Obama, Tyranny, and the Tax Man

Declaration of Independence, by John Trumbull; modern liberals believe themselves superior to the men in this painting.

Soon after the French and Indian War the King and Government of Great Britain decided to abuse their relationship with the American colonies.  The colonists were forced to pay for the war; the hated Stamp Act, Quartering Act, Intolerable Acts and others were passed; taxes and more taxes were slapped on an over-burdened citizenry who felt more and more that they were being ruled by a tyrant.


The Declaration of Independence was presented July 4, 1776 in direct response to the tyrannical government of the king of Great Britain.  Most people who learn of it in school read the preamble, especially the line "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."  They seem to forget that there is a list of charges against the British king following the preamble, which clearly "define a Tyrant," making him, or anyone else acting in a similar manner, "unfit to be the ruler of a free people."

Now, that leads to the present "ruler" of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama.  In the news recently is the revelation that the Internal Revenue Service - aka the "Tax Man" - was specifically targeting people and groups who are politically conservative.  This was completely one-sided; at no time were liberal groups or individuals subject to such harassment.  What connection - if any -  could Obama have to the IRS debacle?  And does it make him a tyrant?

First and foremost, Obama is a community organizer.  He's a radical.  He is left-wing in his politics and in his heart.  In the 2008 campaign he told as much to Joe the Plumber, when he said that someone's wealth should be spread around.  He was a member of the socialist "New Party" in Chicago.

Second, he fought for and had passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as "Obamacare".  This act calls for the confiscation of billions of dollars in order to "give" people access to medical care they otherwise would not get due to their own low income levels.  You would think that all of this money coming in would cause the hiring of thousands of doctors and nurses, right?

Wrong.

Obamacare calls for the hiring of 16,000 IRS agents.  Why?  So they could strong-arm the people into giving up their hard-earned money.  The act authorizes the IRS to collect the cash.  There is just no other way to explain it.

And who is complaining about it the loudest?  In fact, who is complaining at all against the government when it comes to uncontrolled spending, an ever-expanding bureaucracy, an increasing debt, a refusal to tap into our own energy needs, ad infinitum?  Conservatives.  The ones who believe in duty, honor, and country.  The ones who believe in the Constitution.  The ones attached to the Tea Party.  The ones who go to church, fill veterans organizations, or raise a flag in front of their homes and businesses.

So, the IRS is in the news over their strong-arming acts against conservative groups and individuals.  At first, they explained it away as something caused by low-level agents in Cincinnati, but it turned out to be more wide-spread than the confines of an Ohio city.  It actually began earlier, possibly before 2011.  In this clip,  IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman tells a hearing committee on March 22, 2012 that his agents are not targeting conservatives, but we all know today that he was lying.  And if he was lying, it means that he knew a lot more than he was saying, and the Cincinnati excuse is tossed out the window.

That means someone has to have been given orders to do the harassment.  The IRS commissioner reports directly to the Secretary of the Treasury, and no one else.  In Shulman's case he reported to Tim Geithner - you know him as the tax cheat who got to control the Treasury Department.  Both are no longer in their respective offices, but were there when the Tax Man did the harassing as early as 2011.  Who did Geithner report to?

The President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama.

Remember, the Declaration of Independence has a set of charges written on it which clearly-define a tyrant.  What does it say about a tyrant's power to tax and control individual lives?

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:  
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

And what, if anything, does the Declaration say about the conservative population, the ones who were targeted?

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Does Obama have an excuse, or is it power that he craves?  Whether you are conservative, liberal, or independent, the acquisition of power in the hands of one despotic individual should send a chill up your spine.

A good example of the publishing of a lie

The Tennessean is the major newspaper published in Nashville.  Like many newspapers The Tennessean has its "Letters to the Editor" section, where people from all walks of life can send their opinions in on any given topic.  The Tennessean is rather unique in that every march it has a banquet at a major hotel every March or April featuring a major guest speaker (like Al Gore), and this banquet has as guests those individuals who sent in a letter which the editor liked so much that it received a "three-star" rating.


Now, imagine if you will the tendency for liberals to: A) lie; B) deceive; C) distort.  For years we have been bombarded with the liberal media's version of what constitutes news, and they have absolutely no problem with lying, deceiving, and distorting the news if it advances their agenda.  To do that, they have to control the news media, and the news media is radio, television, newspapers, and the internet.  The Tennessean is a combination of the last two, and is owned by Gannett, the same group which owns a number of other newspapers, including USA Today.


The Tennessean is under liberal control and ownership, which means that if anything even remotely conservative is published, it's subject to severe criticism, never mind the fact that the conservative side could very-well be right.  Basically, it sides with the liberals every time, and come election time the paper won't hesitate to endorse every single Democrat on the ticket.  It's a paper with an agenda.


The Tennessean used to be a reliable paper; now it's just a liberal rag.  Which means that the editor will pick from the liberal litter first and foremost, and if the content of that letter contains A) lies; B) deceptions; or C) distortions, and the editor knows about it yet publishes it anyway - with a "three-star" rating - then the paper itself is complicit in pushing an agenda rather than publishing the rantings of an idiot. 

Which is what they did on Monday, April 22, 2013.

The writer of this letter intended to deflect Americans from what she perceived as the "stereotype" of Muslims being terrorists, in response to the Boston Marathon bombing the week before.  To emphasize her point, she referred to the past - her version of the past - and said this:

"The truth is, Muslims were not behind 9/11..."

What she thinks about what happened in Boston is the subject for another debate, but the readers of The Tennessean - the sane readers at least - would want to know from where she gets her "facts".  If the people who hijacked those four planes in 2001 - and using them to kill nearly three thousand people - were not Muslim, then what sort were they?

Were they Buddhists?  Were they Elvis impersonators?  Disgruntled used car salesmen?  Striking baggage handlers? 

And what responsibility does the editor at The Tennessean have for knowingly publishing a lie and giving it the "three-star" treatment?  There was a time when newspapers were the watchdogs of the government; one of them brought down a president; who doesn't remember Watergate?  Now we have the liberal media engaged in stunts like "Rathergate" in an effort to advance a leftist, liberal agenda on the American public; we have networks like CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS pushing such garbage over and over again; all of them fawn over Obama, the Democrats, and anything liberal like they're all the greatest thing since the wheel was invented.  These people lie, deceive, and distort, and news media like The Tennessean think it's so cool.  In short, the news media have become mere lap dogs, licking the grime off of the liberal boot and telling the world it tastes good.

While they are so busy taking in their lies and licking their boots, maybe they should stop and smell just what those boots have stepped in. 

I did mention dogs.

Jim Carrey: Dumb and Getting Dumber

Jim Carrey in The Mask; source

Jim Carrey is a commedian-slash-actor who has made a name for himself in works such as The Mask, Liar Liar, The Yes Man, The Truman Show, and many others.  Who could forget his performance as "Fire Marshal Bill" in the TV show In Living Color?  Yes, good'ol Jimmy is a man of many talents.

But he's fading away sort of, and to remain relevant he's got to make a hissy-fit rant in support of gun control.  He doesn't like what happened in Newtown, Connecticut (to be fair, no one does), but he takes his rant out on law-abiding gun owners and a man who's been dead for five years: actor Charlton Heston.

“Charlton Heston movies are no longer in demand,” sang Carrey in his little video "performance". “His immortal soul may lay forever in the sand. The angels wouldn’t take him up to heaven like he planned, because they couldn’t pry that gun from his cold dead hand.”  I won't post the video here, but it's available on YouTube and other diverse places about the web should anyone bother themselves to see it.  Get out the Jiffy Pop and a cold, carbonated beverage.

There's nothing from Carrey about separating guns from criminals; nothing about preventing mental cases from getting a hold of guns.  It's all about keeping law-abiding citizens from owning guns to protect themselves from thugs and nutjobs (does Carrey himself have armed bodyguards?), and he's got to attack Heston for his part in being a former president of the National Rifle Association.  Heston of course, is dead, and he cannot defend himself from Carrey's attack.

But we can.  We're going to focus on just one little ditty from Jimmy's video, namely the line “Charlton Heston movies are no longer in demand.”  We're going to do something that you, Jimmy, refused to do, and that is fact-check.  Let's see who's really in demand.

On March 15, 2013 The Incredible Burt Wonderstone starring Jim Carrey was released to theaters, grossing $21,011,115.  That's total.  It's budget was $30 million, so it lost money.  The film was pulled after only 19 days.  Taking the gross amount of money the film made and dividing it by seven bucks - I believe that's the average theater ticket price these days; it could be higher - and one finds that in 19 days just over 3 million people bothered to see it. 

Just over a year before on April 7, 2012 the ABC Network broadcast Cecil B. DeMille's The Ten Commandments, starring Charlton Heston, the annual Passover/Resurrection tradition it has held during the previous 32 years.  The film pulled in 7 million viewers that night.  For free.  The previous year, the film pulled in 7.05 million viewers. Again, for free.  When that film was released way back in 1956, it's budget was $13 million; it made $80 million in the theaters, and in 1950's money it qualifies as a blockbuster.  What were the ticket prices back then?  Fifty cents?  If that was the case, then The Ten Commandments had 160 million people world-wide seeing it.  In short, Jim Carrey, the film starring a dead man that you hate did a lot better in it's first release - and on TV for free many, many years later - then yours did.  And you say Heston's films are not in demand.

Since he cannot bother himself to fact-check a Heston film, what does that say about his views on guns?  Well, ex-fans of His Carreyness are selling his items on eBay, for the sake of buying guns, which says something by and of itself.

Congratulations, Jimmy.  You're the gun salesman of the month!

Love those smoothies now, liberals?

Ahhh, the taste of a smoothy.  So fresh.  So fruity.  Soooo liberal!

Why, when I go out for a smoothy, when I have that luscious cold icy strawberry goodness pass through my lips, I just feel like..like...

Like I want to go out and save some whales!

But doggone it, why should I have to pay an extra dollar for it that some conservative swine-flu-carrying-hate-filled-scumbag-should-be-dropping-dead-because-I-hate-his-living-guts doesn't have to?

There's this bar - the I Love Drilling Juice & Smoothie Bar - that's doing just that.  Conservatives have to pay $4.95 for a delicious, liberal-inspired smoothy, while us extremely-tolerant, good-for-everything liberals must pay a dollar more.  Why?  Is it because we're the best of society?  That we always have good intentions?  Well, I know some of us tried to blow up a bridge and all - I'm just saying - and some of us think cop cars are just another port-a-potty when raping, er, making love on Wall Street, but that's because we're always the best of society and always have the best of intentions in mind.  So doggone it, when the bridge is blown to smithereens I want to relax with a nice smoothy and not have to pay a dollar extra for it!

 And it bugs the shorts outta me when some conservative comes out of church, all pretty and clean, and with a smiling wife, all pretty and clean, and three smiling kids all pretty and clean, and they appear in the I Love Drilling Juice & Smoothie Bar that's on 510 East Main in Vernal, Utah, and they don't smell like the inside of a cheap tent from Wall Street...and they get the smoothy I should be getting for a buck less?  Why, I just want to take my tolerance and shove it up their $^%(&%#^!!!

I hate those people!  Hate them, hate them, hate them!

And that extra dollar I have to pay?  Going to the Heritage Foundation?  That's a low-down, despicable, hate-filled, intolerant, bigoted, trashy-ugly conservative organization!  They just need to drop dead!  Commit suicide!  Step in front of a bus doing 70 in a 30 zone while the driver does some weed!  Why, if I had my way, those extra dollars would be going to MY causes, like Planned Parenthood, because I believe people have a right to choose.

Except when choosing to increase the price of a smoothy.  Or being a conservative.  Or being Christian.  Or engaging in First Amendment rights.  Nope, they can't do that.

Nor can they choose to throw me out of the I Love Drilling Juice & Smoothie Bar on 510 East Main in Vernal, Utah.  How dare they say I need a bath!

Sincerely,
The  Tolerant Liberal

The equine name for liberal stupidity

Let's play "Connect the Dots".  Can you connect the dots in the picture below?

Can you make a pretty picture after you connected the dots?  Is it a bird?  A dog?  A whale?  A tulip tree?

How about a jackass?

The image was published a couple weeks ago in the New York Journal.  It is an interactive map, which means you can go to the Journal's website, click on any of the dots, and see if you, or your loved one, or a respected neighbor is packing a gun.  All of these dots are registered gun owners; full names, addresses, and what kind of guns they own, and how many they own.

These dots are something else as well.  They are all law-abiding citizens who legally-purchased their guns, and legally-registered them.  Some of them are active and retired police officers, some are active and retired military.  All have a Second Amendment right to own a firearm, and they own guns to defend their lives, their loved one's lives, and their property.

And then there's that jackass, with "liberal" written all over it's face, in this case the editors and reporters of the Journal.  They published that map with all of those addresses available in an effort to "out" all legal gun owners.  Why?  Because of Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.  They want to paint all law-abiding gun owners just as mentally deranged as the individual who shot and killed all of those children there on December 14, so in a mental derangement of their own they got all of their names and where they live from public files and slapped them on display for everyone else to see.

And everyone else seeing this map aren't just the people living there; it isn't the politicians or the conservatives who are fed up with liberal antics.  It's the criminals who are seeing it all, and they can click on the dots and see Joe Smith packs a Magnum at 123 Elm; Steve Jones packs a Ruger at 127 Elm; Bob Riley lives right between them at 125, and he's not armed at all.  Which means the bad guys will break into his place, steal his goods, then peek out the windows to verify Steve and Joe have left, then break into their homes to steal their guns.

Did the liberal clowns running the Journal ever stop to think about that?  Nope.  Did they ever bother to think - they do think, don't they? - that a lot of those unarmed people now in the bad guys cross-hairs are liberals themselves?  Remember, liberals are always posting everywhere that they are so much smarter than the rest of society, they couldn't possibly be a party to the posting of that map.  Not them.

But it's too bad that the definition of a jackass is: 1. a male donkey;  2. an extremely stupid and/or foolish individual.  it fits them well, not just for what they published, but for the anger directed at them for publishing it.  The editors and reporters at the Journal decided they weren't going to take the backlash handed to them for publishing their silly map, so instead of fixing the problem and deleting the map they hired armed guards.  You read that right.  These guys are armed.

But are they law-abiding armed guards?  With their penchant for preferring and coddling criminals, in the near-future they may be victims of their own stupidity.

Did I also mention that other, third definition of a jackass?  What political party is trying to enact legislation to curtail Second Amendment rights now?  What political party is seeking to pin the blame for Sandy Hook on legitimate gun owners rather than the nutcase who committed that horrible act?  What political party is supported completely by a slobbering, fawning editorial staff at the New York Journal?  The Democrats.

They don't have a jackass as their mascot for nothing, you know!

So easy, a caveman did it!

Part of the message of Conservapedia is that the site takes a stand for Creation, which is the act of God in the first chapter of Genesis.  The site does not believe that evolution is nothing more than a theory; in fact, Conservapedia declares evolution to be a complete and utter fraud.

A big part of saying that is is a fraud has to do with the evidence at hand - specifically, the fossil record and the interpretations handed to the general public by evolutionists of that fossil record.  For example, there are a group of dinosaurs called "coelurosaurs" which scientists declare to be the direct ancestors of birds.  Why?  Because they have a similar-looking semilunate carpal, which is a bone in the wrist that makes the flight stroke possible,  "and was probably co-opted by birds for flight from a grasping function" that this site says.  The words "looking", "probably", and "co-opted" in the previous sentence are words meant to declare that they are guessing, they are assuming, and they are making those guesses and assumptions based on nothing more than looking at it.  No testing at all, yet they are declaring their interpretations to be fact.  Overlooked in this example is the fact that a coelurosaur skeleton has a forward-positioned pubic bone in the pelvis; a bird has it facing backwards.  Got that fact by looking it as well, but a scientist is just to busy concentrating on the wrists to be bothered by that minor discrepancy.  Birds evolved from dinosaurs, the wrists prove it, and they probably had hip-replacement surgery somewhere along the line.  Go figure.

Which leads to Rover.

The main explanation for evolution - one they say is supported by the fossil record - is to put it simply Animal A changing into Animal B.  Fish turn into frogs.  Frogs turn into lizards.  Lizards turn into birds.  Of course they are going to argue with the writer here on the semantics, i.e. lizards didn't turn into birds (dinosaurs did that!), the writer just doesn't understand science, why don't you look (there's that word - look!) at the fossil record, and so on.  And they will demand that we all "look" at the fossil record - look at that little horsie grow into the bigger horsie, with all of those other horsies in between?  "We see the beginnings of the characteristic horse-like ridges on the molars."  Emphasis added.  They see.  They didn't test.

Which leads to Rover.

They say that Animal A changed into Animal B.  All by themselves.  But, there is one case which they say (there's that other word - "say"!) man helped it out.  Good ol' Rover.  The domestic dog.  Canis familiaris, esquire.  Well, now it's Canis lupus familiaris, but that's another story.  According to the evolutionists that be, Rover descended from the matings and selected breedings of wolves (the lupus above) several thousand years ago, and because of that breeding we all have our poodles, our wiener dogs, our lap dogs, our huskies, great danes, shepherds, hounds, pointers, setters, and those spotted things slobbering all over the clean seats in the fire trucks.  All of them, the scientists say (that word again!) came from wolves.

Now, scientists are supposed to be smart guys, with I.Q.s higher than the surrounding neighborhood, so their word (again, it's what they say) has to apply.  Wolves were the ancestors of domestic dogs.  They said it.  Having said that, are domestic dogs known only from fossils?  Nope.  Are wolves known only from fossils?  Nope.  Are both alive today?  Yep.  Wow, that means that the wolf-to-dog scenario can be tested in the lab!  And these guys are scientists, which means they are smart guys, which means they can do it.  They can replicate the conditions in the lab that the supposed first breeders of dogs did originally several thousand years ago.

After all - to paraphrase GEICO commercials - it's so easy, a caveman can do it.  And it was cavemen - not scientists - who supposedly did the wolf-to-dog breeding.  So say the scientists.

And when that was posted in the talk pages of Conservapedia, what did the detractors produce?  Foxes.  They produced evidence of fox selective breeding; they looked for particular foxes with floppy ears and good dispositions, mated them, and got mixed results - and those same detractors are telling us that we should accept the foxes as evidence that the cavemen did the same thing with the wolves.

The detractors never produced evidence of wolf breeding.  The wolf is from genus Canis.  The dog is from genus Canis.

The fox is from genus Vulpes.  Different animal.

But they still say it happened.  Not a shred of evidence, either from the lab or from Slag Flintrock's cave, but they say it happened.  We have their word on it!

The quid pro quo in Michigan

Michigan is in the news this week.

They passed a "right to work" law, upsetting the Democrats, upsetting the unions - particularly the United Auto Workers - and upsetting their liberal allies across the country, including President Obama.  As expected, some violence broke out.

"He’s decided to support the most divisive piece of legislation that’s ever come forward in Michigan," says Democratic Michigan State Representative Brandon Dillon, about Governor Rick Snyder, a Republican. "You’ll see by the people gathering at the capitol today that he’s tearing the state apart."

He's tearing the state apart.  So say the Democrats.  One of them - Councilwoman JoAnn Watson -  in a statement made earlier in the week, and not about the law, suggested President Obama ought to bail out struggling Detroit, a sort of quid pro quo; after all, they all voted for the guy.  Didn't 75% vote for Obama?  How about those union guys protesting in Lansing; didn't they vote for Obama?  They vote Democrat all the time, don't they?

Are they saying the Democrat way is the best way?  Is that what they're saying?

There's two images of Michigan.  One for display purposes, the kind of Michigan that does exist, the kind that brings in the tourists.

Michigan is the Land of Hiawatha, at least if you're in the Upper Peninsula and a fan of Longsworth or Hemingway.  It's the scenic attractions of the Macinac Bridge, Macinaw Island (libs love that island; no cars!), Frankenmuth, Holland and its tulip festival, Battle Creek and it's cereal (libs love Froot Loops!) a large amount of nature, a winter wonderland, and three massive lakes that will make one think they're looking at an ocean. 

The other image is a bit more grim.  Three cites:  Saginaw, Flint, Detroit.

Saginaw had at its peak in 1980 a population of 98,000.  It has the Delco Plant - formerly Saginaw Steering Gear - which manufactures parts for GM vehicles.  Flint had over 140,000 people living there, and was once nicknamed "Buicktown", after the GM assembly plant there.

Detroit was once the auto capitol of the world, making cars and trucks for GM, Ford, Chrysler; at its peak in the mid-1970's the city had over a million people living there.  Detroit is also one of the few cities in the country to have all four major league sports teams play in it.

The picture of all three cities today is this:

All three lost a third of their population since the 1980s.  Detroit has about 706,000; Flint has 101,000 now; and Saginaw has just over 51,000.  What is left behind is urban blight; buildings large and small are left to rot away, with all three city counsels talking about razing empty neighborhoods and "contracting", which means they want to squeeze themselves in a smaller area.  Need I talk about the high unemployment rate?

And then there's the crime.

All three cities had a rise in violent crime, which is armed robbery, assault, arson, rape, and murder.  The national average is 4; Michigan's average is 4.9.  Detroit's violent crime average is a whopping 23.83 incidents per 1,000 people.   Flint has an average of 23.78, but that figure should be higher, because there is simply less people living there than in Detroit.

And Saginaw?

That city has an average violent crime rate of 23.88.  Again, Saginaw's population is a mere 51,000 people.  If the population matched Detroit's without a change in crime rate, then the rate would be 310.44.  Like it or not, Saginaw, Michigan has the highest violent crime rate of any city in the country.

What it boils down to is just who was in charge of all three cities during the period of time of the 1960's to today?  This entry shows Detroit exclusively run by Democrats since 1962; this entry shows all Democrats in Flint since the 1974 charter; this entry has mostly Democrats running Saginaw since 1960.  These entries have got to be accurate; after all they come from Wikipedia, that online site run by liberals...and they just love saying that facts have a liberal bias!

The bottom line is the fact that the Democrat Party ran the show, supported the unions, got a free pass from the liberals and the media; and expected all of them to vote to keep Democrats in charge.  The union clowns who are protesting in Lansing right now over that "right-to-work" law are the same clowns who made sure that Democrats were placed in positions of power and influence over Saginaw, Flint, and Detroit; they made sure that all three cities were run right into the ground.

And they have a problem with a pay-cut?