wing violence and hatred. This will go under the tag “Crazy Dems”
….This report includes examples of over-the-top rhetoric from left-wing hosts Mike Malloy, Stephanie Miller, Randi Rhodes, Ron Reagan, Jr., Ed Schultz and Montel Williams, all of whom currently or at one time broadcast to a national audience on either the Air America network or via XM and/or Sirius satellite radio. Among the lowlights:
■ Conservatives Want to Kill Barack Obama: “I really think there are conservative broadcasters in this country who would love to see Obama taken out.” (Ed Schultz)
■ Conservatives Are Terrorists: “Do you not understand that the people you hold up as heroes bombed your goddamn country? Do you not understand that Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly are as complicit of the September 11, 2001 terror attack as any one of the dumbass 15 who came from Saudi Arabia?” (Mike Malloy)
■ Conservatives Want You to Die: “If, in fact, the GOP doesn’t like any form of health care reform, what do we do with those 40 to 60 million uninsured?…When they show up in the emergency room, just shoot ‘em! Kill them!…Do we have enough body bags? I don’t know.” (Montel Williams)
■ Conservative Congresswoman Would Have Liked the Holocaust: “[Representative Michele Bachmann is] a hatemonger. She’s the type of person that would have gladly rounded up the Jews in Germany and shipped them off to death camps….This is an evil bitch from Hell.” (Mike Malloy)
■ Dick Cheney Eats Babies: “Cheney, by the way, looks very ruddy. I couldn’t get over that. Like, he must have feasted on a Jewish baby, or a Muslim baby. He must have sent his people out to get one and bring it back so he could drink its blood.” (Mike Malloy)
■ Dick Cheney Should Die: “He is an enemy of the country, in my opinion. Dick Cheney is an enemy of the country….Lord, take him to the Promised Land, will you? See, I don’t even wish the guy goes to Hell, I just want to get him the hell out of here.” (Ed Schultz)
■ Rush Limbaugh Should Die: “I’m waiting for the day when I pick up the newspaper or click on the Internet and find that he’s choked to death on his own throat fat, or a great big wad of saliva or something, whatever. Go away, Limbaugh, you make me sick.” (Mike Malloy)
■ Michele Bachmann Should Die: “So, Michele, slit your wrist! Go ahead! I mean, you know, why not? I mean, if you want to — or, you know, do us all a better thing. Move that knife up about two feet. I mean, start right at the collarbone.” (Montel Williams)
If the establishment media were really interested in cleansing the airwaves of hateful rhetoric, they would not confine their criticism to conservative hosts. Instead, they would — and they must — make an equal effort to expose the nastiness that runs rampant on left-wing talk radio. Unless and until they do, they are participating in an act of journalistic hypocrisy.
I enjoy political cartoons. One cartoonist whom tends to be moderate-left is John Cole. I comment here-and-there on his work. the most recent comments from me were on this particular drawing he did:
I wrote the following to John and others reading his comment section (I added some emphasis that I could not on his site):
This is something the people who support this particular mosque will be regretful for (well, maybe not regretful, I mean the Left is still proud they essentially killed millions in Vietnam by pulling out). There are already ties to bad money and some supremacist quotes and writings popping up from this Imam and his financial sources.
The funny thing is ~ I mean besides the idea that the people who supported the student uprising in Iran are now supporting the same people that squashed that uprising ~ the people that we want to support [truly moderate and reformational Muslims] WOULDN’T WANT to build a mosque here.
One other point [sorta]. The argument seems to be that if you oppose this mosque you are fomenting some prejudicial fear. This tactic of argument works for those who are The shallow thinkers making them as well as The shallow thinkers hearing them. It is similar to people telling me that being against same-sex marriage is somehow prejudicial, or homophobic. They are typically surprised to find out many homosexual persons are against this “same-sex marriage” movement. (https://religiopoliticaltalk.com/2010/06/joy-behar-vs-homosexuals-on-same-sex-marriage/) I never get an answer as to how these gay people are homophobic. Showing that these cards whipped from hip-high are vacuous and not thought through.
Just like the “if you are against [this mosque you are against] ‘freedom of religion’” argument. Many moderate Muslims are against the building of this mosque. Are they xenophobic or Islamaphobic? Do they hate the Muslim faith? OR, do they realize that supporting extremism IN THEIR OWN religion is anti-religious?
For those who do not get outside MSNBC type news, here are some interviews/articles with moderate Muslims:
So what is it? The anti-Islamic/anti-1st Amendment Right versus the pro-Islamic/pro-1st Amendment Left? OR, is it moderately minded/truly reformational/pro-Islamic/pro-1st Amendment Muslims against the Left and radical Islam (as proven by the Imam’s statements [more will be uncovered I am sure of it] and ties to “funny money”)??
I have gotten responses to this such as: “there are strip clubs, Burger Kings, bars at ground-zero… how can this be a sacred place?” To which I simply respond:
“Those were in place before 9/11, plus, 19 strippers didn’t fly planes into the Towers. (Non-sequitur: you proved my point, guys carrying Qur’ans not whips and chains or cherry flavored undies attacked us.) 3,000 people were killed by people doing it in the name of Islam. In fact, part of the reason they attacked was because of these gentlemen clubs, so I would rather have more of those and less of mosques to foment radical religion. So there should be — like other places where tragic events happen — a buffer zone for sensibilities. That building (besides being funded by “funny money” and being headed up by an Imam that said we were partly responsible for 9/11. There are other places for him to build a Mosque and for conservatives to bury Dems by their support of him as more quotes and radical positions come out. But a building where parts of human remains and pieces of jet were found, is unsupportable. Hell, even Howard Stern gets it.” (https://religiopoliticaltalk.com/2010/08/tearing-down-that-which-no-one-believes-the-left-and-the-ground-zero-mosque/)
Thank you for your visitors taking the time in reading this and for John being truly fair enough and freedom minded enough to allow shlubs like myself to challenge his lifeblood. For all the items I may disagree with him on, he shows that his work [a single frame drawing] can produce feelings and cause separate wills to clash. Which is why I absolutely love political cartoons. A Single frame can catch a whole idea that others would have to express in multiple paragraph’s [like myself].
SO, I do not wish to merely tear down, but build up: “John, keep up the ‘bad’ work” (tongue-in-cheek).
I wanted to build a bit off of that first sentence I wrote, “This is something the people who support this particular mosque will be regretful for.” Regretful because they are supporting a radically supremacist Imam and mosque, and so I confidently tell people that more and more quotes will be shown from this Imam and more and more terrorist ties will be revealed via donors. And so, here are the first compilations of some wacky stuff this Imam has said. I am sure more will be revealed soon.
Whilst the NY Times front page spins interfaith yarns into PR gold faster than Rumpelstiltskin and accords godlike status to Imam Faisal Rauf, new audio surfaces. Here are a couple of soundbites of tolerance: Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf: “We tend to forget, in the West, that it has blood on its hands of innocent non Muslims. You may remember that the US lead sanction against Iraq lead to the death of over half a million Iraqi children.”
No mention of the 270 million victims of over a millennium of jihadi wars, land appropriations, cultural annihilation and enslavement. No mention of the recent slaughter by Muslims of Christians, Hindus, Jews, non-believers in Indonesia, Thailand, Ethiopia, Somalia, Philippines, Lebanon, Israel, Russia, China……………. no candor, no criticism of Islam. Imam Feisal: “The West needs to begin to see themselves through the eyes of the Arab and Muslim world, and when you do you will see the predicament that exists within the Muslim community.”
On the question of reforming Islam and expunging the texts of the threat doctrine and mandated violence and conquest: Imam Feisal: On the issue of the reformation, in terms of what is again intended by it, Islam does not need a reformation. Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf: “So men will say: women, you know, they’re emotional, ….. whatever, whatever, and women will say: men, they’re brutes, insensitive, etcetera, and you have the beginning of a gender conflict. If gender is not what distinguishes us we’ll look at skin colouring and say: n***** or whities, or whatever”
Reverend Al Sharpton was unavailable for comment. Too busy endorsing the Islamic supremacist mosque. Imam Faisal: And when we observe terrorism, whether it was done by the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka or by al Qaida or whoever is behind the bombings in London or those in Madrid,
Note, when he says about the London and Madrid bombings,that was five days after the London attacks and over a year after Madrid. It was common knowledge who the perps were at that time.
In July 2005, Ground Zero Imam Rauf gave a public lecture, presented by The Bob Hawke Prime Ministerial Centre/UniSA International and The Migrant Resource Centre, entitled, What does it take to change the relationship between the West and the Muslim world? His remarks were devastating.
This is a story that has been growing in the intelligence world (I am sure) for quite some time. I noted it here in an old post blogged in March of 2008 entitled, Obama and FARC. Gateway Pundit notes some interesting updates to this story. For some older background to this growing story, here is a Hannity look at it:
Here Gateway lists a few of the notable notables in regards to FARC and info gleaned from captured computers in 2008:
FARC connections with Ecuadorean president Rafael Correa
Records of $300 million offerings from Hugo Chavez
Thank you notes from Hugo Chavez dating back to 1992
Uranium purchasing records
Admit to killing the sister of former President Cesar Gaviria
Admit to planting a 2003 car bomb killing 36 at a Bogota upper crust club
Directions on how to make a Dirty Bomb
Information that led to the discovery of 60 pounds of uranium
Letter to Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi asking for cash to buy surface-to-air missiles
Meetings with “gringos” about Barack Obama
Information on Russian illegal arms dealer Viktor Bout who was later captured
FARC funding Correa’s campaign
Cuban links to FARC
Links to US Democrats
$480,000 of FARC cash in Costa Rican safe house
$100,000 to President Correa’s campaign for election
Chavez attempts to buy arms for FARC through the Belarus regime
FARC branches in 17 countries including Germany and Switzerland
FARC terrorists expanded operations to 17 countries
FARC terrorists expanded operations to Germany and Switzerland
Continuing, Gateway begins to make his main point:
…The FARC Computers also contained documents that reportedly showed US Democrats were secretly reaching out to the FARC terrorists. Not only were the FARC terrorists of Colombia hoping Barack Obama would win the presidential election because he was most aligned with the Colombian Marxist group but the terrorists were also reportedly communicating with US Democrats on the sly…
This is the reason (actually, one of many) that makes me say confidently that we have a radical secularist in office. I will never, upon what I know to date, say Obama is a Muslim. I digress.
Venezuela has close ties to FARC. And Venezuela has close ties to Middle-Eastern terrorists. Here is a recent report on all these connections:
Who are these Democrats that side with Iran in the student uprising, support a supremacist Mosque at Ground-Zero, take over car companies, raise taxes and increase debt by massive stimulus programs and take over health-care? Whoever they are, let us throw them out in November! An aside: I can’t count the times, by-the-by, that I was told Bush was in bed with the Saudi’s, which is bad. Now building a Mosque with money from the Saudis and Iran is okay with he laft. Hmmmm.
I think we conservatives should all be happy that the Obama administration is in complete and irreparable meltdown. We can add to Hugh Hewitt’s great rant the one judge in California overturning 7,000,000 voters, to Maxine “Marxist” Waters and Charlie “in a pinch” Rangels ethics charges, to the Commander in Chief supporting a Mosque and Imam who has terrorist ties and dirty money to build his project with. This is all coming up to bite the Dems in the ass in November. I already posted this, but look at all this with the eyes that the Dems are sealing their defeat.
President Barack Obama’s endorsement of the Ground Zero mosque has transformed an emotion-laden local dispute in New York into a nationwide debate overnight, setting nervous Democrats on edge and creating potentially dramatic political implications in the upcoming midterm elections.
Key Republicans think the president bought himself some political trouble by using his White House bully pulpit to announce his support for a controversial plan to build an Islamic center just blocks from nearly 3,000 people died in Manhattan at the hands of Islamic extremists on 9/11.
[….]
Obama has put Democrats from coast to coast in the tough position of having to weigh in on an issue they’d rather duck. Prior to his speech, a few candidates tried with limited success to make the proposed mosque an issue outside of the tri-state area around New York City. Now any Democrat facing an election – less than three months away – can be put in the uncomfortable position of being asked to reject the president’s stand or side with him.
Several New York Democrats either involved with members of Congress or strategists said privately that they are not happy about the speech because it puts them in a bind. A recent CNN polls found two-thirds of Americans oppose building the mosque in the neighborhood around Ground Zero.
They’re afraid to be up front in the same way as New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who got national press for supporting the mosque but who is not facing a reelection campaign.
It’s going to be one of the most memorable – and debated statements – of the president’s first two years in office….
Besides all the presidents tying together bad lines of non-related thinking. He also said something about U.S. History at this speech that was just flat wrong! A twisting of the truth.
“…In 1994, nearly two-thirds of U.S.-born teenagers were in the summer labor force; by 2007 it was less than half. At the same time, the overall number of immigrants (legal and illegal) holding a job doubled. The evidence indicates that immigration accounts for a significant share of the decline in teen labor force participation…”
I am a native-born New Mexico Hispanic. I often write letters to newspapers on a subject which those without an Hispanic last name dare not write: the urgent need for immigration reform.
This nation’s immigration policy, begun in 1965, is a disaster. It hurts minorities, the poor, the environment – as we see dramatically here in the West on an almost daily basis – and immigrants themselves.
Because of my last name, I can call for immigration reform, although I, too, have been labeled a racist – a hurtful claim that is impossible to disprove. As Ventura, Calif., Navy Dispatch editor Samuel Francis wrote in a recent editorial, – ‘Hate’ now includes all opposition to immigration.” Yet, immigration affects us all, and we should be able to talk about it without fear of character assassination.
This trend has its roots in the national news media, where reporters almost invariably report on immigration as being good and those opposed to immigration as being bad or racist. These stories remind us that we are a nation of immigrants, while ignoring that the incredibly high rates of immigration to the United States are largely a recent phenomenon.
From 1915 to 1965, legal immigration ran about 220,000 a year – the number most immigration reform advocates want us to return to, since that number would stabilize our population. Since 1989, legal immigration has averaged about 1,063,000 a year. Another 1 million people a year immigrate illegally, according to one estimate.
[….]
On a personal level, I am concerned about over-immigration because it hurts me and others in a state where the tide of immigrants out of Mexico is crushing native-born Hispanics, flooding already stressed schools, and sharply increasing drug trafficking and violent crime.
The rumored economic boom, despite many news reports to the contrary, has left Hispanics behind. The Federal Reserve recently reported that the median Hispanic net worth fell a whopping 24 percent between 1995 and 1998 due to “an accelerating influx of poor immigrants.” Put another way, when workers ask for a raise, they are often reminded that there are many others who will do the same work for less, including for below minimum wage. We all, native-born and immigrants, know there is no “labor shortage” for many of our jobs.
For that matter, do any American workers at any level see employers clamoring to increase their pay? No, they see industry calling for the right to import more cheap workers.
While I care about the world’s poor – roughly 1.5 billion people fall into that category – I believe we cannot possibly welcome all these mostly economic (rarely political) refugees to the United States. Do advocates of high immigration believe our own slums are empty and that we no longer have citizens needing a fair chance at decent-paying jobs?
We must return immigration to traditional levels. To stop the cross-border flow and the peril the trek brings to Mexican nationals, we must impose sharp penalties for those employers who hire illegal immigrants.
Another significant reason behind this very important job loss for an important segment of our population is minimum wage hikes. First Milton Friedman then a portion of an article:
….Unfortunately, teens are also learning personal lessons about price theory and supply and demand. While America’s youth were busy downloading the latest iTunes, those running the country savaged their job prospects. In July 2009, a month distinguished by the then-highest unemployment rate among teens since at least 1948, the latest of three hikes in the minimum wage pushed through by Congress in 2007 went into effect. As a consequence, the cost to hire part-time or unskilled workers jumped to $7.25 per hour, a full 41 percent increase from the 2007 going rate of $5.15. Some considered the hike overdue; a decade had passed since the prior increase. Others argued that carrying through with such a hefty jump was ill conceived, especially in light of the recession. The bottom line: The sharp rise in the minimum wage has almost certainly contributed to an equally harsh increase in unemployment among those not yet old enough to vote.
Why? Because teens account for a disproportionate number of those paid bottom-of-the-barrel rates. In 2009, for example, teens made up 6 percent of all workers paid by the hour, but 23 percent of those paid at or below the minimum rate. Put another way, some 5 percent of the nation’s hourly workers received minimum wage or less; nearly 19 percent of teens fall into this category. At last count, nearly 26 percent of all teenagers were unemployed, up from 24 percent a year earlier. This is a decidedly worse showing than the rate for adult men, for instance. In June, unemployment for men totaled 9.9 percent, actually down slightly from 10 percent the year before.
That higher minimum wages could lead to lower employment isn’t a shocking concept.
Naturally, the recession caused millions of all ages to lose their jobs. However, the disproportionate hit taken by young people can also, according to a recent study, be laid directly at the door of the hike in minimum wage. Economists William Even of Miami University and David MacPherson of Trinity University compared teen job losses in states impacted by the minimum wage hikes with states that were not affected. (Some states had independently passed a minimum wage as high or higher than the national level, thus rendering the federal hike irrelevant.) They conclude that the increase in minimum wage raised teen unemployment by 114,000….
Now, the 40-year-old is rethinking her lifelong support for the party. She has been without steady work for two years, lost her home and car and began receiving cash assistance from the state for the first time. This year, she says, “I’m willing to take a chance on something different.” Another possibility, she says, is that she won’t vote at all.
Ms. Jones is part of an unmeasured, agitated mass: unemployed Americans who don’t believe the Obama Administration and Congress have done enough to produce jobs. With elections coming up, their unease is especially troublesome for the Democrats, who control both chambers.
A poor economy never bodes well for incumbents. Cook Report, the nonpartisan political newsletter that tracks congressional races, estimates that 73 House seats are vulnerable—including Mr. Schauer’s. This group has two things in common. Almost all (66 of 73) are held by Democrats, and most include counties that have unemployment rates exceeding the national average, according to data assembled by The Wall Street Journal.
The AFL-CIO is one of the single largest contributors to President Obama and the Democratic Party
They reap enormous, direct benefits from the ever-expanding size of the federal government
The AFL-CIO ran itself insolvent in the 2008 presidential election–spending millions more than the union had taken in from dues, and later engaged in “creative accounting” to conceal their financial hardships
The AFL-CIO has pledged to spend upwards of $53 million in the waning days of the midterm election
Mr. Trumka has also said that he “watched (tea party protesters) spit at people, I watched them call John Lewis the n-word,” even though he is nowhere to be found on any of the videos of the alleged incident
Mr. Trumka has also said, in reference to the Tea Party Movement: “There are forces in our country that are working hard to convert justifiable anger about an economy that only seems to work for a few of us into racist and homophobic hate and violence directed at our President…”
It’s not uncommon to read about heavy regulations and licensing requirements burdening small business across America, but one in particular caught my eye this week. In Portland, Oregon, a state health inspector shut down a 7-year-old’s lemonade stand. She was told she needed to leave or face a $500 fine. Under state law, even a lemonade stand in your front lawn must obtain a $120 license to operate. Another small business bites the dust.
To be fair, this lovely young girl did go to a large event and set up shop, the story tells of this:
…Technically, any lemonade stand — even one on your front lawn — must be licensed under state law, said Eric Pippert, the food-borne illness prevention program manager for the state’s public health division. But county inspectors are unlikely to go after kids selling lemonade on their front lawn unless, he conceded, their front lawn happens to be on Alberta Street during Last Thursday.
“When you go to a public event and set up shop, you’re suddenly engaging in commerce,” he said. “The fact that you’re small-scale I don’t think is relevant.”…
In my mind’s eye its sorta like the regulations about smoked covers over break lights on cars. Yes there is a danger in dimming these lights, but this isn’t enforced widely. However… it serves the police well when they want to pull someone over whom they suspect for trouble. (If only the crack houses would have lemonade stands.) I do recommend a book for parents about this very issue, where some kids set out to make some money by setting up a lemonade stand in front of their house, and they run into Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, and others along the way. Very funny.
