Grim cloud of victimhood protects phony victims like looters and rioters
“He is free who knows how to keep in his own hand the power to decide, at each step, the course of his life, and who lives in a society which does not block the exercise of that power.” — Salvador de Madariaga (1886-1978) Spanish writer, diplomat, and historian, noted for his service at the League of Nations
As I sit here in my humble Bear’s Den and as look out the window, the grass is green, the trees have leaves and the birds are making a mess on the glass in the window.
There is an old proverb that says: “Money is the root of all evil”. And I would add “especially among the political establishment.”
As a common man, I find it difficult to understand how anyone in the higher levels of government would sell out this country for 13 pieces of silver. Check that, the price of selling out has gone up in the past 2000 years from hundreds of thousands of dollars, to millions and in the Clinton case we are talking about $2.5 billion dollars.
The love of money and greed go hand in hand, but greed is a “demon with a small mouth and whatever you feed it is never enough.” –Janwillem van de Wetering
In an article at VOX politics (and VOX is not a right leaning website)
Hillary Clinton personally took money from companies that sought to influence her
This is only a partial list of the donors, the rest can be seen at VOX.
Should our Queen in waiting ascend to the throne of the White House, the Clintons’ will have a revolving door in the rear where Bill will take in bags of cash.
Do not let your emotions for casting a vote for the First Female President get the better of you. That time will come when you have someone who is qualified for the job, like a Margaret Thatcher.
The country made one big mistake in 2008 when they elected a man because of his color, he was totally unqualified for the job and he has proven this over the last six years. To say it was a mistake is an understatement and the country will pay for this mistake for years to come.
The country can not afford another mistake.
Say NO to Hillary Clinton in 2016!
Despite the fact that it is facing an array of enemies that includes the United States, Iran and dozens of other countries, the Islamic State (IS) militant group remains on the offensive in many areas of Syria and Iraq. Just a few months ago, it appeared that the Islamic State was on the verge of suffering major defeats in both Syria and Iraq, but since then, it has managed to go back onto the offensive, taking strategic locations on both sides of the border and dealing major defeats to the government forces of both countries. Now, the war against the Islamic State is reaching a critical stage as the civil wars in Syria and Iraq are approaching what could be the decisive battles of those wars, battles that will likely determine the future of the Islamic State as a viable fighting force.
After a lightning offensive one year ago, the Islamic State was able to expand the territory under its control in Syria while seizing control of nearly half of Iraq, a country where it had little presence in the years before. This lightning offensive galvanized many of the most powerful countries in the region to react to the rise of the Islamic State, with the United States forming an international coalition to carry out airstrikes on IS targets and Iran backing Iraqi government forces and their Shiite militia allies. Thanks in large part to the airpower of the US and its allies, as well as Iran’s backing for its allies in Iraq; the Islamic State suffered a number of setbacks. Militarily, the IS was pushed back from some of its territory in northern Iraq, while suffering a major defeat in the battle for the northern Syrian city of Kobane (with major Kurdish support in both cases). Economically, US air power destroyed Syria’s oil industry that had been seized by the Islamic State and was funding much of its military activities in Syria and Iraq.
Instead of falling back on the defensive as had been expected in the wake of these major setbacks, the Islamic States has instead gone back on the offensive. In Syria, Islamic State militants seized control of a Palestinian refugee installation near the heart of the Damascus, the first such incursion by the IS near to the Syrian capital. Furthermore, Islamic State militants also moved closer to the main northern city in Syria, Aleppo, where rival rebel groups were battling with Syrian government forces for control of that region. Meanwhile, in Iraq, Islamic State forces seized control of the strategic city of Ramadi, located just to the west of Baghdad. As the capital of the vast western region of Anbar, this enabled the Islamic State to now claim that it controlled nearly the entire territory of Anbar. Together, these victories point to the fact that, rather than being a spent force, the Islamic State is continuing to gain in strength.
This resurgence in Islamic State power comes as the civil wars in Syria and Iraq are reaching a critical juncture. In Syria, President Bashir Assad’s government forces have suddenly found themselves on the defensive in many areas of the country and could collapse under the weight of the forces arrayed against the government. This would place the Islamic State in a strong position if the government collapsed, as it controls most of northern and eastern Syria and could launch attacks against rival rebel forces in other parts of the country. Meanwhile, Iraqi government forces and their Shiite militia allies are preparing for an offensive against the northern city of Mosul, the largest city under the control of the Islamic State. If the IS can beat back an attack on Mosul, this would be a devastating blow for the Iraqi government (and for Iran). However, the loss of Mosul would be a major setback for the Islamic State, as it is the hub of IS economic activity and a place where the IS enjoys considerable support. As a result, the next few months will be critical in determining the future of the Islamic State and the international community’s efforts to eradicate the militant group
The American left has spent the past few weeks trying to tell us that they believe in free speech, but…—and the “but” is that anything that offends the sensibilities of Islamic fanatics is unnecessarily provocative, hateful, and possibly racist. Therefore, such “hate speech” shouldn’t be allowed.
Now they’ve gotten a taste of their own medicine.
An anti-censorship benefit scheduled for next month in New York City has been cancelled after the managers of the venue, the Sheen Center, “suggested that we alter the title of Neil LaBute’s play”—charmingly titled Mohammed Gets a Boner—”and alter the content of some of our panelists’ speeches.”
That’s right, folks. They tried to censor an anti-censorship event.
Well, not censorship in its truest sense. The managers of the venue do have a right to say what can and cannot go on there, and in this case, they didn’t act out of fear of attack. Rather, the Sheen Center is funded by the Archdiocese of New York, which has its own vested interest in discouraging mockery of religion. But the irony is that, after weeks of saying it’s “hate speech” to deliberately offend Muslims, intellectuals on the left can hardly complain, even though they are the ones getting kicked to the curb this time.
The various panels on the event were slated to discuss “censorship of women in the arts,” “censorship of environmentalists and climate scientists,” and “censorship of LGBT artists.” The part about “censorship of environmentalists” is, of course, laughable. And these days, the only artists who are forced to recant their views are those who violate the LGBT speech codes by pointing out that Bruce Jenner isn’t a woman. So while the organizers of this event were preparing to work themselves up into a frenzy of concern over non-existent censorship, they inadvertently reminded us of the censorship threat we should actually fear.
This raises a big question, one of the great paradoxes of our era. Why is it that a large segment of left has embraced a code of appeasing “sensitivity” toward Islam—when they are its obvious next victims? Why do they wring their hands over “microagressions,” while urging us not to provoke people who execute homosexuals and throw acid in women’s faces?
Why does the left kowtow to Islam?
You might suspect that the question answers itself. They kowtow to Islam precisely because it is a real threat, a macroaggression that trumps all of the microaggressions. So you could say that it is simple cowardice. They protest against people they know are extremely unlikely to harm them, and they shut up about the fanatics who might actually follow through on their threats.
But I don’t think that’s the fundamental cause. After all, most lefties are not being called upon to take any personal risk, because somebody else has already stuck his neck out. Drawing or publishing a cartoon of Mohammed might get you put on an al-Qaeda hit list. Simply saying that you support the cartoonist’s defiance of that threat won’t get you on anybody’s list.
In fact, a running theme of the left’s arguments, repeated with a great deal of apparent sincerity, is the notion that it is irrational to fear Islam, that describing the religion as violent and dangerous is “Islamophobia.” They seem to have largely talked themselves into believing that they have nothing personally to fear from Islam. Jihadists may throw gays off of buildings in Syria, but it can’t happen here.
This is nonsense, of course, but it is revealing of the mindset. They actually talk themselves into believing that “censorship of LGBT artists” is an equal or even greater threat, far more urgent than anything having to do with Islam. For the left, the main source of evil in the world always comes from within America and from within the West, never outside of it.