Some more equal than others – Tea Party Nation

Some more equal than others – Tea Party Nation.

 Posted by Judson Phillips

One of the greatest lines from George Orwell’s novel Animal Farm was, “All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.”

 

Animal Farm was an allegorical novel by George Orwell, where the animals rise up, depose the human owners of the farm and declare all to be equal.

 America is a nation that declares all to be equal.  Yet we are seeing with the Obama Regime, not all are equal.

 Who does the Obama Regime consider to be more equal than others and who does the Obama Regime consider to be enemies of the state?

 For weeks now, stories have come out of Washington about how the Tea Party and other conservative groups have been targeted by the IRS and sometimes other agencies.

 When it comes to religions, the Obama Regime definitely believes that some religions are more equal than others.

 According to the Christian Post, the Coalition for Life of Iowa was asked as a part of the process to obtain non-profit status to have its board of directors sign a letter under penalty of perjury that the group would not protest outside Planned Parenthood.

 In a later letter, they were asked about the content of their prayers.

 This is not the only instance of Christian groups being targeted by the Obama Regime.  An Army briefing earlier this year listed Evangelical Christianity as a part of the threat from “religious extremism.”  Also listed in the same category was Al Qaeda.  The Catholic Church was also listed at a part of the threat of Religious Extremism.  One other example of a threat from religious extremism was something called, “Islamophobia.”

 On the other hand, Islam is treated as the religion that is more equal than others. 

 One of the myriad of Obama scandals has been the NSA surveillance scandal.  As Sarah Palin said Saturday at the Faith and Freedom Coalition’s “Road to the Majority” conference, “Our government spied on every single one of your phone calls but couldn’t find two pot-smoking deadbeat Bostonians with a hotline to terrorist central in Chechnya.”

 Why couldn’t they find these guys?

 Well, among other reasons, Mosques are off limits to FBI surveillance.

 According to Investors Business Daily, since October 2011, Mosques have been off limits.   One thing every Islamic Terrorist who has hit America since 9/11 has in common is involvement in a Mosque.  Tamerlin Tsarnaev had an outburst at his Mosque in Boston before he and his brother bombed the Boston Marathon.   The officials of the Mosque did not tell Federal authorities about Tsarnaev and since the FBI could not conduct surveillance at the Mosque, they remained clueless. 

 Nadal Hassan, the Army Major who committed mass murder at Fort Hood in 2009 openly espoused radical Islamic beliefs and even walked around with business cards that said he was “SOA” or a “Soldier of Allah.”

 The FBI, as the Blaze reported in 2012, did not investigate Hassan because of political correctness.   Even though FBI agents saw emails between Hassan and radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, they were prevented from investigating him.

 While the Army would not investigate a man who had alarming connections to terrorists and who went on to commit mass murder, three years later, the Army is on the ball and is investigating a real threat to the Army.

 According to the Fox News, Army Master Sergeant Nathan Sommers, a soldier with twenty five years service has been given a reprimand (which will effectively end his career) for serving Chic-fil-A sandwiches at his promotion party, supporting the Defense of Marriage Act (which is the law of the land) and reading books by David Limbaugh and Mark Levine.

 Someone who is allied with our Islamic enemies and who eventually commits mass murder cannot be investigated but a patriotic American soldier must be punished.

Welcome to Obama’s America.  Here some truly are more equal than others.

 

Destroying the U.S. Military – Tea Party Nation

Destroying the U.S. Military – Tea Party Nation.

By Alan Caruba

The author of “1984”, George Orwell, once said, “The quickest way to end a war is to lose it.”

In the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, among the priorities listed is to “provide for the common defense” of the nation. After having fought a six-year war during the Revolution and replaced the failed Articles of Confederation, the framers of the Constitution, many of whom had fought beside George Washington, well understood the need for a standing army and navy to protect the new nation.

In the nation’s earliest years, Americans repeatedly elected Presidents with military credentials and experience. In addition to Washington they included Monroe, Jackson, Harrison, Tyler, Grant, Teddy Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush41 and 43. FDR had served as Secretary of the Navy.

In recent times, two Presidents, Clinton—a draft dodger—and Obama have had no military experience to draw upon. Over the objections of their generals, both introduced policies to include and protect homosexuals in the U.S. military services. Now the doors have been opened to permit women to fight beside men. The military is not a place where one conducts social experiments. It’s a place where men go in harm’s way to protect the nation.

Today, thanks to the failure of the Congress to address America’s spending and growing debt problems, the U.S. military faces a draconian “sequestration”—massive cuts to the defense budget—that would so seriously decrease the nation’s ability to defend itself and project power globally, that it reminds one of the failure to maintain a strong military that required a massive effort to get up to speed after the Japanese Empire’s attack on Pearl Harbor in 194. The WWII declaration of war included the Nazi Third Reich that threatened the United Kingdom, all of Europe, and Russia.

A recent Rasmussen Reports poll found that 40% of likely voters “believe the United States spends too much on defense and national security” while only 22% disagree and 32% believe the amount spent is about right. This is a definition of stupidity.

A nation requires a standing army, navy, coast guard, and air force, along with a trustworthy banking system. After the 2008 financial crisis—the result of government policies regarding housing—we had to bail out the banking system to the tune of billions. Today we face the prospect of a military that is flying an aging fleet of airplanes, has a navy that has as few ships in service as we had at the end of World War I, and a volunteer military that requires that support of thousands of civilian personnel.

Out-going Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, has been loudly warning that the result of any spending cuts would be “catastrophic.”

One can argue that we have spent a fortune in treasure and blood in the Middle East since 2001, but only the most foolish would argue that America and the West is not facing the greatest threat in its history since Moslem armies were defeated at the doors of Europe in 732 AD and 1529 AD.

In a recent press conference, Panetta said that the practical results of the proposed cuts in defense would be less training for units not imminently deploying to Afghanistan; less shipboard training for all but the highest priority missions; less pilot training and fewer flight hours; curtailed ship maintenance and disruption to research and weapons modernization programs. He described it as the hollowing out of the defense force of the nation.

Noting that members of our military are fighting and sometimes dying to defend our nation, Panetta said, “Those of us in Washington need to have the same courage as they do to do the right thing and try to protect the security of this country. We must ensure we have the resources we need to defend the nation and meet our commitments to our troops, to our civilian employees, and to their families, after more than a decade of war.”

Courage and common sense are two elements that are missing in Washington these days.

Retired General Paul E. Vallely, U.S. Army, states the case bluntly. “President Obama is working very hard to destroy U.S. military superiority, consciously and unconsciously to the advantage (of) our global enemies in an attempt to seize control over national security and (in) another overt attempt to bypass Congress, the Obama administration may have already made this play as of this writing.”

Joined at the press conference by Army General Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Dempsey described sequestration as “a self-inflicted wound on national security”, bluntly saying it was “an irresponsible way to manage our nation’s defense. It cuts blindly and it cuts bluntly. It compounds risk and it compromises readiness.”

Americans are largely unaware that our air fleet is the oldest in Air Force history, worn down by two-plus decades of combat dating back to the 1991 Gulf War. The average age of the fleet exceeds a quarter of a century. The U.S. Navy is a mere shadow of itself. Under normal operations one third of the fleet is in repair, one third is in port for the rest and relaxation of sailors, leaving approximately 90 ships to patrol the seven seas to protect American interests. There are about 800,000 civilians that provide support to our services and nearly 1.4 million in the active-duty military.

We have until March to know whether Congress will take action to repeal sequestration and replace it with the steps everyone with a lick of sense knows must be taken; reforming the nation’s tax code, reforming Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid to avoid their impending failure, reductions in the spending and borrowing that has imposed more than $16 trillion in debt, and reform of the spiraling avalanche of regulations that are choking the nation’s economic recovery.

How serious is it? Gen. Dempsey warned that operations, maintenance and training will be gutted. “We’ll ground aircraft, return ships to port, and sharply curtail training across the force. (We) may be forced to furlough civilians at the expense of maintenance and even health care. We will be unable to reset the force following a decade of war.”

“Within a year, we’ll be unprepared,” said Gen. Dempsey.

© Alan Caruba, 2013

 

MoveOn.org video: Saying ‘illegal’ immigrants fits definition of a hate crime – Spokane Conservative | Examiner.com

MoveOn.org video: Saying ‘illegal’ immigrants fits definition of a hate crime – Spokane Conservative | Examiner.com.

In yet another case of Orwellian political correctness run amok, a video posted at MoveOn.org says calling illegal immigrants “illegal” fits the definition of a hate crime and calls for the word to be banned when used in the context of immigration.

The headline at the MoveOn page screams “One word we hear too often on Fox News,” as if only Fox News calls illegal immigrants “illegal.”

A web page at Colorlines goes even further, giving words they say are more acceptable.

“The epithet ‘illegals’ promotes a culture of intolerance and violence toward foreign nationals, undocumented immigrants, and people of color,” the site says, suggesting:

  • Undocumented immigrants
  • Unauthorized immigrants
  • NAFTA refuge

The “Drop the I-Word” campaign describes itself as a “public education campaign powered by immigrants and diverse communities across the country that value human dignity and are working to eradicate the dehumanizing slur ‘illegals’ from everyday use and public discourse.”

“The i-word opens the door to racial profiling and violence and prevents truthful, respectful debate on immigration,” the site adds.

The site goes so far as to call the word “racist,” claiming it “affects attitudes toward immigrants and non-immigrants alike, most often toward people of African, Asian, and Latin American descent.”

“Silly me, I always figured it was used to describe someone who is in America illegally,” notes a post at Weasel Zippers.

On Friday, attorney Jay Sekulow discussed the issue on Fox News’ Hannity, and called MoveOn.org’s effort “the politics of hate,” in essence vilifying an entire group of people who recognize that people who are in the country illegally are “illegal aliens.”

One cannot help but think of George Orwell‘s classic 1984, in which he wrote of the destruction of words in an effort to eradicate “thoughtcrime.”

It seems the left, incapable of defending the indefensible, would rather win with the debate by banning words, basically making them illegal.

EDITORIAL: The left’s brilliant lie – Washington Times

Image showing both a fluorescent and an incand...

Image via Wikipedia

EDITORIAL: The left’s brilliant lie – Washington Times.

Liberals want to take away your light bulbs, pickup trucks and family sedans, but they aren’t honest enough to admit it. On the House floor last week, Democrats insisted regulations prohibiting the sale of cheap sources of illumination beginning in January are about increasing consumer choice. Likewise, the Obama administration’s forthcoming 56-mile-per-gallon fuel-efficiency mandate for automakers is supposedly a boon for consumers.

“I continue to hear my colleagues promote the fantasy that government has banned the incandescent light bulb,” said Rep. Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania Democrat. “They think if they say it over and over again that it will be true. But it’s not true.” Proponents of the bulb ban also claim misleading efficiency increases. There’s a good reason to be skeptical; legislative acts don’t create engineering breakthroughs. The sole purpose of the law signed by President George W. Bush was to eliminate the sale of 25-cent light bulbs because the greens want to force everyone to switch to fluorescent lighting.

It is true that – for now – our regulatory masters will allow the purchase of a 72-watt halogen bulb at a stiff price premium. While it is a form of incandescent, it is no substitute for Edison’s invention because it cannot, under the rules, match the output of the prohibited 120-watt and 150-watt bulbs often used to brighten large rooms. Moreover, halogens are certain to be banned in the next round of rulemaking to ensure politically correct curlicue bulbs are the only realistic choice remaining.

Failure to obey these dictates brings the wrath of the Department of Energy’s Conservation Standards Enforcement division. It has recently threatened companies like Delta Faucet, Hudson Reed, LG, Maytag, Target Corporation and Westinghouse for attempting to deliver products that consumers desired. These items did not catch on fire nor were they filled with dangerous lead or mercury – they simply functioned too well.

The bureaucracy doesn’t care about functionality. It wants to wipe out inventions it has long hated, such as the internal-combustion engine. That’s why the latest proposals to raise Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) requirements are set at unattainable levels. Currently, manufacturers achieve an average rating of 30.3, but a few manufacturers like Ferrari score just 16.2. By increasing noncompliance penalties, it simply won’t be feasible to make a fun car even in low volumes. Only boring hybrids and impractical electric cars will remain.

Even these yawn-mobiles would cost an extra $900 to $1,940 more per vehicle, and fewer will be able to afford them. At worst, the Auto Alliance estimates the CAFE hike will kill off 2.4 million vehicle sales at a cost of 212,400 jobs. That’s the left’s idea of “choice.”

George Orwell warned of such linguistic tricks, which he called “newspeak.” He saw socialists abusing language to change the public’s thought patterns. Such is the case when pulling cheap light bulbs off the shelf isn’t a ban and prohibiting the sale of large pickup trucks becomes a choice. As debt-ceiling negotiations proceed and members of Congress look for places to cut spending, they ought to zero out the “standards” divisions at the Energy Department and Environmental Protection Agency.