It’s Tuesday, July 8th, 2014…and here’s The Gouge! First up, where would we be…
…without “experts”?!? Then again, what do they know, particularly when the latest serial misleader to join Team Tick-Tock assures America she has nothing to fear from what he represents as a cross between Opie Taylor’s long-lost Latin cousins and the Central American equivalent of the Vienna Boys Choir:
How this bureaucratic boob found time to personally interview every single illegal criminally entering the country isn’t known; what is certain is that he’s a bald-faced liar, as Katie Pavlich, writing at Townhall.com details:
“But remember, this is a ‘humanitarian crisis.’ They are just kids,” he said in a frustrated and sarcastic tone. “They are MS-13 gang members. They’ve done everything from torture to murder. They act as teenage ‘enforcers.'”
Here’s the juice: what we’re dealing with here isn’t a broken immigration system, but rather a purposeful Progressive plan to circumvent and subvert the established order, which would function quite nicely were its laws and statutes… 
…actually enforced. What’s at stake is the rule of law, territorial sovereignty and, most importantly, national security. Next up, courtesy of Commentary Magazine, Jonathan Tobin offers a helpful primer on the irreconcilable conflict inherent in…
“…But the debate about this decision, and the subsequent distortions of it on the Sunday talk shows and on MSNBC, demonstrate something far more insidious than merely the latest iteration of what is generally put down as a “culture war” issue. After all, no one, not even Wheaton College or the Green family that owns the Hobby Lobby company are advocating for the ban of contraception or believe that what they are doing in these suits is part of a campaign to end or even limit legal abortions in this country. Rather, what we are witnessing is a liberal meltdown in which they have come to believe the First Amendment is a technicality that should brushed aside when it comes into conflict with the “right” to free contraception.
The notion of such a right dates only to the aftermath of the passage of ObamaCare in 2010 when HHS interpreted the law as an authorization for a mandate that would require all employers, regardless of whether they were religious institutions or not, or the beliefs of their owners, to pay for a wide range of contraception, including those drugs that are believed to cause abortions.
Most Americans are not opposed to any form of contraception and may even approve of drugs or devices that some believers see as abortion inducers. But one doesn’t have to share the convictions of the Greens or the board at Wheaton to understand that a bureaucratic mandate that runs roughshod over their faith trashes the First Amendment protection of free exercise of religion that all Americans rely upon.
Yet for the political left, the concept of religious liberty has been re-interpreted as to only mean the right to be allowed to pray in private but not to live one’s faith in the public square. When faith conflicts with policy initiatives such as the free contraception mandate, they assume that religion must always lose. However, the court majority has rightly reminded us that the freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment cannot be trashed simply because a lot of Americans want not only access to contraception but also think their employers ought to be compelled to pay for it…“
Speaking of Progressives happily detached from reality…
It sounds like a dream: Work part-time while maintaining the same standard of living. Google co-founder Larry Page thinks it should be a reality for everyone.
The tech titan and his co-founder, Sergey Brin, sat down for a rare joint interview that was moderated by fellow billionaire, Vinod Khosta, and posted to YouTube. “If you really think about the things you need to make yourself happy — housing, security, opportunity for your kids … it’s not that hard for us to provide those things,” Page said. “The idea that everyone needs to work frantically to meet peoples’ needs is not true.”
Page said the world should be living in a “time of abundance” in which robots and machines could help meet everyone’s basic needs much more easily. He explained that people have a desire to feel needed, wanted and productive, often leading them to work in industries the world doesn’t necessary need, thus contributing to the destruction of the environment.
“I was talking to Richard Branson about this,” Page said of the founder of the Virgin Group. “They don’t have enough jobs in the U.K. He’s been trying to get people to hire two part-time people instead of one full-time, so at least the young people can have a half-time job rather than no job.” With a more productive society, Page said he believed people would be happy to “have more time with their family or to pursue their own interests.”
In other words, this billionaire bozo, like so many other Liberals at every socio-economic level, truly believes…
…there IS such a thing as a free lunch! Turning from those who believe in the mythical concept of a free lunch to those simply out to lunch, here’s an interesting montage of Texas Dims grappling with a very tough question:
Wendy Davis: the Texas equivalent of Hillary Clinton. Moving on, Michael Barone began his latest column well enough…
“…Many of the progressives who reject the notion that races differ in significant respects are the same people who accuse those skeptical of global warming of ignoring science, even though the alarmists’ warming models don’t match the recent past or the present. But at the same time they refuse to credit the much more soundly based science that Wade cites in detail.
These genomic science skeptics fear that acknowledging differences between races will encourage people generally, and Americans in particular, to engage in racial discrimination. That fear has some basis in history, as Wade concedes. But, as he argues, it has no relevance to life in America today.
…Americans today are entirely capable of understanding that there is more difference within racial groups than between racial groups. This is a lesson they pick up from their families, at school, at work and in everyday life. They know that some members of a racially or ethnically defined group that on average scores low on IQ tests will score far above average. They know that some members of a group that scores high on such tests will score far below average.
From that observation, ordinary Americans readily conclude that it is irrational to discriminate according to race or ethnicity or religion and that it is rational to judge individuals on their own merits.”
But then his logic escaped us:
“Proof of this comes from our last two presidential elections. Most Americans know or can readily guess that blacks on average score below whites (and further below Asians) on intelligence tests. But they also know–even his most vociferous critics don’t deny this–that Barack Obama, like all recent presidents and serious presidential candidates, is well above average in intelligence. They would not have elected him president, twice, if they thought otherwise…“
Where to begin. First, “most” Americans didn’t vote for Barack Hussein Obama in either election. For that matter, “most” Americans didn’t vote for George W. Bush. Hells bells, Bill Clinton wasn’t even elected by a majority of the minority who bothered to vote in November of 1992. Second, on what evidence does Barone base the assumption The Obamao is “well above average in intelligence”; his ability to read a teleprompter? Raise campaign funds? Sure, he attended prestigious schools; but no one’s seen his transcripts, nor are any of his writings available, despite him having been president of the Harvard Law Review. Lastly, even were we to grant Barone his assumption regarding the Boy Blunder’s intelligence, which we don’t, his contention “all recent…serious presidential candidates” are similarly blessed is demonstrably false: 
Stick to the facts, Mike… 
In a related item, here’s a headline which gives us reason to hope The Dear Misleader’s top secret transcripts may finally see the light of day:
Yeah…in about another 100 years. And in the Environmental Moment, two contradictory headlines which could only be concurrently published in the Bizarro world of contemporary Progressivism:
Since the review began in 2010, nearly 200 BBC senior staff were sent to workshops to learn what it means to cover science impartially. Andrew Miller, chairman of Parliament’s science and technology select committee, said in a statement: “The key point the workshops tried to impart is that impartiality in science coverage does not simply lie in reflecting a wide range of views, which may result in a ‘false balance.’ More crucially it depends on the varying degree of prominence such views should be given. In this respect, editorial decisions should be guided by where the scientific consensus might be found on any given topic, if it can in fact be determined.”
Sooo…embrace “consensus”, ignore inconvenient truths; like…
As Mark Tapscott notes in the Morning Examiner…
On almost the same day Byers posted his BBC Trust item about the BBC Trust report and Plait’s comments, Forbes’ James Taylor reported this:
“The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s most accurate, up-to-date temperature data confirm the United States has been cooling for at least the past decade. The NOAA temperature data are driving a stake through the heart of alarmists claiming accelerating global warming.“
“Fringe” voices like that of James Taylor won’t be heard when people like Phil Plait run the media show. After all, diversity of viewpoints is such an archaic concept.
Finally, on the Lighter Side… 
Magoo
Loading ...
You must be logged in to post a comment.