Our problem is that we don’t embrace “diversity”

Uhm… People will prattle:

“Our politics are ominously and stubbornly polarized along overlapping lines of race, generation, education, region, and religious faith. But a society forever absorbing the new dissolves alienation and disrupts radicalization. So long as the instinct to include remains common in America, attacks like the one in Boston will remain rare.”- National Journal’s Ronald Brownstein.

We shouldn’t be concerned about this “rare” incident of terrorism (by Muslim extremists) because … ??

Ironic, because the rare occurrence of mass gun violence has given liberal the vapors. SOMETHING must be DONE. For the children.

But Muslim extremism is no big deal, and we should encourage DIVERSITY. WSJ:

Around this time, Tamerlan grew more confrontational in his religious beliefs. Ruslan Tsarni, the boys’ uncle, said he realized in 2009 that Tamerlan had changed and was spewing “this radical crap.” People who knew him say Tamerlan would express outrage when he perceived a religious slight and was critical of Muslim immigrants’ efforts to assimilate in the U.S.

In one incident last November, Tamerlan confronted a shopkeeper at a Middle Eastern grocery store in Cambridge, near a mosque where he sometimes prayed, after seeing a sign there advertising Thanksgiving turkeys.

“Brother, why did you put up this sign?” the shopkeeper, Abdou Razak, recalled him asking angrily. “This is kuffar”—an Arabic reference to non-Muslims—”that’s not right!”

Yea, that’s some great diversity there.

Radical Islam is a poison of the mind. The problem wasn’t that this family wasn’t embraced for their diversity. It was that Islam poisoned the mind of the mom and the son. It is a creeping Cancer.

Abstinence Only Approach in Ohio? Uhm … No.

On facedouche, a friend linked this article on an Ohio Republican proposal on public school sex ed. It made a few claims which are clearly inaccurate.

Today, Republicans on the Ohio House Finance Committee voted to adopt changes to the two-year state budget that will significantly restrict the teaching of sexual education in the state, mandating an abstinence-only approach.

Not true.

The language also states that class instruction in Ohio may not provide materials that condone sexual activity among unmarried students. It even allows a parent to sue if an educator violates the restrictive provisions in the law.

In short, the state budget now mandates that Ohio adopt an abstinence-only approach to sex education program.

Humn … sexual activity should be “instructed” and “condoned”?

Quick review-

Condone: verb [ with obj. ]
accept and allow (behavior that is considered morally wrong or offensive) to continue: the college cannot condone any behavior that involves illicit drugs.
• approve or sanction (something), esp. with reluctance: the practice is not officially condoned by any airline.

What’s the problem?

Should kids be encouraged to have sex? To experiment sexually with non-intercourse activities, which (of course) would NEVER EVER lead to them doing the deed?

That argument aside, let’s go to the full text.

Prohibits the instruction of sexual education coursework by an individual who or an organization that endorses student nonabstinence from sexual activity as an acceptable behavior, or promotes, endorses, advocates, or condones “gateway sexual activity.”

Specifies prohibitions, conditions, and exemptions for sexual education course instruction when dealing with contraception, sexual demonstrations, sexual materials, and sexual activities and messages that encourage experimentation with sexual activity.

Grants a student’s parent or guardian a cause of action against an individual who, or an organization that, promotes gateway sexual activity or demonstrates sexual activity in sexual
education instruction.

Defines “gateway sexual activity” for purposes of the amendment as “sexual contact,” as defined under current law in the Criminal Code, which is the touching of another person in an erogenous zone.

It stresses that sexual activity should be abstained until after marriage. That there are potential negative side affects for pre-martial sex. That having children out of wedlock is likely to have harmful effect on the mom, the baby, and society. It stresses that STSs are serious, and the only way to be 100% sure to avoid one is to abstain for sexual activity (you can get STDs from some of those “gateway activities”.

(F) Instruction under this section shall not do any of the following:
1. Promote, implicitly or explicitly, any gateway sexual activity or health message that encourages students to experiment with sexual activity.

2) Provide or distribute on school grounds materials that condone, encourage, or promote student sexual activity among unmarried students;

3) Display or conduct demonstrations with devices specifically manufacture for sexual stimulation.

Problem with this?

It isn’t an abstinence only approach, it’s an abstinence friendly one:

Medically accurate information about contraception and condoms may be provided if the information is presented in a manner consistent with provisions of this section and clearly infomrs students that while methods may reduce the risk of acquiring sexually transmitted diseases or pregnancy, only abstinence removes all risk.

It continues on to state that “nothing in this section shall prohibit the scientific study of the sexual reproductive system through coursework in biology, physiology, anatomy, health, or physical education.”

So, quick review – it’s best to wait to have sex until you’re married. They’re not going to teach children about sex toys, and blow jobs. It’s going to inform them about birth control, while explaining it isn’t 100% accurate.

Objections?

Obama- Class Warrior. No, really.

It’s a little early in the morning for my head to assplode, but when I saw this headline, I assumed it was a joke:

Barack Obama, class warrior.

They were being tongue-in-cheek? Or ironic- like Alanais- because he ran as a “class warrior” but has done nothing but make things worse for the middle-class on down while living large on the taxpayer’s dime.

But no. They were serious. And this article is EVERYTHING that is wrong with politics. It explains how artfully Obama has presented himself as a class warrior. The optics, and the framing. “Messaging”.

For Obama, this spring’s fights over class represent both a political challenge and a definitional moment. His most consistent argument — that higher taxes on the well-to-do are the essential element in preserving popular government benefits to the middle-class and poor — is in tension with his most consistent promise, that his presidency will break Washington gridlock and elevate problem-solving over ideological purity.

All of that ^^^ is political bullshit. This is all about his political power, and winning some argument that cements HIS power, and fuck what happens to the rest of us.

In the Obama era, the calculation has changed — in part because his electoral coalition of reliable Democrats is now considerably larger than the traditional GOP base coalition. Of his main constituencies — including African-Americans and Hispanics, unionized workers and socially tolerant suburban women — nearly all are receptive to the argument that the interests of the rich are at odds with their own interests. Yet Democrats could pay a political price from these very constituencies if they don’t ultimately address the financing of programs their voters rely on for a decent quality of life.

Yes, see it’s all about their propaganda war to sway low-information-voters. People are losing their health insurance due to rising premiums, and Nancy Sebelius goes out and announces that the costs are falling. People are dropping out of the workforce, because they can’t find a job, but the White House says things are moving in the right direction. The new taxes are hurting EVERYONE, not just the wealthy, but they announce they’ve given tax breaks to everyone, including small businesses. Just lie. Who are you going to believe, Obama or your lying eyes?

The Obama administration is politics at it’s most crass.

Ayres recalled holding focus groups with Republicans of modest means who complained that “the Romneys didn’t have any intuitive understanding of the enormous struggles they were facing.

“These are people who need the $80 to $100 you get to spend two hours at a focus group,” said the pollster. “I remember one woman saying [of Ann Romney’s line]: ‘We struggled so hard we had to cash in some of our stock shares — how am I supposed to relate to that?’”

Republican reformers say it’s imperative that the party have a fresh message that directly addresses the challenges faced by Americans who would benefit little from a change in capital gains rates.

Yes, well what are you going to do with low-information-voters? Who don’t connect the fact that they are struggling AFTER FOUR YEARS OF OBAMA? And, who also don’t understand the economic of how capital gains affect the larger employment picture (who has money to hire, expand, or start a new business, etc). But the democrats just keep presenting the picture of Rich= hates poor people, and they follow along, never thinking through the idea of how many poor people have hired them, or given them a raise. Or how many poor people opened up a new factory or store, and put a ‘help wanted’ sign out front.

People have this nagging sense that something is deeply broken with Medicare and it needs to be fixed,” said Bennett. “But there is reluctance on the part of congressional Democrats to go along with something big on fiscal issues.”

Added Marshall: “We can’t keep pretending loading taxes on the rich is going to fill the funding gap on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.”

Republicans are skeptical Democrats will deal with entitlements in a significant way anytime soon and forfeit their favorite tactic.

Because they don’t want to solve anything. They just want to keep their -own ass in Washington.

But just remember- Obama is our Class Warrior. Who golfs every weekend, weather permitting. Who vacations in Hawaii and Martha’s Vineyard, and sends his “class warrior” daughters on spring break to not only a luxury tropical island, but then out West skiing as well! A two-fer.

Who flies a personal trainer into DC from Chicago for his workouts, and has a food taster. Who’s been flying around on AF1, while the economy struggles, to give mostly political speeches. Who has gala parties in the White House for the rich and famous.

A class warrior, that’s who.

FIAF

Alan Blinder continues to demonstrate what a tool he is.

On Wednesday morning, President Obama released his proposed budget for fiscal year 2014, which begins this October. The president is supposed to deliver his budget in early February, but hey, given the pace at which Congress works, who’s counting? The important thing is: This is a fine effort.

GOOD JOB OBAMA.

The numbers. A good budget is based on credible numbers, not on rosy scenarios, mysterious budget cuts to be named later, vague promises of more revenue from closing unnamed tax loopholes and the like. It should also make at least some contact with political reality, rather than being a spreadsheet exercise with no hope of enactment—as, for example, the House Republican budget is.

Credible numbers? When in the very next paragraph he says:

Unless there are some unnoticed skeletons buried deep inside closets, the president’s budget scores pretty well on these criteria. The underlying economic assumptions seem only a bit too optimistic, especially since we know that the economy has been underperforming “reasonable” forecasts for years.

Ba haa haa haa …

The underlying economic assumptions “seem only a bit too optimistic.” He said a mouf-full there.

Next, Obama’s budget adheres to the political realities … if only it weren’t for those nasty Republicans.

Of course, Mr. Obama’s tax increases won’t fly in the House, where the prevailing attitude seems to be that additional revenue is permissible only if the money is dedicated to lowering tax rates. So you might say the president’s budget doesn’t make enough contact with political reality. But that is mainly because the Republican position is so extreme. In a more functional Congress, something close to this budget might be where Republicans and Democrats wound up compromising.

So, let me get this straight – Obama’s budget adhered to political realities, but it won’t fly because the Republicans are just so extreme and unreasonable … that I guess they defy reality?

Then after arguing that the Obama budget addresses our deficit issue …

Importantly, the president’s proposed deficit reductions don’t clobber the economy this year or next. In fact, his budget would actually allow for some modest fiscal expansion in 2014 and 2015. Hooray for that.

More SPENDING!! HOORAY! Just what we need. Because all that other spending did such a bang-up job of fixing the economy.

Now, for a bit of reality, from The Hammer:

The 2014 budget is tax-and-spend as usual. The actual deficit reduction over a decade is a minuscule $0.6 trillion — out of a total spending of $46.5 trillion. And every penny of this tiny reduction comes from tax hikes. Nothing from spending cuts, which all end up getting spent elsewhere.

Moreover, where’s the compromise? The Obama budget calls for not only more spending than the GOP’s, but more than the Democratic Senate’s as well. For just fiscal year 2014, it even contains $160 billion more spending, and $128 billion more deficit, than if the budget — that Obama purports to be cutting — were left untouched!

More, from James C. Capretta:

The president has repeated over and over again the slogan that a budget plan needs to be “balanced,” by which he means the spending cuts must be matched with comparable tax hikes. His own budget fails this test miserably. The only deficit reduction in it comes from a net $1.1 trillion tax hike over ten years (on top of the $0.6 trillion tax hike in the fiscal-cliff deal and $1 trillion in Obamacare). There are zero net spending cuts in the budget. Zero. When the “doc fix” for Medicare physician fees and a smaller change in Pell Grant funding are removed, as they should be, from the administration’s current-law baseline and placed instead with the other policy choices the budget reflects, the budget results in a net $10 billion spending increase over the coming decade.

But, as Capretta notes, Republicans will be accused of merely being political if they reject this “reasonable and balanced” approach to deficit reduction.

Black/white. Up/down.

What the president is offering now can be summed up this way: another massive tax hike in exchange for swapping the sequester cuts with more price controls in Medicare, the “chained CPI,” and other minor tinkering with mandatory spending programs. Total federal spending would not change. Some deal, huh? Congressional Republicans’ acceptance of it would be a political and economic disaster.

Now,one last thing – the Obama schedule:

11:15 am || Receives the Presidential Daily Briefing
2:05 pm || Presents the Commander-in-Chief Trophy to the United States Naval Academy football team; East Room

This Poat is Racist

Michelle Obama wants us to do something:

First lady Michelle Obama on Wednesday delivered an emotional speech about reducing gun violence that focused on slain Chicago teenager Hadiya Pendleton. The remarks were an effort to encourage business leaders to invest in opportunities for city youth, but the first lady also used the appearance to send a message to Congress about the need to pass gun reform.

Humn. We need to pass gun reform in order to reduce the gun violence as illustrated by the murder of Hadiya Pendleton. Who was killed by gang bangers in a case of mistaken identity.

Background checks would NOT HAVE PREVENTED HADIYA’S DEATH.

I don’t know how stupid you need to be to allow Michelle Obama’s “emotional” appeal sway you one inch from that truth.

And now for something completely different. Have you wondered what Carolyn Cheeks-Kilpatrick has been up to?

Wonder no more.

The Detroit News reports the Detroit Democrat will help preside over hearings aimed at convincing the federal government to acknowledge the existence of extraterrestrials.

The public panel, called the Citizen Hearing on Disclosure, will hold 30 hours of congressional-style hearings April 29 to May 3 at Washington’s National Press Club, the report says.

The panel wants to expose evidence of aliens and a government effort to cover up their existence. Stephen Bassett, the group’s executive director, says he invited 50 former members of Congress and Kilpatrick was the first to respond.

So why is she doing this?

Bassett says Kilpatrick will be joined by five other former members of Congress for the hearings. Each will be paid around $20,000.

Ba haa haa haaa

The Right To Keep And Bear Arms Shall NOT Be Infringed

I don’t enjoy disagreeing with the Wall Street Journal, but sometimes I have to.

“The GOP’s Gun Control Misfire” argues that the Republicans shouldn’t filibuster Harry Reid’s gun bill because it hands Obama a victory.

In an instant, these GOP wizards have taken the onus off Senate Democrats and made Republicans the media’s gun-control focus. Mr. Reid is now bellowing about Republicans blocking a vote, and Democrats such as Mark Pryor (Arkansas), Mary Landrieu (Louisiana) and Mark Begich (Alaska) don’t have to declare themselves on provisions that might be unpopular at home.

Meanwhile, Mr. Obama can retreat to his favorite pose of portraying Republicans as obstructionists, which pressures GOP moderates like Maine Senator Susan Collins. “And yet, some folks back in Washington are already floating the idea that they may use political stunts to prevent votes on any of these reforms,” Mr. Obama said on Monday—without mentioning that the “folks” who oppose his bill are Democrats.

Obama’s gonna do what he’s gonna do. Which is lie. The media, and Republicans, should call him on this bullshit. But they don’t. THAT is the problem, not that the GOP is handing them a victory.

If conservatives want to prove their gun-control bona fides, the way to do it is to debate the merits and vote on the floor. They can always filibuster the final bill if they want to, but it makes no sense to paint themselves into a political box canyon before even knowing what they’re voting on.

There are no merits to debate. That’s the problem. The senate has NO RIGHT to debate the Second amendment. As Mark Levin said last night, there is no up or down vote on the Constitution.

They have NO RIGHT. Divided and limited government. Federalism.

The second amendment is not an irrelevant statute for the idiots in Washington to debate. Good LORD, how can we possible trust one of our basic rights to those clowns who are wrecking in our country in just about every way?

And Obama is the worst. Andrew Malcolm breaks it down for you.

Obama was out of town again, up in Hartford for a photo op with Connecticut legislators and some Newtown families. Of course, it wasn’t so much about everyone coming together to agree on new safeguards to protect children anymore, as he talked way back in December. No, as usual, this latest campaign rally was all about him. The usual suspects yelled their love. Obama mentioned himself 40 times.

And Obama told the crowd: “The day Newtown happened was the toughest day of my presidency.” Poor baby. He had to make a statement in the Briefing Room that day, tearing up on cue and promising “meaningful action.” He ordered federal flags to half-staff. Was probably a little tough too that day for the families of the 26 Newtown victims.

The toughest day in his presidency? You’ve got to be fucking me.

Obama doesn’t actually believe in the right to own arms. Sure, he “says” he believes in the second amendment, but only because he HAS to. Just as he had to say, before he was elected president, that he believed that marriage was between a man and a woman. He HAD to, but that position actually reflected not on his beliefs, but political necessity. Now- NOW – he must support “gay” marriage, so that where we’re at.

But Obama does NOT believe that private citizens should own guns. He said so in the 1990′s.

And there are no merits to Reid’s bill, even though I haven’t seen it. And the police agree.

• Asked which measure would help most in preventing large-scale public shootings, a plurality (28.8%) said more-permissive concealed-carry policies for civilians. The second and third choices were also not on the Obama agenda: more-aggressive institutionalization of the mentally ill (19.6%) and more armed guards (15.8%). Only then do we get improved background screening for gun purchasers, (14%), followed by longer prison terms for gun-related violent crimes (7.9%). Bringing up the rear were tighter limits on weapons sales (1.5%) and legislative restrictions on “assault weapons” and magazines (0.9%).

Jeff Goldstein puts the entire filibuster/don’t filibuster argument into perspective in his special way. “Rep. Peter King says Senate gun control filibuster would be ‘just wrong’-

Of course it is. Because it blunts the force of an agitated mob — stoked on by emotional appeals and grieving props being shuttled in on taxpayer-funded jets to lobby lawmakers to attack liberty — from overriding natural rights that are meant to be protected from government. Which in turn speaks to limits on governmental power.

His conclusion? “Lord. Are we ever fucked.”

And not in the good way.

Related: To insure the proggies get their way in the future,they’re miseducating and indoctrinating our children.

My meat loaf recipe

If anyone is interested – I put it up here.