The last book of the famous Lord of the Rings Trilogy is ripe for some updating, so here’s a proposal to that end. The Dark Lord Sauron is a perfect evil villain, of course. He’s shadowy, unseen, hard to grasp, but pervasive and the personification of oppression and evil. But his name needs to be updated and so does his downfall in order to reflect today’s sensibilities.

So, instead of being named Lord Sauron, his new name will be the Dark Lord ACORN. See, the evil still works but it’s updated, ya know?

Now we all know that in the original final book of LOTR, The Return of the King, the Dark Lord and his forces are beaten by the combined forces of the good people of Middle Earth. Evil is vanquished and all live forever after in love and harmony. The age of magic does pass, but a new idyllic age of man dawns.

Well, poppycock says I. We all know that evil isn’t so easily vanquished, don’t we? We need to rewrite the demise of the evil Lord ACORN to one more befitting of reality.

So, as Breitbart the White gathers his forces to wage mortal battle with the Dark Lord ACORN we see a whole new cast of characters sallying forth to defeat evil on the earth.

We’ll find the happy-go-lucky Journo O’Keefe who carries with him the magical golden camcorder. With the glare of its unblinking eye that sees all, it is this magical device that serves as the one weapon that can kill the evil Lord ACORN.

Also we’ll meet the plucky Hana that serves as Journo O’Keefe’s right hand girl, always ready to put on her cloak of faux prostitutability so that she might slip by the lumbering, doltish gatekeeper trolls that Lord ACORN employs in his many dungeons and lairs.

We find good King Roger of Ailes the brave ranger that fearlessly confronts evil Lord ACORN and leads his band of the FOX against them.

This band of hardy fighters for all good peoples everywhere have taken to the field of battle to face down the dark forces of Lord ACORN. Breitbart the White brings along his people of the outlying lands of BLOG to his side and the dark forces are laid low in a great battle played out before the eyes of the world.

The evil Dark Lord ACORN knows that Journo O’Keefe is focusing his magical golden camcorder on him and he feels the heat and light of the eyes of the people upon him. His mighty powers are shrinking as his once powerful allies in the land of Congress are fleeing from the field in abject terror of Breitbart the White, his people of BLOG, and their allies from the land of voters who begin to gain the upper hand.

The Dark Lord ACORN knows that he’s about to lose everything. His minions are being convicted of voter fraud right and left, he’s lost his outpost in the Ohio Valley, his finances are drying up. The evil Lord ACORN knows that he must do something too, maybe fall back, regroup, recharge his fading power. Something must be done before the Dark Lord is defeated utterly.

Then the evil Lord ACORN realizes what he must do. If he stays on the field of battle much longer he will be destroyed, he knows this. So, in a last ditch effort he crafts a spell of invisibility for himself and his remaining forces.

The Evil Lord ACORN is now simply going to be known as “Californians for Community Empowerment,” or “New York Communities for Change.” No more is he Lord ACORN. Perhaps no one will notice, he thinks. If he just changes his name but keeps all his evil troll warriors and monstrous war dogs in place, perhaps no one will notice that Lord ACORN still exists but just changed his name? And so, the Dark Lord ACORN, after much loss, slinks away, changes his name and hopes that no one will realize he still lives to continue his acts of evil.

Will Breitbart the White, Journo O’Keefe, the plucky Hanna, and King Roger of Ailes and his forces of the FOX be fooled? Will the people of the land of BLOG have the wool pulled over their eyes to the fact that the Dark Lord ACORN is but hiding in plain sight? Will the people of Voter turn away imagining that the battle is won when nothing could be farther from the truth?

Tune in as the story continues…

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

The Republican members of the House Ways and Means committee today alerted the country to the appalling fact that Obama and his Democrat cohorts will be creating 17,000 new IRS agents with the President’s signing of Obamacare.

With animosity toward the Internal Revenue Service growing, it seems clear that Obama is creating more Joe Stack IRS plane attackers with this move. Stack’s main reason for slamming his small plane into an IRS building in Austin, Texas was because of what he saw as the evils of the IRS and with Obamacare creating a giant new army of intrusive and unaccountable IRS agents, Stack’s evil act is sure to be repeated in the future.

Along with the destruction of America’s healthcare system, Obama will be wasting $10 billion tax dollars to pay for this phalanx of new IRS agents. And that doesn’t include the undue, over generous benefits and pensions that all these new government drones will be given as they age and retire.

It’s already an appalling fact that working for government is more lucrative than working for the private sector and now with the socialist takeover of our healthcare system and the creation out of whole cloth of 17,000 new IRS thugs, we are seeing a wholesale upending of the United States of America turning her into a European-styled Socialist nation.

Not only is Obama monumentally growing the size of government with this socialist legislation, he is materially altering the relationship that citizen has to government and tearing down this nation. We will no longer be the United States of America, we will be the Euro States of America.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Indeed, climate change has begun to affect the ability of government agencies to fulfill their missions, reports the White House Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force.

Of course, there is not one instance of this occurring in the actual article, but, hey, it could explain the pure incompetence of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. Can’t pass the health care bill? It’s because climate change is causing mental illness problems with the American People. Have to limit debate on legislation? It’s because the Congress critters are suffering from malnutrition and depression. Obama insulting the British leaders, people, press, and the Queen? Alligators in the Thames from climate change.

Continuing

“The Task Force has found that climate change is affecting, and will continue to affect, nearly every aspect of our society and the environment,” the report states. “Some of the impacts are increased severity of floods, droughts, and heat waves, increased wildfires and sea level rise.

“Climate change impacts are pervasive, wide-ranging and affect the core systems of our society: transportation, ecosystems, agriculture, business, infrastructure, water, and energy, among others,” the report continues. “Climate change already is affecting the ability of Federal agencies to fulfill their missions.”

Sounds more like a way to show that the federal government should take over nearly every aspect of our society.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

State of the health care debate: Talk radio attacks an 11-year old

Conservative talk show hosts and columnists have ridiculed an 11-year-old Washington state boy’s account of his mother’s death as a “sob story” exploited by the White House and congressional Democrats like a “kiddie shield” to defend their health care legislation.

Marcelas Owens, whose mother got sick, lost her job, lost her health insurance and died, said Thursday he’s taking the attacks from Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Michelle Malkin in stride.

While Les Blumenthal almost gets it right in the story, that the account was ridiculed, the headline is pure projection, since that is exactly what Liberals would do in that situation: make it personal and attack the messenger, rather than the message. Attacking the message is exactly what Rush, Glenn, and Michelle did.

“These are adults, and he is an 11-year-old boy who lost his mother,” Gina Owens said. “They should be ashamed.”

No, Ma’am, you and the Democrats should be ashamed for using the 11 year old as a kiddie shield. If you put someone up there with a sob story, and something doesn’t jibe, expect the message to be attacked.

“Now this is unseemly, exploitative, an 11-year-old boy being forced to tell his story all over just to benefit the Democrat Party and Barack Obama,” Limbaugh said on March 12, according to a transcript his show. “And, I would say this to Marcelas Owens: ‘Well, your mom would still have died, because Obamacare doesn’t kick in until 2014.’”

Beck, according to a transcript of his March 15 show, pointed out that Owens’ recent trip to Washington was paid for by Healthcare of America, a group that has been lobbying for a health care overhaul.

“That’s the George Soros-funded Obama-approved group fighting for health care,” Beck said. “Since all of the groups are so concerned and involved now, may I ask where were you when Marcelas’ mother was vomiting blood?”

Malkin dismissed Marcelas Owens as “one of Obama’s youngest lobbyists” who has been “goaded by a left-wing activist grandmother,” promoted by Murray and has become a regular on the “pro-Obamacare circuit.”

Did anyone see an attack on Marcelas? Me neither, because the attacks were on the Democrats’ use of Marcelas as a prop, a favorite trick of Democrats when they know their POV is complete bunk. The message has been attacked. Democrats, put in the same position as the Republicans, would simply attack the messenger, not the message, as they have done with Joe The Plumber, Sarah Palin, and so many others. But, then, we do not use people, particularly children and the dead, as props.

Awwww, poor Joe Gandelman at the Moderate Voice (snicker) is all upset about this, shows his own projection, writes that he refuses to listen to talk radio, instead, listening to “moderate” stations like NPR, CNN, and the BBC.

If memory serves, there is some other group which uses women and children as human shields. Which one was it?

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Public supported National Public Radio (NPR) posted a report on March 17 during its “All Things Considered” radio show that warns its listeners that “patriot groups” are dangerous and are apparently increasingly prone to attacking government officials and facilities. Oddly the two examples it uses to prove its case have no ties whatsoever to any “patriot groups.”

Headlined, “Hostility Against Federal Workers Troubles Officials,” NPR blames “patriot groups” on these attacks and worries that “anti-government hate groups” are on the “upsurge.” And what does NPR use to prove its case? Nothing but the say so of the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center and a misconstruction of two recent attacks on government facilities by disturbed individuals.

NPR ominously begins its report with this:

Three attacks on U.S. government employees this year, along with an upsurge in anti-government hate groups, have officials in Washington concerned about the safety of federal workers.

The piece goes on to report that this sort of violence is a “troubling trend” and lays it all at the feet of “patriot and militia groups.”

NPR then tries to prove its case by discussing the two most recent sensational attackers on government facilities; Joe Stack and John Patrick Bedell.

Joe Stack, a disturbed man who crashed his small plane into an IRS building in Austin, Texas back in February, was not known to have any ties to any tea party group, any “patriot” group, or other right-wing groups. His manifesto reads like a confused communist rant with hate for the U.S. government and George W. Bush liberally sprinkled throughout. But NPR lumps this nut in with the right with claims that they are all dangerous to government officials and facilities.

NPR similarly uses as proof of these dangerous patriots the disturbed actions of John Patrick Bedell who opened fire on officers near the Pentagon on March 4. Bedell was an anti-war protestor, heavy marijuana user, and exhibited paranoia for which he refused to seek medical help. Bedell also has no known ties to tea party groups, any political organizations, or NPR’s frightening “patriot groups.”

Yet NPR put forth both of these sick-minded men as examples of “patriots” that have become dangerous and unstable. If NPR wasn’t saying so why include them in this report?

Naturally for its “expert” on dangerous patriots NPR turns to Mark Potok, the director of the liberal Southern Poverty Law Center. As always, Potok cites claims of a “huge growth in the so-called patriot movement that includes militias out there.” Not that NPR offers any actual proof other than Potok’s say so, of course.

“We’ve seen in particular a huge growth in the so-called patriot movement that includes militias out there,” Potok says. “And I think that some of the violence that we’ve seen, such as the Pentagon shooter and the IRS, are at least in some way a reflection of that rage.”

Potok says there are now more than 500 patriot and militia groups active in the U.S., more than triple the number in 2008.

Again, NPR trots out Potok to warn of those evil, evil right-wing patriots and tries to back his claims up with two crazy people that have no ties at all to those same right-wing patriot groups that are being blamed for this “upsurge” in violence.

What NPR doesn’t tell you is the sort of people that work wt. the SPLC. Chip Berlet, for instance, is one of those people. Berlet has all sorts of extremist, left-wing associates (like anti-American billionaire financier George Soros) and is a member of other far left organizations such as the Socialist Workers Party. Here is an entry on Berlet in discoverthenetwork.org nestled in a page about the left-wing Tides Foundation:

Berlet is a senior analyst for Political Research Associates, and has had affiliations with the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Friends Service Committee, the Christic Institute, the Socialist Workers Party, the National Lawyers Guild, and the Southern Poverty Law Center.

To show how unbiased SLPC’s Chip Berlet is, he once wrote that, “right-wing foundations and think tanks support efforts to make bigoted and discredited ideas respectable.” Not too biased there, eh?

Discoverthenetwork.org also has a page on the SPLC itself.

So, for its expert on those monstrous patriot groups, NPR turns to a group that has ties to the Socialist Workers Party, George Soros, and the anti-Christian ACLU and then expects us to think such an organization should be accepted as an unbiased news source! Apparently NPR does expect us all to accept as gospel its left-biased report on how dangerous those “patriots” are, but I hope America is more skeptical than that.

Remember folks, our tax dollars support NPR.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr. was appointed to the federal bench by Bill Clinton in 1994. In March of 2010 he was impeached by the House of Representatives for bribe taking and corruption. I’m just curious, but have you heard this story about this Democrat judge being impeached?

On March 11, Porteous, a Clinton appointee to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, was impeached by the House on a startling vote of 423 “yeas” for impeachment to NO votes at all coming to the support of the judge (with 7 not voting). Now his case moves to the Senate for the final judgment.

Nathan Koppel of the Wall Street Journal’s Law Blog has a nicely succinct post on the details, but the final analysis is that the Democrat judge violated nearly every article of comportment and law with his corrupt behavior.

If the Senate votes to convict, he will be the fourteenth impeached judge in American history and only the eighth federal judge to be impeached.

So, did you hear of this corrupt Democrat judge who was impeached yesterday? Do you think the Old Media will make much of this incident? Or is my report the only one you even saw?

**UPDATE**

Got a note from the good folks tat the Times-Picayune alerting me to their coverage of the three-year odyssey of this corrupt judge. They did some stellar work here. Check it out if you want to see an amazing amount of corruption.

http://topics.nola.com/tag/thomas-porteous/index.html

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Here is the best argument against global warming:

. . . .

Oh, right. There isn’t one.

There is no good argument against global warming. In all the brouhaha about tiny errors recently found in the massive IPCC report, the posturing by global climate deniers, including some elected officials, leaked emails, and media reports, here is one fact that seems to have been overlooked:

First, it is not an argument against global warming. It is against man caused (anthropogenic, man induced, whatever you want to term it) global warming, or, as you folks call it, climate change, since you, in such a self-described scientific manner, link everything into it. Hot, cold, wet, dry, snow, tornadoes, hurricanes or lack thereof, frogs dying, species being found, allergies, etc and so on. Second, it is not incumbent upon us “deniers” to prove our theory, based on 4 billion years of history. You have to prove yours.

Third, those “tiny” errors are not actually tiny. Many of them are primary points within the UN IPCC, used to “prove” their whole position.

Those who deny that humans are causing unprecedented climate change have never, ever produced an alternative scientific argument that comes close to explaining the evidence we see around the world that the climate is changing.

I’ll leave that to the professionals at this moment, but, I did notice something, Pete. Do you mind if I call you Pete? Nowhere in you article do you provide a scientific argument that explains how the current warming period is caused “most likely,” to us, in the IPCC vernacular, by Mankind. Sucks to be you. Oh, hey, can you explain the “no statistical warming over the last 15 years,” or that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today, as told by Phil Jones? How about all the “missing” data? Or that temperature upticks precede CO2? Or…..well, we all know the reality. Can we move Peter from stage 1 of the 5 stages of grief?

Here is the way scientists think science works: Ideas and theories are proposed to explain the scientific principles we understand, the evidence we see all around us, and the mathematical models we use to test theories. Alternative theories compete.

Uh huh

Gore, the self-anointed climate change alarmist-in-chief, told supporters on a March 15 conference call that severe weather in certain regions of the country could be attributed to carbon in the atmosphere – including the recent rash of rainy weather.

There’s your “scientific” theory, Pete. If everything can be blamed on global warming, it is no longer science, it is tautology.

Scientists are used to debating facts with each other, with the best evidence and theory winning. Well, this is a bar fight, where the facts are irrelevant, and apparently, the rules and tools of science are too. But who wins bar fights? As the Simpsons cartoon so brilliantly showed, bullies. Not always the guy who is right.

Al Gore is not a scientist, Pete. Nor is Barack Obama, nor are the Democrats (and Lindsay Graham) who are pushing this. Nor are a good chunk of those who wrote the IPCC. Hmmph. Strange, huh?

Anyhow, check out the comments. Great stuff.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Here is one of the sneaky tricks that the Old Media plays in order to support a cause. In this case it’s the Associated Press coming to the aid of Obamacare with “news” that a “Catholic” hospital group is coming out in support of Obamacare. Of course, the AP does not inform the reader that this purported Catholic group is not associated with the Church and is not authorized to speak for Catholics but it conflates this “Catholic” group with Catholics as if they do anyway.

With a headline that screams, “Catholic Hospitals Support Health Care Bill,” the AP’s Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar reports that the Catholic Health Association has come out in support of Obamacare despite the federal funding of abortion.

Naturally this report of Catholics in support of Obamacare is meant to fool readers into thinking that the Catholic Church itself, or some important segment of Catholics, are in support of Obamacare. If all you read is the headline and the first two paragraphs you might come away thinking that “Catholic Hospitals” support Obamacare.

Later in the story, after the lede, Alonso-Zaldivar does delve into some of the controversy amongst Catholics concerning the federal funding for abortion in Obamacare and states that the Church itself is still not supporting Obama’s takeover of our healthcare — this is good — but Alonso-Zaldivar never does fully explain that the group he is discussing is NOT a real “Catholic” organization.

You see, the Catholic Health Association is a for profit company that works for some Catholic hospitals as a sort of trade association. It isn’t part of the Church nor does it represent any official group of religious Catholics, nor does it serve as a source of Catholic teachings.

The truth is that CHA chief Carol Keehan is paid around $800,000 a year to advocate for this trade association, not the Catholic Church. She is not an altruist like nearly every other member of the actual Church that serves in an official capacity.

Kehan’s interest is to make money not to serve the Catholic Church and its doctrine. Naturally, Alonso-Zaldivar doesn’t inform his readers of any of this, leading the reader to assume that the CHA represents Catholics.

So, readers are left thinking that “Catholic hospitals” are in support of Obamacare yet are never informed of the capacity in which this Catholic hospital group serves Catholics… or rather doesn’t serve Catholics. And why is this so important right now? We all know that this coming week will find Obamacare facing a crucial and perhaps final push. This report is meant to help Obamacare pass. Plain and simple.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Liberals are in charge of New York, and it has an $8 billion deficit. Nothing surprising, of course.

The New York Times must know about that deficit–in fact they have even mentioned it in their pages every now and then–so it is funny that they would publish an article in their news section assailing budget cuts for senior centers, which are apparently not utilized by a large segment of the population, anyway.

(Note to the Times: If you have a budget deficit of $8 billion, it means that you are spending $8 billion too much. And it’s kind of hard to keep senior centers open in the first place if you have no money.)

With deficits in more than 40 states and the federal government, the taxpayers inexplicably want to increase spending everywhere. What other explanation is there for the fact that senior center cuts were protested in New York, union employment cuts protested in California, and education cuts protested everywhere?

Last week in the National Day of Action, communist groups nationwide–and a few student groups here and there–protested against rising tuition costs by asking their school administrators to pay teachers more.

I realize that those riots only represent a small portion of the American population, but there is more widespread anti-balanced budget sentiments elsewhere. According to a poll by Pew Research services (and similar polls by Gallup and elsewhere), 67 percent of people want to increase government spending and only 6 percent want to cut it.

67 percent said they wanted to increase education spending, 61 percent want to increase healthcare spending (which is already one-sixth of the economy), 53 percent think that Medicare should be increased so that it can go bankrupt before 2019, and on and on. Even the Republicans have been making political hay out of the Democrats’ attempts to cut Medicare spending.

(The Democrats are only trying to use Medicare cuts to increase entitlements for all, but the point remains that it’s most voters are against Medicare cuts and reacting as such to the healthcare debate.)

In a 2007 New York Times poll, a majority of respondents said that the government should guarantee healthcare for all. Obviously the caveat is that it’s a New York Times poll, but there are other polls with similar results of insane people saying that healthcare should be a right, even as 80% of the people, even in the Times poll, said that they were satisfied with their healthcare. (As a side note, the government already guarantees healthcare for all.)

I’d also like to ask the 67 percent who want to increase education spending how exactly they think increasing education spending will actually educate more people. Perhaps they could look at the Los Angeles Unified School District and see how well their $25,000 per pupil* is working out for them?

*(Cato Study, Cato YouTube Video About the Study)

Moreover, can someone tell me how increasing school funding will make single parents teach their kids to attend school and value learning?

Whenever there’s a problem, everyone will rush to funding to fix the problem and no one will ever let go of their own government money.

A whole lot of people who support more taxes and spending–or, more likely, less taxes and more spending–would be better off with less spending. Maybe some people get a little bit of benefits from wherever, but most people don’t need much in benefits, and they’d have more left over with less taxes and less spending. Benefits are mostly paid out to people who don’t pay taxes. When did America become a nation that values failure, a nation where people actually try to be dependent and take pride in it?

Looking at government’s purpose as improving a nation, why does government pay out welfare and “social programs” to people who don’t contribute to the success of the nation? Shouldn’t we do what is best for the nation?

Everyone knows we’re at a $14 billion national debt. Everyone knows Medicare and Social Security put the debt at over $50 billion. Why does everyone want to keep spending? What do these people actually think is going to happen? Why does everyone think that you don’t need to spend money to buy stuff? What’s the solution?

If the trends keep going this way, here’s one solution:
Learn Chinese.

Mitchell Blatt writes a weekly political column at MitchBlatt.com that you can subscribe to by email and receive every Monday in your inbox.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Under the cover of a benign government information-gathering program, a Defense Department official set up a network of private contractors in Afghanistan and Pakistan to help track and kill suspected militants, according to military officials and businessmen in Afghanistan and the United States.

The official, Michael D. Furlong, hired contractors from private security companies that employed former C.I.A. and Special Forces operatives. The contractors, in turn, gathered intelligence on the whereabouts of suspected militants and the location of insurgent camps, and the information was then sent to military units and intelligence officials for possible lethal action in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the officials said.

While it has been widely reported that the C.I.A. and the military are attacking operatives of Al Qaeda and others through unmanned, remote-controlled drone strikes, some American officials say they became troubled that Mr. Furlong seemed to be running an off-the-books spy operation. The officials say they are not sure who condoned and supervised his work.

Which officials? None are actually named. Besides, who, other than pusillanimous lefties, cares? It’s just fine with me that extremist Muslims, members of Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and any other group, are tracked and whacked. Better them than us.

It is generally considered illegal for the military to hire contractors to act as covert spies. Officials said Mr. Furlong’s secret network might have been improperly financed by diverting money from a program designed to merely gather information about the region.

It’s also generally illegal to hijack planes and fly them into buildings. It’s generally illegal for terrorists to fight without wearing a uniform of any country. It’s generally illegal to saw a humans head off while alive. You don’t see the NY Times and other liberals complaining about those. In fact, they tend to back the people who do those things.

But, hey, good news: the NY Times has just put every person in Afghanistan and Pakistan in even more danger. Kudos, Fish Wrap! Way to start the work week, giving aid and comfort to the enemy!

Unfortunately

Officials say Mr. Furlong’s operation seems to have been shut down, and he is now is the subject of a criminal investigation by the Defense Department for a number of possible offenses, including contract fraud.

At one time in our country’s past, Furlong would have been a hero for taking the fight to the enemy.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post