The unrest in Ukraine is a single frame in a devious film that’s being played out. What it really comes down to is economic politics. The violence is the window dressing that the media is content/allowed to report. The real game is not reported by either fiat or bribery.
Since the Soviet Union fell, they’ve turned off the gas to the Ukraine over 40 times. Last year, the now former Ukraine President Uanukovych approved a ten billion dollar petroleum exploration agreement with U.S. based Chevron. Three months later he is run out of office.
This all comes back to the energy play that the Saudis are funding for this country. The United States has the reachable energy resources to become the largest energy producer on the planet. Every single job that was lost since 2008 could be replaced with a $100k job if these resources were developed. This is not hyperbole.
The Saudis, who already have enormous sway over the direction of this country, her politicians and her President, Barack Obama, have invested billions to ensure the United States never becomes an energy producing super-power.
Have you noticed that the coverage of the chaos in the Ukraine has ended on precisely the same day as the media and our Leftist politicians have made a renewed call to “combat global climate change”? These events are not unrelated.
The Deepwater Horizon disaster from years back is yet another frame from this film.
As I said before, this is economic politics or perhaps put more accurately, it is economic terrorism being waged against America’s lower and middle class. Sadly, most of those being targeted have no idea they are in a war and even less recognize that their own President is one of the other side’s Generals.
Concealed-weapons laws have changed America regardless of national debate on gun control – Washington Examiner
The result has been that over the years the entire nation has become carry-concealed-weapons territory, as shown in a neat graphic in a Volokh Conspiracy blog post by Dave Kopel. Back in 1987, some people, myself included, worried that such laws would lead to frequent shootouts on the streets arising from traffic altercations and the like. That has not happened — something we can be sure of since the mainstream media would be delighted to headline such events.
To the contrary, violent crime rates have declined drastically during the last quarter-century. I don’t think you can prove that concealed-weapons laws caused that result, but they have probably contributed to it, because would-be criminals are less likely to assault people they believe might be armed. In any case the argument that concealed-weapons laws would lead to more violent crime has been about as thoroughly refuted as an argument can be.
Concealed carry has certainly contributed to declining violent crime rates. There’s another reason but unfortunately I cannot post it. Suffice it to say though, liberal (that’s a small “l”) concealed carry laws have been of great benefit to everyone, especially those that don’t carry regularly.
Over the weekend, we lost two national treasures:
Piers Morgan and CNN Plan End to His Prime-Time Show – NY Times
“I’m in danger of being the guy down at the end of the bar who is always going on about the same thing,” he said. He added that he was sure there were plenty of people in the heartland angry “about this British guy telling them how to lead their lives and what they should do with their guns.”
I think we’re well into the danger zone, Piers.
This, however, is far more interesting:
Alec Baldwin: Good-bye, Public Life – Vulture
A self-penned essay by Baldwin that’s extremely revealing and at times, unsettling in its honesty. Baldwin’s fall is complex in that it’s impossible to know what’s truly in this man’s heart. Considering the prevalence of gays in power positions of Hollywood, it seems difficult to believe that the man is truly bigoted. At the same time, it’s clear that the man is truly disconnected from reality. At one point he references the incident where he calls a reporter a “toxic little queen”:
At the time, I didn’t view “toxic little queen” as a homophobic statement. I didn’t realize how those words could give offense, and I’m sorry for that.
This stretches the bounds of believability.
On the other hand, he does dismiss the notion that he’s an MSNBC-adoring liberal with his awareness that Rachel Maddow has very little interest in truth. In the same vein, I remember years back when Baldwin was a guest on Bill Marr during the mortgage crash that led to the great depression, he acknowledged that “Chris Dodd and Barney Frank should be dragged through the streets for their hand in this.” Considering that those two were the primary architects of a crash we’ve never recovered from, that’s reasonably accurate although it doesn’t go quite far enough in my opinion.
The essay is a fascinating read in that it does genuinely appear to be a window into the soul of a man who is his own worst enemy and who still doesn’t fully understand that he could have been so much more successful both personally and professionally if he would have accepted earlier on that one cannot worry about the things he cannot change.
Ralph Nader: Obama the ’executioner’ – Politico
In his new book, Ralph Nader calls for the end of “unconstitutional wars and unchecked militarism” — and lays blame on President Barack Obama for going beyond even George W. Bush.
Nader writes in “Unstoppable” that Obama “has extended the Bush doctrine by declaring his unilateral right, as secret prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner, to destroy anybody, anywhere in the world, including American citizens, suspected to be engaged in alleged terrorist activities, all this vaguely and loosely defined as anti-U.S. security.”
He continues, “Inspired by the military actions of the Clinton administration, the Obama and Bush teams made a seamless transition into a militarized foreign policy, extending even further the illegal reach of wars of choice, invasions, incursions, and drone attacks, carried out irrespective of national sovereignties.”
But I thought wars and deaths didn’t count if the media doesn’t report on them?
Purity or Strategy: The Debate We Need To Have. – Andrew Klavan
Just to let you know where I stand emotionally, here’s a true story. The first time I made a speech before a Tea Party crowd, I felt as if I were floating two feet off the ground. I respected, admired and agreed with the Tea Partiers so completely, that my heart rose up and I began to believe that despite the Obama debacle, the country would ultimately be fine. As I was leaving the rally, I got a call from a friend asking me to come by for a drink with a couple of the highest ranking Republicans in Washington. It was me and them, having a glass together, eye to eye. By the time I left that gathering, I was so depressed by the establishment GOP’s blindness and philosophical corruption I could barely see straight. I phoned Andrew Breitbart for moral support. “I’ve just had a drink with [blank] and [blank],” I began. And he responded immediately, “Are they ***holes or what?”
All my sympathies, in other words, are with the tea party. And I would truly love to see the RINO’s skewered on their own horns.
And yet… In general, Tea Party candidates tend to do well in congressional races where small, homogenous districts are in play. In Senate races where you need votes across an entire state, a primary victory for someone like Christine O’Donnell or Todd Akin may briefly fill the conservative heart with joy, but the loss of a Senate seat that could have been won is simply too high a price to pay for that momentary triumph.
We need to talk this out with good sense and without pompous ranting. Politics is the art of the possible. Writing belligerently purist articles, blog posts or comments is relatively easy. Winning elections is hard. Barack Obama is one of the most destructive presidents this country has ever seen, but a talented politician. If stopping him in his tracks requires stomaching some RINO’s here and there, it seems a no brainer: It must be done.
He’s right.. to an extent. The GOP leadership needs to learn to give the Tea Party some fucking respect in return.
I know SO many Liberals that have a negative view of the Tea Party and when you ask them why, they immediately regurgitate something that they heard from a Liberal pundit: They’re racist, they’re bigoted, they’re anarchists.
The Tea Party is of course, none of these things.
What the Tea Party represents is the end of the graft that the Democrats and Republicans have feasted upon for decades. Because of that, the Tea Party is enemy #1.
Violent crimes plummeted in 2013 as gun sales skyrocketed – Bearing Arms
It appears that Robert Heinlein was correct: an armed society really is a polite society.
The FBI has just released their latest semi-annual crime report, covering January to June of 2013.
Nationwide, forcible rape was down 10.6 percent, burglary was down 8.1 percent, murder was down 6.9 percent, and aggravated assault was down 6.6 percent from the previous period. Arson plunged a staggering 15.6 percent.
There was slight increase (0.6-percent ) in murders in cities with a population of 25,000-49,999, and a 2 percent rise in murders in cities with a population of 50,000-99,999. The number of murders plunged the deepest in cities with a population of more than 1 million citizens, which reported a 18.5 percent drop.
None of this is of any surprise to those of us who have stuck to the facts in the gun control debate.
Why do liberal cities have so much income inequality? – Washington Examiner
How do liberals who decry income inequality deal with the fact that income inequality is greatest in jurisdictions with liberal public policies? A story in Thursday’s New York Times suggests an answer.
The story is based on a Brookings Institution report that finds, in the words of the Times’ Annie Lowrey, that “inequality is sharply higher in economically vibrant cities like New York and San Francisco than in less dynamic ones like Columbus, Ohio, and Wichita, Kan.” And what does “vibrant” mean? Lowrey quotes the Brookings study’s author, Alan Berube, as saying less “vibrant” cities “are not homes to the sectors driving economic growth, like technology and finance. These are places that are home to sectors like transportation, logistics, warehousing.”
I recall my mother explaining an old adage to me as a young child that went something like “People who live in glass houses..”
The myth of ‘settled science’ – Washington Post
I repeat: I’m not a global warming believer. I’m not a global warming denier. I’ve long believed that it cannot be good for humanity to be spewing tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. I also believe that those scientists who pretend to know exactly what this will cause in 20, 30 or 50 years are white-coated propagandists.
“The debate is settled,” asserted propagandist in chief Barack Obama in his latest State of the Union address. “Climate change is a fact.” Really? There is nothing more anti-scientific than the very idea that science is settled, static, impervious to challenge.
The sad thing is that I know people in scientific and academic positions that refuse to see the folly in this perspective.
A completely expected Update: Heating up: Climate change advocates try to silence Krauthammer
He does, however, challenge the notion that the science on climate change is settled and says those who insist otherwise are engaged in “a crude attempt to silence critics and delegitimize debate.”
How ironic, then, that some environmental activists launched a petition urging the Post not to publish Krauthammer’s column on Friday.