Monthly Archives: January 2014



GOP crafts plan to wreck country, lose voters

By: Ann Coulter, 1/29/2014 08:39 PM

As House Republicans prepare to sell out the country on immigration this week, Phyllis Schlafly has produced a stunning report on how immigration is changing the country. The report is still embargoed, but someone slipped me a copy, and it’s too important to wait.

Leave aside the harm cheap labor being dumped on the country does to the millions of unemployed Americans. What does it mean for the Republican Party?

Citing surveys from the Pew Research Center, the Pew Hispanic Center, Gallup, NBC News, Harris polling, the Annenberg Policy Center, Latino Decisions, the Center for Immigration Studies and the Hudson Institute, Schlafly’s report overwhelmingly demonstrates that merely continuing our current immigration policies spells doom for the Republican Party.

Immigrants — all immigrants — have always been the bulwark of the Democratic Party. For one thing, recent arrivals tend to be poor and in need of government assistance. Also, they’re coming from societies that are far more left-wing than our own. History shows that, rather than fleeing those policies, they bring their cultures with them. (Look at what New Yorkers did to Vermont.)

This is not a secret. For at least a century, there’s never been a period when a majority of immigrants weren’t Democrats.

At the current accelerated rate of immigration — 1.1 million new immigrants every year — Republicans will be a fringe party in about a decade.

Thanks to endless polling, we have a pretty good idea of what most immigrants believe.

According to a Harris poll, 81 percent of native-born citizens think the schools should teach students to be proud of being American. Only 50 percent of naturalized U.S. citizens do.

While 67 percent of native-born Americans believe our Constitution is a higher legal authority than international law, only 37 percent of naturalized citizens agree.

No wonder they vote 2-1 for the Democrats.

The two largest immigrant groups, Hispanics and Asians, have little in common economically, culturally or historically. But they both overwhelmingly support big government, Obamacare, affirmative action and gun control.According the 2012 National Asian American Survey, as well as a Kaiser Foundation poll, only 40 percent of the general public holds a favorable opinion of Obamacare, 42 percent unfavorable. Meanwhile, 51 percent of Asians have a favorable opinion of Obamacare, 18 percent an unfavorable one. Even Koreans support Obamacare by 57 percent to 17 percent.

Overall, 69 percent of immigrants like Obamacare, according to a 2010 Cooperative Congressional Election Study.

That same survey showed that only 35 percent of native-born Americans support affirmative action, compared to 58 percent of immigrants, including — amazingly — 64 percent of Asians (suggesting they may not be as smart as everyone thinks).

Also surprising, a Pew Research Center poll of all Hispanics, immigrant and citizen alike, found that Hispanics take a dimmer view of capitalism than even people who describe themselves as “liberal Democrats.” While 47 percent of self-described “liberal Democrats” hold a negative view of capitalism, 55 percent of Hispanics do.

Pew also found that only 27 percent of Hispanics support gun rights, compared to 57 percent of non-Hispanic whites. According to Latino Decisions, large majorities of Hispanics favor a national database of gun owners, limiting the capacity of magazines and a ban on semiautomatic weapons.

Seventy-five percent of Hispanic immigrants and 55 percent of Asian immigrants support bigger government — also according to Pew. Even after three generations in America, Hispanics still support bigger government 55 percent to 36 percent, compared to the general public, which opposes bigger government 48 percent to 41 percent.

How are Republicans going to square that circle? It’s not their position on amnesty that immigrants don’t like; it’s Republicans’ support for small government, gun rights, patriotism, the Constitution and capitalism.

Reading these statistics, does anyone wonder why Democrats think vastly increasing immigration should be the nation’s No. 1 priority?

It would be one thing if the people with these views already lived here. Republicans would have no right to say, “You can’t vote.” But why on Earth are they bringing in people sworn to their political destruction?

Republicans have no obligation to assist the Democrats as they change the country in a way that favors them electorally, particularly when it does great harm to the people already here.

Yes, it’s great for the most powerful Americans to have lots of cheap, unskilled labor. Immigration definitely solves the rich’s “servant problem.”

(Approximately 5 million times a day, MSNBC expresses bewilderment that any Republicans oppose amnesty when it’s supported by the Chamber of Commerce. Wow! So even people who profit by flooding the country with cheap labor are in favor of flooding the country with cheap labor!)

It’s terrific for ethnic lobbyists whose political clout will skyrocket the more foreign-born Americans we have.

And it’s fantastic for the Democrats, who are well on their way to a permanent majority, so they can completely destroy the last remnants of what was once known as “the land of the free.”

The only ones opposed to our current immigration policies are the people.

But are they going to give John Boehner a job when he’s no longer House speaker, as some big business lobbyist will?

Will they help Marco Rubio run for president on the claim that, as a Cuban, he can appeal to Hispanics? (Fat chance.)

Will they bundle contributions for Eric Cantor’s re-election, as well-heeled donors will?

Will they be enough to re-elect Kevin McCarthy to Congress so he can keep his gold-plated government health insurance?

Will they be the ones writing Darrell Issa’s flattering New York Times obituary?

Sorry, Americans. You lose.

Ann Coulter is author of the new book, Never Trust a Liberal Over Three – Especially a Republican (Regnery 2013).


1 Comment

Filed under Left - Off Base, Politics from Just Right of Center - I want Balance!, Right - too Religous for me

Edward Snowden nominated for Nobel Peace Prize 2014

by Swati Khandelwalon Wednesday, January 29, 2014


Now there is really great news for all the supporters of Former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor Edward Snowden, as he is nominated for the 2014 Nobel Peace Prize by two Norwegian lawmakers.

Snorre Valen and Baard Vegar Solhjell, parliamentarians from Norway’s Socialist Left Party said, “He has contributed to revealing the extreme level of surveillance by nations against other nations and of citizens,”

Edward Snowden revealed various widely extended NSA spying projects and responsible for handing over the material from one of the world’s most secretive organizations the NSA. He faces charges of theft and espionage and is in Russia on temporary asylum.

“Snowden contributed to people knowing about what has happened and spurring public debate” on trust in government, which he said was “a fundamental requirement for peace”.

He’s a high school dropout who worked his way into the most secretive computers in U.S. Intelligence as a defense contractor and identifies himself as the source of leaks about US surveillance programs like PRISM, DROPOUTJEEP, DISHFIRE, XKeyscore, MUSCULAR and many more.

Snorre Valen also added that, “There’s no doubt that the actions of Edward Snowden may have damaged the security interests of several nations in the short term”.

According to the Guardian, The five-member panel will not confirm who has been nominated, but those who submit nominations sometimes make them public.

The Nobel Committee accepts nominations from members of national assemblies, governments, international courts, professors and previous laureates. It received a record 259 nominations for last year’s prize.

Snowden is the one who created awareness among all of us when it comes to ‘PRIVACY’. Nominated for the 2014 Nobel Peace Prize is definitely being an honor for the 30 years old young man. Now let’s see if he will fetch the Prize or not.

Read More:

PdC – This nomination actually makes more common sense than the nomination and award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Barrack Obama did. Snowden has forced the world to view the NSA and American Government apparatus as other than a entity that is protecting the Americans and the world.

We all live life as a façade and often portray ourselves as other than we are. Snowden penetrated the USA and Obama’s façade showing the world that Obama has been misleading them as he has been misleading the Americans he claims to be protecting.  Now the façade has been removed and the continued erosion of the Obama Administration. 

Regardless the Nobel Peace Prize has distinguished itself once again as a far left idealist award that often is not based on reality or any real achievement once again. I am still trying to understand why Al Gore was even nominated and what he did that deserved the Prize. We all know that Obama still has not done anything to earn the Prize.

Leave a comment

Filed under Left - Off Base, Politics from Just Right of Center - I want Balance!, Right - too Religous for me

D’Souza Producer: ‘I Never Feared My Government Until Now’

Sunday, 26 Jan 2014 01:08 PM, By Greg Richter

Gerald Molen, the producer of Dinesh D’Souza’s documentary film “2016: Obama’s America,” says he never feared his government before he learned that D’Souza is under federal investigation for election fraud.

According to an indictment made public Thursday, D’Souza is accused of contributing $20,000 to a political campaign in 2012, even though the legal limit is $5,000. D’Souza allegedly promised to reimburse others if they would contribute to a candidate widely believed to be Wendy Long of New York. Long, a Republican, ran unsuccessfully against Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand in 2012 for New York’s U.S. Senate seat.

Some, including Molen, believe the indictment is political payback for D’Souza’s film, which was critical of President Barack Obama. Among other things, it raised questions about whether Obama had embraced the anti-colonial philosophy of his father and said his future actions could be predicted based on that philosophy.

See Video:

“I’m a little bit taken aback by the whole thing because he’s such a great American,” Molen said of D’Souza on Newmax TV’s “Steve Malzberg Show.” The conservative writer and commentator understands the process in America and how it works, Molen said.

Molen, who also produced the Academy-award winning “Schindler’s List,” said he has not spoken to D’Souza since he learned of the indictment, and wouldn’t make comments about the specific case until he’s learned all the facts.

Still, he said he would not be surprised if the probe is politically motivated.

Asked by Malzberg if he ever felt threatened or had any feelings they should not have been making the film, Molen answered, “No. This is America. I’ve never had that feeling,” adding, “I’ve never had the occasion to think that I had to fear my government. I never had the thought that I had reason to think I had to look over my shoulder until now.”

But, he said, he wouldn’t be intimidated out of pursuing future projects.

“It certainly gives me reason to think about it, but no, I won’t back off,” he said. “I’ll keep on doing exactly what I’m doing.”

Leave a comment

Filed under Left - Off Base, Politics from Just Right of Center - I want Balance!, Right - too Religous for me

Why aren’t the poor storming the barricades?

Jan 21st 2014, 19:24 by S.M. | NEW YORK

MATT MILLER of the Washington Post has a hunch: there hasn’t been a “broader revolt” of the underclass against rising income inequality, he writes, because the poor don’t experience inequality as intolerable.

PdC – It has become too easy for the poor to become dependent on the government programs that allow them to live in Poverty with an income from the government. Today, I heard on NPR a woman wanting to have President Obama increase government spending on science by taxing the wealthy more. This was her comment on what she wanted President Obama to present in his State of the Union message this week.  She apparently has the ideal that the wealthy can pay for science simply by having the government put a larger tax burden on them and thus equalizing the tax burden from the poor onto the wealthy. Her antidotal evidence validates this premise allowing her to accomplish what she feels the government needs to do helping her increase science spending.

Leave a comment

Filed under Left - Off Base, Politics from Just Right of Center - I want Balance!, Right - too Religous for me




By: Ann Coulter  , 1/23/2014 09:32 AM

Wendy Davis, the Texas state senator running for governor, became a liberal superhero last June when she filibustered a bill to prohibit abortions after 20 weeks. (This was the good filibuster, not that awful filibuster three months later by Ted Cruz – that was just grandstanding.)

Apart from her enthusiasm for abortion (and you have to admit, abortion is really cool), the centerpiece of Davis’ campaign is her life story. Also the fact that she’s a progressive woman who doesn’t look like Betty Friedan.

In a typical formulation, Time magazine said Davis was someone who could give the Democrats “‘real people’ credibility,” based on “her own personal story — an absent father, a sixth-grade-educated mother, a teen pregnancy, followed by life as a single mom in a mobile home, then community college and, at last, Harvard Law School.”

The headlines capture the essence of Wendy-mania:

CNN: Wendy Davis: From Teen Mom to Harvard Law to Famous Filibuster

Bloomberg: Texas Filibuster Star Rose From Teen Mom to Harvard Law

The Independent (UK): Wendy Davis: Single Mother From Trailer Park Who Has Become Heroine of Pro-Choice Movement

Cosmopolitan: Find a Sugar Daddy to Put You Through Law School!

Actually, that last one I made up, but as we now know, it’s more accurate than Davis’ rags-to-riches life story.

The truth was gently revealed in the Dallas Morning News this week. Far from an attack, this was a puff-piece written by Wayne Slater, rabid partisan Democratic hack and co-author of the book, “Bush’s Brain.” (He is not an admirer of Bush’s brain.) It would be like Sean Hannity breaking a scandal about Ted Cruz.

The first hint that Slater was trying to help Davis get ahead of the story and tilt it her way is his comment that Davis’ life story is “more complicated” than her version — i.e., completely the opposite — adding, “as often happens when public figures aim to define themselves.”

Actually, the truth is much simpler than her story. Also, be sure to look for that “as often happens” excuse the next time a Republican gets caught lying about his resume.

Slater’s peculiar obsession with whether Davis was 19 or 21 when she got her first divorce, and exactly how long she lived in a trailer home, is meant to deflect attention from something much more problematic: the huge whoppers Davis told.

Her big lies were about the obstacles she had to overcome and how she overcame them, not about how old she was at the time of her first divorce.

She claims she was raised by a single mother, went to work at age 14 to support her family, became a single mother herself in her teens, and then — by sheer pluck and determination — pulled herself out of the trailer park to graduate from Harvard Law School!

The truth is less coal-miner’s daughter than gold-digger who found a sugar daddy to raise her kids and pay for her education.

Point No. 1: Davis’ family wasn’t working-class. Her father owned a sandwich shop and a dinner theater, which puts Davis solidly into middle-class land.

Point No. 2: No one who works at MSNBC would know this, but everyone whose parents run a family business starts work at age 14, if not sooner.

Point No. 3: Her parents were separated, but that is not the commonly accepted meaning of “single mother.”

Point No. 4: As for being a single mother at age 19 — she wasn’t a “single mother” in the traditional sense, either. She was married at age 18, had a child at 19 and divorced her first husband, a construction worker, at 21. (He couldn’t afford tuition at Harvard.)

So she got married young? That isn’t a hard-luck story. Well into the 1950s, nearly half of all first-born children were born to married women under the age of 20.

But Wendy Davis’ harrowing nightmare of poverty and sacrifice wasn’t over yet.

Just a few years after her first divorce, Wendy was on the make, asking to date Jeff Davis, a rich lawyer 13 years her senior, who frequented her father’s dinner club. In short order, they married and had a child together.

The next thing Jeff Davis knew, he was paying off her college tuition, raising their kids by himself and taking out a loan to send her to Harvard Law School.

(Feminists rushed to the stores to buy the shoes Davis wore during her famous filibuster. I’d like the shoes she was wearing when she met her sugar daddy.)

Then Wendy left her kids with the sugar daddy in Texas — even the daughter from her first marriage — while she attended Harvard Law.

Slater says Davis’ kids lived with Jeff Davis in Texas while she attended law school. Wendy Davis claims her girls lived with her during her first year of law school. Let’s say that’s true. Why not the other two years? And what was the matter with the University of Texas Law School?

Sorry, MSNBC, I know you want to fixate on how many months Davis spent in the trailer park and her precise age when the first divorce went through. And that would be an incredibly stupid thing for conservatives to obsess on, if they were, in fact, obsessing on it. But I’m still stuck on her leaving her kids behind while she headed off to a law school 1,500 miles away.

The reason Wendy Davis’ apocryphal story was impressive is that single mothers have to run a household, take care of kids and provide for a family all by themselves. But Wendy was neither supporting her kids, nor raising them. If someone else is taking care of your kids and paying your tuition, that’s not amazing.

Hey — maybe Jeff Davis should run for governor! He’s the one who raised two kids, including a stepdaughter, while holding down a job and paying for his wife’s law school. There’s a hard-luck story!

Mr. Davis told the Dallas Morning News that Wendy dumped him as soon as he had finished paying off her Harvard Law School Load. “It was ironic,” he said. “I made the last payment, and it was the next day she left.”

In his defense, a lot of people are confused about the meaning of “ironic.” That’s not “ironic.” Rather, it’s what we call: “entirely predictable.”

It’s ironic — my car stopped running right after I ran out of gas.

It’s ironic — my house was broken into, and the next thing I knew all my valuables were missing.

It’s ironic — I was punched in the face right before my nose broke.

In his petition for divorce, Mr. Davis accused his wife of adultery. The court made no finding on infidelity, but awarded him full custody of their underage child and ordered Wendy to pay child support.

Wendy boasted to the Dallas Morning News: “I very willingly, as part of my divorce settlement paid child support.” Would a divorced dad get a medal for saying that?

In response to Wayne Slater’s faux-”expose,” naturally Davis put out a statement denouncing … her probable Republican opponent, Greg Abbott. Again, Slater wrote the story. But Davis blathered on, blaming Abbott for the Dallas Morning News story and complaining that he hasn’t “walked a day in my shoes.”

About that she’s certainly right. Greg Abbott could never walk a day in her shoes or anyone else’s. He’s a paraplegic confined to a wheelchair.

I guess Wendy could teach him a lot about suffering.

Davis also said these attacks “won’t work, because my story is the story of millions of Texas women …” Yes, for example, Anna Nicole Smith. Though at least Smith had the decency not to ask for a paid education.

Ann Coulter is author of the new book, Never Trust a Liberal Over Three – Especially a Republican (Regnery 2013).


PdC – it seems that once again the Democrats have somehow been allowed to portray themselves as something they are not and the Mainstream Media allows the mid-direction. Why is there no facts checking when articles are written about Democrats such as Obama and Davis?  What does this say about the creditability of Mainstream Media?  Can Mainstream Media be trusted?

Leave a comment

Filed under Left - Off Base, Politics from Just Right of Center - I want Balance!, Right - too Religous for me

Worse than useless

Current policies are a mess. Here’s how to fix them., Jan 25th 2014

SINCE climate change was identified as a serious threat to the planet, Europe has been in the vanguard of the effort to mitigate it. The policies it has adopted are designed with two aims in mind: to cut European emissions drastically and to push other big emitters into adopting similar policies. By both measures, they have failed.


That America and China have not taken serious steps to reduce their own emissions is hardly Europe’s fault. Yet had Europe’s policies worked better, other countries might have been more inclined to emulate the leaders in the field. That is one reason why the European Commission’s announcement on January 22nd of modest increases in its targets for emissions reductions and renewable-energy use, rather than a complete overhaul of the system, was such a disappointment (see article). Another is that the existing policies impose heavy costs on European consumers and companies, and well-designed ones could cut emissions much more cheaply.

European climate policy has two main strands. One is a carbon market to raise the price of pollution. The other—to give an extra push to investment, research and development in green energy—is a programme for boosting renewable energy through production targets and subsidies on, for instance, wind and solar power. Neither has worked.

Europe’s targets for the proportion of energy that is supposed to come from renewables—27% by 2030 for the EU as a whole—are substantial, and its subsidies generous. As a result, the renewable-energy sector has grown mightily. But much of it is not exactly the fuel of the future. The largest source of renewable energy in Europe is wood. The cost of subsidies has been far greater than anyone had expected: €16 billion ($20 billion) in Germany in 2013, which works out at a massive €150-200 per tonne of carbon dioxide. (Home insulation, in contrast, saves money while reducing emissions.) And the damage to the old electricity providers has been far worse than expected. The 20 largest European energy utilities have lost a jaw-dropping €500 billion in market value since 2008.

The renewables policy also undermines the carbon market—the EU’s emissions-trading scheme (ETS), on which companies trade the permits their governments give them to emit carbon. The trading system is designed to ensure that each tonne of carbon is saved at the lowest cost. But when electricity generators cut emissions under the renewables programme, they end up with more ETS allowances than they need. They sell the excess to other users, who can then emit more carbon than before, so the renewables target does not reduce emissions. But it increases the effective supply of permits, which pushes down the price—now languishing at around €5 a tonne, while companies are cutting emissions at a cost of over €150 a tonne under the renewables programme.

Given that many of Europe’s economies are so weak, it is tempting to say: abandon these failed policies and give up trying to restrict emissions. The trouble is, carbon is still building up in the atmosphere, evidence of global warming is accumulating in the oceans and a lot of the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution came from Europe. The continent therefore has a responsibility to get the world to change its ways—and to change its own.

A proper model for others

Instead of tinkering with the renewables targets, Europeans need to scrap them, and to get serious about the carbon market. The numerous exemptions—which include the makers of pianos and crocheted items—which allow companies to ignore it should be removed. That would raise production costs in a few industries, such as steel, but would provide bigger benefits to the economy as a whole. Carbon reduction would be more efficient. Governments would get tax revenues from the sale of permits which could be used to narrow budget deficits. Electricity prices would fall if carbon were no longer squeezed using exorbitant subsidies. Companies would have an incentive to invest in cheaper ways to cut emissions, such as switching from high-carbon coal to lower-carbon gas—which Europeans are ignoring. A switch to shale gas cut American emissions by 12% in 2007-12, more than in Europe. And if Europeans could make their carbon market work, other countries might even take notice and follow suit.

PdC – In the ever changing world of Climate Change is it ever wondered that the myth is only anecdotally applied to Science. I have tried to diligently apply Scientific Applications and found that the math does not apply. The change is not significantly warranted to charge humans with the entire causal application. Even hearing scientists that claim the evidence is overwhelming and hearing them say that it is anecdotally overwhelming gives me cause to circumspect their lack of factual research.

Yes, we need to clean our environment and do everything we can to make sure that our beloved planet Earth is healthy. Continuation of this myth is only going to further cause additional funds to be spent on companies of the likes that the Obama Administration has wasted and only benefitting his supporters and further blackening the climate change eyes.

Leave a comment

Filed under Left - Off Base, Politics from Just Right of Center - I want Balance!, Right - too Religous for me