May 22, 2013
A Convenient Crock: Oklahoma Tornadoes Caused by Global Warming AND Cooling

Global warming has kicked tornado season off to a bloody start. At least twenty-four confirmed deaths and hundreds of injuries are the result of a tornado more than a mile wide that ripped through an area outside Oklahoma City, OK. But don’t be fooled into thinking that tornado season typically does bring with it death and destruction. You may be thinking, “It’s a giant funnel of wind and debris; of course it’s going to kill people, and of course some tornadoes are going to be bigger than others.” Wrong, you moron. Global warming. Ask a Democrat.

Take Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, for example, who thought this to be the most advantageous time to whip up and bring to the Senate floor a nice little school project of his in the form of a piece of cardboard his parents printed for him at Kinko’s. The cardboard bears the image of Earth from space, accompanied by the evangelizing words of Gaianism, “TIME TO WAKE UP.”

Whitehouse, a liberal, raised the issue under the pretext of—you ready?—fiscal conservatism. “When cyclones tear up Oklahoma and hurricanes swamp Alabama and wildfires scorch Texas, you come to us, the rest of the country, for billions of dollars to recover. And the damage that your polluters and deniers are doing doesn’t just hit Oklahoma and Alabama and Texas. It hits Rhode Island with floods and storms.”

He goes on to say, “I don’t want…an America suffering from grave economic and environmental and diplomatic damage because we failed, because we didn’t wake up and do our duty to our people, and because we didn’t lead the world. I do not want that future. But that’s where we’re headed. So I will keep reaching out and calling out, ever hopeful that you will wake up before it is too late.”

Good thing he brought his Kinko’s printout with him. (Seriously, what was it for? There wasn’t even a graph of forged data on it. What kind of effort is that? It was just a picture of Earth and a warning that he repeated in his stupid speech. Why did he waste the money to print that?)

Hey, I wonder if Whitehouse was the one behind my instant-oatmeal packet this morning having printed on it this trivia question: “What kind of gas is central in global warming?” (Answer on the back: Greenhouse.)

Wouldn’t it be really embarrassing to these Doomsday prophets of the left if one of their own teammates, back in 1975, published an article saying that, according to scientists, the surge in tornadoes back then was a direct result of global cooling? Why, yes, yes it would be embarrassing. That is, if liberals had any sense of shame.

2:01pm
(Notes: 10)
  
Filed under: climate change tornado oklahoma politics environmentalism climate oklahoma tornado global warming global cooling leftybegone 
May 21, 2013
Whites Are Racist No Matter What, or, I Like Turtles

The other day I saw a 10-minute clip of Mitt Romney talking with Jay Leno on The Tonight Show, Romney as gracious as ever in leveling only the most cordial of critiques upon the Obama administration, and felt a pang of nostalgia for the days when I, and other conservatives who grew to respect him, had a real hope that our president could very possibly be so good a man as Romney. (I really do love him, my fellow conservatives, I confess.)

Adding to the nostalgia, in doing my daily reading of today’s news (thank you, RealClearPolitics, CNS, and Drudge), I came across a 2012-election fact that might not be news to anyone but me: while there are almost six times as many whites in this country as there are blacks, more blacks, as a percentage, voted in 2012 than did whites. To be specific, 66.2 percent of blacks voted, compared to 64.1 percent of whites. This, according to the US Census Bureau.

I read this and was shocked. Never before today have I felt so strong an urge to slap 36 percent of America’s white population. Vote, people! What’s the matter with you?

Now, of those 64 percent of white voters, only 59 percent pulled the lever for the white man (41 percent for Obama or another candidate), while 93 percent of blacks opted for the black man.

Remember all that pre-election poll analysis deducing that because polls were indicating Romney was going to win a majority of white voters, Romney’s voters were simply racist? The fact that most whites were going to vote for Romney meant that whites didn’t like Obama because he is black. It couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the fact that fewer whites than blacks, as a percentage of their own race, are on welfare (5 percent of whites versus 29 percent of blacks). The analysts never suggested, or even wondered if, whites were smarter or more economically minded or less emotional than blacks. The “analysis” never went deeper than the immediate assumption, “Well, it’s just simply got to be about race.” And then the post-election polls confirmed the validity of the pre-election polls and the prescience of analysts: most whites did indeed vote for Romney, and most whites were indeed racists.

What it means that only 59 percent of white voters voted for Romney is that 41 percent of white voters are so racist that they either voted for Obama or a third-party candidate. Going back to 2008, there was a drop of 1.1 percentage points in the white vote that year, and in 2012 there was a 2-point drop in the white vote. Whites were so racist in those two elections that some of them didn’t even bother voting against the black guy; they just stayed home.

On the other hand, the black-voter turnout in 2012 was up by 1.5 percentage points compared to that of 2008, and in 2008 it was up by 4.7 compared to that of 2004.

Well, well, well! How do you like that? What do you suppose liberals would suggest if a white man’s candidacy, when running against a black candidate in two elections, caused white-voter turnout to jump by a total of 6.2 percentage points? The suggestion would be, correctly, that white voters suddenly increased because they wanted to show solidarity with their fellow white man, which solidarity would correctly be called racist. On the other hand, when black voters increase by a total of 6.2 percentage points in two consecutive elections in which a black man is a candidate, and, in those same elections, white voters decrease by a total of 3.1, it is, contrary to all rationality, suggested that, still, whites are the racists.

Finally, a brief aside: Jon Wiener at TheNation.com wrote a piece titled “The Bad News About White People: Romney Won the White Vote Almost Everywhere,” by which he means in every state except Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. This, posits the white Wiener, is evidence that white people did not “learn toleration and acceptance of racial difference after four years with a black president in the White House.” If whites are racist for securing the white vote for Romney in 46 states, then what are blacks for securing the black vote for Obama in all 50 states?

Ask liberals what their opinion is of Obama winning the black vote in every state, and their deeply penetrating intellect will lead them to answer, “Whites are racist no matter what.” It’s like asking a kid what he thinks of his zombie face paint, and his response being, “I like turtles.”

2:01pm
(Notes: 8)
  
Filed under: i like turtles obama politics african american leftybegone race racial issues racism 
May 21, 2013
Wait, how did you get in here?: Race and welfare

hyliankalmo:

leftybegone:

As a percentage of the entire American population, of all those people on welfare (29 million of that population), 39 percent are white and 38 percent are black.

But as a percentage of the race, only 5 percent of whites are on welfare compared to 29 percent of blacks.

Ok,…

29 million people on welfare: 39% white (11,661,000), 38% black (11,362,000)

US population: 313,544,041 - 72.4% white (227,005,885), 12.6% black (39,506,549)

Whites on welfare: 11,661,000 whites out of 227,005,885 whites (5.13%)

Blacks on welfare: 11,362,000 blacks out of 39,506,549 blacks (28.75%)

[EDIT: I originally wrote 29 percent. I meant to write 29 million.]

12:19pm
(Notes: 31)
  
Filed under: politics welfare african american liberal entitlements black 
May 20, 2013
Race and welfare

As a percentage of the entire American population, of all those people on welfare (29 percent of that population), 39 percent are white and 38 percent are black.

But as a percentage of the race, only 5 percent of whites are on welfare compared to 29 percent of blacks.

2:29pm
(Notes: 31)
  
Filed under: race politics liberal conservative welfare entitlements 
May 20, 2013
Obama to Black Grads: You’ll Have a Hard Life because You’re Black

Booker T. Washington wrote, “There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs—partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.” Washington warned of men like Barack Obama.

Ever the divider, ever the exploiter of racial tension, ever the pusher of envy and resentment, President Obama, giving the commencement speech at a graduation ceremony at Morehouse College in Atlanta, GA, evoked the memory of racism in the South in the ’50s and ’60s. Discouragement is all Obama and other race-baiters have to offer to young blacks. Without a sense of eternal struggle and hardship, blacks would drift toward the Republican platform of hard work, independence, self-sufficiency, and freedom from the bondage of the government.

Addressing the graduates of Morehouse, a majority-black college once attended by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Obama said, “Whatever success I achieved, whatever positions of leadership I’ve held, have depended less on Ivy League degrees or SAT scores or GPAs, and have instead been due to that sense of empathy and connection, the special obligation I felt, as a black man like you, to help those who needed it most: people who didn’t have the opportunities that I had, because, but for the grace of God, I might be in their shoes.”

The man is right: whatever positions of leadership he has held have not depended at all on his Harvard Law degree (from which he was later barred from using) or on his SAT scores or GPA (especially considering he continues to fight Freedom of Information Act requests for him to release his college grades and therefore nobody knows what they are); instead, his positions of leadership, at least the one he currently holds, were given to him for the fortuitous fact of his being born black. Indeed, his blackness, the historicity of it, is one of the few good things about him. Therefore did an emotional public elect him.

Obama also said, “Every one of you has a grandma or an uncle or a parent who’s told you at some point in life, as an African American you have to work twice as hard as anyone else if you want to get by,” adding, “If you think you can just get over in this economy just because you have a Morehouse degree, you’re in for a rude awakening.”

Never were more encouraging words spoken. You are black, so if you only work just as hard as everyone else, you will fail. It’s tough out there, so if you feel like giving up and just letting the government mother you, no one will blame you.

And how can anyone blame them if they take that route, when their role models preach such words of discouragement and inevitable failure?

2:01pm
(Notes: 53)
  
Filed under: obama politics african american leftybegone race racism racial issues booker t. washington morehouse 
May 20, 2013
In 2012, blacks voted at a higher rate than whites

I wonder why.

1:20pm
(Notes: 8)
  
Filed under: race politics conservative liberal 2012 election elections 
May 18, 2013
Sorry, guys, had to post this :3

Sorry, guys, had to post this :3

6:10pm
(Notes: 12)
  
May 18, 2013
Choice for Its Own Sake Leads to Another Gosnell

Let not Kermit Gosnell be the sole face of the horror that is abortion. Gosnell is one man out of an unknown number in a horde who are, no more and no less, killers of babies born and unborn. A majority of these savages will never face punishment for the crimes against humanity they are guilty of, much less be charged. Gosnell is one exception against whom justice was served. Douglas Karpen will hopefully be the next.

No claim can be made that a right-wing conspiracy is in the works against Karpen. Just as happened in the case of Gosnell, Karpen has been accused by his own former employees—no right-wing pro-lifers are they. These four women allege that the practice of delivering live babies and then snipping the spinal cords in their neck was not a unique fetish of Gosnell, but a practice which Karpen did regularly as well.

But that is not the limit of his barbarism. “Sometimes he couldn’t get the fetus out…[and] he would yank pieces, piece by piece, when they were oversize,” said Deborah Edge, one of Karpens accusers.

This is called “choice.”

Karpen also—if you have weak stomachs, skip this paragraph—“twist[ed] their heads off their necks with his own bare hands.”

Choice.

Edge also said that she and Karpen’s other assistants “used to look at each other and sometimes our tears would come out with the other assistants. We would always think, ‘He’s so greedy.’”

Greed is the least of what is the matter with Karpen and his fellow pro-choicers. It is often said that, at the core of its ideology, the pro-choice movement seeps with a disrespect for life. We can see this exemplified when Karpen’s assistant refer to human babies with the dehumanizing pronoun “it.” “When he did an abortion,” said Edge, “…most of the time the fetus would come completely out before he either cut the spinal cord or he introduced one of the instruments into the soft spot of the fetus in order to kill it” (emphasis my own). If a fetus comes “completely out,” there is no justification for calling him an “it.” “It” is a newborn human baby.

Disrespect for life may have been fundamental to the pro-choice movement’s establishment, and while it certainly still is, it has devolved into an outright disdain for life. This is why we don’t see pro-choice activists encouraging women to choose to give birth, but instead to visit Planned Parenthood to have them inform the mothers-to-be of the rates for different abortion packages. (Exterminate one twin, snuff the second for half-price.)

The encouragement of choice independent of moral considerations over the encouragement of the ethical, righteous choice has contributed to this hatred of life. When choice for its own sake is portrayed as a virtue, it necessarily categorizes the opposite point of view—the anti-choice but pro-human point of view—as an evil.

Thus are born all the Gosnells and the Karpens and the other, everyday pro-choicers.

2:01pm
(Notes: 6)
  
Filed under: my body my choice choice politics pro-choice kermit gosnell douglas karpen karpen abortion leftybegone 
May 17, 2013
Global Warming from a Christian Perspective

“While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.” So proclaimed God in the Book of Genesis, but what does He know? He hasn’t got anything on Gaia.

Of course you can’t use biblical arguments when trying to persuade those of a different theological bent. A non-Christian will not listen when his opponent begins the debate with “The Bible says,” just as a Christian will not listen when his opponent begins the debate with “The Hadith say.” And that’s fine.

But using Bible-based arguments when debating with those who both subscribe to the alarmism of modern-day environmentalism and profess Christianity is a valid tactic. Pay attention, Gaians:

The Bible does say we should not be cruel to animals and that humans are to take care of the Earth, but not to such an idolatrous extent that you environmentalists would like us to. The earth is not God and must never be the object of our love.

As I mentioned at the top, the Bible also says that the seasons will always exist and that heat and cold will always be a part of them. There will be decades-long cycles during which the average temperatures around the world are slightly warmer than previously, and there will be decades-long cycles during which those temperatures are slightly cooler than previously. But this see-sawing of warmth and coldness will always exist; there will never be a time in which, say, the 20-degree winters of Virginia are exchanged for 70-degree winters. If you believe in the Bible, you must believe in good environmental stewardship, yes, but you must not believe in any sort of permanent global warming. 

To those liberal “Christians” who pick and choose which parts of the Bible to believe—that Paul hated both women and homosexuals and therefore his writings are not to be considered valid, for instance—you’re fools. Where did you hear about Christianity in the first place? Ultimately, from the Bible, of course. If Jesus were not mentioned in the Bible, you would have no basis for following His teachings. You follow His teachings because they’re in the Bible. So too you must accept all the other words of the Bible, and that includes those of the eighth chapter and twenty-second verse of Genesis at the top of this piece.

And finally, to those atheist environmentalists, I say this: You are not atheists; your religion is Ecology, your god, Earth. Carbon credits are no different from the Catholic Church’s selling of indulgences in the Middle Ages. “You may sin [against Gaia] if you pay us [the Government, the Prophet of Ecology].” Those “My other car is a hybrid” bumper stickers are receipts for the indulgence of owning a sinful, non-hybrid vehicle. Your fellow Ecologists may admire you for owning a hybrid that you own simply for the pride it gives you, and for the alleviation of your guilt, but to the rest of us, that bumper sticker might as well read, “I’ve been had.” 

2:01pm
(Notes: 82)
  
Filed under: climate change christianity bible leftybegone environmentalism global warming religion 
May 17, 2013
Choice <3

Choice <3

(Source: Daily Mail)

12:43pm
(Notes: 71)
  
Filed under: choice my body my choice abortion pro-choice 
May 17, 2013

(Source: beardsbluntsbroncos, via everythingwithaconservativetwist)

12:21pm
(Notes: 216)
  
Filed under: obama politics barack obama liberal obama in the rain 
May 16, 2013

5:20pm
(Notes: 28)
  
Filed under: benghazi clinton politics conservative chelsea clinton hillary clinton ambassador 
May 16, 2013
IRS, DOJ, Benghazi: Squirm, Barry, Squirm

In light of White House Press Secretary Jay Carney’s indications that President Obama is completely aloof about everything that goes on in his government (“He doesn’t know anything about Benghazi,” “He knew nothing about collecting the phone records of AP journalists,” “He knew nothing about the IRS intimidating conservative and Catholic groups”), I feel it’s time to ask Obama voters, Where’s your god now?

Either Obama is a man whose competence and benevolence rival only that of Abraham Lincoln, or he’s a bumbling, out-of-touch screw-up with no control over his own administration, the goings-on of which he is completely ignorant.

The realization that it must be one or the other might be what is driving some Democrats to actually begin criticizing these scandals, as opposed to their usual habit of criticizing the whistleblowers of the scandals; they would rather Obama be looked upon as ineffectual than a Nixonian crook. “Obama didn’t know anything about anything, but he does need to fire some people” seems to be the general consensus among Democrats.

There’s a large part of me that hopes we don’t anytime soon get to the bottom of these three scandals, however; I get so much entertainment from watching the different members of this administration squirm and flounder uncomfortably now that some in the media have begun doing their primary function of asking questions.

The denials, deliciously pathetic, reveal an arrogance the level of which we haven’t yet witnessed in Obama, which is saying something. Of course, the press is to blame for Obama’s over-confidence in his ability to get away with corruption, but now that one of their own has been the target of spying by the Justice Department—Obama’s Justice Department—some journalists are dusting off their journalism degrees and finally putting them to use, the temerity of which resulted in White House Press Secretary Jay Carney repeating ad nauseum, in an effort to sound convincing, the uncomfortably disingenuous statement that Obama is a “firm believer in the need for the press to be unfettered.”

But of course Obama knew about the IRS and the Justice Department; what transpired there was classic Chicago politics. Obama is from Chicago; he knows how to play politics, as he has proudly stated in the past. And it was Obama, Commander in Chief, who (fine, “allegedly”) told American troops stationed just outside Benghazi to stand down and not to try to help the four diplomats being tortured and killed by Islamic savages, a non-story in Obama’s eyes (“There’s no ‘there’ there,” he said).

The head of the IRS may have been appointed by President George W. Bush, but, like Bush, he is obviously no conservative. The IRS has already admitted that they did exactly what they are being accused of having done, but Obama still felt confident to deny this reality, calling it outrageous only “if” it were true. (If it’s true that the IRS engaged in the criminal activity they already admitted they engaged in….)

If Obama is comfortable living in that reality, can we please let him live there just a little while longer, if only for the enjoyment of seeing him twist and turn? It lends legitimacy to mascot of the Democratic Party.

3:50pm
(Notes: 10)
  
Filed under: IRS Obama politics conservative benghazi Corrupt bastard corrupt barack obama nobama 
May 16, 2013
Obama is apparently 45 minutes late to the Press Conference he asked for…

talkstraight:

…either he’s being a chicken that’s afraid to answer questions or he’s reminding the media that he’s the boss and they’ll dance only when he says they will.

Obama’s always late for these things. Always. So disrespectful.

1:25pm
(Notes: 19)
  
Filed under: obama politics liberal conservative 
May 16, 2013
76-Year-Old on Medicare Is Denied Monthly Shot because of Obamacare Costs

Today, I went to the Doctor for my monthly B12 shot that I have been getting for a number of years. The nurse came and got me, got the needle filled and ready to go, then looked at the computer and got very quiet and asked if I was prepared to pay for it. I said no, that my insurance takes care of it. She said that Medicare had turned it down and went to talk to my doctor about it. Fifteen minutes later she came back and said she was sorry, but they had tried everything they could and Medicare is beginning to turn away many things for seniors because of the projected Obamacare costs coming in.

1:04pm
(Notes: 59)
  
Filed under: obamacare health care healthcare politics medicare 
Liked posts on Tumblr: More liked posts »