Friday, June 28, 2013

Political Cartoons and Comics

Yes, there has been African Slavery in Wash DC Recently.

The African nation of Tanzania was finally held accountable for allowing a diplomat who enslaved an African woman on U.S. soil to return home. 

The diplomat had reportedly been operating at high levels of government. Alan Mzengi was found to be liable for a $1 million civil judgement for forcing a young woman to live and work against her will as a domestic servant on U.S. soil. The judgement came in 2008 after the woman escaped from four years of slavery. She had been kept against her will by the diplomat and forced to be a domestic servant for no pay.
The diplomat fled back to Tanzania in order to avoid consequences for forcibly enslaving the African woman. The Tanzanian president then allowed the slave “owner” to function as an advisor and suffer no legal consequence at home, according to the Washington Post.
Court documents reveal the diplomat asserted that he could not be held responsible because he “is a diplomat credited to the Republic of Tanzania” and that he was “immune to judgement under the Vienna Convention.”
The victim in the case refused any additional money other than back wages for the time she was forced to work for the diplomat, according to court documents.

Hat Tip: Breitbart

Tuesday, June 25, 2013

If CO2 is so bad, Why do greenhouses pay to produce it?


Is CO2 is so bad for the planet, why do greenhouses pay to produce it?

If CO2 was so terrible for the planet, then installing a CO2 generator in a greenhouse would kill the plants. But scientists and even governments actually recommend supplementing CO2 in greenhouses in order to boost plant growth and food production.

"The benefits of carbon dioxide supplementation on plant growth and production within the greenhouse environment have been well understood for many years," says the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

"CO2 increases productivity through improved plant growth and vigour. Some ways in which productivity is increased by CO2 include earlier flowering, higher fruit yields, reduced bud abortion in roses, improved stem strength and flower size. Growers should regard CO2 as a nutrient... increasing the CO2 level to 1,000 ppm will increase the photosynthesis by about 50% over ambient CO2 levels."

In fact, as recent scientific studies have shown, the slight rise in CO2 levels of the atmosphere has actually helped re-green deserts and arid areas, accelerating the growth of trees, shrubs and grasses which produce the oxygen human needs to breathe.

Attacking carbon dioxide is hate speech against Mother Nature 

The more you really examine the scientific truth about carbon dioxide rather than the politically-charged "hate speech" against Mother Nature being spewed by people like Al Gore, the more you realize CO2 is a crucial nutrient for the Earth's environment and ecosystem. In fact, the vast majority of all the CO2 released into the atmosphere is produced by Mother Nature via animals in the ocean. Anyone who criticizes CO2 is attacking ocean life and condemning trillions of aquatic creatures who exhale carbon dioxide as part of their natural respiration. (Should they all be fined?)

As a society interested in reforestation, expanding the diversity of plant life, nourishing trees and re-greening deserts, we should no longer tolerate anyone engaged in hate speech against Mother Nature and CO2. Those who attempt to demonize this critical nutrient for the planet are engaged in a kind of hate-motivated racism against plants.

If it's not okay to condemn someone for being black, why is it okay for people like Al Gore to engage in endless hate speech against all the living beings that are green?

Besides, all those people who keep sounding the alarm on CO2 are being too negative all the time. Nobody spews more doom and gloom than Al Gore and the global warming crowd who paint apocalyptic pictures of Earth's future if we all don't start paying carbon taxes to the super rich. Stop being so negative!

They need to practice more positivity and repeat to themselves affirmations like:

"CO2 is a nutrient for forests."

"CO2 is produced by ocean life."

"CO2 brings balance to the global ecosystem."

"CO2 is to plants as oxygen is to humans."

"CO2 can help transform barren deserts into sustainable forests."

Perhaps by staying positive, the global warming fearmongers and doom-and-gloomers can calm down, take a few breaths (with extra CO2) and recognize that what's good for plants is good for the planet.

In fact, I'm going to hyperventilate after writing this article just to generate a little extra CO2 for the world. It's my gift to Al Gore.

Learn More: Natural News

Sunday, June 16, 2013

Obama on your iPhone. Like it or Not.

AT&T has begun rolling out Wireless Emergency Alerts updates for iPhone 4S and 5, so you won't be the last folks to know if the entire northern hemisphere is about to be covered in ice à la Day After Tomorrow. You'll receive a notification from the carrier when your update is ready, but only if you're using iOS 6.1 or higher. 

Once installed, AMBER and Emergency alerts are automatically sent to your phone unless you switch them off via Settings. 

However, should you be tired of Obama, just know that there's no way to switch off Presidential alerts. WEA messages are always free of charge, so you don't have to worry about going over your texting limit when notified that you need to get the hell out of dodge.

Read it on: Engadget

Saturday, June 15, 2013

Why doesn't our Border Patrol have enough fuel to do their jobs?

Budget cuts have hampered the U.S. Border Patrol's work in its busiest sector on the Southwest border, agents said Friday, with the agency introducing fuel conservation measures in the Rio Grande Valley that have agents patrolling on foot and doubling up in vehicles.
The Border Patrol instituted the changes after the across-the-board government spending cuts known as sequestration. The constraints come as Congress moves deeper into the debate over comprehensive immigration reform and Republican legislators push for stronger border security components as a precursor to any path to citizenship for immigrants who have entered the country illegally.

The Rio Grande Valley sector — a stretch of border from Brownsville to Laredo on the southernmost tip of Texas — has become the agency's hottest area along the border. The Border Patrol's arrests of people trying to cross the border illegally jumped 65 percent in that area last year. At the end of May, sector Chief Patrol Agent Rosendo Hinojosa said agents had already made more than 90,000 apprehensions in the first eight months of the fiscal year, a 50 percent increase over the same period last year.

In a prepared statement Friday, the Border Patrol said, "Sequestration continues to have serious impacts on (Customs and Border Protection's) operations including nearly $600 million in cuts." A spokesman declined to address the fuel restraints specifically.

Read More: Fox News

HGTV and it's Unpatriotic Fail

HGTV (Home and Garden Television) is busy preparing viewers for the Fourth of July. And one of its ideas is downright unpatriotic, says Todd Starnes at Fox News. In a segment called "Classic Fourth of July Table Setting Ideas," HGTV offered this proposition:


This didn't sit well with many HGTV viewers, who took to the network's Facebook page to denounce the idea as "offensive, un-American and an insult to the American military," Starnes says. One example:

Using an American flag as a tablecloth dishonors all Americans who love Old Glory - especially those who gave their lives defending it. No one dies for a tablecloth.

Joe March, a spokesman for the American Legion, tells Fox News using an American flag as an "unconventional table linen," as HGTV deems it, violates the U.S. Flag Code: "The flag should never touch anything beneath it, such as the ground, the floor, water or, merchandise."

Old Glory can be draped over a coffin, but certainly not a table, March tells Fox News: "The flag of the United States is designed to be flown and respected as the symbol of our country.... That very same flag is used to cover the caskets of our soldiers, sailors and Marines who have been killed in battle. You would not obviously want to take that and use that as a tablecloth." There is no punishment for violating the Flag Code, March notes — the Supreme Court ruled in 1989 that desecrating the flag is protected by the First Amendment.

But that doesn't make it a good idea. On Wednesday afternoon, HGTV issued an apology on its Facebook page. "This was a regrettable use of our flag and it never should have happened," the network said. "We sincerely apologize and have removed the post from our website. We want to assure our fans that HGTV is proud of the American flag and everything it symbolizes for our people."

Read More: The Week

Tuesday, June 11, 2013

NSA Surveillance: Don't Care. I've Got Nothing to Hide.

Photos of Peaceful Muslims not shown in the United States Media

These are pictures not shown on American TV or in American Newspapers, but were forwarded by a Canadian friend who thought all Americans ought to know!

These pictures are of Muslims marching through the STREETS OF LONDON during their recent ' Religion of Peace Demonstration.

Conservatives Must Join the Battle for America On Twitter

In 2004,  The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth scared the hell out of the corrupt media. The MSM was sure incumbent President George W. Bush would finally get the humiliation he deserved after the close election in 2000 because, in a time of war, Democrats had nominated Senator John F. Kerry, a "war hero." 

Those best laid plans completely fell apart when a number of veterans, some of whom had served with Kerry in Vietnam, came out with a series of television ads attacking the credibility of Kerry's wartime claims, and most especially, the hagiography the media had written to back those claims up.  

At first, Kerry and his media minions willfully ignored the Swift Boat Veterans, assuming they could wait them out. What happened, though, is that the story took off in the alternative media: Drudge, blogs, and Fox News. 

Finally, the media was forced to report on it, and the result was the whole episode blowing up in the media's face. Kerry's primary strength was undermined by the truth, and Bush went on to a second term. 

The media was rattled to the core by this and quickly figured out what had happened. A narrative had grown on New Media, damaged their candidate, and by the time the corrupt media got around to attempting to destroy the credibility of the story and, quite reprehensibly, the men who told it, it was too late.

The media cried "Never again!" and, as a result, birthed an unholy set of twins to back that cry up: Media Matters and a number of corrupt truth squads and fact checkers, like Politifact. 

Both of these entities are what I call Inconvenient Narrative Zappers. Their job is to spot emerging and potential narratives damaging to the Left and, before they make their way into the mainstream media, to use lies, half-truths, rationalizations, shameless spin, and anything else they can think of to discredit those narratives and ensure they gain no traction. This allows the MSM to either completely ignore stories it doesn't want to amplify or to simply report on "an already discredited story" bubbling online.  

Think about what the anti-Semitic, Soros-funded, tax-exempt Media Matters and its equally dishonest brethren in the form of these MSM fact-checkers would've done to the Swift Boat Veterans. Actually, you don’t have to imagine it, because we all saw what was done to stories inconvenient to Obama's ascendancy to the presidency in 2008. 

Anything and everything having to do with Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, and the rest of Obama's inexperienced and shadowy past was attacked, marginalized,  and exploded in a controlled environment before it ever got to the MSM. By the time Anderson Cooper or Bryan Williams got around to the story, they had already been supplied the talking points necessary to downplay it. This tactic was absurdly effective and now 23 million unemployed Americans are living with the result of an unqualified Leftist sitting in the Oval Office. 

We all laughed in 2009 when Politifact fact-checked an "SNL" sketch critical of Obama, but there was a method to their madness. Leftists like those at Politifact understand the power of satire to define someone. Thus, in order to protect Obama, Politifact was willing to make of fools of themselves to undermine any traction the "SNL" sketch about Obama's broken promises might have received. 

On a more serious note, here's the harrowing story of how Media Matters stole justice from a black man beaten in public by Obama's SEIU thugs only hours after the White House issued an order to "punch back twice as hard." Most importantly, it's the tale of how Media Matters gave the media the cover it so desired to ignore the story. 

But it's not 2009 anymore; it's 2012, and Twitter has not only changed everything, it's allowing everyday American conservatives the opportunity to beat Media Matters and these corrupt fact checkers at their own game. 

Read More: Breitbart 

Tuesday, June 4, 2013

What did Al-qaeda have to do with Benghazi?

All scandals have layers of meaning. Watergate was about a second-rate burglary, but more importantly, it was about Richard M. Nixon's abuse of presidential power. 

However, much of that message was ruined by the fact that Lyndon B. Johnson abused power as much as Nixon did. Because Nixon is still a convenient whipping boy for the left, we never hear about LBJ's sins. 

Twenty years before Watergate, Nixon was engaged in a brutal battle with the Stalinist left of the 1950s. Watergate "gave the left a sword," as Nixon famously said. The Washington Post assaulted the Nixon presidency in collusion with Mark Felt (Deep Throat), who hated Nixon for passing him up for FBI director. 

Watergate was therefore a major battle in the long war between the radical left and mainstream America. 

Like Watergate, Benghazi has several layers. But the most revealing one is the active collusion between this administration and Al Qaida.
Al Qaida is a Saudi-inspired and Saudi-funded terror gang. Almost all of the terrorists on 9/11 were Saudis. Those facts are always covered up, but they are crucial to understanding the Jihad War. 

In Benghazi we ran arms from Libya to Al Qaida rebels in Syria. The Saudis are funding that rebellion. 

There's that Saudi link again. 

In Egypt we backed the Muslim Brotherhood against Hosni Mubarak, who kept the peace treaty with Israel for 30 years. Thirty years of peace in the Middle East is a huge achievement. The Muslim Brotherhood assassinated Anwar Sadat the peacemaker, one of the rare Arab moderates who saw the light. Today we are in league with those who assassinated Anwar Sadat. For shame.

Today Egypt is starving, and the people hate the new regime. 

The Saudis are naturally on the side of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood because they share the Sunni war theology. 

So the Saudis have won again, with Obama acting as their American errand boy. 

In Libya, we again made common cause with Sunni radicals against Muammar Gadaffi, a real nutcase, but a man who was able to run Libya's tribal federation for years. Gadaffi had turned over his nuclear program to the George W. Bush Administration. We still betrayed him to support his enemies, and Libya is in a civil war even now. 

Again, the Muslim radicals won. 

The bottom line is that Obama has consistently supported the most radical Muslim elements in the Middle East. 

But we never supported the young people of the democratic Green Revolution against the vicious mullah regime in Iran. When Obama first met Benyamin Netanyahu he acted like an abusive bully. 

Obama only bows down to Third World reactionaries. 

That is consistent with his extreme leftist ideology. It also fits the worldwide left-Muslim alliance that has made Israel and the U.S. the targets of the most vicious hate campaign since World War II. Check if you doubt it.

Obama may not be committing technical treason. 

But he is a revolutionary, and so are all his friends.

Monday, June 3, 2013

What does the United Nations really cost the U.S. Taxpayer?

Year after year, the U.S. pays more into the United Nations system than any other nation. Yet figuring out exactly how much we spend on the U.N. and its affiliated organizations is deceptively difficult.

Although most U.S. contributions come from the State Department, hundreds of millions of dollars also flow from other parts of the federal government. Thus, relying on State Department data fails to capture the full picture.

In 2006, Senator Tom Coburn addressed this issue by asking the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a comprehensive report on total U.S. contributions to the U.N. system for fiscal years 2001 through 2005. The OMB is in charge of overseeing the preparation of the president’s budget, so it was in a position to require all U.S. agencies to report the requested information.

That 2006 report was an eye-opener. The OMB calculated that U.S. contributions totaled $4.115 billion in 2004 and $5.327 billion in 2005. By comparison, the State Department had estimated 2004 contributions at “well over $3 billion” — far short of the actual amount reported by the OMB.

Five years later, the OMB reported that FY 2010 contributions the U.N. system exceeded $7.691 billion — more than $1.3 billion higher than the previous record, set the year before.  Indeed, 2010 marked the third consecutive year in which U.S. contributions had reached a new high.

Unfortunately, the mandate requiring the OMB to report on U.S. contributions to the U.N. system expired in 2011, and the Obama administration has chosen not to report this information since then. As a result, there is no comprehensive accounting of U.S. contributions to the U.N. system for FY 2011 or FY 2012. Nor will we know how much will be spent this year or in the future, unless Congress renews the OMB report mandate.

Republicans Senator Mike Lee and Representative Mo Brooks have introduced legislation to fix this lapse. Whether you favor cutting U.S. contributions to the U.N. or increasing them, everyone should agree that good governance requires that the U.S. accurately track and report those contributions to Congress and the public.  

Another Great Report via: National Review

Saturday, June 1, 2013

Why is Jay Leno Trouncing David Letterman in the ratings?

We've already seen audiences fleeing MSNBC, the network that religiously carries the Obama administration's water, as a number of scandals rock the White House.

Now, it looks like the long-running battle between Jay Leno and David Letterman is also being affected by the toxic headlines swirling around the president.

During this year's May sweeps, "The Tonight Show With Jay Leno" posted a 39 percent lead over "Late Show With David Letterman" in the advertiser-cherished 18-49 demographic -- the widest May sweep margin over "Late Show" since 2004, and a 12 percent increase over last year's May sweep....

In total viewers, Leno also widened the lead over Letterman compared to last year, averaging 3.515 million versus 2.767 million for Letterman. That's a 27 percent advantage, up 16 percent from last May.

So, what changed?

Leno continues to hammer President Obama for his connection to several political nightmares, from the IRS hounding Tea Party groups to the Department of Justice eavesdropping on high-profile journalists. Meanwhile, Letterman is still focusing his comic firepower on the GOP, all but ignoring Obama as a target of mockery.

Audiences apparently want their late night hosts to do their job rather than protect the powerful.