Goading in the Morning

BOEHNER: NO IMPEACHMENT 

Courtesy of drudgereport.com July 14, 2014 at 8:49 AM

Goading in the morning, 
Glowering in the evening,
Loathing at supertime,
That's what media feeds you,
Sending lies out all the time.

Due Process Be Damned

The Environmental Protection Agency has quietly claimed that it has the authority to unilaterally garnish the wages of individuals who have been accused of violating its rules. Source
(h/t FoxNews)

A thieving, gobbling, ruthless Leviathan.

Let us put aside a number of items in the Bill of Rights that basically codifies basic human rights. Rights that say we should be left safe and secure in our effects except after due process, and even then without outrageous fining.

Instead, let us move on to the list of particular grievances in another American document of some significance:

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

You can be sure that Leviathan knows of this sentence and where it originated. Could it be goading its targets? That is a rhetorical question.

It is not yet July 14. But I highly suspect that is what Leviathan seeks. That has always been the Leftist goal no matter that the Leftist is often consumed, as was Robespierre, by the very excesses he  unleashes upon the world.

The Left are lunatics. What are you?

****Update****

Speaking of being goaded. What do you make of this layout at the top of Drudge at 8:49AM PST July 9, 2014?



BOEHNER: NO IMPEACHMENT

SSM Episode #2

It is about time that openly noticing the Soviet style of Western media started to become mainstream.

Congressman on Obama’s Media Border Tours: “This is the kind of media that they had in the former Soviet Union”

What is startling it that it took a Congressman to say it. It confounds me that the most blogs continue to use MSM instead of SSM (Soviet-Style Media or some other fitting equivalent).

This headline was published by Jammie Wearing Fool. Now, Jammie is mostly a news and opinion aggregator, so many of his headlines are going to be repeats of what others publish. Nevertheless, why should such a statement seem controversial to him? Because he knows that an unwritten law has been breached? One about what is and is not acceptable in polite salons?  Maybe.

I get the feeling that many blogs are afraid of being labeled impolite or impolitic: too radical if they make such value assessments such as affixing labels to poorly functioning mainstream institutions.

How in the name of sanity can anything ever be reformed when glaring malfeasance of one of our important mainstream institutions are not openly criticized?

I know from experience that your humble author is hardly more insightful than other human beings. Privately I find ready agreement that, indeed, our news organizations are delivering propaganda that would have made Pravda blush. IOW, it's an observation that should long ago have become mainstream.

So why is it necessary for a news-maker -- in this instance a Congressman -- to break the ice before other blogs repeat the accurate labeling of our news media? Hell, will they even repeat that label now? I have my doubts.

And this highlights something you should find even more troubling.

When things get so out of hand that it takes a Congress critter to say something that should long ago have become mainstream, but is now published as a headline because it is seen as "controversial," then it may indicate that we as a "free" people are long ago permanently enslaved. If you are too afraid to say what is obvious to a fool such as your humble author, what chance is there that you will have the courage and insights needed to defend your liberty when all Hell breaks loose?

Bleg: Fight Crocodile Tears and False Flags

In response to the following Breitbart headline

White House Requests $3.7 Billion in Emergency Funding to Deal with Border Crisis

I posted

NO!

Every penny Obama gets he will use to repress those who protest the invasion he abets.

Should you agree with this, please go here and raise the rank for this response.It currently has 5 thumbs up.

Thank you.

 

The One-Way Ratchet Again

I wish I could recall where I saw it last week. Maybe one of you can refresh my memory.

But the answer to Ace's questioning headline

If Obama Can Ignore The Law Requiring the Deportation of Illegal Aliens, Why Can't He Ignore the Law Requiring Asylum Hearings?

is that the ratcheting away of protection for Americans continues unabated and rarely specifically laid out for scrutiny.

Who is protected by the law depends on the King's whimsy the unstated but easily recognized agenda of those who enforce the laws.

It is no accident that such blatant and brazen discrepancies continue to be abetted by our rulers' Soviet-Style Media.

 Bottom line for you Ace:

Equality under the law is now completely arbitrary wherever it suits those seeking ever more power and ever more longevity in the seat of power.

Period.

Left Influenced Converted to Liberty Influence By a Single Word

Exploitation.


A liberal friend on becoming cognizant of real news:

"...the conditions of these youngsters from Central America who have been shipped one way or another North (media still silent on such details and seems not likely to investigate further) to be shoved across our borders. An organized invasion. I don't think it would be going too far to call it a warped update of the Children's Crusade. What is going on here?"

I suggested, "I think the word you are looking for, to hang on all this, may be Exploitation."

And a fire lit in her eyes.

Please welcome the newest member of the growing resistance to DC.

You too may have one budding near you.

Just be open to him and primed to offer just the right word.

How to Sue an Imperial President

I would have titled this "How Really to Sue an Imperial President," but blogger doesn't permit italics up there.
And I mean Really! As in: distinctly different from the posturing gesture made by John Boehner this week.

Short rundown first.

• On Wednesday's show, Mark Levin spoke about John Boehner saying he was going to sue Obama for failing to faithfully execute the laws passed by Congress in violation of his oath of office.
• Mr. Levin said that Cong. Boehner likely would not be granted standing. That he wished it were different, but that the bar would be very hard to overcome.
• Upon hearing that, I recalled that in 1997, shortly after Pres. Bill Clinton signed the line item veto that Congress had passed, Sen. Robert Byrd had immediately filed suit to stop it. I did not recall the details, but it is a fact that shortly thereafter the line item veto was indeed overturned by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional.
• So the next day, while Mr. Levin was in his monologue about why the SCOTUS ruling about the appointments clause was a Trojan Horse,  I called his show to ask him if there was not something to be learned in the line item veto case about how to sue the President successfully for his extra-constitutional legislating.

The first clip was my laying the premise in order to get to the idea. He corrects a key mistaken assumption I had made, but he then patiently goes on to let me finally get my point across -- How was the line-item veto overturned and what can you learn from that?

CLICK ---> Clip 1 (~8 minutes long)

The second clip shows where it has dawned on Levin how my follow-up response to his answer was the exactly right way to move such a case forward.

CLICK ---> Clip2 (~2 minutes long)

The third clip is where Levin summarized what he's been thinking and it's got him gleefully hoping he gets a chance to bring the case to trial.

CLICK ---> Clip3 (~3 minutes long)

I must say it was very gratifying for me to have him respond so well once my idea hit home. Especially so because there was a moment there where I was afraid I was going to blow my chance to get my point across.

And I am particularly grateful to Ed Bonderenka for extracting the clips from the full podcast so I could present them in this shortened form.

Soviet-Style Media Episode #1

Washington Post Lets Columnist Dana Milbank Lie About Heritage Foundation

One of the milder lies:

Milbank just made up his anecdote about Gabriel "demanding" to know if the young woman was American. What Gabriel really said was, "I assume you're an American." After the studens says that she is, Gabriel says, "I'm glad you're here." She then goes on to make a point about how she wishes people would worry more about the government's response to the Benghazi attacks than how many peaceful Muslims there are in the world. 

Please RTWT.

Back? See, that didn't take long.
 
Note John Nolte's bottom line.

"The real question is: Where are the Washington Post fact checkers? Where are Milbank's editors? A major newspaper publishing this kind of smear is beyond bias; it's indecent." 

Indecent? That is understating the behavior by a long shot in my opinion.

That's why I posted this as my first of many examples of Soviet style behavior in the Izvestia and Pravda's of our time and in this country.

Readers are requested to send in additional examples of outright lying, dissembling and disingenuous reporting by the SSM.* Feel free to use my comment stream or my email. I intend to keep a record of them here under my label Agency of Lies and my new SSM label.


----------
*SSM is the acronym for Soviet-Style Media.

Readers know that over the years my terms for what most still call MSM have evolved. IIRC it began with Lamestream Media, then the Orwellian Ministry of Truth and Minitrue, to Ministry of Lies, to Agency of Lies (AoL) to Soviet-Style Media.

Sanity -- short lived?

 “The Constitution is not a personal tool for censoring everyone's beliefs but your own.” -- Source

I was delighted before I darkly considered what higher courts are likely to next do. This feeling of sanity does not need to be short lived. Still, you understand that the war is not nearly won.


What YOU have to say on the matter can affect 5 or more of those black robed pretenders if you so desire. Maybe one of you can figure out how to do it and then do it.

Do not overlook the power of buzz.

GOPe Openly Acting As PROG COMMAND CENTRAL

Summary:

How can there remain any doubt that the GOPe is currently playing for the side that wants to sustain all recent violations of our Constitution's limits on governmental power? They are doing whatever it takes to keep the Prog agenda moving Forward. Provided is  significant evidence that the GOPe plays a central role all or part of advancing the Progressive movement. Readers are provided examples on how to observe and assess new evidence and add it to the growing list on how real opposition to Leviathan is being not just marginalized, but steam-rolled. 

The GOPe appears to have dropped all its facade  as the leadership of the "opposition party" with its efforts to keep Thad Cochran as U.S. Senator from Mississippi.

Rumors Of Impropriety Swirl About Cochran Allies' Entreaties To Democratic Voters

Rumors eh? Seems realistic given today's politics (war by other means). No doubt he expects payback for this.

Thad Cochran Hosts Fundraisers for Liberal Democrats

And he was certainly not the first, and he is clearly was not breaking new ground. Only the latest and more open. Just last week we had another example.

Great: Former Republican Senators Endorsing Democrat Senate Candidates

Who can be surprised at this point? It is simply par for the course when you understand what a kabuki theater postmodern American "adversarial" politics has become.

The GOPe is extremely consistent. They play at being stern with the Dems, but reserve their real venom for conservatives who stand for principles. This Politico headline GOP establishment backs Thad Cochran gives no hint how hard they are playing, but the story at the link is much more clear on the matter:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell bragged at an event Tuesday night that it was the “biggest fundraiser ever in this building” — a feat considering the building is the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

Look. None of us oldsters, who witnessed in our youth how constitutional conservatives railed against the "country club" Republicans, and who also know some older American history, should be surprised.

The Progressive movement began in the GOP. Understand how the Progs engineered their spread to the Democrats? It was Prog Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose run that split the vote against sitting GOP President William Howard Taft in 1912 to give us disastrous and tyrannical Prog Dem President Woodrow Wilson.

If the voters of Mississippi, including many Democrats who don't like Washington telling them what to do, lets Cochran pleas to Dem voters succeed at stealing the primary run-off from Chris McDaniel and legitimate Republican voters, then they are indeed the dunces that much of the world laughs at.

However, the rest of America should not be too smug either.

If Americans as a whole do not yet recognize how the Dems and the GOPe make up a combined party of power-mad Statist, then maybe it is time that the schemers succeed in erasing our liberty. We are either too stupid or willfully ignorant to put together the flaming evidence and understand how successful has been the subterfuge of this Statist juggernaut with their Leftist shock troops and Soviet-style media.

The above cartoon was first published in 2002. The knibbling at the edges has gone on for so long, what is left of our constitution today? Who is gonna impeach the Constitution violator in chief?

Haven't we let the SKUNCs win?

As for you arrogant bastards at the top: you may not care that you will eventually answer to a Higher Authority, but those of us who cherish what it is you are destroying do care for those whose life you seek to make a living Hell.

And so some of us pray that He makes you who know full well what you are doing to suffer for your hubris in this life while forgiving us our seeming inadequacies. 

Uh...Gore Et Alii Threat To Human Decency

The above headline was my reaction to these two Drudge headlines.

• Snow In June!
  

• GORE: 'Climate crisis threat to future of human civilization'...

Drudge really has a knack for pairing up headlines.

That is all.

The Knee Jerk Pattern

I think provides strong evidence of double-think.

Here is an example.

At second of two community meetings last night.

Me: As you can tell from my comments tonight, I really appreciated what you said last night.

Bob: Thanks. The audience response was relieving. Sometimes you wonder "what's the use?" Too bad so few others got to speak on point.

Me: Yes. Come to think of it, could you hear what Adam [in the audience facing the moderator and far to my right] said last night? He spoke at length on possible solutions. But without a mic it was hard to hear and I thought I heard him hit on some great points. Too bad he's not here tonight.

Bob: Yeah, I like Adam. He's a good man. But I was too far behind and I couldn't hear his comments at all.

Me: Too bad he wasn't as easy to hear as you are. I guess it didn't help that he was chewing gum. I'm sure it made it hard for him to project besides muffling his voice.

Bob: [Laughs.] At least he didn't do it on the podium like President Obama did at the D-Day celebration. For someone with so many handlers you'd think they'd have helped keep him from making that mistake.

Me: After so many "mistakes" you have to begin to think some of these things are deliberate.

Bob: I'm sorry, I can't believe in conspiracies.

Me: [snicker] What does conspiracy have to do with observing someone choosing repeatedly to behave boorishly for G-d know how many reasons?

Bob: I'm sorry, I can't believe in conspiracies.

I could not help how quickly Bob connected a local man's gum-chewing to Obama's widely noticed display of it at Normandy suggested his disinterest or even contempt (as Head of State) for the event being commemorated.

So it clearly was on his mind. My guess is that it had already occurred to him that Obama was maybe bored at the least, and possibly even contemptuous. But he didn't like where that thought took him, so he discarded it.

His giving me such a quick and seemingly unrelated response suggests where he thought such thinking leads, and he engaged in double-think. "oh, it's a mistake that his handlers screwed up on." And he was also advising me, in a stern but friendly way, that it was best that I not think about it too much either.

Have any of you run into this sort of thing much? I mean, being a President can't rule out that boorish behavior is not deliberate. Cavalier at best. And there is nothing stopping ones motives from being much worse. And any rate, I think I spotted a fatal tic in Bob. LOL

Brazen Bunglers

Ever fearful of admitting their CIC's (Zero's) stupidity, his spinners have chosen to brass it out:

White House Aides: ‘We didn’t know that they were going to Swift Boat Bergdahl’

Charming.

Update:
Hillary, Monday, stated her position

'We try not to Benghazi any of our soldiers on the field.'

Okay. Okay. She said "leave" and not "Benghazi." But "at this point in time, what possible difference does it make?"

Well, it's all rock and roll to her -- and SOP for her chief adviser, Slick.

Too Big to Fail

We have all heard the line "too big to fail" in regards economics.

Now consider those words when wondering why Obama is effectively safe from impeachment, and -- well -- you know that house of cards metaphor for our financial situation?  Think of that as regards the advanced decay of our republic.

Anyone have an answer?

Upping the Cynicism Quotient for Democratic Candidates

White House gives its blessing to Senate Democrats who want to campaign against its new global warming rules.

H/T to AoSHQ

P.S.: Speaking of cynicism. Who expect the GOPe will allow the GOP to exploit this news?

The Prog War on Womb Man

is a war on humanity itself. Turn the table on the Progs. You who hold human life as sacred own the moral high ground in this at least. Act like you know you own it.

The point of this post was to get the pun out there.

Think about it. Understand all the implications. There is an ancient meme that connects woman to womb-man because it encompasses a role in which only woman may engage. Those who hate humanity (or fear it) have long sought to expunge as much as possible thoughts of providing another womb. Hence, the war on womb-man.

Rodger Family Statement: All Hollyweird Should Be Sterilized

The above headline is a fantasy, as it could never be uttered by the guilt-ridden speakers.

However dear readers, this fictitious headline is a more fitting response by parents who were truly regretful of their son's rampage yesterday. Instead we read their chutzpah headline garnered to generate sympathy from their like-minded Leftist friends: 

"Rodger Family Releases Statement Supporting Gun Control"

The story of how the film-maker father was envied by the son and the father did nothing to rectify it is not the headline. Nor is the fact that the sire provided his monster the opportunity to stab to death three of his friends before striking four others with his car was not even in the man's thoughts. But calling for gun control was.

Wasting Time Exposing Court Jesters

I must admit I found Ace's title intriguing.

Paul Krugman Gets Pwn3d Like a Loudmouth in a Woody Allen Movie

But before I could finish the explanation of the take-down of 'the esteemed" Paul Krugman I was awash with ennui. If that is the right label for the emotion. I'm not sure that ennui even comes close to the disgust I felt about wasting good logic on a complete hack like Krugman; or on any of the Progs that Krug fittingly represents. Self-satisfied, arrogant with not a scintilla of humility, and apparently paid well to provide red-herrings to opponents of Statism when they might otherwise be contemplating ways to effectively eliminating the tyrants.

The otherwise fine job that Ace and, if he's correct in his assessment, that Dan Kahan have attempted proves why writing about the bums and their pretenses is a complete waste of time. In my opinion the bums know they are wrong and it's simply their job to tie sane people up in knots attempting to demonstrate why the clowns are -- if one wishes to more accurately describe them -- well-paid liars.


After over two months of not writing a single word for this blog I think this bit might provide you an explanation as to why.

It is my opinion that committing murder or advocating commiting murder will not solve a thing. In fact it would only exacerbate our woes. However, I would find it hard to denounce people who feel that way today, even to my Maker. That our despots wish us to be thinking like that only further suggests that they may deserve to meet such an end so as to prevent the destruction of so many more people who are relatively innocent. I call myself agnostic only because I do not KNOW My Maker intimately. That He made the world work as it does -- beyond human calculation to make things happen that cannot happen -- I take wholly on faith. And it is because of that faith that I know -- I am NOT agnostic on this -- that today's tyrants seek the destruction of billions of people and the subjugation of the remnant.

In part I know this from the  more complex evidence like that of the masthead above. But I know it even more from the tyrants' claims to be doing things that they could never ever do (e.g., 2+2 ≠ 5) but constantly lie that they are doing. This is wrong and leads to disaster and needs to be ended, but it is something that one mere man cannot bring an end to on his own.

I pray daily that He will achieve it much in the manner that Pharaoh was dealt with. Let His wrath pass over the decent human beings and fall on those who deserve it. It's a lot to ask of He with Whom I have no intimate contact; may it be enough that I ask it not for me.

$200 Reward for a Verified Copy '82-'83 Reagan Speech

I've posted my recollection of this speech before. Too many establishment Republicans, including so-called friends of Ronald Reagan, apparently don't want the American people to hear this revised version of Reagan's 1964 stump speech.

On this 103rd anniversary of Ronald Reagans birthday, I am offering Internet readers a bonus.

Provide the world with the actual speech and transcript and details of where and when it was given, and I will gratefully provide you with a two hundred dollar bounty. And what is left of the free world too will be grateful too since it will demonstrate how the establishment so hated Reagan that they have been hiding it.

The following, published last year, should provide you with enough information to unearth this buried speech..

Ronald Reagan's Political Model

Today Is the 102^nd anniversary of Ronald Reagan's birth.

Many revere the man not so much for his years in office but for voicing his vision of American ideals clearly and with enthusiasm. Among the best examples of that vision was elucidated in his 1964 stump speech "A Time for Choosing." Excerpt:

You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an up or down: up to man's ages-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motive, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.

It was delivered on behalf of Barry Goldwater's run for president. But far more effectively, it established Mr. Reagan as a first-rate conservative voice in America.

Wait. Don't leave yet just because you think you have heard the 1964 speech before.

Some time in Mr Reagan's first term as president, circa 1982, while traveling in my car, I heard what I consider to be a very important expansion on that speech. I have repeatedly tried to find that later version, but I have not yet succeeded.

So I had a dilemma. Continue to search and wait to pass along what Mr. Reagan attempted to portray or pass along his words as best as I could recall. I made the decision a few years ago that until  someone answers my request to unearth the last version of that speech and provide the man's actual words, I would on various occasions publish it. It is what I remember about Mr. Reagan's more detailed explanation of the political mechanism that Americans find themselves saddled with and he meant for you to know it.

He clearly was attempting to provide us with a new model that could be used to override the Marxist model that he rejected. In my opinion he was correct in rejecting it. When we stick to the mono-directional model made famous by Marx and promulgated by our media, we are playing on the field of their choosing. Mr. Reagan offered us an alternative, and we ought to have learned to listen to him by now.

Please forgive me my inabilities to be precise. It is more important that those who love freedom know the essence of his vision as I recall them.

Thank you.

As best as I can recall, Mr. Reagan referred to a political platform. He likened what he considered to be the Marxist political spectrum of left and right to a see-saw of a platform.

The Left would gain control, and they'd pile up programs on their side of the platform. The foundation beneath the platform would begin to sink from the weight of their efforts. This resulted in the platform being tilted noticeably. It made the voters feel uncomfortable. So the voters would turn to the Right to straighten things out. 

Well the right might try to prop up the left side a bit, and refill the foundation, but in doing so, they'd dig a hole under their side of the platform next. Those who gain power always have interests who want something back -- usually in the form of legislation that favors them or taxes their competitors -- for their support. Thus the weight of these efforts and favors repaid cause the platform to tip to the right this time. That sinking feeling leaves the voters uncomfortable again.

So the voters would then put the Left back into power. And the Left would begin to fill in the hole under the right, but pile up more programs on their side and drive their side of the platform even deeper into the foundation of America's liberties.

And so it would go on, back and forth, Left and Right, Left then Right. Pretty soon the citizens of this great nation would find themselves in a pit of despair; a pit dug by the machinations of those who built up the oppressive weight of government. Government has been built up incrementally, one law after another, ruling upon ruling, practice becoming entrenched policy. And it was all done under the guise of representing a left or a right side, but both headed in one direction -- into the pit of tyranny. All those vested interests would insist it stay that way. Worse, as they'd get more demanding they'd cloak it with fairness. They were owed all that they'd "earned" for their efforts to gain "their people" power in the past.

At some point the vast majority of Americans will insist on climbing out of the hole dug for them by this political machine -- that single minded and ruthless incremental see-saw of power-seeking achieved by eating away at the foundation of our liberties. Taxes and regulations and busybodyness that is in no way justified in a nation dedicated to individual freedom.

Americans were passed a birthright containing the fresh air of freedom. It is what  our Founders had envisioned, and it is what our fathers fought to keep. And it's pretty much still been available to most Americans for around 200 years. If we do not stop the digging soon, somewhere along the way, Americans will demand to be let out of this pit. May God bless them then as He has in the past.

It is my opinion that the Tea Party movement is the realization of Mr. Reagan's vision. We will no longer limit ourselves to the thinking that we must choose to accept a Left or a Right.  We are trying to climb out of the Marxist/Statist pit dug by influential forces who've been incrementally overriding the restraints on their power. We are seeking freedom from the tyranny of those tired old partisans who claim to be working for our common good but are enthusiastically enslaving us and our posterity. 

Consider the Possibilities

After you have finished reading my last post Statist Tools: Compliant Media Editing, I'd like you to consider the possibilities of the reaction at the Holder DOJ to this headline.

Rivals DirecTV and Dish team up to sell customized political ads.

Q: What do you suppose will be Eric Holder's first response should any of those political ads be critical of his boss, the Bummer?

A: Anti-trust indictment here we come!

Then there is this in the text of the headlined story:

"Dish and DirecTV said they would consider partnering with cable companies if it means they can reach a larger base."

Q: In the unlikely event that all those subscription services suddenly begin acting as if larger government is a bad thing (when you stop laughing...), what will the SSM be calling such an agreement?

A: An anti-American conspiracy in dire need of eradication.

What has happened to America? Look deeply into your mirror.