VIDEO: Al Sharpton brings up race 314 times on his show in 2013
Yes, we all love to laugh at Al Sharpton. But I’m starting to notice a pattern. When he doesn’t like your political views, rather than think of a reasonable counter argument or rethink his position, he simply calls you a racist. He did so 314 times on his show in 2013 (that’s more than 1.2 times per episode) and there’s video to prove it.
Here’s the video. Enjoy!
This is the state of politics today, folks. Do you have an opinion that doesn’t fit the progressive agenda? It’s because you’re a racist (or sexist or bigot or “homophobe” or “islamophobe”, etc).
How can we have a rational conversation about real issues when half of us refuse to enter into rational debate?
10:36 pm • 21 February 2014 • View comments
After outcry, Obama admin puts plan to monitor news rooms on ice
The Obama administration plan to place monitors in news rooms across the country has been temporarily put on hold after much public outcry.
The Federal Communications Commission announced Friday that it was putting on hold a controversial study of American newsrooms, after complaints from Republican lawmakers and media groups that the project was too intrusive.
FCC spokeswoman Shannon Gilson said Chairman Tom Wheeler agreed with critics that some of the study’s proposed questions for reporters and news directors “overstepped the bounds of what is required.”
The agency announced that a proposed pilot study in South Carolina will now be shelved, at least until a “new study design” is finalized. But the agency made clear that this and any future studies will not involve interviews with “media owners, news directors or reporters.”
Commissioner Ajit Pai, who was one of the staunchest critics of the proposal, heralded the decision Friday as an acknowledgement that government-backed researchers would not be dispatched into newsrooms, as feared.
"This study would have thrust the federal government into newsrooms across the country, somewhere it just doesn’t belong," he said in a statement. "The Commission has now recognized that no study by the federal government, now or in the future, should involve asking questions to media owners, news directors, or reporters about their practices. This is an important victory for the First Amendment."
He added: “And it would not have been possible without the American people making their voices heard. I will remain vigilant that any future initiatives not infringe on our constitutional freedoms.”
The Radio and Television News Directors Association took a more cautious view of the announcement.
"RTDNA views this as an important admission by the FCC that questions regarding editorial policies and practices are off-limits to the government," Director Mike Cavender said in a statement. "We are eager to see the revised study to insure there aren’t topics or questions that could be construed as a ‘back door’ attempt to gather the same type of information."
read the rest
As usual, the Obama administration sees the light after they get caught, but instead of scrapping their scheme completely, they’re saving it for a rainy day when nobody is paying attention.
4:58 pm • 21 February 2014 • View comments
Systematic genocide: More black babies killed by abortion in NYC than are born
Margaret Sanger’s dream when she founded Planned Parenthood was to provide a mechanism to stifle the growth of the black population in the United States. It looks like her dream is becoming a reality in New York City.
In 2012, there were more black babies killed by abortion (31,328) in New York City than were born there (24,758), and the black children killed comprised 42.4% of the total number of abortions in the Big Apple, according to a report by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.
The report is entitled, Summary of Vital Statistics 2012 The City of New York, Pregnancy Outcomes, and was prepared by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Office of Vital Statistics.
read the rest
Planned Parenthood has aggressively positioned themselves within black communities across the United States and has never disavowed themselves from Margaret Sanger or her founding mission of the group.
Abortion has been and always will be a mechanism for systematic genocide.
2:24 pm • 21 February 2014 • View comments
Democrat Joe Manchin: “I will vote tomorrow to repeal Obamacare.”
With mid-term elections looming ever closer, Democrat Joe Manchin is desperately trying to thread the needle of how to both support and oppose President Obama’s agenda.
from the Register Herald:
He asked for all the listeners to let him and other lawmakers know their thoughts on the variety of topics, including the Affordable Care Act.
“We spend more on health care than any state, but we rank 43rd on wellness and longevity.”
Both parties agree on many aspects of the ACA, such as pre-existing conditions not being excluded from coverage and no lifetime caps, but there are still many kinks that need to be fixed, Manchin said.
“I will vote tomorrow to repeal (the ACA), but I want to fix the problems in it.”
He said the ACA is essentially a product and the government needs to find a way to “sell it” and make their customers want to buy it.
read the rest
Manchin clearly doesn’t get it. He appears to believe that the core problem with Obamacare is one of marketing. The uncomfortable truth, however, is that there is a problem with government mandated coverage of pre-existing conditions. There is a constitutionality problem with the entire law. There law is fundamentally flawed and needs to be completely scrapped.
Sorry, Joe Manchin, you can’t just say you support repeal but in the same breath say there’s just a few “kinks” that need to be fixed.
10:25 am • 21 February 2014 • View comments
Obama’s Orwellian FCC: Hey, let’s put monitors in every newsroom
This story doesn’t come from some crazy, anti-Obama conspiracy web site. This comes from Ajit Pai, a commissioner at the FCC, writing in the the Wall Street Journal. According to him, the Obama administration’s FCC is primed to begin a trial period for a new program aimed at newsrooms across the country. The stated objective is a “Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs” to obtain the “the process by which stories are selected.”
From The Wall Street Journal:
News organizations often disagree about what Americans need to know. MSNBC, for example, apparently believes that traffic in Fort Lee, N.J., is the crisis of our time. Fox News, on the other hand, chooses to cover the September 2012 attacks on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi more heavily than other networks. The American people, for their part, disagree about what they want to watch.
But everyone should agree on this: The government has no place pressuring media organizations into covering certain stories.
Unfortunately, the Federal Communications Commission, where I am a commissioner, does not agree. Last May the FCC proposed an initiative to thrust the federal government into newsrooms across the country. With its “Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs,” or CIN, the agency plans to send researchers to grill reporters, editors and station owners about how they decide which stories to run. A field test in Columbia, S.C., is scheduled to begin this spring.
The purpose of the CIN, according to the FCC, is to ferret out information from television and radio broadcasters about “the process by which stories are selected” and how often stations cover “critical information needs,” along with "perceived station bias" and “perceived responsiveness to underserved populations.”
How does the FCC plan to dig up all that information? First, the agency selected eight categories of “critical information” such as the “environment” and “economic opportunities,” that it believes local newscasters should cover. It plans to ask station managers, news directors, journalists, television anchors and on-air reporters to tell the government about their “news philosophy” and how the station ensures that the community gets critical information.
The FCC also wants to wade into office politics. One question for reporters is: “Have you ever suggested coverage of what you consider a story with critical information for your customers that was rejected by management?” Follow-up questions ask for specifics about how editorial discretion is exercised, as well as the reasoning behind the decisions.
Read the Rest (H/T: ACLJ)
This is scary people. This is Marxist dictator type stuff here.
It should be noted that the questions from the FCC don’t have to be answered, as participation in the program is “voluntary.” But, as is explained in the article, the FCC has the power to withhold licenses from whom it will. If it doesn’t like what a news organization is doing, it will simply prevent them from operating. In other words, the government will control the media.
9:40 am • 21 February 2014 • View comments
So, about that whole global warming thing…
It’s really amazing when you think about it. For years, scientists (and others) told us that our planet was warming. They told us that if we didn’t severely limit production of “greenhouse gases”, the Earth would begin an irrevocable path to destruction. We started driving different cars. We were forced by law to use different light bulbs. We spent millions of dollars to build thousands of windmills across the country to harness renewable energy. We even instituted burdensome regulations on private industry all in an attempt to somehow skirt the inevitable global disaster. All this for what? In spite of our efforts, so-called “greenhouse gases” have risen to unprecedented levels while global temperatures have remained relatively stagnant. And still, when people who observe this so much as question the narrative, they are called “flat-earthers" by those claiming to represent them.
From two scientists writing in the WSJ:
In a Feb. 16 speech in Indonesia, Secretary of State John Kerry assailed climate-change skeptics as members of the “Flat Earth Society” for doubting the reality of catastrophic climate change. He said, “We should not allow a tiny minority of shoddy scientists” and “extreme ideologues to compete with scientific facts.”
But who are the Flat Earthers, and who is ignoring the scientific facts? In ancient times, the notion of a flat Earth was the scientific consensus, and it was only a minority who dared question this belief. We are among today’s scientists who are skeptical about the so-called consensus on climate change. Does that make us modern-day Flat Earthers, as Mr. Kerry suggests, or are we among those who defy the prevailing wisdom to declare that the world is round?
What is not a known fact is by how much the Earth’s atmosphere will warm in response to this added carbon dioxide. The warming numbers most commonly advanced are created by climate computer models built almost entirely by scientists who believe in catastrophic global warming. The rate of warming forecast by these models depends on many assumptions and engineering to replicate a complex world in tractable terms, such as how water vapor and clouds will react to the direct heat added by carbon dioxide or the rate of heat uptake, or absorption, by the oceans.
We might forgive these modelers if their forecasts had not been so consistently and spectacularly wrong.
Read the Rest (Read it. It’s good.)
As I’ve stated so many times (and will continue to state), while I love science, I’m not a scientist. There’s no way for me (or anyone else for that matter) to know, for certain, without a doubt, that human activity isn’t somehow contributing to some long-term change in climate. But as the article so eloquently puts it, science “consensuses” can be dangerous, especially when government coercion is involved. Why don’t we start panicking when the climate models start lining up with reality?
11:43 pm • 20 February 2014 • View comments
VIDEO: Criminals pick the wrong house to invade
It’s no secret, Detroit has a crime problem. And what reduces crime more than anything? Armed good people. Even the Detroit police chief is encouraging all citizens to purchase weapons in an effort to protect themselves and deter would-be criminals from committing crime.
Need an example of that? Here’s a video for you:
Three young men, one of them armed, were scared away by one woman with a rifle defending her home. It kind of reminds me of the pizza guy in Home Alone running out of the house in an utter panic. Keep the change you filthy animal.
H/T: AoSHQ, Hotair
10:32 pm • 20 February 2014 • View comments
Too stupid for words: Milwaukee County raises minimum wage for all non-SEIU gov’t contractors
Yeah, this seems constitutional. The city of Milwaukee is raising the minimum wage…for almost everyone with whom it does business. That’s right. Every government contractor whose employees are not members of SEIU will be required by law to pay their employees a new, higher minimum wage of $11.33 per hour. Can’t afford to pay your employees that amount? No problem. Simply force your employees to join the SEIU and you can keep paying the same rate.
From The Washington Examiner:
Mobsters making offers that can’t be refused typically do so in the bluntest possible language, but SEIU leaders in Wisconsin are running a close second.
Gov. Scott Walker’s landmark reforms — including guaranteeing workers the right not to be forced to pay dues to a union they don’t want to join — is costing SEIU thousands of members.
The 8,385 members SEIU has lost since the reforms became law are solid evidence that before Walker came along the union depended upon force, rather than consent, to keep the dues revenue stream flowing.
So the union’s leaders have come up with a backdoor way to force employees to fork over the dues money. It’s a novel variation on the Living Wage/Minimum Wage campaign.
Here’s how it works: Milwaukee County officials approved a living wage requirement for local government contractors to pay at least $11.33 per hour. SEIU’s Wisconsin Jobs Now campaign was the main backer of the requirement.
But the new law includes a convenient way for contractors to avoid having to pay the living wage — they can agree to force their employees to join SEIU.
Read the Rest (H/T: WZ)
Look, when the government gets to pick winners and losers, liberty is diminished. Every. Time.
But I’ll give the progressives credit. When the chips are down, they simply get creative, never mind what the Constitution says. The difference is, us small government types generally adhere to principles over pragmatism. And it’s awfully hard to win when you’re the only one playing by the rules.
11:20 pm • 19 February 2014 • View comments
Obama’s top economic advisor: Raising the minimum wage will help those who want to “work less”
These are the kinds of economic “geniuses” that President Obama listens to. Obama’s top economic advisor said on MSNBC that raising the minimum wage will allow people who want to work less to make a decent living.
Here’s the video:
Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 by 2016 will help “people who just want to work hard,” but it also will help those who want to “work less,” White House economic adviser Gene Sperling told MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Wednesday.
He argued that Americans support raising the minimum wage because it will lift “struggling” families out of poverty:
"But they also know what it’s like to see a friend, a neighbor, where one spouse goes back to work, who would prefer maybe not to work. Maybe they’re working part-time just to supplement the family’s income. And they think, if that family member is making that sacrifice — spending less time with the child — then they should be making a decent living or be able to work less because they’re getting a decent wage."
Sperling called an increase to $10.10 a “moderate increase,” and he said it means people “will rely less on the government.”
"These are people who just want to work hard and support their family. That’s why Americans support increasing the minimum wage — that’s why the president supports it."
read the rest
The reality is that the opposite is true. Oh, some people will work less alright…because they won’t be able to find a job! Sperling’s example of the working mom is just stupid because it fails to account for the inflationary effect that raising the minimum wage will have of the cost of living. As labor becomes more expensive, the price of everything else goes up with it.
This is Obama’s reasoning…vote Democrat so we can raise the minimum wage and you can work less!
10:49 am • 19 February 2014 • View comments
Late night talk host Jimmy Kimmel polls his audience…and NOT ONE has signed up for Obamacare
Jimmy Kimmel seems to have had an epiphany a couple of months ago…the Obama administration is a comedy gold mine. This gold mine has been virtually untapped because most comedians are too blinded by their ideologies to make fun of the Obama administration, and now that Leno is gone, Kimmel has it all to himself.
Here’s his bit on Obamacare from last night’s show:
Obamacare and a casket…that’s a pretty good metaphor for where our health care system is headed.
10:35 am • 19 February 2014 • View comments
CBO: 500,000 Americans will lose their jobs if minimum wage is hiked to Obama’s $10.10 number
This is President Obama. He knows even less about economics than he does about dancing, which isn’t very much, believe me. It is because of a basic lack of economic literacy that President Obama has been promoting a raise in the minimum wage to $10.10/hour, something the non-partisan CBO says would be very, very bad for our already tepid jobs market.
Raising the U.S. federal minimum wage to $10.10, as President Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress are proposing, could result in about 500,000 jobs being lost by late 2016, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated on Tuesday.
The non-partisan CBO also said that increasing the hourly wage could reduce U.S. budget deficits by a small amount for several years, but then increase them slightly in later years.
The current minimum wage is $7.25 an hour.
read the rest
President Obama should really leave the economics stuff alone and stick to dancing. Unfortunately, he’s not a professional dancer, he’s in charge of steering our national economy over a cliff.
4:53 pm • 18 February 2014 • View comments
Tuesday hilarity: Sibelius says no job loss under Obamacare
It seems as if Sebelius doesn’t care what the facts are. She is now hilariously claiming that there will be no job loss at all under Obamacare. I wonder if she is aware of the fact that the CBO recently estimated that there will be 2.5 million jobs will be lost because of Obamcare (revised up from a measly 800,000). My guess is she knows full well and is choosing to lie about it.
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius says there is “absolutely no evidence” that the Affordable Care Act will drive down employment, despite a report from the Congressional Budget Office released Feb. 4 predicting fewer people would be working.
“There is absolutely no evidence, and every economist will tell you this, that there is any job-loss related to the Affordable Care Act,” Sebelius told reporters in Orlando, Fla., on Monday.
Read the Rest
"Every economist" (Except for those working for the same government she works for — I’m literally laughing out loud while typing this). That sounds eerily similar to the desperate "the science is settled" global warming argument that comes from the left. "There’s no reason to talk about it. Everybody knows X, Y and Z is true."
She’s asking us to ignore logic, data, facts, our personal experiences and the awful CBO reports and believe her. Riiiiiight. We should totally do that.
9:45 am • 18 February 2014 • View comments
Monday news dump: Power laces, preexisting conditions, and police state edition
Here are a few things you may have missed over Valentine’s Day weekend.
Nike is apparently actually going to manufacture shoes with power laces like the ones worn by Marty McFly in “Back to the Future.” (I checked to make sure the article wasn’t written on April 1st of last year)
So it turns out that those with preexisiting conditions might not be so happy with Obamacare after all. I know you’re shocked, shocked to learn that the administration lied about Obamacare.
Police shoot and kill 80-year-old man in drug raid.
Obama: California’s drought caused by global warming, of course.
Locals: Oh no it’s not.
Oh, and CBS says the cold winter is caused by global warming. You know, because everything is the fault of global warming.
Republicans: Yeah, Obama is completely trampling the Constitution but we’re not going to do anything.
EPA now confiscating land? Is this the Twilight Zone?
Male transgender baseball player to play on the girls’ softball team.
Tennessee VW plant says “thanks but no thanks" to UAW.
11:18 am • 17 February 2014 • View comments
So, Democrats, about all that money in politics…
Democrats love to moan and complain about all that dirty money in politics and how Republicans just buy their way into elections. The truth, as usual, doesn’t favor the Democrats’ argument.
Take a look at the all-time top 20 political donors and see if you notice anything conspicuous…
Not only do the top 20 political donors of all time contain only two that donate primarily to Republicans, but 13 of the top 20 are all unions. Out of those thirteen unions, only one (the National Auto Dealers Assn) donates primarily to Republicans.
So, the next time you hear a Democrat complaining about all the money in politics, or evil corporations, or the Koch brothers, you can point them to the truth. Oh, there’s plenty of money in politics alright, but most of it is being taken from American workers’ paychecks and funneled to Democrats by union bosses.
11:12 am • 17 February 2014 • View comments
Ninth Circuit: Yes, the second amendment still exists
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today that states cannot circumvent the 2nd amendment by making it illegal to carry weapons openly while also making it illegal to conceal them. According to the court, they can do one, but not the other.
As obvious as this sounds, the state of California was trying to do exactly that, essentially removing a person’s right to bear arms.
From the WSJ:
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that the Second Amendment endows the right to carry a gun outside the home. The opinion comes days before the Supreme Court is expected to decide whether to review two other cases that ask the question of whether the right to “bear arms” extends beyond the home.
The California-based appeals court, in a 2-1 ruling authored by Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain, delved into American history, from the Founding Era forward, and found support for the notion that “bearing arms” means carrying a gun in public:
So concludes our analysis of text and history: the carrying of an operable handgun outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense, though subject to traditional restrictions, constitutes “bear[ing] Arms” within the meaning of the Second Amendment.
The case comes from San Diego County, which, according to state law, requires residents to show “good cause” for carrying a concealed handgun. Personal safety alone does not qualify as good cause. The question for the court was whether the requirement infringes on the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms.
Read the Rest (H/T: AoSHQ)
While I am pleased with the decision, I don’t like some of the language it contains. For instance, the decision begins to define restrictions and uses phrases like “self-defense.” But none of these things are in the second amendment at all.
As we do from time to time, let’s review the 2nd amendment:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
It’s unambiguous. The point of the 2nd amendment is not self defense (although that is an added benefit), it is for protection against tyranny. People have the right to own weapons and bear them.
3:47 pm • 13 February 2014 • View comments