We Win They Lose archive
Category : Issues: Personal Freedom & Liberty

The Ignorance of Anti-human Libtard David Attenborough

Liberal icon Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, “You’re entitled to your own opinions, but you’re not entitled to your own facts.” But that was decades ago, and today more leftists than ever have graduated from confusion to delusion and believe they’re entitled to their own fiction.

A good example is naturalist David Attenborough, who recently complained that man is a plague upon our planet. He warns that our burgeoning population will ensure that we consume the world’s resources like a sun-occluding swarm of high-tech locusts. Writes The Telegraph:

“We are a plague on the Earth. It’s coming home to roost over the next 50 years or so. It’s not just climate change; it’s sheer space, places to grow food for this enormous horde. Either we limit our population growth or the natural world will do it for us, and the natural world is doing it for us right now,” he [Attenborough] told the Radio Times.

If brevity is the soul of not just wit but also delusion, we have a winner here. Four sentences, four falsehoods/fallacies — a couple of which are getting a bit stale. There is that old leftist Malthusian starvation saw that seems to have more lives than a cat; there is the man-made idea of man-made climate change; and there is what logically follows from these two assumptions, that humans are a “plague” (well, some humans are, anyway). But then there’s what is simply a falsehood: the notion that the world’s population is exploding.

Just Because California Is Terrible, that Doesn’t Mean Texas Is Perfect.

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: January 22, 2013

exas is in much better shape than California. Taxes are lower, in part because Texas has no state income tax.

No wonder the Lone Star State is growing faster and creating more jobs.

And the gap will soon get even wider since California voters recently decided to drive away more productive people by raising top tax rates.

But a key challenge for all governments is controlling the size and cost of bureaucracies.

Government employees are probably overpaid in both states, but the situation is worse in California, as I discuss in a recent interview with John Stossel.

But being better than California is not exactly a ringing endorsement of Texas fiscal policy.

A column in today’s Wall Street Journal, written by the state’s Comptroller of Public Accounts, points out some worrisome signs.

Read More…

Utah company fires 2 workers who supported Obama (AWESOME!)

The head of a Utah forensics company says it’s only fair that two liberal employees were let go because liberal policies are costing his business.

A Utah business owner says he fired two employees in large part because they supported President Barack Obama.

“They were Obama supporters. We just knew they were,” Terry Lee, owner of Terry Lee Forensics, a Cedar City, Utah, digital forensics company, told The Salt Lake Tribune on Thursday.

Lee first mentioned the firings in the comments section of another story in the Tribune about a Vernal, Utah, smoothie shop owner charging “liberals” a higher price than “conservatives” for drinks. That shop owner said “liberal programs” are costing his business more, so it’s only fair that left-leaning customers should pay more.

According to the Tribune, Lee showed his support for the tactic by writing:

“Love it. We had to let two employees go to cover new Obongocare [sic] costs and increased taxes. Found two Obongo supporters and gave them the news yesterday. They wanted the idiot in the Whitehouse [sic], they reap the benefits.”

The comment was later deleted by the author.

Lee did not return a telephone call from MSN News on Friday to expound on the comment.

Contacted by the Tribune Thursday, Lee said he picked the two employees in large part on the basis of their politics, according to the newspaper. But he added that there were other issues as well, which he didn’t detail, and said the two workers “were not top performers.”

He said that he didn’t think the firings were illegal. “Is your political affiliation protected?” he was quoted as saying. “I don’t believe it is, but I don’t know.”

Utah law says private employment in the state is generally “at will.” That means a private employer can fire a worker without cause and without notice.

Read More…

Internet activist Aaron Swartz’s father tells funeral his son was ‘killed by the government’

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: January 15, 2013

Internet freedom activist Aaron Swartz was “killed by the government,” his father told mourners Tuesday during his son’s funeral in suburban Chicago.

Swartz, who help create Reddit and RSS, the technology behind blogs, podcasts and other web-based subscription services, was found dead Friday in his New York apartment. He was facing federal charges that alleged he illegally gained access to millions of articles from a Massachusetts Institute of Technology computer archive.

Robert Swartz said during the service in Highland Park that his son was “hounded by the government, and MIT refused him,” the Chicago Sun-Times reported (http://bit.ly/V2s8zv).

“He was killed by the government, and MIT betrayed all of its basic principles,” he said.

Swartz, 26, was facing charges that carried a maximum penalty of decades in prison. His trial was scheduled to begin in April.

Read More…

Obama Phone Lady Says: Darn Sure Won’t Vote for Obama Again!

Mark Levin Reacts To Obama Presser: “We Have An Imperial President”

MARK LEVIN: I’m not into imperial presidents who act imperial and speak imperial and Obama forgets there’s a Constitution. Yes, he keeps telling us he won reelection. Congratulations, but guess what? The Constitution wasn’t up for election, it’s not up for a referendum. He has to comply with it, too.

He was sent back to Washington, but he’s got a strict list of rules that he has to follow as president. When he gets up there and starts saying, if Congress doesn’t do this, I’m going to do this unilaterally, it violates separation of power a lot of the times. And this is a man pushing the edge of the envelope as far as i’m concerned, whether it’s the appointment clause, whether it’s his unilateral action on immigration, whether it’s trashing the commerce clause and the tax clauses under Obamacare. Now they’re talking about executive orders on the Second Amendment. They’ve issued regulations on First Amendment attacking religious liberty. This notion that he might be able to lift the debt ceiling, you know, unilaterally under the Fourteenth Amendment.

What the hell is this? He was elected president. Congratulations. This guy makes Richard Nixon look like a man who followed the law all the time. I think we have an imperial president, he sounds imperial, he’s arrogant as hell and I’m furious about this and I’m going to tell you why. We are a magnificent country. We don’t need to be turned upside down. We don’t need to run from crisis to crisis to crisis. He’s bankrupting this country.

He said we’ve had a discussion about the debt. When did we have a discussion about the debt? We’ve had a debate about taxes. The man’s never around to have a discussion about anything. So, yes, he causes me to be furious when I watch and listen to him. (FOX News Channel’s America Live with Megyn Kelly, January 14, 2013)

In The U.K. Citizens Turn On Each Other For “Free Money” From Government!

The U.K. government is trying to cut its spending. This so-called austerity strikes many commentators as not merely harsh but unfair.

For example, the government will no longer pay “family benefit” (roughly £1,000 a year for each child) to parents with an income over £60,000. Ed Balls, the shadow chancellor, says this change is unfair. Similarly, according to Justine Roberts, the founder of Mumsnet, a website for mothers, “people are saying it’s unfair” that the government does not subsidize childcare for “stay-at-home mums.”

image

Parents are not the only supposed victims. On any day of the week you can hear someone declaring the injustice of insufficient government spending on this or that deserving group: the ill, the old, the unemployed, university students, filmmakers, rail passengers, you name it. Yet they rarely explain why it is unfair. They speak as if the injustice of it ought to be obvious to any decent person.

Perhaps it is obvious to most people, and especially to members of the allegedly mistreated groups. Nevertheless, it isn’t true. They want the money, of course, but they have no proper claim on it. This is easier to see if you recognize that “government spending” is no such thing. The money is provided by taxpayers, who part with it on threat of imprisonment.

So the relevant question is not, “Does justice require the government to pay mothers (or students or artists or whomever)?” but rather, “Does justice require taxpayers to pay mothers?” Of course, if all taxpayers were mothers, the transfer would be pointless: Mothers would simply be giving themselves their own money. It is only because many taxpayers are not mothers that mothers and their advocates seek the transfer. So a better way of putting our question is, “Does justice require non-mothers to pay mothers (or non-students to pay students or non-artists pay artists, etc)?

Read More…

The Tyranny of Solutions (“Just Do Something” is the Mantra of Fascists)

Sinclair Lewis was so 20th Century.

Progressives have effectively burnt the cross and the flag already. Thus, old-style patriotism and religiosity can’t even win elections in heartland states- just ask Senators Akin and Mourdoch.

No, that’s not where the threat festers. When tyranny comes to America, it will be advanced by earnest public officials, enforcing intrusive rules declared necessary to stamp out social problems and purify us of bad consumer choices. The oppression generally will be applauded by elites and educated people. Whether or not it prevails and becomes the new normal depends on the rest of us, our outrage, and the effectiveness and staying power of our response.

But, those folks who are anxiously monitoring Washington and a president who ill-conceals that, to him, the Constitution presents more of an obstacle than a genius bulwark for freedom, might be missing an important point. Yes, Washington is out of control. For liberty to prevail, it must be confronted, restrained, and redirected. But, so too, our local authorities and institutions can trample our liberties, our privacy, and our domestic tranquility.

Law students learn an aphorism about the development of law: Hard cases make bad law. An incident or two last year in my home state of Colorado illustrate the point: hard circumstances invite bad decisions and establish bad precedents. Citizens can be almost powerless to respond.

Read More…

On gun control, immigration, and Hagel, the president’s biggest roadblocks are Democrats.

The White House’s ambitious agenda on gun control, immigration reform, and, perhaps, even climate change is a sign that President Obama believes he locked up precious political capital with his reelection and intends to spend it quickly. But that isn’t welcome news to many of the Democrats who need him the most in the short term–the seven Democratic senators in conservative states facing tough reelection bids.

Just one week into the new year, Obama has already hit some unpleasant stumbling blocks with his own party. On gun control, the White House is now calculating that it will be “exceedingly difficult” to pass broad measures, The New York Times reports, a sharp U-turn from its optimism heading into the new year. Senators from the president’s own party are the ones giving him trouble over his nominee for Defense secretary, former GOP Sen. Chuck Hagel, with one of the president’s most partisan backers privately expressing doubt about whether he’ll support his nomination.

And on Friday, Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., announced his retirement, making it even more likely that a West Virginia Senate seat will turn Republican for the first time since 1959. Rockefeller’s decision to step down early may give him more flexibility to vote with the White House on its pet initiatives, but it creates major problems for the Democrats looking to succeed him. The White House’s planned agenda for the coming year is awfully inhospitable for a Democrat looking to keep his or her distance from the national party. (Notably, newly minted Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Michael Bennet, in a statement, said he is confident the party will elect an “independent-minded Democrat” to a seat.)

This is just the tip of the iceberg. To maintain their Senate majority in 2014, Democrats need to hold onto seven seats being contested on inhospitable turf–Louisiana, Arkansas, Alaska, Montana, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Dakota. Obama holds solid approval ratings nationally but, given the state of affairs in our polarized country, is in much more tenuous shape down South. The strategic positioning of Democratic Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Mark Pryor or Arkansas, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, and Mark Begich of Alaska will be fascinating to watch over the next year. Immigration, for example, is probably a winning issue for the president overall, but it will be a much tougher sell with Democrats in conservative states and districts. Rockefeller took the easy way out in stepping down.

My National Journal colleagues Ron Fournier and Jill Lawrence have been engaging in a debate over whether Obama is merely a good president, or a potentially great one. I disagree with the premise. I’d argue that given Democratic congressional supermajorities in his first two years and the lingering unpopularity of the Republican Party, he held the potential to accomplish a lot more–and in a more bipartisan fashion, as well. Health care reform was a costly detour from promoting a jobs-centric agenda in the president’s first year. He’s spending significant political capital on Hagel, at a time when the White House desperately needs a united Democratic front on gun control and immigration.

Read More…

Nanny Bloomberg Takes Away Hospital Painkillers

Thank goodness government is getting more involved in health care so we can finally put a stop to sick and injured people using too many painkillers.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced this week that the city is going to sharply restrict supplies of painkillers at the city’s emergency rooms to combat a rampant addiction problem.

Yours, not his.

I have to clarify that point, because otherwise you may have the impression that “Nanny Michael” is addicted to power, and being a bit of a bully. …

“The city hospitals we control,” he said Friday in response to critics, “so … we’re going to do it and we’re urging all of the other hospitals to do it, voluntary guidelines. Somebody said, oh, somebody wrote, ‘Oh then maybe there won’t be enough painkillers for the poor who use the emergency rooms as their primary care doctor.’

“Number one, there’s no evidence of that. Number two, supposing it is really true, so you didn’t get enough painkillers and you did have to suffer a little bit. The other side of the coin is people are dying and there’s nothing perfect. … Come on, this is a very big problem.”

This very big problem, according to Bloomberg, is that people with afflictions like broken bones are being prescribed more painkillers than they need, and that leads to them either getting addicted, selling the drugs on the street or giving them to kids to get high.

I assume he “knows” this because of his own sordid past, during which he lived in a box on the mean streets doing Vicadin and getting to know all the Oxycontin dealers by first name.

“If you break a leg, you’re going to be in pain, nothing wrong with getting something that reduces the pain. But if you get 20 days’ worth of pills and you only need them three days, there’s 17 days sitting there. Invariably some of the kids are going to find them, or you’re going to take them and get you addicted.”

Internet Folkhero Swartz’ death fuels debate over computer crime

This Dec. 8, 2012 photo provided by ThoughtWorks shows Aaron Swartz, in New York. Swartz, a co-founder of Reddit, hanged himself Friday, Jan. 11, 2013, in New York City. In 2011, he was charged with stealing millions of scientific journals from a computer archive at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in an attempt to make them freely available. He had pleaded not guilty, and his federal trial was to begin next month. (AP Photo/ThoughtWorks, Pernille Ironside)Internet freedom activist Aaron Swartz, who was found dead in his Brooklyn apartment Friday, struggled for years against a legal system that he felt had not caught up to the information age. Federal prosecutors had tried unsuccessfully to mount a case against him for publishing reams of court documents that normally cost a fee to download. He helped lead the campaign to defeat a law that would have made it easier to shut down websites accused of violating copyright protections.

In the end, Swartz’s family said, that same system helped cause his death by branding as a felon a talented young activist who was more interested in spreading academic information than in the fraud federal prosecutors had charged him with.

The death by suicide of Swartz, 26, was “the product of a criminal justice system rife with intimidation and prosecutorial overreach,” his family said in a statement Saturday.

Swartz was only the latest face of a decades-old movement in the computer science world to push more information into the public domain. His case highlights society’s uncertain, evolving view of how to treat people who break into computer systems and share data not to enrich themselves, but to make it available to others.

Read More…

Supreme Court won’t block Obama health law’s contraception mandate

The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to block the Obama administration’s contraception mandate from taking effect.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor rejected a request for an emergency injunction that would have shielded employers from the mandate.

The request was filed by Hobby Lobby, an arts-and-crafts chain. The company’s Catholic owners say the contraception mandate violates their religious freedom.

Hobby Lobby might eventually win on that point, Sotomayor said, but the company didn’t meet the standard for an injunction blocking the mandate from taking effect.

The administration’s policy requires most employers to include contraception in their employees’ healthcare policies, without charging a co-pay or deductible. Churches and houses of worship are exempt, and religious affiliated institutions such as Catholic hospitals don’t have to cover contraception directly. (Their insurance companies cover the cost of making it available at no cost to the employee.)

But some Catholic employers say they should be able to opt out of the mandate simply because it violates their personal faith, no matter what type of business they run.

Hobby Lobby had asked the Supreme Court for an emergency injunction preventing the contraception mandate from taking effect as scheduled on Jan. 1. Lower courts have split on narrow requests for case-by-case exceptions, so Hobby Lobby said the court should block the mandate and immediately hear arguments about whether the policy is constitutional.

Read More…

Appeals Court Oral Arguments Signal Trouble for Obamacare HHS Mandate

A top federal appeals court signaled Friday that it might act on Obamacare’s HHS Mandate—requiring employers to cover birth control and abortion-related services.

After repeated assurances that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) would not mandate abortion or people of faith violating their religious beliefs, the Obama administration issued a mandate requiring both, when Secretary Kathleen Sebelius issued a rule from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) saying that a vague provision in the ACA requiring employers provide “preventive care” means that employer healthcare policies must cover birth control, abortion-related, and sterilization services.

A torrent of lawsuits have flooded the federal courts, with people of faith arguing that the HHS Mandate is both unconstitutional and a violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

The Obama administration did two things trying to derail this litigation. One was to include in the final rule an exemption for religious employers, which is so narrow that it only covers houses of worship. The other is that it issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM), saying that it would expand this protection to accommodate other religious employers in a new rule that will be finalized in 2013.

Read More…

Obama won’t go after marijuana use in 2 states

Barack Obama
President Barack Obama says the federal government won’t go after recreational marijuana use in Washington state and Colorado, where voters have legalized it.

In a Barbara Walters interview airing Friday on ABC, Obama was asked whether he supports making pot legal.

“I wouldn’t go that far,” Obama replied. “But what I think is that, at this point, Washington and Colorado, you’ve seen the voters speak on this issue.”

But the president said he won’t pursue the issue in the two states where voters legalized the use of marijuana in the November elections. Marijuana remains illegal under federal law.

“… as it is, the federal government has a lot to do when it comes to criminal prosecutions,” Obama said. “It does not make sense, from a prioritization point of view, for us to focus on recreational drug users in a state that has already said that under state law, that’s legal.”

Marijuana officially became legal in Washington state and Colorado this month.

The Justice Department hasn’t targeted recreational marijuana users for decades. With limited resources, its focus has been to go after major drug traffickers instead.

Read More…

Michigan Right to Work law an opportunity to partially defund Planned Parenthood, gay activists

Michigan Governor Rick Snyder Tuesday signed the nation’s 24th state Right to Work law, a move that some observers say presents an opportunity to at least partially defund major pro-abortion and pro-homosexual activist organizations.

The Right to Work law, which is expected to take effect in April, frees Michigan workers from being forced to join or pay dues to a union in order to get a job. Michigan has long been one of the nation’s most heavily unionized states. Until now, the government and auto industries, which employ thousands of Michiganders, have required workers to pay union dues as a condition of employment.

Many workers don’t realize that their union dues are spent by union officials not just on collective bargaining, but on politics and social activism – much of it offensive to the union members they are supposed to represent.

Despite the fact that their membership is about evenly split between Republicans and Democrats, major Michigan unions spend nearly 100 percent of their political cash on the campaigns of some of the nation’s most pro-abortion Democratic politicians.

They also support Planned Parenthood and same-sex “marriage” campaigns.

“Planned Parenthood and the UAW [United Auto Workers] share a planned vision for this country,” said Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards at the National Community Action Program (CAP) Legislative Conference in Washington.

Read More…

Shop And Support Us!
Welcome , today is Monday, September 22, 2014