Offered without comment

Posted February 27, 2014 by Car in
Categories: Uncategorized

Cough.

Driver roll up the partition please/ I don’t need you seeing Yonce on her knees …
Oh he so horny, yeah he want to f—
He popped all my buttons, and he ripped my blouse
He Monica Lewinsky-ed all on my gown

I just wanna be the girl you like, the girl you like

Ruling Dynastys

Posted February 25, 2014 by Car in
Categories: Uncategorized

So, should we just give up the illusion that we freely elect our leaders, from among the entire population, based on who can best serve? Let’s just openly acknowledge that it’s all an inside game of who you know, who you are?

That there is simply a ruling class.

Because there’s this:

“Everyone anticipates Debbie will run and win,” said one top Michigan Democrat who is close to the Dingell family and asked to speak on background because the comments came so soon after the veteran congressman’s retirement announcement.

“It’s no secret that Debbie will most likely run and will be the one to beat in that race. I just don’t see anybody else challenging her in a serious way. Debbie’s been here in this district for 30 years, in the trenches,” the source close to the family continued.

If Debbie Dingell wins, she’d keep the district the family has held in some form since 1933. Her husband became the longest serving member in congressional history last year, hitting the 58-year mark in 2013. His father, former Rep. John Dingell Sr. (D-Mich.), held the same seat for more than two decades before that, and his son succeeded him after the elder Dingell’s death in 1955.

Other Michigan Democrats agree Debbie Dingell is all but certain to run for her retiring husband’s seat, and if she does, she’ll be very tough to compete against in a Democratic primary.

The seat has been in the family since 1933. 81 years. Seriously, wtf?

I’m sick of Bushs and Kennedys and Dingells and Clintons and every other clan where the “family business” is politics.

If Debbie Dingell does run, few expect her to face a serious challenge. The district, which stretches from Detroit’s blue-collar suburbs to the college town of Ann Arbor, is overwhelmingly Democratic, and the Dingells are a household name throughout the region.

Of course, they are a household name? they’ve been in power for 81 years? How do you compete with that? How is is “democratic” to have these sorts of political dynasties, which are simply unbeatable electorally?

Like her husband, Dingell isn’t known as a doctrinaire liberal: Both have taken more centrist stances on gun control, and she might be more of a centrist on environmental issues, which could theoretically cause her problems with some of the district’s more liberal voters in Ann Arbor.

Ha ha haaaa … oh see, they’re moderates. Their stance on those two issues have nothing to do with 1) the auto industry and 2) hunters in Michigan.

Bow down bitches.

Meanwhile, at Huffpoo/updated

Posted February 19, 2014 by Car in
Categories: Uncategorized

The path of least resistance makes all rivers, and some men, crooked. -Napoleon Hill

They don’t seem very interested at the Huffington Post in covering what’s going on in Venezuela. I wonder why? That’s so WEIRD.

I found this one lonely little article waaaaaaay down at the very bottom of their “Worldpost” page from last night, with only one comment on it. The user’s tagline was “The GOP is OUT OF CONTROL” so I don’t think she’s conservative.

Continuing Chavez’s attack on Democracy!! SAD!!

How some of my fellow Liberals can continue supporting governments like this is beyond me. Chavez went after Jews, Journalist & opposition leaders & it seems that practice is continuing. SAD!!

You see, it’s because liberals don’t want too see the results of their failed narrative; the real-life results of policies they are currently advocating. In a linked huffpoo/Reuters piece you see where they want to go with this. What is the line of the liberals progressives? This is a only middle class movement. The poor are still supporting the government … @@

They are happy to be building a more socialist government.” (autoplay warning)

There you go.

Yes. Of course the poor are still supporting this Chavista government. Because Daddy Sugar is taking care of them. Or trying to. Promising at least.

Just as the “poor”, here, supports the redistributive plots of OUR government. People are always supportive when they benefit; when they are getting something for nothing. That is why the welfare state grows and grows and grows. It is a cancer that erodes self-determination. As long as nothing is required, outside of a vote, people will act similarly to the river. The path of least resistance.

The problem is, the government SUCKS at … just about everything. Any large government. This is nothing new, the Founding Fathers warned us about it. A government can no better take care of the everyday welfare of it’s citizens than it can run a Post office. Eventually, it creaks to a halt.

It is a law. A truism. A reality.

So this is the danger. Our warning sign. The oncoming freight train of despair from which, once in full force, only the SMOD can save us.

Wake up.

* I use this song ironically, because Rage Against the Machine, as just about everyone knows, are commies.

More excuse making here. Basically, democracy has spoken when Madura was elected (a perfectly legitimate election result, apparently) and the US is behind the current dissent in the country.

The discussions in comments are fascinating.

It’s Happening In Real Time. Pay Attention.

Posted February 18, 2014 by Car in
Categories: Uncategorized

It’s time to pay attention, liberals, because the downfall is happening in real time. No need to crack a book to learn history’s lessons of the end run of socialism. Just turn your eyes to Venezuela.

Think of not being able to buy soap, rice or toilet paper or order a cup of coffee, where even the rich are feeling poor. “In the serene private clubs of Caracas, there is no milk, and the hiss of the cappuccino machine has fallen silent. In the slums, the lights go out every few days, or the water stops running. In the grocery stores, both state-run shops and expensive delicatessens, customers barter information: I saw soap here, that store has rice today. The oil engineers have emigrated to Calgary, the soap opera stars fled to Mexico and Colombia. And in the beauty parlours of this nation obsessed with elaborate grooming, women both rich and poor have cut back to just one blow-dry or manicure each week.”

Toyota Motor Company shut down assembly. GM and Ford aren’t assembling cars either, because they can’t get parts. Inflation is at 50%. The TV stations are all now state controlled. Propaganda posters boast of socialist Venezuela, while there isn’t even toilet paper to wipe their asses. Twitter was shut down the other day when it was being used to coordinate student protests against the government. Yet, useful idiots like Sean Penn and Danny Glover supported Chavez and the social revolution which has lead to this ruin.

But the problem is, it is easier to wreck things, than to repair them.

The genius of the Left — Chavez’s for example — is that it destroys things from the inside out. They pervert religion, collapse the mores, abolish the family, shred the constitution and gradually expropriate the property. The differences from one day to the next are apparently imperceptible, but it is harder and harder to go back until finally there is no reversal of ‘progressive gains’ possible at all. The public is finally faced with the stark choice between chaos or authoritarianism. And most people will chose the Boss over the Mob.
The problem with Venezuela is that Chavismo has left people with nowhere else to go. It’s burned the bridges. There’s no reopening the car plants or restarting the factories, or even repairing the power plants. The engineers have all emigrated to Alberta, Canada. The same can be said of Syria. Who wants to open a store in Homs? In ten years nobody left in Homs will even remember how to do it. A whole generation of children is now growing up who know nothing other than war.

So, what do we learn from this? Well, Chavez had a cult of personality thing going, who touted equality, and raged against the income gap between the rich and poor. He poured government money into social programs which propped up his popularity. His government nationalized many industries, using that money to fund his programs.

High oil prices funded Mr. Chavez’s “Bolivarian revolution” over the past 14 years. He made massive investments in health and education; because the government releases almost no reliable data, it is debatable how much impact these had on human development, but they did inspire a belief in redistribution and justice, and ensured his huge popularity.

Which brings me to this

Even before President Obama was elected in 2008 I wrote that he was showing Chavez-like tendencies. I have never seen any reason to revise that notion; it has only strengthened. Reading the Globe and Mail article I quoted above, I am struck in particular by this seemingly unimportant quote, “the government releases almost no reliable data.” That’s been especially true of Obamacare and the present administration, as I pointed out last Thursday. Far more than ever before in my memory, domestic statistics released by the government have become almost pure propaganda, and few on right or left trust them.

Who believes anything Obama says anymore?

The problem in debating the problems (and end run of liberal goals) , is neatly summed up by David Horowitz in “The Black Book of The American Left”:

What makes an outlook “conservative” is that it is rooted in an attitude about the past rather than in expectations of the future. The first principles of conservatism are propositions about human nature and the way human beings behave in social context; about limits, and what limits make possible. This practicality,this attention to experience, to workable arrangements, explains why the conservative community can be liberal and tolerant toward its members in ways that the progressive left cannot.
In contrast to the conservative outlook, liberal and radical ideologies are about the future, about desired outcomes. The first priciples of the left are the priciples of politically constructing a “better world.” Throughout the modern era, the progressive future has been premised on a social contract that would make all of society’s members equal – or at least provide them with equal starting points.
Since ideologies of the left are commitments to an imagine future, to question them is to provoke a moral rather than an empirical response: Are you for or against the equality of human beings? To dissent from the progressive viewpoint is not a failure to assess relevant facts but an unwillingness to embraxe a liberated future. It is, therefore, to will the imperfections and injustices of the present order. In the current cant of the left, it is to be “racist, sexist, classist,” a defender of the status quo.
That is why not only radicals, but even thos who call themselves liberals, are instinctively intolerant toward the conservative position.

Their political views are a MORAL choice. Chavez’s goals were what counted, not what was produced. It doesn’t matter that there isn’t toilet paper to wipe their asses. The useful idiots sung his praises until the end.

“I join with millions… of freedom-loving people around the world, in hope for a rewarding future for the democratic and social development charter of the Bolivarian Revolution,” he said, referring to liberation icon Simon Bolivar.

“We all embraced Hugo Chavez as a social champion of democracy, material development, and spiritual well-being,” added Glover, star of the “Lethal Weapon” movies and a long-time supporter of Chavez and liberal causes.

On Tuesday, “JFK” and “Natural Born Killers” director Stone said: “I mourn a great hero to the majority of his people and those who struggle throughout the world for a place.”

Oliver Stone, Sean Penn, Danny Glover and every other useless fucking tool needs to watch this:

This is going to be fun

Posted January 30, 2014 by Car in
Categories: Uncategorized

Liberals out in Seattle are growing a “Food Forest.” What’s a “Food Forest’? Oh, I’ll let them tell you in all their unicorn-dreams optimism:

A food forest is a gardening technique or land management system, which mimics a woodland ecosystem by substituting edible trees, shrubs, perennials and annuals. Fruit and nut trees make up the upper level, while berry shrubs, edible perennials and annuals make up the lower levels. The Beacon Food Forest will combine aspects of native habitat rehabilitation with edible forest gardening.

The goal of the Beacon Food Forest is to bring the richly diverse community together by fostering a Permaculture Tree Guild approach to urban farming and land stewardship. By building a community around sharing food with the public we hope to be inclusive to all in need of food.

Who can go and and take whatever they want? ANYONE. Foragers of all stripes. NPR:

Of course, any “free” food source begs the question of what to do with overzealous pickers. No definitive answer on how to handle that predicament has been established yet, though. According to Herlihy, the only solutions right now are to produce an abundance of fruit so there’s enough for everyone and to embed “thieves’ gardens” with extra plants in the park for those people eager to take more than their share.

Oh, that’s going to work great! Because you can easily accommodate for those who take “more than their fair share.”

In 1974 the general public got a graphic illustration of the “tragedy of the commons” in satellite photos of the earth. Pictures of northern Africa showed an irregular dark patch 390 square miles in area. Ground-level investigation revealed a fenced area inside of which there was plenty of grass. Outside, the ground cover had been devastated.

The explanation was simple. The fenced area was private property, subdivided into five portions. Each year the owners moved their animals to a new section. Fallow periods of four years gave the pastures time to recover from the grazing. The owners did this because they had an incentive to take care of their land. But no one owned the land outside the ranch. It was open to nomads and their herds. Though knowing nothing of Karl Marx, the herdsmen followed his famous advice of 1875: “To each according to his needs.” Their needs were uncontrolled and grew with the increase in the number of animals. But supply was governed by nature and decreased drastically during the drought of the early 1970s. The herds exceeded the natural “carrying capacity” of their environment, soil was compacted and eroded, and “weedy” plants, unfit for cattle consumption, replaced good plants. Many cattle died, and so did humans.

This “Food Forest” is either going to fail, or they are going to curtail the “free foraging” idea, which is the basic premise of the park.

It won’t work. It never does.

It’s not that liberals don’t know anything. It’s just what they know isn’t so.

Thanks to my friend Roamy for this story.

Disgusting

Posted January 29, 2014 by Car in
Categories: Uncategorized

Obmama as Cory Remsburg by a member of the adoring press:

Last night’s speech also ended on an emotional — and upbeat — note when Obama recognized Army Ranger Cory Remsburg, who was almost killed in Afghanistan and continues to recuperate from a brain injury. “My fellow Americans, men and women like Cory remind us that America has never come easy,” the president said. “Our freedom, our democracy, has never been easy. Sometimes we stumble, we make mistakes; we get frustrated or discouraged. But for more than 200 years, we have put those things aside and placed our collective shoulder to the wheel of progress.” That story could also apply to Obama himself: Nothing in his seven years on the national political stage (2007-2014) has come easy. The 2008 race for the Democratic nomination. Even that general election. The health-care law. The re-election campaign. And now the president’s current situation in which he finds himself bloodied and bruised after the botched health-care rollout. Perseverance is an important quality for any president. Bill Clinton was usually able to talk his way out of sticky situations. But Obama’s M.O. is to grind it out. That, more than anything else, was the message he wanted to send last night — both he and the country are grinding it out.

NOTHING has come easy? Huh, that’s funny because it would appear to me that a rather inexperienced politician, who goes from “community organizer” to president in 11 short years wouldn’t appear to be the harshest row anyone’s hoed.

Oh, he’s “struggled” with low poll numbers. Poor baby. He hasn’t (up until now, perhaps) been able to dictate his will upon us. He’s won two elections with a press that would have fallen on their sword for him.

And while Remsburg has been undergoing surgeries, therapy, and relearning how to walk – Obama has been golfing, vacationing in Hawaii, and hob-nobbling with celebrities.

Soldier on, Obama.

Our Country Is In The Best Of Hands

Posted January 15, 2014 by Car in
Categories: Uncategorized

Tags: ,

In one of the most embarrassing moments of modern diplomacy, Obama uttered the sophomoric “give peace a chance” ideology in regards to Iran.

“My preference is for peace and diplomacy, and this is one of the reasons why I’ve sent the message to Congress that now is not the time for us to impose new sanctions, now is the time for us to allow the diplomats and technical experts to do their work.”

“What we want to do is give diplomacy a chance, and give peace a chance.”

*facepalm*

Meanwhile, Iran is doing a victory lap.

Iran’s “moderate” president, Hassan Rouhani, tweeted this morning that “world powers,” including the U.S., had “surrendered” to the “Iranian nation’s will” in confirming a six-month interim nuclear deal that will allow the Iranian regime to continue its advanced centrifuge program and develop a new nuclear facility at Arak.

Let’s remember who these people are – they sent CHILDREN to the front lines in their war with Iraq. Children as young as 12.

Obama’s foreign policy has been a disaster, starting with Iraq and Afghanistan, then devolving into Egypt, Syria, Russia and Iran.

Meanwhile, John Kerry continues his quest for that Nobel Peace prize but doesn’t appreciate being called on it.

“American Secretary of State John Kerry, who turned up here determined and acting out of misplaced obsession and messianic fervor, cannot teach me anything about the conflict with the Palestinians,” Yaalon said, according to the paper.

You’re supposed to pretend that he’s serious about brokering peace.

“If these comments are accurate, we find the remarks of the defense minister to be offensive and inappropriate, especially given all that the United States has done to support Israel’s security needs and will continue to do,” she said at a regular media briefing. “Secretary Kerry and his team, including Gen. (John) Allen, have been working day and night to try to promote a secure peace for Israel because of the secretary’s deep concern for Israel’s future.”

Palestine is really committed to peace with Israel, as you can see:

In a fiery speech broadcast live on Palestinian television Monday, the Palestinian minister for religious affairs called for Muslims to flock to Jerusalem to fight a holy war, or jihad. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas sat front and center in the audience and joined others in applauding his minister’s speech, according to video released by a watchdog organization.

But Kerry is super cereal about the negotiations. I don’t know how this is going to fit in:

In a speech over the weekend, Abbas voiced a hardline position on key negotiating issues, insisting that Palestinian refugees and their descendants have a “right” to move to the land on which the State of Israel sits and that he would not agree to any peace deal that does not include east Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital.

The NYT (no link, I hate them) points out the obvious:

Mr. Kerry is trying to persuade Mr. Abbas and Mr. Netanyahu to agree to a framework that would set out the core principles of a peace deal and provide guidelines for continuing to discuss the details. Senior Israeli and Palestinian officials have in recent days splashed cold water on the effort, suggesting that the two sides may have irreconcilable differences on borders, refugees, security, the status of Jerusalem and the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.

Ba haaa haa haaa … you think? The Geeeniuuuses at the NYT needed senior officials to point this out?

The Palestinians are ridiculous, and one need only investigate ONE of the sticking points to realize this: the Jerusalem issue.

Abbas and hard liners demand that there is no peace agreement without a Palestinian capital in east Jerusalem. Daniel Pipes explains why this is an issue. Jerusalem is of significant religious importance to both Jews and Christians. Not so much to Muslims.

It is not the place to which they pray, is not once mentioned by name in prayers, and it is connected to no mundane events in Muhammad’s life. The city never served as capital of a sovereign Muslim state, and it never became a cultural or scholarly center. Little of political import by Muslims was initiated there.

But now it is a focal point.

The city being of such evidently minor religious importance, why does it now loom so large for Muslims, to the point that a Muslim Zionism seems to be in the making across the Muslim world? Why do Palestinian demonstrators take to the streets shouting “We will sacrifice our blood and souls for you, Jerusalem” and their brethren in Jordan yell “We sacrifice our blood and soul for Al-Aqsa”? Why does King Fahd of Saudi Arabia call on Muslim states to protect “the holy city [that] belongs to all Muslims across the world”? Why did two surveys of American Muslims find Jerusalem their most pressing foreign policy issue?

Yes, why? Politics. Of course. Muslims only care about Jerusalem when others seem to care about the city. Time and time again, they have neglected the town.

Politics, not religious sensibility, has fueled the Muslim attachment to Jerusalem for nearly fourteen centuries; what the historian Bernard Wasserstein has written about the growth of Muslim feeling in the course of the Countercrusade applies through the centuries: “often in the history of Jerusalem, heightened religious fervour may be explained in large part by political necessity.” This pattern has three main implications. First, Jerusalem will never be more than a secondary city for Muslims; “belief in the sanctity of Jerusalem,” Sivan rightly concludes, “cannot be said to have been widely diffused nor deeply rooted in Islam.” Second, the Muslim interest lies not so much in controlling Jerusalem as it does in denying control over the city to anyone else. Third, the Islamic connection to the city is weaker than the Jewish one because it arises as much from transitory and mundane considerations as from the immutable claims of faith.

MECCA is the central city of Islam; a city in which non-Muslims are not even ALLOWED to enter. Can you imagine if non-Muslims demanded entry into Mecca? let alone wanted it as a non-Muslim capital. Yet Palestinians have made Jerusalem a central point – perhaps THE central point – to their peace negotiations with Israel.

Exit question: When will Kerry get his Nobel?


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.