7-Liberalism Has to be a Mental Disorder, It's the Only Explanation Plausible IMO | View Thread

As I was pounding the pavement, I came up with a list of questions I’d like to pose to a liberal progressive. Well, for every mile it seems I came up with one — glad I didn’t try running 8 miles this morning!

Here you go:

1. If former President George W. Bush was un-American for adding $4 trillion to the national debt, then what is President Barack Hussein Obama who is on his way to adding $8 trillion — and still has two more years to go? Yep, under Obama the national debt has risen from $10.67 trillion to almost $17.5 trillion.

2. If as Obama states, “we leave no man behind,” then what of Marine Sergeant Andrew Tahmooressi, Pastor Saeed Abedini and Kenneth Bae — not to mention still-imprisoned Meriam Yahia Ibrahim – who had her chains removed after giving birth to her daughter, Maya? (And by the way, she is still under a death sentence under Sharia law for marrying a Christian). Nah, those folks don’t help Obama’s political agenda and certainly aren’t as important as recognizing illegal immigrant children “dreamers” at the White House.

3. When the average price of gasoline hit $2.50 a gallon, liberals and their media accomplices went apoplectic (you may have to define that word to a liberal friend) on George W. Bush. Why so silent now, when it’s $3.67?

4. If the late and former President Richard Nixon resigned over a bad case of “breaking and entering” (and the liberal media made a big hoopla over that), what does it take for Barack Hussein Obama to consider the same? Or does the color of skin trump content of character in America now? By the way, I’m planning on my computer crashing next year around tax return time.

5. If it is racist to disagree with the proven failed policies of Barry Soetoro, oops, I mean Barack Hussein Obama, then what is it when liberal progressives disrespect, dismiss, denigrate, demean, disparage, discredit and seek to destroy black conservative Republicans? Funny, all those “D” words come from the Democrat party. Don’t believe me, just look for the responses to this post from liberal progressives (so predictable).

Now, just so you’re aware, be careful when asking these questions to be outside the range of spittle and frothing of the mouth. As well, stand clear so as not to be struck by a liberal progressives wild arm-flinging tantrums as they throw themselves on the floor in a mad rage. These are the telltale symptoms of liberals exposed to the truth — similar to exposing vampires to light. But know that this reaction affirms you are right on the issues and confirms the liberal progressive inability to intellectually respond.

Scientists at two of the world’s leading climate centres - NASA and NOAA - have been caught out manipulating temperature data to overstate the extent of the 20th century "global warming".

The evidence of their tinkering can clearly be seen at Real Science, where blogger Steven Goddard has posted a series of graphs which show "climate change" before and after the adjustments.

When the raw data is used, there is little if any evidence of global warming and some evidence of global cooling. However, once the data has been adjusted - ie fabricated by computer models - 20th century 'global warming' suddenly looks much more dramatic.

This is especially noticeable on the US temperature records. Before 2000, it was generally accepted - even by climate activists like NASA's James Hansen - that the hottest decade in the US was the 1930s.

As Hansen himself said in a 1989 report:

In the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country.

However, Hansen subsequently changed his tune when, sometime after 2000, the temperatures were adjusted to accord with the climate alarmists' fashionable "global warming" narrative. By cooling the record-breaking year of 1934, and promoting 1998 as the hottest year in US history, the scientists who made the adjustments were able suddenly to show 20th century temperatures shooting up - where before they looked either flat or declining.

But as Goddard notes, the Environmental Protection Agency's heatwave record makes a mockery of these adjustments. It quite clearly shows that the US heat waves of the 1930s were of an order of magnitude greater than anything experienced at any other time during the century - far more severe than those in the 1980s or 1990s which were no worse than those in the 1950s.

These adjustments, however, are not limited to the US temperature data sets. Similar fabrications have taken place everywhere from Iceland to Australia.

The fact that supposedly reputable scientists can make these dishonest adjustments and get away with it is, notes long-time sceptic Christopher Booker, one of the more remarkable anomalies of the great climate change scam.

When I first began examining the global-warming scare, I found nothing more puzzling than the way officially approved scientists kept on being shown to have finagled their data, as in that ludicrous “hockey stick” graph, pretending to prove that the world had suddenly become much hotter than at any time in 1,000 years. Any theory needing to rely so consistently on fudging the evidence, I concluded, must be looked on not as science at all, but as simply a rather alarming case study in the aberrations of group psychology.

A Lame Duck Country?

Thomas Sowell

Jun 24, 2014

Pundits are pointing to President Barack Obama's recent decline in public opinion polls, and saying that he may now become another "lame duck" president, unable to accomplish much during his final term in office.

That has happened to other presidents. But it is extremely unlikely to happen to this president. There are reasons why other presidents have become impotent during their last years in office. But those reasons do not apply to Barack Obama.

The Constitution of the United States does not give presidents the power to carry out major policy changes without the cooperation of other branches of government. Once the country becomes disenchanted with a president during his second term, Congress has little incentive to cooperate with him -- and, once Congress becomes uncooperative, there is little that a president can do on his own.

That is, if he respects the Constitution.

President Obama has demonstrated, time and again, that he has no respect for the Constitution's limitations on his power. Despite his oath of office, to see that the laws are faithfully executed, Barack Obama has unilaterally changed welfare reform laws, by eliminating the work requirement passed by Congress during the Clinton administration.

He has repeatedly and unilaterally changed or waived provisions of the ObamaCare law passed by Congress during his own administration.

President Obama has ordered Border Patrol agents not to carry out provisions of the immigration laws that he does not like. We see the results today in the tens of thousands of illegal immigrants entering the country unimpeded.

President Obama's oath of office obviously means no more to him than his oft-repeated promise that "you can keep your own doctor" under ObamaCare.

Why do we have a Constitution of the United States if a president can ignore it without any consequences?

The Constitution cannot protect our rights if we do not protect the Constitution. Freedom is not free, and the Constitution is just some words on paper if we do not do anything to those who violate it.

What can ordinary citizens do?

Everything! Theirs is the ultimate power of the ballot that can bring down even the most powerful elected official.

The most important thing the voters can do is vote against anyone who violates the Constitution. When someone who has violated the Constitution repeatedly gets re-elected, then the voters are accomplices in the erosion of protection for their own freedom.

Laws without penalties are just suggestions -- and suggestions are a pitiful defense against power.

After voters have failed to protect the Constitution, the last-ditch remedy is impeachment. But Barack Obama knows that he is not going to be impeached.

Who wants to provoke a Constitutional crisis and riots in the streets? And, worst of all, end up with Joe Biden as President of the United States? Some cynics long ago referred to Barack Obama's choice of mental lightweight Biden to be his vice president as "impeachment insurance."

With neither the Constitution, nor the voters, nor the threat of impeachment to stop him, Barack Obama has clear sailing to use his powers however he chooses.

Far from seeing his power diminish in his last years, President Obama can extend his power even beyond the end of his administration by appointing federal judges who share his disregard of the Constitution and can enact his far-left agenda into law from the bench, when it cannot be enacted into law by the Congress.

Federal judges with lifetime tenure can make irreversible decisions binding future presidents and future Congresses. If Republicans do not win control of the Senate in this fall's elections, a Senate controlled by Majority Leader Harry Reid can confirm judges who will have the power to extend Barack Obama's agenda and complete the dismantling of Constitutional government.

Barack Obama can, as he said before taking office, fundamentally "change the United States of America." Far from being a lame duck president, Obama can make this a lame duck democracy.

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His website is www.tsowell.com. To find out more about Thomas Sowell and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2014/06/24/a-lame-duck-country-n1854779/page/full

Jim 5804 11253 Holiday	RE: Liberalism Has to be a Mental Disorder, It's the Only Explanation Plausible IMO 6/21/2014 7:12:35 PM
	Quote: Quote: 5 questions to ask a liberal progressive Written by Allen West on June 19, 2014 Read more at http://allenbwest.com/2014/06/five-questions-ask-liberal-progressive/#miDzRqLXzG6VvHXG.99 Greetings from our nation’s Capitol where I am to speak this afternoon at the Faith and Freedom Coalition. And as always, I enjoyed a nice early morning 5-mile run from the bat cave over to the D.C. mall — doggone it is more humid up here than South Florida. As I was pounding the pavement, I came up with a list of questions I’d like to pose to a liberal progressive. Well, for every mile it seems I came up with one — glad I didn’t try running 8 miles this morning! Here you go: 1. If former President George W. Bush was un-American for adding $4 trillion to the national debt, then what is President Barack Hussein Obama who is on his way to adding $8 trillion — and still has two more years to go? Yep, under Obama the national debt has risen from $10.67 trillion to almost $17.5 trillion. 2. If as Obama states, “we leave no man behind,” then what of Marine Sergeant Andrew Tahmooressi, Pastor Saeed Abedini and Kenneth Bae — not to mention still-imprisoned Meriam Yahia Ibrahim – who had her chains removed after giving birth to her daughter, Maya? (And by the way, she is still under a death sentence under Sharia law for marrying a Christian). Nah, those folks don’t help Obama’s political agenda and certainly aren’t as important as recognizing illegal immigrant children “dreamers” at the White House. 3. When the average price of gasoline hit $2.50 a gallon, liberals and their media accomplices went apoplectic (you may have to define that word to a liberal friend) on George W. Bush. Why so silent now, when it’s $3.67? 4. If the late and former President Richard Nixon resigned over a bad case of “breaking and entering” (and the liberal media made a big hoopla over that), what does it take for Barack Hussein Obama to consider the same? Or does the color of skin trump content of character in America now? By the way, I’m planning on my computer crashing next year around tax return time. 5. If it is racist to disagree with the proven failed policies of Barry Soetoro, oops, I mean Barack Hussein Obama, then what is it when liberal progressives disrespect, dismiss, denigrate, demean, disparage, discredit and seek to destroy black conservative Republicans? Funny, all those “D” words come from the Democrat party. Don’t believe me, just look for the responses to this post from liberal progressives (so predictable). Now, just so you’re aware, be careful when asking these questions to be outside the range of spittle and frothing of the mouth. As well, stand clear so as not to be struck by a liberal progressives wild arm-flinging tantrums as they throw themselves on the floor in a mad rage. These are the telltale symptoms of liberals exposed to the truth — similar to exposing vampires to light. But know that this reaction affirms you are right on the issues and confirms the liberal progressive inability to intellectually respond. Tags: Andrew Tahmooressi, Meriam Yahia Ibrahim Read more at http://allenbwest.com/2014/06/five-questions-ask-liberal-progressive/#miDzRqLXzG6VvHXG.99
	May Wisdom and the knowledge you gained go with you, Jim Allen III Skype: JAllen3D Everything You Need For Online Success
	+1

Jim 5804 11253 Holiday	RE: Liberalism Has to be a Mental Disorder, It's the Only Explanation Plausible IMO 6/23/2014 9:30:38 PM
	Scientists at two of the world’s leading climate centres - NASA and NOAA - have been caught out manipulating temperature data to overstate the extent of the 20th century "global warming". The evidence of their tinkering can clearly be seen at Real Science, where blogger Steven Goddard has posted a series of graphs which show "climate change" before and after the adjustments. When the raw data is used, there is little if any evidence of global warming and some evidence of global cooling. However, once the data has been adjusted - ie fabricated by computer models - 20th century 'global warming' suddenly looks much more dramatic. This is especially noticeable on the US temperature records. Before 2000, it was generally accepted - even by climate activists like NASA's James Hansen - that the hottest decade in the US was the 1930s. As Hansen himself said in a 1989 report: In the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country. However, Hansen subsequently changed his tune when, sometime after 2000, the temperatures were adjusted to accord with the climate alarmists' fashionable "global warming" narrative. By cooling the record-breaking year of 1934, and promoting 1998 as the hottest year in US history, the scientists who made the adjustments were able suddenly to show 20th century temperatures shooting up - where before they looked either flat or declining. But as Goddard notes, the Environmental Protection Agency's heatwave record makes a mockery of these adjustments. It quite clearly shows that the US heat waves of the 1930s were of an order of magnitude greater than anything experienced at any other time during the century - far more severe than those in the 1980s or 1990s which were no worse than those in the 1950s. These adjustments, however, are not limited to the US temperature data sets. Similar fabrications have taken place everywhere from Iceland to Australia. The fact that supposedly reputable scientists can make these dishonest adjustments and get away with it is, notes long-time sceptic Christopher Booker, one of the more remarkable anomalies of the great climate change scam. When I first began examining the global-warming scare, I found nothing more puzzling than the way officially approved scientists kept on being shown to have finagled their data, as in that ludicrous “hockey stick” graph, pretending to prove that the world had suddenly become much hotter than at any time in 1,000 years. Any theory needing to rely so consistently on fudging the evidence, I concluded, must be looked on not as science at all, but as simply a rather alarming case study in the aberrations of group psychology. http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/06/23/Global-warming-Fabricated-by-NASA-and-NOAA
	May Wisdom and the knowledge you gained go with you, Jim Allen III Skype: JAllen3D Everything You Need For Online Success
	+0

Jim 5804 11253 Holiday	These AHole Liberals are Simply Hate-Filled Intolerant Hypocrites 6/24/2014 1:09:29 PM
	These AHole Liberals are Simply Hate-Filled Intolerant Hypocrites Liberals attack mother whose baby lost heart doctor under Obamacare June 24, 2014 On Monday, Twitchy reported that a mother whose baby lost her pediatric cardiologist came under fire from liberals onTwitter. Holly Fisher mentioned it in response to a message by Democrat strategist Donna Brazile, who hailed Obamacare in another tweet. "Can we finally agree that Obamacare is working?" Brazile asked. "I'm guessing you haven't lost your doctor?" Fisher asked in response. "I lost my plan AND my doctor." A few days earlier, Fisher said in another tweet that her tolerance level for anyone supporting Obamacare "is officially at 0." "I despise you," she added. Fisher wasn't finished, and noted that her baby daughter had also lost her heart doctor. She blamed Barack Obama, since he signed the bill into law. This didn't sit too well with some on the left. "Thanks, @BarackObama, for causing her to lose her cardiologist. Her name is Norah, not that you care," she tweeted. The vast majority of those responding expressed their condolences and hoped things would work out for the child. Some, however, responded with the vitriol that has become the hallmark of the left. "[N]ot his fault. U should get a job and pay for it yourself instead of taking selfies all day. I feel bad for u tbh," one person said in response. Fisher said she does work and pays for her own insurance. Others chimed in, defending Obama and his signature healthcare law. One person, however, went overboard, telling Fisher it was good that her daughter lost her doctor. "Good, I'm glad she did. one less conservative underling to worry about. Have a nice life," said Twitter user "Alexa." Alexa, however, wasn't quite finished, and went on to prove that liberalism, at its core, is an ideology of rage and hate. "Conservatives aren't human to me. they're (sic) subhuman scum with no hearts or souls," she added. "Talking about a snot nosed brat that will be raised to be a hater of anyone who isn't white and straight." Alexa later chose to delete her tweets, and her profile is not visible as of this writing. Her hatred, however, did not go unnoticed. "Check @pnthrldy to view the dark, sick, hate-filled mind of a liberal," tweeted radio talk show host Neal Boortz, who said there are "tens of thousands" like her on Twitter. http://www.examiner.com/article/liberals-attack-mother-whose-baby-lost-heart-doctor-under-obamacare
	May Wisdom and the knowledge you gained go with you, Jim Allen III Skype: JAllen3D Everything You Need For Online Success
	+0

Jim 5804 11253 Holiday	RE: These AHole Liberals are Simply Hate-Filled Intolerant Hypocrites 6/24/2014 1:13:14 PM
	A Lame Duck Country? Thomas Sowell \| Jun 24, 2014 Pundits are pointing to President Barack Obama's recent decline in public opinion polls, and saying that he may now become another "lame duck" president, unable to accomplish much during his final term in office. That has happened to other presidents. But it is extremely unlikely to happen to this president. There are reasons why other presidents have become impotent during their last years in office. But those reasons do not apply to Barack Obama. The Constitution of the United States does not give presidents the power to carry out major policy changes without the cooperation of other branches of government. Once the country becomes disenchanted with a president during his second term, Congress has little incentive to cooperate with him -- and, once Congress becomes uncooperative, there is little that a president can do on his own. That is, if he respects the Constitution. President Obama has demonstrated, time and again, that he has no respect for the Constitution's limitations on his power. Despite his oath of office, to see that the laws are faithfully executed, Barack Obama has unilaterally changed welfare reform laws, by eliminating the work requirement passed by Congress during the Clinton administration. He has repeatedly and unilaterally changed or waived provisions of the ObamaCare law passed by Congress during his own administration. President Obama has ordered Border Patrol agents not to carry out provisions of the immigration laws that he does not like. We see the results today in the tens of thousands of illegal immigrants entering the country unimpeded. President Obama's oath of office obviously means no more to him than his oft-repeated promise that "you can keep your own doctor" under ObamaCare. Why do we have a Constitution of the United States if a president can ignore it without any consequences? The Constitution cannot protect our rights if we do not protect the Constitution. Freedom is not free, and the Constitution is just some words on paper if we do not do anything to those who violate it. What can ordinary citizens do? Everything! Theirs is the ultimate power of the ballot that can bring down even the most powerful elected official. The most important thing the voters can do is vote against anyone who violates the Constitution. When someone who has violated the Constitution repeatedly gets re-elected, then the voters are accomplices in the erosion of protection for their own freedom. Laws without penalties are just suggestions -- and suggestions are a pitiful defense against power. After voters have failed to protect the Constitution, the last-ditch remedy is impeachment. But Barack Obama knows that he is not going to be impeached. Who wants to provoke a Constitutional crisis and riots in the streets? And, worst of all, end up with Joe Biden as President of the United States? Some cynics long ago referred to Barack Obama's choice of mental lightweight Biden to be his vice president as "impeachment insurance." With neither the Constitution, nor the voters, nor the threat of impeachment to stop him, Barack Obama has clear sailing to use his powers however he chooses. Far from seeing his power diminish in his last years, President Obama can extend his power even beyond the end of his administration by appointing federal judges who share his disregard of the Constitution and can enact his far-left agenda into law from the bench, when it cannot be enacted into law by the Congress. Federal judges with lifetime tenure can make irreversible decisions binding future presidents and future Congresses. If Republicans do not win control of the Senate in this fall's elections, a Senate controlled by Majority Leader Harry Reid can confirm judges who will have the power to extend Barack Obama's agenda and complete the dismantling of Constitutional government. Barack Obama can, as he said before taking office, fundamentally "change the United States of America." Far from being a lame duck president, Obama can make this a lame duck democracy. Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His website is www.tsowell.com. To find out more about Thomas Sowell and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com. http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2014/06/24/a-lame-duck-country-n1854779/page/full
	May Wisdom and the knowledge you gained go with you, Jim Allen III Skype: JAllen3D Everything You Need For Online Success
	+0

Jim 5804 11253 Holiday	They Call It Workplace Violence! #UnFlukingBelieveable 6/26/2014 10:53:51 PM
	They Call It Workplace Violence! #UnFlukingBelieveable EPA employees asked to stop pooping in hallway. “Poop bandit” may still be on the loose. BY ALEXANDRA PETRI June 25 at 7:24 PM The environment. (Associated Press) I thought that it could not get worse than that farting federal employee. But here is an actual news story. There is a rogue “poop bandit” on the loose at the Environmental Protection Agency. I will try to make as few puns about this as humanly possible. GovernmentExecutive.com obtained an e-mail from Denver EPA administrator Howard Cantor asking employees to please not leave feces in the hallway. Here’s the critical excerpt from the article: In the email, obtained by Government Executive, Deputy Regional Administrator Howard Cantor mentioned “several incidents” in the building, including clogging the toilets with paper towels and “an individual placing feces in the hallway” outside the restroom. Who started this? Did it start with the towels, then escalate to the hallway? This seems like one of those classic Office Passive Aggressive Note escalations. I bet it started with a sign. “Please remember: only flush toilet paper down the toilet! Thanks everyone for keeping the environment protected, ha ha!” But it didn’t stop. “Hey everyone, again, remember: only toilet paper in the toilet! I’ve come up with a simple rhyme: We’re all friends! Let’s not spoil it! Keep your towels out of the toilet! Thanks, all.” Then: “Seriously, guys! What are we, bears? No, wait. A bear would not put PAPER TOWELS in the toilet! Stop.” The next sign was probably scrawled over the toilet in red crayon. “STOP IT SERIOUSLY WE ALL KNOW YOU CAN READ! YOU ARE EMPLOYED BY A FEDERAL AGENCY! STOP PUTTING PAPER TOWELS IN THE TOILET! YOU DON’T WANT TO KNOW WHAT I’M CAPABLE OF!” Then finally just a single message, in the hallway, left with a No. 2 pencil. “YOU DID THIS. I DIDN’T WANT TO. BUT YOU MADE ME DO THIS.” But it didn’t stop there. The article continues: Confounded by what to make of this occurrence, EPA management “consulted” with workplace violence “national expert” John Nicoletti, who said that hallway feces is in fact a health and safety risk. He added the behavior was “very dangerous” and the individuals responsible would “probably escalate” their actions. “Management is taking this situation very seriously and will take whatever actions are necessary to identify and prosecute these individuals,” Cantor wrote. He asked for any employees with knowledge of the poop bandit or bandits to notify their supervisor. They consulted with an expert? (“That’s where the REAL GOVERNMENT WASTE IS!” to quote dozens of radio hosts somewhere right now.) I’m sure John was delighted to be called in. “Hey, John, we need your specific expertise.” (A significant pause.) “Someone has pooped in the hallway. Yours was the first name that sprang to mind.” Even if it made sense in context, I’m sure the news that you are the first expert people call when someone has pooped in the hallway should make you rethink your life. They should have called in a John before, not after. John said it “would probably escalate.” Escalate? Honestly, if you’re already at the point where you’re leaving poop in the hallway, where can you go? There’s not much territory beyond that. Pretty much everything else would be a downgrade in hostilities. Even leaving dead mice at someone’s desk could be regarded as an evolution in a promising direction. I suppose you could pick it up and pelt people with it, but then you’d have to identify yourself as the poop bandit. I telephoned to ask if they’d found the poop bandit — “Hello, I’m a writer for the Washington Post and I was wondering whether you’d found the poop bandit” was either the high or low point of my journalistic career, depending on how you look at it — but, alas, they were not forthcoming, no matter how I strained. Spokeswoman Alisha Johnson, who returned my call, laughed politely when asked if this was “your No. 1 priority, not your No. 2 priority,” but wouldn’t comment on the status of the bandit, saying it was an “ongoing personnel matter.” She added, “Our actions in response to that issue have been focused on ensuring a safe environment for EPA employees.” “I get it, it’s catchy, it’s absurd,” she said. Then again, at least it’s organic waste! I’m sure the EPA knows exactly what to do about it. Alexandra Petri writes the ComPost blog, offering a lighter take on the news and opinions of the day. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2014/06/25/epa-employees-asked-to-stop-pooping-in-hallway-poop-bandit-may-still-be-on-the-loose/
	May Wisdom and the knowledge you gained go with you, Jim Allen III Skype: JAllen3D Everything You Need For Online Success
	+0

Menu

Forums

5 questions to ask a liberal progressive

Scientists at two of the world’s leading climate centres - NASA and NOAA - have been caught out manipulating temperature data to overstate the extent of the 20th century "global warming".

These AHole Liberals are Simply Hate-Filled Intolerant Hypocrites

Liberals attack mother whose baby lost heart doctor under Obamacare

A Lame Duck Country?

EPA employees asked to stop pooping in hallway. “Poop bandit” may still be on the loose.

Like us on Facebook!