We Are Too Easily Offended Today And I Blame The Left

Can you stop being offended long enough to watch this roast of Sammy Davis, Jr? Can you laugh along with all the audience and all the people on the dais? Or do you always look for a reason to be offended?

#Jesus: The Poor Will Always Be With Us. #Obama: You’re Wrong.

That’s right, Obama said it’s important not to be cynical enough to claim that the poor will always be with us. And Jesus said “the poor will always be with you.” Matthew 26:11

See for yourself.

All who claim Obama is a Christian, just because he says he’s one, I dare you to tell me how someone who thinks he can dismiss Jesus and call Him a cynic can at the same time be a servant of Christ. It is impossible. Not only does Obama continuously prove he is not a Christian, but also continuously prove he hates Christianity and those who practice it.

More AOHell

 

I don’t think anyone takes AOL seriously anymore, apart from it being a serious example of cultural degeneracy.

What the portal of Hell looks like.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now, I suppose that if someone were tempted to make The National Enquirer, or some other supermarket checkout lane tabloid trash their Internet starting page, then AOL might seem like an attractive option.

Otherwise, I cannot think of a single reason to sign up. In fact, as I and numerous others have said before, it is difficult merely to justify keeping an old e-mail account there, no matter how many years you may have had it.

As if any of us really needed further evidence of the mental and moral squalor of the AOL experience, here’s  sampling of “ledes” from today’s headlines. Recall too, that what appears here appears despite the fact that the greeting screen was deliberately set to the “business” option .

Only on the last item listed do they finally get to a political issue: with the expected framing, of course.

 

… ‘heartbroken’

… incredible ‘thank you’

… ‘graphic’ exhibit

… most grueling commute ever

… Waiter deals with unpaid tab in best way

Best haircuts for your 40s, 50s and 60s

Creatures found dwelling on 3rd floor of school

Woman’s funny imitations …

Executive chefs are among the happiest …

Two short words may have saved woman’s life …

… how Teresa is really doing in prison

The trick to perfect hard and soft boiled eggs …

Man fools girlfriend …

Celebrity hair stylist …

… lurid murder trial

Girl learns startling truth …

Judge Judy reportedly earns $47 million … a year

Polygamist family lived in fear …

Sinister ‘treats’ send dogs to hospital …

[actress Kate] Hudson makes leap into a bold new business …

Heinous crime’ strikes leading UK dog show

Disturbing video of Suge killing man emerges …

GOP senators undermine Iran deal with letter …

 

 

 

 

 

Remember All Those Who Voted For ObamaCare?

Notice how many of them are no longer in Congress? And We the People still hate it, more now than before it was passed. It’s time for Republicans and those Democrats who like their cushy perks of Office to abort ObamaCare.

Signs Seen At Space Age Truckstop #GunSense

The Space Age Truckstop, located on I-84 just east of the I-82 split in Oregon, is very pro-2nd Amendment. They sell many signs the size of the “no parking” signs you see on the street. Just a couple I found very enjoyable:

You can’t have my country
You can’t have my guns
And I don’t want your handouts.

WARNING
Due to cost increases
for ammunition,
You will not get a warning shot.

The average response time
for the police is 23 minutes.
The average response time for a .357
is 1400 feet per second.

@shannonrwatts Doesn’t Want You To Know This #GunSense

The US has 90 guns per 100 citizens, far outstripping any other country. That’s something Bloomberg bought and sold Shannon Watts will tell you. What she won’t tell you is that the US is also in the bottom half of all countries in murder rates, with the Socialist, huge gun-control countries above us. She also won’t tell you that the US would be far lower if not for the murder rates in the Democrat-controlled gun-control cities of the US, such as Detroit, Chicago, DC, Atlanta, Cleveland, etc, etc.

Dallas, the Democrat run city in gun nut Texas, is the Texas city with the highest murder rate, and it’s not even in the top 20 in the US. So, as everyone with even a lick of sense knows, gun-control laws increase murder rates instead of decreasing them.

Which Side Are You On?

As for Truth Before Dishonor, we know which side we are on.

In case you wondered what left-fascism actually looked like.

A reminder that big business and the free market are not the same thing, as we see the Lords of Crony Capitalism collaborate with Welfare State Diktat, and declare it “Good”.

“Insurers and the government have developed a symbiotic relationship, nurtured by tens of billions of dollars that flow from the federal Treasury to insurers each year,” said Michael F. Cannon, director of health policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute.

So much so, in fact, that insurers may soon be on a collision course with the Republican majority in the new Congress. Insurers, often aligned with Republicans in the past, have built their business plans around the law and will strenuously resist Republican efforts to dismantle it. Since Mr. Obama signed the law, share prices for four of the major insurance companies — Aetna, Cigna, Humana and UnitedHealth — have more than doubled, while the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index has increased about 70 percent.”

 

 

We Could Annex The Northern Half Of It

Back when we had control of the northern half of it, we should’ve annexed it then. But we didn’t, and we’ve been suffering for it since. And what is “it”, you ask? “It” is this.

And I know certain empty heads will esplode because I wrote this.

Why #Obama Might Not Pardon His Peeps

Baraka Obama, like all good tyrants and criminals, is adept at the Olympic sport of “Under Bus Tossing”. In order to protect himself, he is willing to sacrifice any and every person around him. And, since he’s a narcissist on steroids, it is not in any way a sacrifice to him. At all. Consider this scenario:

1) Baraka Obama pardons all his Czars and Cabinet officials.
2) The Republican Congress calls each and every pardoned person to testify.
3a) The pardoned people refuse to testify.
4a) Congress hits them with Contempt of Congress and Obstruction of Justice charges.
3b) The pardoned people lie to protect the agenda.
4b) Congress hits them with Perjury charges.
5) Obama’s peeps are thrown in jail for crimes committed after their pardons.
6) Obama is implicated for crimes he committed, due to evidence found in the questioning and trials of his peeps.
7) Obama faces criminal charges, including treason and other high crimes and misdemeanors.

No, Obama would not be a wise tyrant and narcissist if he pardoned his peeps. It would be better for Obama to not pardon anyone in his circle. That way, his peeps could exercise their Fifth Amendment rights, found in a document they despise, so they wouldn’t go to prison; thereby, insulating him from the prison he deserves. His best chance to avoid what he deserves is to guarantee everyone around him will get what they deserve if he gets his.

Hey, @voxdotcom, #Stereotype Much? #Wrong Much?

Go take their “quiz” and see for yourself how wrong VOX is. As is normal for VOX. They’re never, ever, and I do mean ever, right about anything. Even people on the Left are laughing at VOX over this one.

How did I do? Anyone who knows me will see what a bunch of hooey the VOX thing is.

Let’s #Compromise!

Now that Republicans have won, the Democrats are no longer saying “we won” but have switched to that all-familiar refrain of theirs when they lose: let’s compromise! I agree. Let’s compromise. To compromise, both sides need to give up something they want to get something else they want.

Let’s start the compromising by forcing the Democrats to finally live up to their past agreements.

For the Reagan 100 billion dollar tax hike, the Democrats must now provide the 300 billion dollars of non-defense budget cuts (in 1986 value dollars).

For the George Herbert Walker Bush tax hike, the Democrats must now provide the agreed upon non-defense budget cuts (in 1990 value dollars).

For the Reagan amnesty, the Democrats must now secure the southern border.

Once the above 3 compromises are finally met, we can talk… about other compromises the Democrats have not yet followed through on. There should be no further offers of compromise until the Democrats actually follow through on old promises they made and, to this point, welched on.

The Difference Between 1994 And Today Is Democrats Have Obama

I have been told that the GOP has a larger advantage in the US House than any Party since World War II. That is decidedly untrue. The Democrats have had a larger majority many times since World War II ended. But this is indeed the largest Republican majority since World War II. But let’s examine Baraka Obama’s infamous quote, shall we? And his impact on Democrat elections.

US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
The Democrats have Obama
2009 Democrats 257 Republicans 178
2011 Democrats 193 Republicans 242 Republican gain of 64
2013 Democrats 201 Republicans 234 Democrat gain of 8
2015 Democrats 179 Republicans 243 13 seats currently undecided with 5 Republicans currently leading

That’s a Republican gain of 65 at a minimum, and a possible Republican gain of 70.

The Clinton years
1993 Democrats 258 Republicans 176
1995 Democrats 206 Republicans 228 Republican gain of 52
1997 Democrats 207 Republicans 226 Democrat gain of 1, Republican loss of 2
1999 Democrats 211 Republicans 223 Democrat gain of 4, Republican loss of 3

That’s a Republican gain of 47.

The difference between the Clinton years and the Obama years is Republicans gained a minimum of 18 more House seats under Obama, possibly as many as 23 more seats.

Source: US House of Representatives
Source: Real Clear Politics

US SENATE
The Obama years
2009 Democrats 60* Republicans 40* (see below-noted source)
2011 Democrats 53* Republicans 47 Republican gain of 7
2013 Democrats 55* Republicans 45 Democrat gain of 2
2015 Democrats 45* Republicans 52 Republican gain of 7, with 3 to be decided. Likely Republican gain of 8 or 9.

That’s a Republican gain of 12 to 14 Senate seats.

The Clinton years
1993 Democrats 57 Republicans 43
1995 Democrats 48 Republicans 52 Republican gain of 9
1997 Democrats 45 Republicans 55 Republican gain of 3
1999 Democrats 45 Republicans 55 No gain

That’s a Republican gain of 12 seats.

The difference between Obama and Clinton in the Senate? Obama hopes it’s a wash, but it’s much more likely that Republicans will gain more Senate seats under Obama than under Clinton.

Source: US Senate
Source: Real Clear Politics

Clearly, the difference between the Obama years and the Clinton years is Republicans gained more seats overall under Obama. And the reason is very clear. When Clinton got shellacked in 1994, he learned. He triangulated. He moved toward the center. He stole Republican agenda items for himself, even items Republicans had to force onto him. And he made the Democrats sound less Socialist and anti-American in the process. Furthermore, Clinton was a much better showman, a much better politician, a much better salesman than Obama could ever be.

Obama learned at the feet of a man who dedicated his book to Satan, a man who set off bombs inside the US in order to attempt to get the US government to bend to his will, two Ivy League professors who suggested the total overburdening of the freebie system to collapse the government budget and usher in Socialism. Obama and Clinton both have been shown incapable of telling the truth, but Clinton can actually make people buy his lies.

Clinton blinked, moved away from the Big Government Socialism he came in with, and the Democrats recovered better than Obama’s “I can’t learn anything from these elections” approach.

The difference between the Clinton years and the Obama years? Americans are not, in general, Socialist.

Taking Their Chains Off

HT OLLPOH

Surely they have been called Uncle Toms, Race Traitors, Oreos, House Ni**ers, Tokens, etc by the Left already.

Ferguson, and Michael Brown: Why the proximate facts of the shooting don’t matter …

… really, to the Activist Left.

With the most recent publication of the New York Times article on the Grand Jury findings and the likely Justice Department decision not to prosecute Officer Darren Wilson for the shooting of Michael Brown, it would seem that with a large portion of the uncertainty surrounding this event dissipating, so too would the causes for emotional inflammation lessen at least proportionally.

The Times reports:

“The officer, Darren Wilson, has told the authorities that during the scuffle, Mr. Brown reached for the gun. It was fired twice in the car, according to forensics tests performed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The first bullet struck Mr. Brown in the arm; the second bullet missed.

The forensics tests showed Mr. Brown’s blood on the gun, as well as on the interior door panel and on Officer Wilson’s uniform.

Officer Wilson told the authorities that Mr. Brown had punched and scratched him repeatedly, leaving swelling on his face and cuts on his neck. This is the first public account of Officer Wilson’s testimony to investigators …”

So,  Officer Wilson’s testimony does at this point seem consistent with the forensic results.

But, says the Times, “ … it does not explain why, after he emerged from his vehicle, he fired at Mr. Brown multiple times.”

Now let’s just stop here for a moment and consider where we are even if we discount not only Piaget Crenshaw and Tiffany Mitchell’s versions of the encounter at the police car, but also Dorian Johnson’s potential “spin”.  After all, Dorian Johnson was an accomplice in Michael Brown’s moments-before robbery of Ferguson Market and Liquors . So, just for the sake of argument, let’s also suppose that Johnson’s version of Officer Wilson’s reaching up and out through the police SUV window, and grabbing the 6’4″ tall, 300 lbs,  Michel Brown by the scruff of the neck with one hand , and drawing him back into the police vehicle in order to shoot him, is discounted.

Let’s suppose instead, and based on videotaped fact quite reasonably, that Brown, highly conscious of the strong arm robbery he had just perpetrated, and of the success he had just had in assaulting and technically battering the store clerk into submission during the robbery, figured he would try the same technique on the cop who was trying to tell him to get out of the middle of the road and to stop blocking traffic; a cop who in returning to deal with Brown’s refusal, and while in radio contact with headquarters, would in all probability become more curious regarding Brown’s recent activities and current motives.

Let’s suppose then, that Wilson is telling the substantial truth: that Michael Brown, knocking Officer Wilson back into the SUV as he attempted to emerge, went himself partly in through the car door window in order to batter Wilson into submission. And, that during the course of Brown’s battering Wilson, Wilson and Brown struggled for control of Wilson’s gun, and that, as the forensics show, the gun was discharged twice in the vehicle, spattering the vehicle interior as well as Brown and Wilson, with blood from Brown’s arm.

At which point Brown wounded once in the arm, takes off running; and Wilson, battered about the head and face emerges from the vehicle in pursuit.

Ok …

The first point to make here is that many on the left would object to Wilson shooting Brown under any circumstances: even to save his life in the midst of a potentially life or death struggle.

How do we know this? We know this, because in what they are positing as roughly parallel cases, wherein there was perhaps even  more existential provocation for shooting an assailant, such as for instance, having your head smashed on a concrete walk, leftists and race hustlers have in fact vehemently objected.

In the specific instance just now referenced, the case of Zimmerman-Martin, even after it was demonstrated through imagery, and geometrically, and through the testimony of Trayvon Martin’s so-called “girlfriend”, that Trayvon had to have doubled back on Zimmerman in order to assault him; even after Zimmerman’s bloody skull and broken nose were finally shown to the public; even after the ballistics showed that Zimmerman shot up into Trayvon’s chest while, or virtually while, being battered by Trayvon, the blase’ response of the left – agreed to by our friend the Old Gap Bridger for another example – was that Zimmerman had earlier invaded Trayvon’s space, deserved an assault and battery in response, and should therefore have “taken his beating like a man”.

In other words, to some on the left who still like to pose as fellow citizens instead of declaring as outright enemies, it doesn’t matter if you are being maimed or killed by a member of the imagined victim class. You are to passively suffer it; or maybe, flee. The victim classes’ “right” to inflict mayhem on you, trumps your very right to life.

Now in the case of Officer Wilson and Michael Brown, it is apparent, even according to our hypothetical scenario here, that Brown was shot multiple more times after Officer Wilson drove off Brown’s initial attack.  This additional shooting occurred after Officer Wilson extricated himself from the vehicle and, as was his duty, set off in hot pursuit of the man who had mere seconds before been battering him.

It is at this juncture that (generalizing) a further supposition of the activist left comes into play.  Already under their scheme of things, you are presumed to be obligated to to suffer a beating at the hands of a member of an official victim class without responding with fatal or potentially fatal force. At the very least, the moment any such assailant pauses in his attack on you,  he is presumed immune from any retaliation.

In the specific case of Brown and Wilson, Brown (under our assumed scenario) having unsuccessfully attempted to batter and or kill Officer Wilson in Wilson’s car, was fleeing the failed attempt, and thereby had under collectivist moral sensibility become immune from the leveling of deadly force in retaliation. It would not matter if Brown had just 5 seconds before gouged Wilson’s left eye out and ripped off his right ear. As the leftist activist sees it, the perpetrator is morally immunized [legally is another matter] from physical retaliation through the act of flight.

Furthermore, even if Brown ceased flight, not in order to surrender, but only to resume his assault under the transparent pretext of pretending to surrender, the left would still assert that to kill the assailant prior to a repeat of physical contact, no matter how many warnings to halt were given, was “unjust”.

Why?

The reason is that under their scheme of interpretation, neither Wilson, nor Zimmerman, nor any other person not a member of an official victim class, is even entitled to self-defense.  More broadly, no one is under the leftist system, actually.  But this most especially applies to all such people already considered guilty of capitalism, and economic privilege, and of engaging in the pursuit of self-interest. Those, thinks the leftist, of this bourgeois kind, who are not yet the recipients of an assault or battery or murder, are only awaiting their turn at a proper fate.

Unfortunately this attitude, more broadly predicated and subtly construed, at least superficially, has been creeping steadily into law over some generations now.

There can, it is plain, be no real reasoning across this kind of moral gulf.

One can only resist, or submit.