Mike Rowe Has A Powerful Message for Occupy Protesters

Friday Funnies

Hump Day Hunnies

WHY BENGHAZI MATTERS

I Hate to Say This But... Hillary Will Be Our Next President

After watching Hillary’s Oscar winning performance last Thursday before The House Select
Committee On Benghazi, I’m now completely convinced that Hillary could stand naked on the smoldering carcass of Chris Stevens while smoking a fat Bob Marley-sized joint, as she screamed aloud the contents of Mein Kampf, and the Left would hail her a Warrior Poet. She’s the new Lizard King … she can do anything.

Matter of fact, if I were Satan, I’d start sweating my crimson butt off because The Hildebeest made the Serpent of Old look like a clunky, overly honest used-car salesmen. Our Faust is female, y’all.
Not one person and not one question rattled Hillary. As in no one. As in nada, nothing, zilch, zero, zippo got under her wrinkled, Bill-averse flesh. Bow and kiss the ring, peeps, and meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Hillary’s flawless and skillful execution wasn't because she was telling the truth -- because she wasn’t. She knew she was peddling lies and everyone and their iguana knew that she was stretching the truth through her Frito Pie-hole. But it didn’t/doesn’t matter because she did it with such amazing precision. And that’s all that matters in our unfortunate day; namely, an adept ability to con abecedarian Americans.

The only weird moment Hillary had came via that coughing fit, which was completely understandable because one can only spout so much bullcrap until it triggers mucus to drain down the back of one's throat, causing one to cough.

Yep, folks, I obviously thought she was good and that she took blowing bollocks to an Olympic level that Obama could only dream of. In comparison to and in contrast with Obama’s attempts at regaling us with his gobbledygook, please note that she didn’t have all the “uhs” and and “ums” that accompany the president when he’s slinging hash. It was deception perfection on steroids, ladies and gents.

That said, I predict salesmen, shady evangelists, “journalists,” members of Congress, psychopaths, mean girls and Facebook stalkers, in days to come, will study her subtleties because what she wielded was some world-class wiles.

For stage purposes, Hillary looked completely “presidential” during her Benghazi cross. Completely comfortable. Nearly too comfortable
.
I don’t believe any of the GOPers could’ve even come close to doing what Hillary did in deceiving The United States of Duh. Especially, Marco Rubio. Rubio would’ve never been able to pull off that sleight-of-hand. Marco sweats when he tells the truth. He perspires more that a 15-year-old boy at a Beyoncé concert. He's a rookie. Hillary's a pro.


Read the rest:
I Hate to Say This But... Hillary Will Be Our Next President - Doug Giles - Page 2

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Televangelists (HBO)

Behind the Candidates’ Smiling Faces | The American Spectator

All patriotic, civic-minded, Americans at this point in the electoral cycle have seen quite enough of our presidential aspirants on the debate stage. For a certitude, we have seen enough of the Democrats! One evening of them is enough for me.

Yet the question arises: What could possibly motivate them? Why do they call for more federal expenditures on infrastructure and healthcare and family leave, and weekends with pay or why not overtime pay? With 18 trillion in debt already amassed (at least half of it by the Prophet Obama), why do the Democratic candidates call for piling more debt on our children, the very same credulous gulls whose college tuition the Democratic candidates are promising to pay along with healthcare and personal debt reduction. When will these young dopes figure things out? It is they who are going to have to pay for the Democrats’ giveaways. What motivates these Democrats?

I have for years argued that they are motivated by a Liberal Death Wish. Their reckless foreign policy is motivated by a death wish. Their spending projects are motivated by a death wish. In foreign and in domestic policy we see the Liberals motivated by one colossal unconscious death wish. Yet perhaps that explains their psychiatric condition. What explains them at the personal level?

At the personal level they are motivated by a) the motivation of feeling good about themselves or b) the motivation of controlling others for their own enrichment.

Bernie Sanders is an example of the first type. He says he wants America to become a socialist state. He said the other night that America—a nation of 320 million souls—can be like Denmark—a cozy little nation of 5.5 million souls. By the way, Denmark is also a nation that is steadily becoming less and less socialist and more and more capitalist. Why is Denmark becoming like America? Well, I suspect the Danes, like so many people in the world today, recognize that socialism has failed.
Socialism has been failing for decades. The decrepit state of Europe with all the bankrupt welfare states is the consequence of the failure of European socialism.

Read the rest here:
Behind the Candidates’ Smiling Faces | The American Spectator

Friday Funnies

Politicians' Words - Thomas Sowell - Page 1

At the recent televised debate among candidates for the Democrats' nomination for president, Hillary
Clinton declared that "the wealthy pay too little" in taxes and "the middle class pays too much."

Some people might wish to argue about whether that is true or not, but no rational argument can be made on either side of this issue, because the words used are completely undefined. Nor is Hillary Clinton the only one who talks this way.

It is one of the many signs of the mindlessness of our times that all sorts of people declare that "the rich" are not paying their "fair share" in taxes, without telling us concretely what they mean by either "the rich" or "fair share."

Whether in politics or in the media, words are increasingly used, not to convey facts or even allegations of facts, but simply to arouse emotions. Undefined words are a big handicap in logic, but they are a big plus in politics, where the goal is not clarity but victory -- and the votes of gullible people count just as much as the votes of people who have common sense.

What a "fair share" of taxes means in practice is simply "more." No matter how high the tax rate is on people with a given income, you can always raise the tax rate further by saying that they are still not paying their "fair share."

Advocates of higher tax rates can get very specific when they want to. A recent article in the New York Times says that raising the tax rate on the top one percent of income earners to 40 percent would generate "about $157 billion" a year in additional tax revenue for the government.

This ignores mountains of evidence, going back for generations, showing that raising tax rates does not automatically mean raising tax revenues -- and has often actually led to falling tax revenues. A fantasy expressed in numbers is still a fantasy.

When the state of Maryland raised its tax rate on people with incomes of a million dollars a year or more, the number of such people living in Maryland fell from nearly 8,000 to fewer than 6,000. Although it had been projected that the tax revenue collected from such people in Maryland would rise by $106 million, instead these revenues FELL by $257 million.

There was a similar reaction in Oregon and in Britain. Rich people do not simply stand still to be sheared like sheep. They can either send their money somewhere else or they can leave themselves.
Currently, there are trillions of dollars of American money creating jobs overseas, in places where tax rates are lower. It is easy to transfer money electronically from country to country. But it is not nearly so easy for unemployed American workers to transfer themselves to where the jobs have been driven by high tax rates.

Read the rest:
Politicians' Words - Thomas Sowell - Page 2

Hump Day Hunnies

Income Inequality Is Irrelevant In A Country Like America

The fundamental issue behind income inequality could be boiled down to a single question: Are poor Americans better or worse off because Bill Gates ($79 billion net worth), Oprah Winfrey ($3 billion net worth), Michael Jordan ($1 billion net worth) and Mark Zuckerberg ($40 billion net worth) are living in the United States?

Certainly, having them living in America creates more income inequality. It also hurts the poor by….oh wait, having them here doesn’t hurt the poor at all. None of these people made their money off the backs of the poor (How could they? The poor don’t have any money) and all of them pay exorbitant taxes because the United States already has the most progressive tax system in the Western world.

So, for example, whatever Bill Gates’ 1/319 millionth share of the cost for our street signs, police, roads, the military, food stamps, Social Security, Obama’s vacations and all the other various and sundry expenses our government racks up may be, he’s paying far more than that. In fact, Gates claims to have paid $6 billion in taxes. Then there are the taxes Microsoft pays (roughly $5 billion per year) and the taxes paid by all the people employed by Microsoft. Speaking of the people employed by Microsoft, the company has over 100,000 employees. That’s a lot of Americans Gates potentially raised up out of poverty. Then when you consider how much everyone from Bill Gates all the way down spends, there are obviously many businesses being kept afloat by Microsoft cash. On top of all that, Bill Gates has given away $28 billion since 2007. 

Tell me how some poor family in Chicago or Detroit is being hurt by this in any way? What’s the downside supposed to be of entrepreneurs creating jobs and paying billions in taxes? 

Oh, yes, it isn’t that any particular rich person is doing well that’s hurting the poor; it’s that the incomes of the rich are growing faster than the incomes of the poor. Those poor families are staying poor while the top 1% is getting richer. This is what the Left says.

Fortunately, it’s just not true because in America, there is no rigid class system that mires everyone in place economically.

Read the rest:
Income Inequality Is Irrelevant In A Country Like America - John Hawkins

Articles: Why Voters Like Trump's Rudeness

Those like the unfortunate Bobby Jindal, who imagine that they hurt Donald Trump's standing among voters by criticizing his rudeness, don't get it.  They don't understand the feelings of real voters – those who don't live on the coasts or profit from government policies.

Those who say both parties are the same need to look at how now Republican voters are turning against their own do-nothing party leaders.  Democrat voters are not turning against Hillary or Biden for doing nothing.  Republican voters have standards; they, unlike liberal voters, actually expect their elected officials to get something done for the nation other than bail out big banks, Wall Street, and public-sector union campaign donors.

Recently Trump was attacked for stating that Carly Fiorina doesn't look presidential.  Those who attack Trump for this comment should have thought about what they were trying to do.  For one thing, Trump has been personally attacked for his appearance for many years, if not decades.  And Carly Fiorina has repeatedly stated that she doesn't want any coddling or special treatment.  She is ready to stand up for herself.  She doesn't need any patronizing media types to protect her just because she is a woman.

Then there's the bigger issue of attacking Donald Trump's rudeness.  What Bobby Jindal and the other attackers of Trump's rough tone don't get is that voters are sick and tired of politicians from both parties, whether it's Barack Obama or Mitch McConnell, talking the smooth political talk and then living high on the hog at taxpayer expense and doing nothing for the voters.

What voters intuitively see, and Trump's critics in the media and RNC don't get, is that voters want a rude person.  They want someone who's going to insist on cutting the EPA's budget, slashing the Dept. of Education, and standing up for disabled veterans who have gotten the short end of the stick under President Obama.  Not only do they tolerate Trump's rudeness; they crave it.  They intuitively see that anyone who has a smarmy, go-along-to-get-along attitude is not going to get things done.  They don't want a politician who is going to look sophisticated, who has expensive clothes – at taxpayer expense – and uses Air Force One to go golfing while preaching that voters  shouldn't contribute to the carbon in the atmosphere. 

They want a president who doesn't give a damn about what people think, because only someone who doesn't care what people think won't be manipulated by what people think.  This is the whole explanation.  Americans want hard decisions made – someone who will stand up for American principles and not care if the media object to any little phrase he uses.  They want someone who is not offended by what the media say about how offensive his language is.  The First Amendment stands for the right to use offensive language, and if people are offended when the truth is spoken, too bad.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/09/why_voters_like_trumps_rudeness.html#ixzz3p1TTpPnM
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Lady Gaga - Imagine

Dakota Meyer's Message To ISIS

Dakota Meyer is a Medal of Honor receipent and an American hero. He went above and beyond the
call of duty while serving our nation.

So when the Islamic State (ISIS) released a “warning” to Meyer and threatened his life, Meyer responded in an EPIC way!

Watch (below) as Meyer pulls over his truck and records this video message for ISIS. He’s ready for Islamic terrorist thugs and knows how to fight.

Friday Funnies

The Truth About Gun Deaths

When the President went on television after the Oregon college mass shooting he issued a challenge to the media. He asked them to show America the number of gun deaths as compared to the number of terrorism related deaths since the 9/11 attacks. The media dutifully complied and soon every network, newspaper and magazine was putting up startling graphics, such as this one tweeted by CNN.



These graphics and figures were almost uniformly followed by comments about the mass shooting and the “pressing need” for background checks and other gun control laws. Unfortunately, all of these numbers flashing around were dishonestly offered up with no context or details. As it turns out, however, the real numbers are available from a variety of sources including the FBI and the CDC, among others, so let’s take a look at them. It takes federal agencies a long time to compile and publish their statistics, so the last full set of data we have is from 2011 and the figures can shed a lot of light on exactly how mendacious gun control advocates are being with these studies.

First of all, look at the number of gun deaths on that chart from 2011. It’s 32,351. That’s a lot of gun deaths to be sure. So that’s the total number of murders by gun owners, right? The answer is not only Hell No, but it’s not even remotely close. It’s true that this figure is close to the total number of human lives ended in incidents involving a gun, but that’s all incidents. So how did those deaths happen?

Straight from the CDC where most of the media is drawing their numbers (while not as good of a source as the FBI or the Justice Department) we can find out that of those 32,352 gun deaths, 21,175 of them were suicides. That leaves us with 11,177 deaths to account for. But as it turns out, the FBI records that 8,583 deaths were murders of various sorts involving guns of all types. The remaining roughly 2,500 were accounted for by accidents and unintentional injuries. These include hunting accidents, toddlers getting hold of unsecured weapons and shooting somebody or just plain idiots who proved Darwin right.

Before we move on, those FBI numbers deserve a closer look for a moment since we’re on the subject. What sorts of guns are used in actual crimes? I bring this up because each mass shooting elicits renewed calls for an “assault weapons” ban on guns like the AR-15 style rifle. Are those popular in crimes? Check out the figures from the FBI report.



Take a good look at those numbers. Of the actual 8,583 gun murders committed in 2011, 323 were committed with “rifles.” And that’s all rifles, including bolt action, deer hunting rifles and all the rest. The number committed with so called “assault rifles” were a fraction of that. When you ask how dangerous those rifles are, compare that to nearly 1,700 who were stabbed as well as nearly 500 murdered with blunt objects and and more than 700 beaten to death by somebody with their bare hands. Enough said on that topic.

Read more:
The truth about gun deaths: numbers and actual solutions « Hot Air

Hump Day Hunnies

Disenfranchising American Voters

The Declaration of Independence established the basic idea that the government of the nation must be made up of elected legislators who answer to the will of the people. But in recent years the Democrat Party of the United States, and specifically President Obama, have made a willful effort to enact laws and policies without the consent of the people. 

Democrats are engaged in dismantling the legislative branches of the Federal and state governments using two strategies. The first strategy is to refuse to enforce existing legislation. The goal of this strategy is to undo the legislation of the past, and by default, make actions legal that were previously illegal. All laws require residents to either perform an action, such as the law that mandates a drivers license to operate an automobile on public streets; or to refrain from an action, such as the laws that require drivers not to exceed a posted speed limit.

There are always some people who, for various reasons, want to avoid complying with the law. But if the law is never enforced, or worse, if public officials go on television and proclaim that the law will not be enforced, then there is no reason for the majority of people to obey the law.

At some point if laws are not enforced then the original intent of the legislators, and therefore the people they represented, is nullified. In effect, a law is amended or repealed without the consent of the people. 

The most prominent area where laws are repealed through lack of enforcement is in the issue of Federal immigration law enforcement. Democrats have used their non-enforcement strategy to repeal immigration law.
It is fair to characterize this action as perpetrated primarily through the Democrat Party, since their officials have taken the most drastic, and illegal, actions to nullify immigration law. For example, in 1979 the City of Los Angeles issued Special Order 40. This order, issued by the police department, clearly stated that it will not play any role in the enforcement of Federal immigration law. To this day the order remains in effect
.
Interfering with Immigration enforcement is a violation of the 1996 Immigration Act. It is also a violation of law for a police chief to openly disobey laws that are on the books. Nothing is done since promoting the movement of illegal immigrants is obviously a high priority on the Democrat Party’s national agenda.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/09/disenfranchising_american_voters.html#ixzz3oSScwc99
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

The War on Science

Did Jesus Exist or Is It All a Myth?

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Many biblical scholars question whether or not a historical Jesus ever existed. Other biblical scholars are convinced that there was an actual Jesus although he was fully human and did not perform miracles. And, of course, most Christians believe that the entire Jesus story as told in the Bible is completely true.

Biblical scholarship is a very complex field of study. One area of research delves into the question of whether or not Jesus ever existed as man or god. I've been researching this question and I'd like to layout the main reasons for skepticism about the existence of Jesus. The arguments and evidence could fill books—and they do—but I will just hit the highlights. I refer you to the books for the details.

We cannot use the Bible as an historical reference since the Bible is what is being examined. Additionally, the Bible shows itself to be an unreliable document because it reports myth as truth, and even when dealing with known facts of history, geography, and science, it gets some of those facts wrong.

Is Jesus “mythologized history” or “historicalized mythology”?

If we wish to know Jesus, the man, we must begin with the assumption that Jesus is not divine, not the son of God, and had no supernatural powers whatsoever. The question then becomes whether he was an actual person or whether his existence is entirely myth.


Did a man named Yeshua ben Joseph live in Bethlehem during the first century of the Common Era? Did he preach, did he have disciples, and was he crucified? Putting aside the stories of the virgin birth, the miracles, and the resurrection, was there an actual historical Jesus?

Some scholars say Yeshua ben Joseph existed, but the stories about him are “mythologized history.” The story of his life was conflated with various mythologies current during his time. The books Zealot by Reza Aslan and How Jesus Became God: by Bart D. Erhman take this approach. They try to strip away the myth and show us the man.

Read more:
Did Jesus Exist or Is It All a Myth?

Related articles

• Recommend a reputable book on the historical Jesus?
• 8 Things Your Pastor Will Never Tell You About the Bible
• Jesus Never Existed Says New Report That Finds No Mention Of Christ In 126 Historical Texts
• Tabloid Biblical Archaeology
• Easter Dinner: The Roots Of Our Traditional Feast