The Dogs Of Liberalism

I’ve never really understood the idea of changing a sports mascot to spare the delicate feelings of some self-victimized group of people. What the professional victim types who shriek about supposed insensitivity in sports mascots are missing is the fact that no one selects someone or something they don’t like and respect as a mascot. That’s why they’re the Washington Redskins instead of the Washington Personal Injury Lawyers. It’s the same reason they’re the Cleveland Indians instead of the Cleveland Democrats. Moreover, it’s sports — not something really important, like Obamacare.

As stupid as these sports-mascot debates have been over the past 25 or so years, they may have reached a new level of brainlessness last week. Meet Carolyn Luby, a woman who describes herself as a “feminist” and currently haunts the halls of the University of Connecticut as a senior. And she is outraged — outraged, I say! — at the makeover UConn recently gave its mascot and logo: the vaunted Husky. In a recent open letter to UConn President Susan Herbst, Luby complained that the new Husky is visual code for rape. While you consider that lunacy, imagine how proud her parents must feel to learn exactly what the $38,616 they spend annually for their little darling to major in something called “Women’s Gender and Sexuality Studies” is going toward.

Regarding the new Husky, which no longer looks like a family pet begging for a Milk-Bone and more like an actual sled dog, Luby wrote: “(W)hat terrifies me about the admiration of such traits is that I know what it feels like to have a real life Husky look straight through you and to feel powerless, and to wonder if even the administration cannot ‘mess with them.’”

My neighbor has a husky named Nadia. She’s a friendly enough dog, if somewhat aloof. To the best of my knowledge, she has never raped anyone, although she has dispatched a few neighborhood squirrels.  Far be it for me to suggest, but if Luby has had troubling experiences with sled dogs in the past, perhaps a school named for one might not have been the best choice for her.

To be sure, Luby’s concerns about rapist puppies are idiotic, albeit neither more nor less so than most of the complaints broached by “women’s gender and sexuality studies” majors. Indeed, the entire subject of her self-victimizing rant steps past silly on the path to embarrassing. But the underlying environment that produced her anti-dogism is hardly limited to the Department of Self-Proclaimed Victim Studies at the local university.

A little less than 150 miles south of Storrs, Conn., (home of your Huskies!) lies the campus of Columbia University. One of the Ivy League schools, Columbia bears a long and distinguished history as one of America’s top institutes of higher learning. Columbia counts among its alums not only President Barack Obama, but our own Wayne Allyn Root. And among its professors, it features a fellow named Marc Lamont Hill. The associate professor recently boosted Columbia’s already considerable reputation by extolling the virtues of unrepentant cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal. Hill is the same celebrity-academic who said to a CNN panel that Obama supporter, murderer and failed fugitive from justice Chris Dorner was “like a real life superhero” and “exciting.”

Down Interstate 95 from the ivy-draped walls of Columbia sits the cozy campus of the University of Pennsylvania. Like Columbia, Penn is an Ivy League school. And like Columbia, Penn features a professor who has mistaken twisted liberal ideology for knowledge. Associate professor of Religious Studies Anthea Butler took time away from her ostensible job as a teacher to tweet: “How soon is Sam Bacile going to be in jail folks? I need him to go now.” Bacile is the amateurish auteur behind “The Innocence of Muslims,” the little-watched video on which Obama originally attempted to blame the Benghazi, Libya, massacre about which he and his accomplices have yet to stop lying. Butler is ostensibly a professor of religious studies. Exactly which religion calls for the incarceration of bad filmmakers falsely accused by a statist President and a bunch of ululating jihadis of “mocking the prophet Muhammad?”  Never mind.

And those are just two of the many who serve as living proof of the adage “those who can’t, teach.” Ward Churchill, most of the faculty at Berkeley and even terrorist and Obama crony Bill Ayers have all contributed to the denigration of higher education. According to a study conducted by another school (the University of California at Los Angeles), the intellectual shepherds to whom we entrust our children self-identify as liberal more than 60 percent of the time on average, with fewer than 15 percent of their colleagues claiming a more rational outlook.

And the highest levels of academe represent only one of the infestations of liberalism in education. Before the professorial perpetrators get their grubby paws on our children’s minds, a host of liberals spend years mauling our babies’ brains. Government schools are overrun with union thugs masquerading — albeit poorly — as educators. Tales of secondary and even elementary school teachers flying their freak flags at full mast could fill a semester’s worth of reading. My personal favorite: Confronted with a student who asked a question about Obama’s past, Tanya Dixon-Neely of Rowan, N.C., shrieked:

He is a wonderful president! … As a teacher I’m not supposed to allow people to disrespect the president of the United States. … As a social studies teacher I cannot allow you to slander any president in here, past or current.

Social. Studies. Teacher. And people wonder why our kids are jockeying with the kids in the Balkans for a spot in the top 20 in world education rankings.

Not long ago, I enjoyed an exchange with Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, the second largest teachers’ union in the country. On the anniversary of the death of Trayvon Martin, she tweeted: “One year ago today Trayvon Martin was killed. His killer walked free for too long empowered by ALEC and the NRA.” When I pointed out that George Zimmerman has yet to be tried, much less convicted of anything, she claimed to be “mourning the death of Trayvon Martin.” I’m not sure how figuratively lynching Martin’s would-be victim constitutes “mourning,” but it’s been a minute since my last social studies class.

Luby and her phobia about dogs might be silly, but her tale is symptomatic of a greater issue. As the forces of liberalism darken the door of the citadel of liberty that is America, the next generation of free people is trapped in indoctrination factories wherein ideologues have replaced professors and ideology has replaced knowledge. We spend a great deal of time here at Personal Liberty Digest reporting from the front lines of the defense of freedom. But far behind the lines, the liberals are already building the next generation of soldiers; and they’re using the schools as the barracks.

–Ben Crystal

Polls Show More Americans Value Freedom Over Safety

The spirit of Benjamin Franklin’s oft-quoted assertion that “[t]hose who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety” may be enjoying more currency among Americans in 2013 than it has since the days of Sept. 11 and the Patriot Act.

Two polls conducted in the wake of the recent Boston Marathon bombings reveal American attitudes may be shifting away from surrendering their personal freedoms in exchange for government’s assurance to keep everyone safe.

A FOX News poll conducted the day after the Boston bombings asked 619 people some of the same questions about the balance between liberty and security that a similar poll had asked immediately following the World Trade Center bombings; the results were very different this time around.

Back in 2001, in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, 71 percent of Americans polled by FOX News responded that they’d be willing to trade some freedom if it would help the U.S. government “reduce the threat of terrorism.” The poll was also repeated following terrorist incidents, both domestic and foreign, in 2002, 2005 and 2006, with the number only slightly declining as respondents’ vivid memories of the most spectacular incident, Sept. 11, slowly receded.

But after Boston, the same poll showed only 43 percent of respondents held that view. That’s the lowest number since before the 2001 attacks, when a May 2001 iteration of the poll turned up only 33 percent of respondents who thought it appropriate to hand over their liberties for the sake of protection.

Among those surveyed, people who identified themselves as political “independents” resisted the idea of giving up their freedoms at a lower rate (29 percent) than either Democrats (36 percent) or Republicans (47 percent).

In a similar poll, The Washington Post asked 588 people: “Which worries you more — that the government will not go far enough to investigate terrorism because of concerns about constitutional rights, or that it will go too far in compromising constitutional rights in order to investigate terrorism?”

Conducted April 17 and 18, the poll showed 48 percent of respondents felt the government would go too far in compromising their Constitutional rights, while 41 percent favored the alternate view. The same poll also showed that 66 percent believe terrorists will always find a way around the government’s most diligent efforts at preventing attacks on U.S. targets.

Hero Of The American Left, Professor Noam Chomsky Denounces Obama Administration

Notable left-wing polemicist Professor Noam Chomsky has made a career of writing and speaking out against government abuses of civil liberties in the United States and abroad. In the 2008 Presidential election, the professor endorsed Barack Obama but contended that the youthful Presidential candidate would have little positive or negative impact on civil liberty.

Chomsky now says he is surprised and disgusted by the current President’s inexplicable “attack” on civil liberties, which he said goes beyond anything he could have ever imagined.

In an interview, Chomsky told the liberal blog Alternet

I personally never expected anything of Obama, and wrote about it before the 2008 primaries. I thought it was smoke and mirrors. The one thing that did surprise me is his attack on civil liberties. They go well beyond anything I would have anticipated, and they don’t seem easy to explain. In many ways the worst is what you mention, Holder vs. Humanitarian Law Project. That’s an Obama initiative and it’s a very serious attack on civil liberties. He doesn’t gain anything from it — he doesn’t get any political mileage out of it. In fact, most people don’t even know about it, but what it does is extend the concept of “material assistance to terror” to speech.

The Supreme Court ruled in 2010 in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project that the broad application of a Federal law prohibits human rights and humanitarian aid organizations from communicating with foreign terror organizations (FTOs) or providing aid supplies to areas where they are known to operate in efforts to promote peaceful conflict resolution. Individuals face up to 15 years in prison for providing “material support” to FTOs, even if their work is intended to promote peaceful, lawful objectives. “[M]aterial support” is defined to include any “service,” “training,” “expert advice or assistance” or “personnel.”

“And the wording of the colloquy is broad enough that it could very well mean that if, say, you meet with someone in a terrorist group and advise them to turn to nonviolent means, then that’s material assistance to terrorism.” Chomsky said, “I’ve met with people who are on the list and will continue to do so, and Obama wants to criminalize that, which is a plain attack on freedom of speech. I just don’t understand why he’s doing it.”

The professor has also taken issue with Obama’s continuation of an executive branch power grab that was sparked in reaction to the 9/11 attacks by the Administration of George W. Bush.

“What it is is the same kind of commitment to expanding executive power that Cheney and Rumsfeld had. He kind of puts it in mellifluous terms and there’s a little difference in his tone,” he said. “It’s not as crude and brutal as they were, but it’s pretty hard to see much of a difference.”

Through the signing of the National Defense Authorization Act, continuous harsh prosecution of whistle-blowers, the growing surveillance state and extrajudicial execution, the Obama Administration has set the United States on course for tyranny that would make some of history’s most unjust leaders proud, according to the professor.

“It’s interesting to see the way in which due process is being reinterpreted by Obama’s Justice Department in regards to the drone killings. Attorney General Eric Holder was asked why the administration was killing people without due process.” Chomsky continued, “Well, there was due process, he said, because they discuss it within the executive branch. King John in the 13th century would have loved that.”

Tart Cherries Shown To Provide Cardiovascular Benefits, Reduce Risk Of Diabetes And Stroke

If you are at risk for or are currently suffering from heart disease or type 2 diabetes, you should consider adding tart cherries to your diet.

For years, doctors have prescribed a class of drugs called PPAR agonists to patients with metabolic syndrome, a collection of risk factors linked to heart disease and type 2 diabetes. PPAR agonists are designed to regulate fat and glucose. But long-term use of these drugs increases the risk of stroke.

New research from the University of Michigan Health System indicates tart cherries provide the same cardiovascular benefits as the prescribed drugs and also reduce the risk of stroke. The research showed that consuming U.S.-produced Montmorency tart cherries activates PPAR isoforms in many of the tissues of the human body. Researchers believe that anthocyanins, the pigments that give the fruit its red color, may be responsible for PPAR activation.

Steven Bolling, M.D., a cardiac surgeon and the laboratory’s director, said the study adds to the group’s growing body of research linking cherries to positive heart health and provides a model for studying the benefits of an anthocyanin-rich diet.

The study was conducted on rats, but one of the researchers indicated the results are a positive sign for those currently on PPAR medications.

Brian Williams, Scott Pelley And Diane Sawyer: The Three Stooges

I think, at the very least, YouTube should censor Brian Williams, Scott Pelley and Diane Sawyer. Well, wait a minute. Not censor, but put up a notice on all their videos: “It’s come to our attention that these three characters are as annoying as a bad case of fleas. Caution: Watch and listen at your own risk.”

The three stooges. Three schmucks in the fountain. Send in the clowns? Don’t bother, they’re here.

If people are beginning to get the idea I’m waging a war against elite media, they’re right.

At the same time, I’m fascinated. How do these anchors do it? How do they lie so consistently and with such aplomb, day in and day out, without going up in a puff of smoke and vanishing?

The Big Three anchors are a miracle in the sense that they need a whole construction company to build the walls that permanently separate them from the truth, so they can sit in a television studio in New York and believe they’re in the wheelhouse of real news.

When you see the Big Three are discussing their own footage, but you find visual clues as big as the moon that their analysis is 180 degrees away from actual fact (as has been happening from Aurora to Sandy Hook to Boston) and the Stooges just sit there and drone on, well, that’s a “CSI” or a “Law & Order” you just can’t get, even if you pay the best scriptwriters in the world to come up with it.

“The bomb was a pressure cooker.”

Right, and the Twin Towers went down because two planes flew into them.

Because the Web has been alive and humming, media coverage of every major catastrophe since 9/11 has been rejected by extraordinary numbers of people.

The elite network anchors have been trying to hold the fort, but they’re failing.

Their long-running stage play is closing down.

Despite their traditional skills and technological backup, they’re coming across like cartoon hacks.

These days, it’s better to be a marginally believable doofus like Sawyer, who chooses to affect a persona based on depression, than to be the eternal boy wonder, Williams. The smoothest of the smooth, Williams comes across like the biggest liar, because he’s the most dedicated of the lot when it comes to defending the indefensible.

And Pelley is Pelley, the hospital doctor you’d least like to show up at your bedside. He might tell you you need an amputation just because he’s having a bad day.

“Who do we need for the most important anchor’s job in the world?”

“How about Pelley? He’s utterly convinced the lies we feed into the propaganda machine are the last word. He’s sold. He couldn’t look outside the box if we drilled holes in it and let him see a mountain of gold bars and 50,000 naked bureaucrats running down Broadway at high f***ing noon.”

The Big Three strut their stuff on the evening news, executing well-oiled, high-priced transitions from one completely false/basically deceptive story to another completely false/basically deceptive story.

Recall the often-quoted George Burns pearl? “The secret of acting is sincerity. If you can fake that, you’ve got it made.” But suppose the sincerity isn’t faked? Then, the schmuck becomes king.

My late friend and colleague, hypnotherapist Jack True, described the television-news audience: “Mind control is accepting what you know to be false. You do it because you think the only other alternative is a vacuum: You either buy the news or you’re left with nothing.”

Once in a while, you can see cracks. Pelley, stewing in his juices, looks like he’s ready to pull his uncle’s old revolver out of his pocket and fire a few rounds at the teleprompter.

Sawyer appears to be on the verge of sagging to her right and collapsing out of her chair, on her way to a fit of copious weeping.

Williams wants to say, more than anything: “Live From New York, it’s Saturday night!” Then a few coiled springs pop out of the top of his head, and he winds down and stops moving.

Subliminally, the three stooges are announcing: “We’re showing you the most important stories of our time, and each one has a television lifespan of 90 seconds, after which they no longer exist.”

Television news is really all segue all the time. That’s what it comes down to.

The word “segue,” pronounced “segway,” refers to a transition from one thing to another, a blend.

Ed McMahon once referred to Johnny Carson as the prince of blends, because Carson could tell a clunker of a joke, step on it three times and still move to the next joke without losing his audience.

Television news is very serious business. A reporter who can’t handle segues is dead in the water. He’s a gross liability.

The good anchors can take two stories that have no connection whatsoever and create a sense of smooth transition.

Williams can say: “The planes were recalled later in the afternoon. And a man was castrated in a horrific accident in Idaho today.” And no one says: What? Wait!

You take an elevator up to the 15th floor in an office building. The door opens and you step into a medieval dungeon. That doesn’t compute in real life, but it does on the news.

The networks basically have, on a daily basis, fragmented stories; and they need an anchor who can do the blends, the segues, and get away with it, to promote the sense of one continuous flow.

It’s so the audience doesn’t say, “This is just an odd collection of crap.”

The news is all segue all the time.

Not just nationally. On the local level, too. The pounding lead-in music at the top of the show is a segue to prepare the audience. A) Music. B) “Tonight, our top story: a man ate a hot dog and died.”

The voice of the anchor is the nonstop blending machine that ties all news stories together. That’s why the elite network stars earn their paychecks.

Good segue people are stage magicians. They can move the viewer’s attention from item A to item B without a tremor or a doubt.

It’s often been said of certain actors, “He could read from the phone book and you’d listen.” Well, an elite anchor can hold the viewer’s mind as he reads a sentence from the phone book, another one from a car-repair manual, a third from a cookbook and a fourth from a funeral-home brochure — without stopping.

And afterward, the viewer would have no questions.

The news is surreal because the stories are mostly fool’s gold to begin with, and they’re unrelated. They’re rocks lying around on the floor. The anchor picks them up and invents the illusion of One Flowing Stream.

This is what the audience wants. It feels like a story. It feels like unity. It feels like a stage play or a movie. When all is said and done, it feels good.

The anchor (as his title suggests) holds the fragments together in one place. For the audience, he’s the focus. He’s the maestro. The hypnotist.

You can’t pull just anyone off the street and have him describe car crashes, murders, storms, threats of war, political squabbles, 300 cats living in a one-room apartment, a new piece of Medicare legislation, genitalia picture tweets and the dedication of a library while placing and keeping millions of people in a light trance.

Katie Couric couldn’t do it. People were waiting for her to break out into an attack of Perky and giggle and cross her legs. Sawyer does it poorly. She seems to be affecting somber personal grief as her basic segue-thread. Pelley is competent, but he sits like a surgeon ready to signal the anesthesiologist to clamp a mask on your face before he cuts into your stomach.

Williams is the current king of segue. He does smooth-serious-affable-employee-of-the-month-I-know-all-the-news-is-true.

None of these elite anchors can hold a candle to Walter Cronkite or Chet Huntley, the past masters. Ed Murrow was the first star-practitioner of the television-news form. He was working a kind of sepulchral spin-off of Ernest Hemingway prose.

Murrow got his first break, right out of college, working for the Institute of International Education, a pathetic front for what they used to call “internationalists” (aka globalists). Elihu Root founded the organization. Root was also founding chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations and president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. In other words, one world together actually meant: all you peons down there and we wise men on top.

Anyway, all anchors can do segue. They are dedicated to the blend. They put their souls, such as they are, into transitions.

“What do you want to do when you grow up, Brian?”

“I want to take people from A to B.”

Whereas, a true version of the news would go something like this: “Today, in fact just now, I moved from a tornado in Kansas to the removal of restrictions on condom sales; and I’m blending into penguins in Antarctica. I’m doing Salvador Dali, and you’re not noticing a thing.”

What does all this tell us? The news, if it were taken apart into its component pieces, would look quite surreal. And the anchor, by blending, manufactures a hypnotic illusion of interconnection.

The audience wants to be put in a trance. Even a several-day event, like the Boston bombing, with all its twists and turns, doesn’t mitigate that basic big sleep. Television news, with a good anchor, with the television screen itself, with the electromagnetic emissions and frequencies, can attain and hold the hypnotic state.

Therefore, the content of the news sinks in below the level of the rational mind.

But with each shift in story line, with each new breaking bit of revelation, with each disturbing image, the anchor must be there to execute the segues.

He is basically saying to the audience, “I’m a few feet inside your personal landscape, your mind, feeding you all the turns in the river, and I’ll always be here, so things are all right.”

Elite anchors invent and maintain certain tones of voice, certain rhythms, certain cadences, certain variations of musical pitch, throughout the stage play, in order to sustain the sense of continuity.

They’re mechanics of voice.

They use their skills to report the false facts handed down to conceal operations and staged events.

They need to believe in what they’re doing. They need to be that stupid. Talent search: 130 IQ, inherently stupid.

They can know they’re actors on television, but they have to believe they’re acting out the truth. Ends justify the means. Of course, “truth” often means to them: that which will bind us all together.

What is the role they’re cast in? It’s: Normal. It’s a heavy part in the play, because this joke of a society has a prime-cut value called Normal.

“OK, look,” the Broadway director says to the veteran actor he’s interviewing for the lead, in a billion-dollar production. “This may sound strange, but you’re going to have to do Normal as it’s never been done before. That’s what the audience wants. You’ve got to come across as very, very smart and very, very Normal. Get it? I mean, you can emit a few rays of Elite here and there, but you have to do that Normal dance. The audience has to believe you somehow fit in with being a solid American, whatever the hell that is. You can be the newsboy down the street, riding his bike, tossing papers on front porches (Brian Williams), wholesome as Wonder Bread, or you can be a socialite on the Upper East Side teetering on the verge of a nervous breakdown (Diane Sawyer), or you can be a doctor moving briskly through his morning hospital rounds telling the interns trailing behind him what incompetent a**holes they are (Scott Pelley); but it has to be Normal at the same time. You’re the brain of every other brain. You’re the conscience of every other conscience. You’re just as walled off from the conspiracy to own every inch of America and grind down the people into dust-bowl hell as all Americans are walled off from knowing about it. You know as little as they do. You’re just as clueless as the great unwashed, but you put your stupidity on display with some measure of grace and style. Got it? You’re clean, sanitary, loyal as a dog, dumb as fog, but very smart. You spew absolute nonsense every second of your time on stage, but it sounds plausible and, again, Normal. You constantly change subjects, and the subjects are in no way related to each other, but you make it all seem sensible. It’s a joke. But you’re serious. And you have to Believe, as if you’ve always believed, from the moment you emerged out of your mother’s body.

“And if you need a model for all this, just watch the news every night on the three major networks and focus on these geniuses.”

See the bomb exploding, the one that emits a puff of smoke straight up in the air? The one that was built in a pressure cooker? The bomb that didn’t tear the flags to pieces and didn’t shred the blue canopy right next to it? The bomb that didn’t cause the men in yellow jackets standing in front of it to even blink? That bomb vectored at a very low angle and took out people’s legs in the Boston street. That’s right, America. It did. I swear it did.

See the purple and pink pigs flying over the White House? They’re bringing food from Mars for all the bureaucrats who push paper in the city every day, the people who can’t be fired during the sequester, while flights all over the country are delayed. That food from Mars keeps the paper pushers going. It does. It has special vitamins in it. See how fat the pigs in the sky are? How do you think they got that way? They ate the food. It’s so healthy. It’s mystical and magical. It’s just part of the largesse coming to you from your eternal government. Wait a little while longer. It’ll be here. There are lots more flying pigs. They’ll drop off little bags of Martian tasties on your street any week now. It’s the new Normal. Get used to it. We know what you want, and we’re going to give it to you.

We know what you want and we’re going to give it to you.

If you have any doubts and need more information and assurance, just watch Williams, Pelley and Sawyer every night. They’re narrating the days of our lives. They’re from Mars. They’re the advance scouts for the pigs.

Williams is the happy pig. Sawyer is the sad pig. Pelley is the cold pig.

They’re America. The best of America.

This is why the Colonies fought a revolution against the British. So you could suck up stories, like a vacuum cleaner, from the three little pigs.

–Jon Rappoport

The Politics Of Everything

Thursday was a tough day for the people of West, Texas. They gathered to bid a final farewell to their friends and family, 15 of whom died in the catastrophic explosion and fire at the West Fertilizer Co. storage and distribution center.

As a resident of Savannah, Ga., I have a sense of just how far a tragedy at a major local employer can reach. In February 2008, an explosion at the Imperial Sugar Refinery in nearby Port Wentworth reverberated far beyond the harrowing damage at the scene. Nearly everyone in the area was connected by blood or friendship to an employee at the plant.

To the best of my recollection, the various Imperial Sugar memorials evoked tears at best and indifference at worst. If someone tried to exploit the nightmare to press some twisted liberal ideological button, I neither heard nor read about it. While the usual Democratic vultures found their familiar roosts soon enough, the memorials themselves were treated with at least respectful silence.

Pity the same can’t be said for the folks in West. As they grieved together, Sacramento Bee editorial cartoonist Jack Ohman published this macabre substitute for humor:

Get it? See, the pencil-necked artist thinks the tragedy was caused by a lack of government bureaucracy. So he depicted Texas Governor Rick Perry — who has been enthusiastically recruiting businesses away from job-crushing, union thug-infested States governed by Democrats — as luring people to their doom in a fiery explosion. And, hey, there was a fiery explosion in West! Yeah, that’s some funny stuff, right there.

Perry tweeted the following response to the Bee’s ghoulish glee: “Disgusted by the @sacbee_news cartoon mocking death of fellow Americans in explosion. They owe the citizens of West an apology.” He didn’t say that the Bee should dump Ohman for shamelessly stomping on the graves of the West victims; he didn’t even point out the obvious fact that Ohman is a no-talent hack who is almost as funny as bone cancer. He simply noted that politicizing tragedy is inappropriate at best and cruel at worst.

Of course, The Bee chose to attack Perry rather than admit to atrocious comic timing. Bee Editorial Page Editor Stuart Leavenworth even took the inexplicably ugly step of blaming Perry: “Yes, a Texas governor is beating up on a cartoonist instead of taking some responsibility. shocking.” Leavenworth’s decision to double down against decency begs the question: Why be ghoulish and creepy when you can be ghoulish and creepy and blame your ghoulish creepiness on someone else? If Democrats want to ascribe every tragedy they encounter to some lack of adherence to their ideas, I suppose they’re welcome to it. Despite their own opposition to the 1st Amendment, they have the right to free speech — even unfunny, unpleasant and/or uncaring speech.

They have the right to spurious attempts to tie the Newtown, Conn., massacre to a lack of anti-Bill of Rights laws that wouldn’t have had any effect on the Newtown massacre. They have the right to bewildering efforts to tie the Boston Marathon bombing to “white Americans.” They have the right to pretend they’re not repudiated by actual facts at every turn. And, sadly, they have the right to pretend jokes about their fellow citizens dying in blazing infernos are funny.

Liberals politicize everything because to a liberal, everything is political. The air you breathe is political; ask the zealots at the Environmental Protection Agency. The food you eat is political; ask New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the first lady. To a liberal, even life itself is political. And judging by the President’s make-out session at Planned Parenthood last week, they’re solidly against it — unless the life in question belongs to a cop killer or an islamofascist. Ultimately, if you’re mourning the loss of family or friends and the Democrats can make political hay out of your grief, it’s not personal; it’s politics.

–Ben Crystal

Watch Out, Gun Owners: Congress Isn’t Done

Just because Federal gun control failed in the Senate earlier this month doesn’t mean it won’t come up again in the 113th Congress.

Senator Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), one half of the bipartisan Manchin-Toomey duo responsible for a piece of “compromise” gun control legislation that went down in flames April 17, is already making the media rounds with a second gun grab attempt on his mind.

Manchin said on “Fox News Sunday” that he intends to offer another, simpler version of the bill to the Senate — one that he plans to float before opponents with the aim of building the consensus he wasn’t able to find earlier this month.

Senator Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), who co-sponsored the dead bill with Manchin, publicly washed his hands of any further efforts at gun control last week, telling reporters: “The Senate had its vote. We’ve seen the outcome of that vote. I am not aware of any reason to believe that, if we had the vote again, that we’d have a different outcome.”

But Sunday, Manchin said Toomey is willing to give the gun grab another go — after the bill has undergone a cleanup that evidently is supposed to make it easier to understand for those Senate opponents who voted against it the first time.

If the bill runs clean, and people can vote on this bill, up or down, based on the merits of this bill — how it protects a gun, a 2nd-Amendment gun person; a law abiding gun, gun owner — it’s perfect for that person. If you’re going to a gun show you’re gonna expect to have a background check. If you’re buying online, whether it’s an out-of-state gun, or in-state — a background check. No intervening at all with family transfers or individual rights whatsoever.

From that bit of clarity, plus other comments Manchin made, it appears Gun Grab II will involve universal background checks, cross-referencing with medical records to ensure no one with a mental illness (the bill would presumably delineate which types) buys a gun, and another attempt to close the fallacious “gun show loophole.”

Manchin didn’t provide a clear timeline for when another gun bill might come to the floor, but this Congress has until the end of 2014 to play with the 2nd Amendment.

Get Your Tickets For The Taliban Season Opener

It’s springtime, and that means it’s Taliban season.

The Islamist terrorist organization jubilantly announced Sunday it’s in the process of prepping a full schedule of murder, surprise attacks and suicide bombs in a “monumental” spring offensive against western infidels:

Although the surrogate Afghan fighters of Americas (i.e. national army, police and Arbaki force) might not be apostate and the chastisement of apostasy are not applied to them but practically they are standing in the ranks of infidels and are fighting against the true Islamic system of life.

In the light of these facts and figures, we are optimistic to Allah Almighty that the noble operations after the name of Khalid-bin-Waleed will annihilate their malicious intensions and will confront them with interminable trounce. Similarly, a historical lesson will be taught to present western enemies of Islam.

Looking forward for the fulfillment of this great longing!

The threat especially focuses on a promised increase in the number of “insider” attacks on western security forces In Afghanistan – by Afghan security forces that have been infiltrated by Taliban operatives.

The terror group’s immediate goal in Afghanistan is the eradication of the western-backed Afghan government, and, presumably, the installation of a theocracy that would merge the law of the land with Islamic religious law.

Through its “Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan” Twitter feed, the group celebrates its ambushes and bombings on U.S. and allied forces, as well as civilians.

Is It Wrong To Question The Official Story?

In the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings, it seems individuals who have questioned the official narrative of events surrounding the tragedy have been attacked by the mainstream more fiercely than those who have posited similarly about previous acts of terror.

In the video below, a reporter visiting Boston recently on behalf of Alex Jones—the Austin, Texas, radio host who has been particularly singled out for his conspiratorial views—is verbally lambasted by a local for suggesting clandestine foul play was involved in the recent bombing.





In the comments below, tell us what you think about questioning the mainstream narrative, Jones’s brand of alternative media and who in the above video is right or wrong.

Bill Would Fine Telecom Companies Who Refuse To Aid Government Spying

Legislation being drafted by a government task force with the backing of the Federal Bureau of Investigation would heavily penalize companies that refuse to comply with wiretap orders.

The provision, if passed by Congress and signed into law by the President, would add wording to the outdated 1968 Wiretap Act to mandate that private companies put into place protocols for complying with information requests from government investigators. Companies would be given 90 days to comply with the order— and if they fail would be slapped with fines reaching into the tens of thousands of dollars that would double every day information is withheld.

The measure is similar to a provision included in the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act which simply states that telecommunication companies will be encouraged to share Internet data with the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice concerning national security if the bill passed. CISPA was approved by the lower chamber of Congress a little more than a week ago.