Then to top it off, the officer doesn't get any semblance of a fair shot, nope, he's forced out and the gutless Chief throws him under the bus, opening the door to more race-hustling or worse...
There's another phony attack by the mob on police officers in America, this time in McKinney, TX. There's an intentional pattern of turning every community into Ferguson or Baltimore, using select video footage to frame the story and make it look like cops are evil. We're teaching teens that it's ok to bully cops and disregard authority. Even worse, the situation is becoming another race matter because of people like Al Sharpton and his local surrogate race baiters when it's not a matter of race at all.
...and BLASTS the McKinney Police Chief for throwing this officer OVER THE CLIFF!
TRS: Mark Levin was livid after he heard the comments of the McKinney police chief, saying that the actions of officer Casebolt as shown in the video were out of control and indefensible. Levin defended the officer, saying he was clearly surrounded while thugs were trying to rush him and he was not out of control. Levin points out that the officer was very much justified in pulling his sidearm and that this phoney police chief is nothing but a creep.
The so-called leaders of this TEXAS town folded like cheap suits in a matter of days from a media-hyped, race-baiting ploy without seeing the full investigation through. And unfortunately, it may not be over for the town of McKinney with the further promotion of civil unrest. However, as I just mentioned, this is TEXAS, a very Second Amendment state, so thuggery be forewarned!
Of course there are questions, there always are. But the majority of everything heard in the mainstream media currently consists of hyperbole, malice towards authority, race-baiting, and the like. The setup for what's still an open investigation is under immense political pressure to sway one way and one way only. Therefore what this develops into is yet another example of law and order being cast as the villain, while lawlessness is either swept under the rug or portrayed as somehow virtuous, reflective of our current upside-down society.
Yes, he actually admitted there is still no strategy to deal with these barbarians, as hundred to thousands die. How compassionate...
Mark Levin: President Obama admitted at the G7 summit that he has no strategy or policy to deal with ISIS. The excessive focus on avoidance of collateral damage and civilian casualties is causing more harm every day. We have a major air advantage, and restricting the use of our Air Force and the passivity of the Obama administration is allowing genocide to take place, causing far more civilian casualties than if we stopped ISIS.
FoxNews: President Obama took heat Monday for admitting he doesn't yet have a "complete strategy" in hand for training Iraqis to fight the Islamic State -- months into the coordinated campaign to defeat the deadly terrorist network.
"When a finalized plan is presented to me by the Pentagon, then I will share it with the American people," Obama said, adding, "We don't yet have a complete strategy."
House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul said in a statement: "It is no surprise this administration does not have a 'complete strategy' for training Iraqis to fight ISIS. What is surprising is that the president admitted it."
The president addressed the ISIS fight during a press conference on the sidelines of the G7 summit in Germany. He appeared to be speaking specifically to a new strategy for accelerating the training and equipping of Iraqi security forces. "We're reviewing a range of plans for how we might do that," Obama said.
So instead of tying the hands of our warriors, which have gotten too many killed in the process, as well as those innocent lives slain across the Middle East, how about taking Levin's longstanding advice and unleashing some of our best assets across the skies of this desert wasteland?
WaPo: The Islamic State can be decomposed through a comprehensive and robust air campaign designed to: (1) terminate its expansion; (2) paralyze and isolate its command-and-control capability; (3) undermine its ability to control the territory it occupies; and (4) eliminate its ability to export terror.
But to do these things, air power has to be applied like a thunderstorm, not a drizzle. In the campaign against the Islamic State, we are averaging 12 strike sorties per day. During Operation Desert Storm in Iraq and Kuwait in 1991, the average was 1,241...
Let’s stop unnecessarily restricting our asymmetric advantage and get on with the task of destroying the Islamic State as quickly as possible through the optimal use of air power. America’s enemies are exploiting our humanity to impose their terror. It is time to change strategy.
"Our enemies are on the move, and we sit here, and we take it!"
Lots of pop culture degradation going on out there, but if more could pull themselves away from the freak shows for a moment, they might discover some serious troubles afoot in our national security. While Big Government remains insistent on the necessity of state-run security for American citizens at the cost of our liberties domestically, this administration and its media sycophants appear to play down or virtually ignore the external threats...
MarkLevinShow: Communist China attacked America and it's amazing how it's not a big deal to most people. We're in a cyber-security war, with China building a vast database of stolen information from our government database. The problem is our government is getting too big and getting bigger; it's growing and imploding at the same time.
There was more elaboration on this incursion during Friday's program...
It wasn't a group of Chinese hackers that broke into our federal data systems; it was the Chinese government. They've been caught red handed stealing our information, yet the Chinese foreign minister is acting like a victim and believes it's irresponsible for the U.S. to charge China for the hack. China is building an army much larger than a regional force and they're on the move; all of our enemies are.
Levin's precisely right in describing our piss-poor government's handling of this:
"It's a new world out there, it's pretty ugly, and already this administration is demonstrating it's not up to the task. It's so busy redistributing wealth, it's so busy destroying the private sector, it's war with the cops, it's undermining national security. It simply doesn't have time to do what a real administration would be doing. ... Our government is incredibly incompetent. It gets bigger and bigger, and worse and worse. The law abiding citizen who tries to comply with all the rules and regulations, even though it's impossible because we don't even know what all of them are, we're the target. Not lawbreakers, not terrorists, not enemies, no, We The People, as the iron fist tightens and tightens and tightens around our liberty."
Ted Cruz was on with Cavuto yesterday to discuss a multitude of topics, including gracefully addressing the jabs against him by Rick Perry, his disagreements with Rand Paul over the USA Freedom Act, and much more...
All I can say is I can't wait until the debates!
Here's some more Cruz badassery on how he would like to deal with ISIS...
Exactly what we need in a president!
#CRUZ2016!
ADDENDUM: On Monday, Ted Cruz released this campaign video that explains what has happened over this singular past weekend: The Grassroots Wave Has Begun!
And Obama's beyond naive to think the Islamo-Nazis want peace with Israel!
Always with the insults towards allies and the anti-Semitism (prodding of the media doesn't help)...
TRS: Obama gave an interview to an Israeli reporter the other night and as you might expect, he criticized Netanyahu and insisted his deal with Iran is the best thing since sliced bread...
[Obama's] assessment of Netanyahu, who he said was predisposed to think peace is naïve, suggested that Netanyahu’s stipulations for peace are just unworkable or something.
This S.O.B. has NEVER admired Israel from afar. And leave it up to the controversial white/Israeli reporter, Ilana Dayan, to invite him to throw down the race (black) /religion (Muslim) card at his convenience. Surprised Obama didn't mention gender...although he did say something about him and Bibi coming from 'different orientations'. Hmmm...
Even on this past Holocaust Memorial Day, an outspoken European atheist can attest to the special kind of hate of what he calls Europe's "multicultural rainbow coalition of suicidal stupidity and moral cowardice."
So, Hillary's latest distraction away from the ongoing Clinton donor scandal is to promote the idea of unconstitutionally nationalizing 20 days of early voting in elections that would overwhelmingly amount to more FRAUD!
"...the states determine the voting processes in the states, and this was a vital issue during the ratification debates. The states did not want the central government mucking around in that process. So what Hillary Clinton is saying in essence is - one more centralized decision by the federal government imposed on the states. 20 days of early voting nationwide. Now how would she do that? Is she going to amend the Constitution? NO! She'll get it into the courts, claim it's a civil right, which is what we always do with the left wing agenda - the left wing agenda is always about 'civil rights'; has nothing to do with civil rights, but that's what they say - and so she seeks to impose this on all the states. The iron-fisted Hillary Clinton would follow the iron-fisted Barack Obama. I don't think this country could survive this, not as America, not as a republic."
Well, here's Levin's straight-forward, common sense explanation of EXACTLY what Republicans should do to deal with her race-baiting tactics against Voter ID laws...
"Whoever's nominated in the Republican Party, in their debates with Hillary Clinton, she will bring this up, voting, that Republicans are trying to stop people from voting in the states. And depending on who's nominated in the Republican Party, if it's a male they should pull out their wallet, if it's a female pull out their purse, and then pull out their driver's license, hold it up and show it to the American people..."
It needs to be made explicitly clear that Hillary Clinton is doing all of this because, like everything else on the Democratic plantation, she seeks to make a racial issue out of something that doesn't even exist...and like a good little Alinskyite, for the sake of divisiveness in aid of party power and individual gain over the unity of the country.
So now a House Democrat, backed by insurance companies, no less, is pushing for mandatory gun insurance. Bought-and-paid-for MUCH?! This is obviously the Left's next stratagem aimed at attacking the Second Amendment. And wait until you hear her rationale for unyieldingly stripping the citizenry of yet another liberty...you might even get a kick out of the blatant racialization she's promoting as well.
FrontPageMag: If insurance is so great at stopping bad things from happening, can we get politician insurance?
For a mere $5.95 a month, you too can be insured against the risk of electing morons whose only two functions in life are stealing money and trying to run your life.
So now the anti-2nd amendment trolls have a great new idea. Stop shootings with gun insurance. It’s a plan so stupid it can only come from a career Democrat.
So Maloney’s theory is that the gang members, who are responsible for most of the shootings, will have to buy gun insurance before they shoot someone?
Of course their guns are usually illegal anyway because they’re operating in blue states and/or blue cities. So this plan makes about as much sense as complaining that rioters burning down businesses need jobs.
Instead this is yet another bout of trolling and petty harassment aimed at gun owners by a frustrated left irritated because it hasn’t been able to get its own way in its long battle with the Bill of Rights.
Obama didn't inherit a bad economy, as Levin straightened out for Hillary Clinton on Monday evening, "Let me tell you something, lady, what Obama inherited: the Greatest Country on the face of the earth!"
"Let me tell you something else, lady, what Obama inherited: the American People, who work hard, who can overcome almost every obstacle, except YOU, and your ideology, and your party, and centralized government."
“The status quo ante--the circumstances of our government and the way it treats us, the way it treats liberty, the way it treats states, the way it treats the economy, the way it treats businesses--particularly small businesses--the way it treats citizenry. The status quo in this respect is them.
What’s happening in immigration isn’t what we want, it’s what they want. What’s happening with the debt isn’t what we want, it’s what they’ve done. And I can go right down the list. What’s happening to our foreign policy is them, not us.
Conservatives and conservatism hasn’t been tried since Ronald Reagan. They’re the status quo--Hillary, Obama, the Democrat Party, the Republican RINOs. They’re the status quo, and they act like they’re rebelling, they act like they’re revolutionaries.
'You know, look what we inherited. Look what we inherited and, you know, if I had been elected, I would have inherited the same thing: this deep hole.'"
They're not rebels, they're not revolutionaries...they're tyrants bringing about tyranny. And they're out-of-the-closet promoting it, politically, judicially, culturally, tearing down our civil society bit by bit...
It's high time to heed the warnings throughout the wisdom of history...
"By this unprincipled facility of changing the state as often, and as much, and in as many ways, as there are floating fancies or fashions, the whole chain and continuity of the commonwealth would be broken. No one generation could link with the other. Men would become little better than the flies of a summer." ~ Edmund Burke, Reflections on the French Revolution, 1790
“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.” ~ Frederic Bastiat, The Law, 1850
“The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.” ~ Frederic Bastiat
“If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?” ~ Frederic Bastiat, The Law, 1850
"I saw that the New Deal was only superficially a reform movement. I had to acknowledge the truth of what it’s more forthright protagonists, sometimes unwarily, sometimes defiantly, averred: the New Deal was a genuine revolution, whose deepest purpose was not simply reform from within existing traditions, but a basic change in the social, and above all, the power relationships within the nation. It was not a revolution by violence. It was a revolution by bookkeeping and lawmaking. In so far as it was successful, the power of politics had replaced the power of business. This is the basic power shift of all the revolutions of our time. This shift was the revolution. It was only of incidental interest that the revolution was not complete, that it was made not by tanks and machine guns, but by acts of Congress and decisions of the Supreme Court, or that many of the revolutionists did not know what they were or denied it. But revolution is always an affair of force, whatever forms the force disguises itself in. Whether the revolutionists prefer to call themselves Fabians, who seek power by the inevitability of gradualism, or Bolsheviks, who seek power by the dictatorship of the proletariat, the struggle is for power." ~ Whittaker Chambers, Witness, 1952
This is what has happened, and is happening, to this Greatest Country on the face of the earth, as Levin affirms. Centralized government has become all powerful. The federal Leviathan is smothering the civil society. Ameritopia is here.
"They have rejected all of them [Chambers, Bastiat, Burke, Locke, Montesquieu, the Enlightenment, the Framers] for what? For the tyranny of power, centralized power...social engineering, social experimentation, bullying, coercing, subsidizing, threatening. Is that not what our government has become? Is that not the tactics our government uses? Is this not now the true manifesto of the Democrat Party? Is it not the true manifesto of the Democrat Party to eliminate all remaining vestiges of the United States? ... This isn't even an attack on the country, this is an attack on YOU.
It's an amazing spectacle how you and I, we the American citizen are to be managed, are to be engineered, are to be parts of these grand social experiments by a handful of masterminds in both parties using an army of bureaucrats to impose their will on us. It's an amazing spectacle that we need to be transformed. But anybody who crawls across the border, who overstays a visa, or is given birth in this country who's not a citizen, well that's held up as virtue when it's not.
People are stunned today. They're saying look what's happened to the country. The majority of people support socialism. Well, when you keep importing people into a country that do not understand the nation's history, do not respect the nation's history, and they listen to a media and academia and politicians who do not respect America's history, they are not Americanized, they are not assimilated into a culture, in fact, the culture's under attack, what do you expect?!
The nation's changing, the libs are applauding! Look at the grand experiment that they're involved in. The destruction of the United States! The destruction of our Constitution and our governing system! The destruction of American culture and society! And they're to be celebrated! And I have to watch knuckleheads on tv, and listen to some on radio, applauding our progress, telling us we have to pander to this and reach out to this!
Who is going to stand up for this country? I didn't say the government! Who is going to stand up for this country? Who's going to stand up for the American people? Who's going to stand up for the American culture, the American society? Apparently nobody in power today, or very few."
These have been genuine concerns of mine over the past several months, particular the number of Republican candidates as we see more and more pile on...
HANNITY: What does that Republican candidate need to win in Mark Levin's view?
LEVIN: Well, the guy who ran the table was the most conservative Republican nominated for President in modern American history, maybe in history period. That's what we need to do.
I'm not happy with all these candidates. There's just too damn many of them. But that said, I can't control that, and neither can anybody else. But I do think we conservatives are going to have to rally behind one or two or three relatively quickly, or the RINOs are going to pick us off, as they did with McCain and Romney and hope to do with Jeb Bush, among others.
Now on the Democrat side, this is an amazing thing to me. I don't know how Hillary Clinton hasn't at least served some time in prison, given her background and what she's done. Now they've set up this front group to launder money through so the sources of the money wouldn't be known that Bill Clinton receives. There's so much graft and corruption and sleaze in this family and what they do. And yet, apparently, that's the definition of the Democrat party. She is, right now, unless you take the goofball from Vermont, she's right now the only so-called serious candidate the Democrats have.
HANNITY: Last question. If you were running against Hillary, they've gotten away with so much in the past. Do you focus on the scandals? Or do you focus on how to get 93 million Americans back in the labor force, 50 million Americans off food stamps and out of poverty? Do you focus on the debt and deficit? Do you focus on securing the borders? Do you focus on energy? You've got to have a positive agenda. You've got to tell people how you're going to get them back to work. You've got to tell them how you're going to stop robbing their kids, right?
LEVIN: I agree with you. Well, you need to do both. I don't think the candidate, him or herself, should get into e-mails and what an email said on May 12th, 2014. You can leave that to surrogates and others.
I think the key here is to have a principle conservative message to connect with the blue collar and other collar democrats, to keep the base, to connect with the American people, and to have a positive, strong, conservative, principled message, because now is the time to promote our position and to contrast it with the left. The Obama economy, let alone the foreign policy, they've been a complete and utter disaster. And the Democrats want to do more of the same: tax, debt, illegal immigration, kill the currency, leave our allies on their own, stand back and watch genocide. I mean, this is a record.
If we can't win this time around, I don't think we're ever going to win.
Personally, I think one of two would suffice...and the first two major candidates to throw their hats in the ring should give readers an indication of my favored. All the rest need to recede.
Americans are searching for something more principled than the Left or the Establishment...of course, the lib media is doing all they can to NOT assist the People in such a quest, which is why conservative stalwarts, like Levin, are so vital.
News came last night for the return of some of our liberties while I also happened to be enthralled in a most excellent episode of Game of Thrones...
AmericanSpectator: I would have written this last night except that I was engrossed in a horde of ice zombies attacking a bunch of escaping villagers (until I realized I had switched over from CSPAN and was actually watching Game of Thrones and not the Establishment GOP and the Obama Administration wailing and gnashing their teeth over the temporarily lost power to infringe on the rights of American citizens in the name of national security).
The Senate gave up on being able to reach a deal on the PATRIOT Act extension covering Section 215, and at midnight last night, the bill's authority expired. The National Security Agency has shut down most of their metadata collection programs (they began quietly shutting it down around 8pm last night) and the largest and most controversial of their metadata collection programs, the one that collects and keeps Americans' phone records for at least five years, has been halted, though pending investigations will continue for some time. For the time being, law enforcement will be required to get warrants for individual devices, if they want to continue to wiretap suspects across all forms of digital and analog media, and they will now have to have probable cause to investigate so-called "lone wolf" terror suspects, who do not have any demonstrated connection to a larger terrorist organization but have drawn the ire of authorities anyway. Meanwhile, discussion and debate on the PATRIOT Act provisions will continue. And while the Senate has passed the USA Freedom Act, which reforms the NSA data collection process, that may still take a few days to pass through the President's hands.
Rand's contention is, of course, that even the USA Freedom Act doesn't go far enough to address all of the overreach in the PATRIOT Act, a bill that was hastily passed in the wake of a terrorist attack and, while useful in some measures, contains many programs that have, in practice, been used more often in the War on Drugs than in the War on Terror — including many programs law enforcement had been asking for but which were denied by Congress as being too intrusive prior to 9/11. While much of the PATRIOT Act has done well to keep us safe, a full assessment of the need and impact is warranted, especially when it comes to the programs that have been infringing on Constitutional rights without proper consideration by other branches of government, including, but not limited to, the judicial branch. Remember, you can't sue for a violation of your rights unless you know you're a target. And the way the NSA's programs are structured, it's quite difficult to ascertain any targets at all, correct or incorrect.
The Senate will attempt to rectify the delays this week, but there may have been one ray of sunshine in Mitch McConnell's decision to let the PATRIOT Act hinge on a late vote, thus paving the way for Rand Paul's floor show: the PATRIOT Act was delayed so that the Senate could debate the Trans Pacific Partnership, a trade deal that publicly divided Democrats. So while the Republicans are falling on two separate sides of an issue today, they can rest easy in knowing that they both put Democrats on the defensive on privacy — a topic Barack Obama campaigned on and most Democrats openly accused the Bush Administration of running roughshod over (Obama has, reportedly, increased the NSA's authority by more than 60% over spying at the height of the Bush Administration) — and they allowed people like Elizabeth Warren to openly challenge the President on progressive issues. The White House can't be happy with that.
It's amazing how many Conservatives have bought into the idea of endless data collection and surveillance "just in case." Rand Paul is being attacked for standing up and raising questions about our federal government just like how Ted Cruz was attacked in 2013 for standing up against Obamacare. NSA surveillance won't save anyone while our borders remain open and we don't deport anyone. ... Our immigration system is not broken; it's not being enforced while people are violating it every day.
Folks, the NSA remains intact, just like every other executive branch department. They can continue to secure the nation without the loss of citizens' liberties just through adequate ENFORCEMENT (if this administration, both sides of the aisle, believed in an adherence to the Rule of Law) instead of playing politics and growing the federal Leviathan.
