Category Archives: Liberialism

Relabeling

Posted on by

What is relabeling? It means to change your outward appearance to more accurately reflect your organizations goals and purpose. That has lead to today’s leading story. The question you must ask yourselves, “Is this true? Or, is it about to be true?”

Headline from somewhere on the Internet…

Democrat Party to Relabel Itself

June 31st, 2015
OldDemSymbol

Old DNC Symbol

The DNC announced today that is was discontinuing the use of its century old icon, the Donkey, as its political symbol. After a complaint from PETA claiming the symbol was unfair to depict the party as a “beast of burden,” and after the party agreed that the symbol was inappropriate since many of its members haven’t held jobs nor worked for generations, the DNC announced it was adopting a new symbol more in line with its half century history and political goals.

NewDNCsymbol

New DNC LOGO

AltNewDNCSymbol

Alternate DNC LOGO for official vehicles

The DNC said the new symbol was adopted from the organization that has been closely aligned with the DNC since the 1960s, supporting the party and financing some leading democrat leaders. The DNC said it was finally time to openly display their aims and goals with their new symbol. The DNC included an alternate symbol in their announcement suitable for banners and bumper stickers, especially for official party vehicles.

Party leaders, activists across the the country and academia applauded the announcement.

Yes, I’m feeling snarky this morning.

***

Is the US and NATO acting to blunt Putin’s aggression? He thinks so. NATO troops and armored forces entered Poland for a well publicized military exercise. It is to be a show of force against Putin’s aggression in Crimea and the Ukraine.

Putin is not amused and threatened retaliation. The Cold War has returned at a time when Obama is desperate to have a legacy, any legacy, now that his major accomplishment, Obamacare, may be crippled if the Supreme Court blocks federal subsidies for Obamacare recipients. One pundit said, “You can end communism in Russia, but you can’t remove the KGB from the Russian.” The Russian in this case is Putin. He has reverted to his previous KGB mentality.

The NATO exercise is not impressing the world’s military organizations. NATO has relied too long on the US for their security. NATO and the EU has sacrificed their militaries to feed their socialist states. Now, when the Cold War has resumed and with the US military resources still tied to the Mideast, NATO is barely able to field any forces to repel Putin if he invades the rest of the Ukraine…and perhaps the former EastBloc countries.

Even if the US was not sill involved in the Mideast, the US has reduced it’s military to a century-old level. The US Navy has fewer ships than it did prior to World War I. Much of the US war stocks, built up in Europe during the earlier cold war, has been expended during Gulf Wars I and II. With the military reductions imposed by Obama and the democrats, those war stocks have not been replenished. In some cases during military actions in Iraq and elsewhere, the US Navy ran out of cruise and land attack missiles.

Those miliary stocks have been slowly replaced. If at all. Some of the tooling needed to build more missiles was destroyed by DoD orders when the contracts expired. Now, when more missiles are needed, those tools are gone and it will be expensive to remake them.

But Putin isn’t the only aggressor on the horizon, The PRC, Communist China to everyone but the socialists around the world, is building a military base in the territory claimed by several other nations.

China builds new island military bases in South China Sea

Posted: May 20, 2015 8:06 PM CDT Updated: May 27, 2015 8:06 PM CDT
 
The new islands have been called unsinkable aircraft carriers. (Source: CNN)

The new islands have been called unsinkable aircraft carriers. (Source: CNN)

The new islands have been called unsinkable aircraft carriers. (Source: CNN)

SOUTH CHINA SEA (CNN) – It’s a tense confrontation between China’s military and an American spy plane monitoring disturbing developments in disputed waters hundreds of miles off the Chinese coast.

China’s activity in the South China Sea has peaked the interest of the U.S. military.

“Foreign military aircraft. This is the Chinese Navy. You are approaching our military alert zone.”

High above the South China Sea, the radio crackles with a stern warning.

“You go!”

The source of dispute appears on the horizon, seemingly out of nowhere.

Islands, manmade by China, located hundreds of miles from its coastline.

CNN got exclusive access to classified U.S. surveillance flights over the islands.

The first time journalists have been allowed on the operational mission by the state of the art P-8 Poseidon, America’s most advance surveillance and sub-hunting aircraft.

Three islands are the target of the mission. It’s the three islands that have been the focus of China’s building in the South China Sea over recent years.

China’s alarming creation of entirely new territory in the South China Sea is one part of a broader military push that some fear is to push U.S. dominance in the region.

Sailing its first aircraft carrier, equipping its nuclear missions with multiple warheads, developing missiles to destroy aircraft carriers, and now building military bases far from its shores.

For the U.S., the islands are a step too far. And the flight is a part of a new and old American military response that may soon include sailing U.S. warships close by as well.

In just two years, China has expanded the islands by 2,000 acres. The equivalent of 1,500 football fields and counting, an engineering marvel in waters as deep as 300 feet.

An American commander talks about what he sees.

“It appears to be a buildup of military infrastructure and not to mention we were just challenged probably 30 minutes ago and the challenge came from the Chinese Navy. And I’m highly confident that it came from a shore on this facility,” said Capt. Mike Parker, commander in the U.S. Navy.

What used to be the fiery cross reef now has early warning radar and an airport tower and a runway long enough to handle every aircraft in the Chinese military.

Some are calling it China’s unsinkable aircraft carrier.

The videos of the island taken from the P-8 advanced surveillance cameras never before declassified.

In a sign of just how valuable that China views them, the new islands are already well protected.

“There’s obviously a lot of surface traffic down there… uhh… Chinese warships and Chinese coast guard ships,” said Lt. Commander Matt Newman, mission commander in the U.S. Navy.

And there is proof. The Chinese navy ordering the P-8 out of the airspace not one, not twice, but eight times on the mission.

“This is the Chinese Navy. This is the Chinese Navy. Please go away quickly.”

And like the surveillance video, the audio of these warnings never before shared with the public.

What is interesting is there are also civilian aircrafts, there was a Delta flight on that same frequency. And when it heard that challenge it piped into the frequency to say what’s going on?

The Chinese Navy then reassuring them but as the flight crew says that can be a very nerve wracking experience for civilian aircraft in the area.

And the more China builds the more frequently and aggressively it warns away U.S. aircraft.

The crucial issue facing American voters in the coming national election is who to choose to lead us in the coming troubled times? Some of the candidates are isolationists, although they refuse to acknowledge the label. If a military confrontation occurs in the Ukraine or in the South China Sea, will our next President refuse to act, claiming it is not our business, or will he defend our allies and national security?

As much as some libertarians deny the fact, we cannot sit isolated from the world. We are dependent on allies and, if we are to have allies, they must be able to depend on us. The US and India has entered into talks discussing areas of mutual interest…the South China Sea, being one. India has a common border with China and has had military border disputes with China before.

When we choose a new President, we must chose one who is unafraid to remain involved in the world because the world will not be afraid to be involved in us.

Facebook

Grrr!

Posted on by

Some statements just make me want to reach for tar, feathers and a splinter-covered rail. The statement below by a so-called ‘Pub who wants to run for Governor would be a fine subject of scorn, tar and feathers.

RTW DAY? — ‘Mike Parson supports right-to-work, but questions Senate’s approach,’ PoliticMo: “State Sen. Mike Parson, a Republican who wants to be Missouri’s next governor, said Monday he thinks “right to work” is worth giving a shot. But, in an interview Monday, Parson did question why Senate Majority Leader Ron Richard, R-Joplin, was pushing the issue so hard ahead of a likely veto by Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon.

“‘If you can’t get it across the finish line, you have to weigh out why you’re doing it…Can we get this done and get an override over the governor after he vetoes, and can you not? I think that as to be part of the equation. I hope people have thought that through.’ …  Parson, who chaired the committee that passed a House “right-to-work” bill on Monday, said he will vote for the bill, but would not say whether he would support a rarely used motion to cut off debate and force an end to an imminent Democratic filibuster. At Monday’s hearing, Parson said he was “surprised there weren’t more to testify in favor of it,” but still feels the policy is good for the state. — PoliticMO, May 12, 2015.

What Parson really said, “since Nixon will veto RTW, why bother.” If that is Parson’s attitude, he has no business holding an elective office. If RTW is passed quickly, and Nixon vetoes it as expected, we could have time to override Nixon’s veto this session instead of trooping back to do it in September.

The Legislature has already over-turned one of Nixon’s vetoes this year. Taken in context, it’s easy to interpret what Parson wants. He wants RTW to fail to satisfy his union buddies; he just doesn’t want to be blamed for its failure to pass.

Senator Tom Dempsey (R-St. Charles) is using his daughter as an excuse for not voting for RTW. Like Parson, Dempsey doesn’t want RTW to pass, either; he’s in bed with the St. Louis unions.

By the way, is Dempsey term limited yet? I surely hope so.

‘Daughter’s graduation means a top Missouri Republican will miss end of session,’ Post-Dispatch: “Senate President Pro Tem Tom Dempsey, R-St. Charles, tweeted Monday that he will miss the last two days of session to attend his daughter, Meaghan’s, graduation from Tulane University in New Orleans. The session ends May 15. … In the past, Dempsey has said he won’t actively push the bill but also won’t stand in the way of it coming up on the floor.“ — St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

As PoliticMO suggests, perhaps an alternate headline for that piece in the Post-Dispatch should be, “Area man who opposes right to work relieved!”

***

I suppose this section could be labeled, “What’s good for the Goose, is good for the Gander.” We have all heard about the Clinton Family Foundation, or, the Clinton Crime Family Foundation as some call it. It is a supposed non-profit organization that is really a money laundering scheme of the Clinton’s. It is an avenue for bribes to Hillary when she was SecState.

Now it appears that Jeb Bush may be following in Hillary’s footsteps. He, too, has created a non-profit foundation. We don’t yet know if it will be an avenue for illegal money laundering like the Clinton’s. On the other hand, Jeb does seem to be following closely in hHillary’s footsteps.

A nonprofit group allied with former Florida governor Jeb Bush is playing a more expansive role in his current political operation than previously known, housing several top policy advisers who are expected to join his eventual campaign, according to people familiar with the structure.

At least four people with expertise on energy issues, foreign affairs and communications are working with Right to Rise Policy Solutions, a nonprofit advocacy group that can accept secret, unlimited donations from individuals and corporations.

Bush’s reliance on the non­profit as he prepares for a likely presidential bid puts him on untested legal ground, cloaking who is paying the salaries of his expected advisers. But a polarized Federal Election Commission is unlikely to scrutinize the maneuver, campaign finance experts said.

The latest hire was announced Monday: Michael Steel, a top spokesman for House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), said that he was moving to Florida to take a role with the nonprofit group. If Bush officially launches a presidential campaign, Steel would join it, according to people familiar with the plans who were not authorized to speak publicly. — The Washington Post.

Jeb got himself in trouble during an interview on FOX with Megan Kelly. She asked him if he, Jeb, would support the 2003 invasion of Iraq if he knew what would follow. Jeb said, “I would.” Shortly thereafter, Jeb’s handlers were scurrying about trying to walk back Jeb’s statement. They attempted to clarify Jeb’s statement saying, “the former Florida governor misunderstood the framing of the question – ‘knowing what we know now’ – and instead focused on the less controversial issue of whether he believed his brother acted rightly given the available information at the time.” Source: FOX News. The whole episode reminds me of the old comedy routine, reminiscent of Saigon’s “5 O’Clock Follies,” called, “What the General means…“

Dig, deeper, Jeb. Dig deeper and reveal more of your liberal core values.

Facebook

Different vision

Posted on by

It’s amazing how the libs and conservatives can see the same thing and interpret that ‘thing’ so differently. Wishful thinking? Partially. Self-deception? That, too. What are we talking about? The Iowa Senate race.

Yesterday, an article appeared on Drudge. The headline read, POLL SHOCK: Dems now have 51% chance of holding Senate. According to the Washington Post, the Iowa Senate race 'leans' left towards democrat candidate Bruce Braley. The article states that two weeks ago, Joni Ernst led Braley.

The Washington Post says,

* Iowa: Two weeks ago, the model gave state Sen. Joni Ernst (R) a 72 percent chance of winning. Today she has a 59 percent chance.

The Washington Post’s own poll has Joni Ernst leading Braley 59% to 41% and they say the state is ‘leaning’ left to Braley. FOXNews ran an article about the same Iowa race using another poll. Their poll, too, had Ernst well out in front by 6 percentage points. The astounding item in all this is that the Washington Post poll has Ernst further ahead than the FOXNews/Quinnipiac University poll. Both sides see the same fact, Joni Ernst is well out in front, and both sides report that fact oppositely.

I believe the dems are grasping at straws. It is common knowledge that the closer we approach the election, the tighter the races appear. To the dems, Ernst dropping from 72% to 59%, according to their poll, means Ernst is losing.

FOX just reports that Ernst continues to poll higher than Braley by 6%. That, my friends, is the difference between FOX and the Main Stream Media. The MSM filters all news through their bias, FOX just reports the facts as they are.

***

Have you heard about the new Form 4473? What is the Form 4473? It’s the form you must complete to buy a firearm through a federally licensed dealer. What has been changed? The new form requires the buyer to state his race and ethnicity. The Obama administration changed the form, quietly, without little fanfare—until it hit the dealers.

Obama administration forcing new gun buyers to declare race, ethnicity

ATF policy irks dealers, risks privacy intrusion, racial profiling: critics
By Kelly Riddell – The Washington Times – Tuesday, September 16, 2014

The Obama administration quietly has been forcing new gun buyers to declare their race and ethnicity, a policy change that critics say provides little law enforcement value while creating the risk of privacy intrusions and racial profiling.

With little fanfare, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in 2012 amended its Form 4473 — the transactional record the government requires gun purchasers and sellers to fill out when buying a firearm — to identify buyers as either Hispanic, Latino or not. Then a buyer must check his or her race: Indian, Asian, black, Pacific Islander or white.

The amendment is causing a headache for gun retailers, as each box needs to be checked off or else it’s an ATF violation — severe enough for the government to shut a business down. Many times people skip over the Hispanic/Latino box and only check their race, or vice versa — both of which are federal errors that can be held against the dealer.

Requiring the race and ethnic information of gun buyers is not required by federal law and provides little law enforcement value, legal experts say. And gun industry officials worry about how the information is being used and whether it constitutes an unnecessary intrusion on privacy.

“This issue concerns me deeply because, first, it’s offensive, and, secondly, there’s no need for it,” said Evan Nappen, a private practice firearms lawyer in New Jersey. “If there’s no need for an amendment, then there’s usually a political reason for the change. What this indicates is it was done for political reasons, not law enforcement reasons.”

ATF said the change came about because it needed to update its forms to comply with an Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reporting standard put into effect during the Clinton administration. The ATF declined to comment on why race and ethnicity information are needed in the first place or what they are used for. On its prior 4473 forms, the bureau had been collecting race data.

The BATFE is blaming Bill Clinton for this change. It’s strange that for eight years of the Bush Administration and four years of the Obama Administration, the BATFE saw no need to change the Form 4473. I don’t believe their excuse.

“OMB’s race and ethnicity standards require agencies to ask both race and ethnicity in a specific manner (as done on [Form 4473]), and agencies may not ask for one without asking for the other,” wrote Elizabeth Gosselin, a spokeswoman for the ATF, in an emailed response to The Washington Times. She did not say why the agency suddenly made the change in response to a rule that was more than a decade old.

For ATF to ask for a purchaser’s race and ethnicity is not specifically authorized under federal statute, and since a government-issued photo ID — like a driver’s license — and a background check are already required by law to purchase a gun, the ethnicity/race boxes aren’t there for identification reasons, Mr. Nappen said.

“There is nothing [in ATF or OMB’s website links addressing the change in policy] that supports the requirement that ATF collect race-based information. The OMB guidance merely describes what categories of race should look like if information is collected,” Laura Murphy, the American Civil Liberties Union director for legislative affairs in Washington, said in an emailed statement.

In addition, Mrs. Murphy notes, the OMB guidance was supposed to be implemented by 2003; there’s no information given why ATF decided to make this change almost a decade later, she said.

“If there is a civil rights enforcement reason for the ATF to collect this data, I have not heard that explanation from ATF or any other federal agency,” said Mrs. Murphy.

Both the NAACP and the National Council of La Raza — the nation’s largest national Hispanic civil rights group — declined comment. — The Washington Times. 

The column continues at the Washington Times website. You can read the entire column here.

There is no justification, nor federal requirement for Obama to collect this information. Why are they? What purpose does it server? Perhaps, just to intimidate those who want to buy a weapon.

***

If you like single-malt Scots whisky, you may see prices going up if Scotland votes to secede from the United Kingdom.

Scottish Secession a Sobering Prospect for Scotch Whiskey Drinkers

Sep 16, 2014, 1:41 PM ET, By

Scotch drinkers might want to brace themselves if Scots vote to secede from the United Kingdom and, consequently, the European Union Thursday.

Among the likely outcomes would be higher prices for Americans and others who import the brown elixir from secession saddled producers with rising costs.

Scotch whiskey, commonly referred to as Scotch and spelled without the “e” in Great Britain, is a tightly regulated spirit that can only come from oak casks that have matured for at least three years in Scotland. Exports are a giant piece of business for the Scotch industry, which says it ships 40 bottles overseas each second, while Scotch accounts for a quarter of U.K.’s food and drink exports.

The prospect of a Scotch trade interruption alone is enough to rattle the industry.

David Frost, the chief executive of the Scotch Whisky Association in Edinburgh, said “any regulatory divergence between Scotland and the rest of the U.K. may increase costs to business,” according to his group’s annual review in May.

And Frost isn’t just bluffing. In the European Union, Scotch producers can export the stuff tariff-free to the region, and the geographical indication of “Scotch Whisky” is protected by E.U. law. Only 109 distilleries are licensed to produce Scotch, according to the association.

“But even a temporary interruption of E.U. membership involving exclusion from the single market or the customs union, if this were a consequence of independence, would be damaging and difficult to manage,” Frost wrote in the annual review.

I guess all you Scotch drinkers will have to switch to Bourbon.

Facebook

It’s all about…

Posted on by

Chuck Asay understands. It’s all about…

Control. Or perhaps, as Michael Ramirez says, “dependence?”

Tora…Tora…Tora!

Posted on by
It’s a bit past the 7th, but I’ve been behind in my internet cartoons.  Here’s a good from Michael Rameriz.

This is what you can look forward to under Obamacare/FedMed

Posted on by

UPDATE: Friday 11:16CST. A few days ago, a federal report was released that suggested that mammograms used for breast cancer detection be delayed for women until age 50—and stopped at age 74. The furor was high and is increasing.

This morning, another report was released the suggested that PAP smears aren’t all that necessary either and suggested delaying the onset of those cancer detecting test as well as mammograms.

This is what is coming under Obamacare.

***


Now that Harry Reid has posted the Senate version of Obamacare on Reid’s website, we see that there isn’t much difference between their version and the one passed by the House. One difference ,that isn’t much difference, is the Option-Out in the Senate version. You can bet they will go if the two bills get passed and go to conference.

Regardless, both bills contain Death Panels—and whopping taxes. If you want a peek at what the future foretells under ObamaCare, read this column about the UK’s National Health Service.

NHS says it’s too expensive to keep you alive

If we are to escape from dilemmas such as Nice’s fateful decision on Nexavar, it can only be by permitting additional revenue streams into the NHS, argues Janet Daley.

Nice has made another of its fateful (or “fatal”) decisions: the drug, Nexavor, which significantly prolongs the life of liver cancer patients, and is widely available in other countries, is not be used by the NHS because it is too expensive. So all those who might have benefited from it have effectively been told that, on accounting principles, they are not worth keeping alive. Nice is functioning as what the US opponents of Obama’s healthcare reforms call ” a death panel”. And because its edicts apply to the NHS as a whole, there is no possibility of appealing to a different Hospital Trust or a different GP in the hope of getting a different decision. That is the reality of a government monopoly system.

The cancer research bodies and the agencies that care for terminal patients are appalled. For the researchers, such a decision seems to make a mockery of all the progress they have made in developing new treatments, and for organisations such as Macmillan Cancer Support, it represents a slamming of the door on what might have been the promise of relieved symptoms as well as longer survival. But, on the present priorities (and limitations) of the NHS, this is a justifiable policy. There is only so much money that can be spent on healthcare and so the cost effectiveness of every intervention or medication must be judged in terms of the greater good: how best can these limited funds be used to cure what is curable and make a material difference to the lives of the largest number of people?

Labour’s answer to this has always been to increase NHS spending but maintain the principle that all healthcare must be funded by taxation. This limits the amount of money that can be spent on health to what the taxpayer can bear. If we are to escape from this dilemma, it can only be by permitting additional revenue streams into the NHS: allowing top-up payments through insurance schemes or personal cash fees, to supplement the health budget. We must get over the idea that the only way of paying for healthcare that is basically free at the point of use, is by government subsidy.

The UK is rationing drugs now. Drugs that some need to stay alive or to be cured of disease. In other words, the UK is killing British subjects in the name of economy. If this ever occurs in the US, I believe that the members of the Death Panels would be forced into hiding from the citizens who have lost loved ones to federal bureaucracy. Citizens with blood in their eyes.

This is what you can look forward to under Obamacare/FedMed

Posted on by

UPDATE: Friday 11:16CST. A few days ago, a federal report was released that suggested that mammograms used for breast cancer detection be delayed for women until age 50—and stopped at age 74. The furor was high and is increasing.

This morning, another report was released the suggested that PAP smears aren’t all that necessary either and suggested delaying the onset of those cancer detecting test as well as mammograms.

This is what is coming under Obamacare.

***


Now that Harry Reid has posted the Senate version of Obamacare on Reid’s website, we see that there isn’t much difference between their version and the one passed by the House. One difference ,that isn’t much difference, is the Option-Out in the Senate version. You can bet they will go if the two bills get passed and go to conference.

Regardless, both bills contain Death Panels—and whopping taxes. If you want a peek at what the future foretells under ObamaCare, read this column about the UK’s National Health Service.

NHS says it’s too expensive to keep you alive

If we are to escape from dilemmas such as Nice’s fateful decision on Nexavar, it can only be by permitting additional revenue streams into the NHS, argues Janet Daley.

Nice has made another of its fateful (or “fatal”) decisions: the drug, Nexavor, which significantly prolongs the life of liver cancer patients, and is widely available in other countries, is not be used by the NHS because it is too expensive. So all those who might have benefited from it have effectively been told that, on accounting principles, they are not worth keeping alive. Nice is functioning as what the US opponents of Obama’s healthcare reforms call ” a death panel”. And because its edicts apply to the NHS as a whole, there is no possibility of appealing to a different Hospital Trust or a different GP in the hope of getting a different decision. That is the reality of a government monopoly system.

The cancer research bodies and the agencies that care for terminal patients are appalled. For the researchers, such a decision seems to make a mockery of all the progress they have made in developing new treatments, and for organisations such as Macmillan Cancer Support, it represents a slamming of the door on what might have been the promise of relieved symptoms as well as longer survival. But, on the present priorities (and limitations) of the NHS, this is a justifiable policy. There is only so much money that can be spent on healthcare and so the cost effectiveness of every intervention or medication must be judged in terms of the greater good: how best can these limited funds be used to cure what is curable and make a material difference to the lives of the largest number of people?

Labour’s answer to this has always been to increase NHS spending but maintain the principle that all healthcare must be funded by taxation. This limits the amount of money that can be spent on health to what the taxpayer can bear. If we are to escape from this dilemma, it can only be by permitting additional revenue streams into the NHS: allowing top-up payments through insurance schemes or personal cash fees, to supplement the health budget. We must get over the idea that the only way of paying for healthcare that is basically free at the point of use, is by government subsidy.

The UK is rationing drugs now. Drugs that some need to stay alive or to be cured of disease. In other words, the UK is killing British subjects in the name of economy. If this ever occurs in the US, I believe that the members of the Death Panels would be forced into hiding from the citizens who have lost loved ones to federal bureaucracy. Citizens with blood in their eyes.

Facebook