Good evening comrades, today’s post will go over all the wonderful deeds and accomplishments that President Obama has achieved for the United Socialist States of America. Our current piece of pictorial propaganda comes from the fine folks at Occupy Communists Democrats:
“In 2013, there were 26.5 births for every 1,000 adolescent females ages 15-19, or 273,105 babies born to females in this age group. Nearly eighty-nine percent of these births occurred outside of marriage. The 2013 teen birth rate indicates a decline of ten percent from 2012 when the birth rate was 29.4 per 1,000.The teen birth rate has declined almost continuously over the past 20 years. In 1991, the U.S. teen birth rate was 61.8 births for every 1,000 adolescent females, compared with 26.5 births for every 1,000 adolescent females in 2013. Still, the U.S. teen birth rate is higher than that of many other developed countries, including Canada and the United Kingdom.” (emphasis added)
If you look down the article a little further you see that it’s Southern states that have the highest teen pregnancy rates. But before comrades use this as evidence that the dumb, gun and religion clinging, xenophobic, KKKonservatives and Rethuglicans are hypocrites let’s take a look at some state data. In this case, I’ll use Texas.
“We do not have any way to escape,” and “If we get any means of escaping, I will not stay for a second in the district. The government is failing in their governing, and it’s better to let the Taliban rule.”
I think that a good question to ask would be what is the purpose of U.S. military forces in Afghanistan? Are we there to break the will of the Taliban? Are we there just to help the Afghan government hobble along? Is victory the goal? Who are we even calling our enemies in Afghanistan?
One of the things that I must disagree with in the following video is the idea of a “War on Terror.” Terror is a tactic, a means to an end; not an entity to be fought, broken, or conquered. One could declare a war on a country, or the Taliban, or some actual group of people. But a war on the tactic of terror makes no sense and would be never-ending.
I’ve always found the idea behind “rules of war” as seen by many to be most curious. War by its very nature is not something that lends itself to nice rules. No matter what kind of Rules of Engagement you attempt to enact, innocent people will die. Quite horrible things often have to be done to break the enemies will to fight. A war effort should be a “Total War” effort to break the enemies will to fight, or simply not be fought at all.
I wonder if the President really thinks that he can control events in the Middle East with “red-lines”, drone attacks, and bombing campaigns, or if he’s simply doing what he must to show that he cares about what happens? If the threats in the Middle East are not going to be taken seriously, why waste the time, money, and lives on fighting a war where victory is never intended to be achieved? Perhaps the President will turn to the U.N. for help? Afghanistan seems to be falling back into the hands of the Taliban, and few really seem to care.
Bonus Round: Can you tell the difference between real news and satire?
I suppose that Hillary and the President won’t talk about the religious angle of the shooting. They’ll talk about “common sense” gun controls laws. But of course, Dear Leader hasn’t actually said during his speeches what such legislation would look like. He just complains that Congress isn’t doing what he wants it to and that the majority of citizens want “common sense” gun control laws.
Let’s hear Dear Leader Obama discuss his thoughts on the shooting:
Let’s break down some of what the President had to say about this matter:
“It’s not enough. It does not capture the heartache and grief and anger that we should feel. And it does nothing to prevent this carnage from being inflicted someplace else in America,”
“Somebody somewhere will comment and say, ‘Obama politicized this issue,'” and “This is something we should politicize. It is relevant to our common life together, to the body politic.”
At least this part of his speech is honest. Is the President going to politicize the gunman’s hate for Christians? Silly thought, only Muslims and persecuted LGBT party members receive such consideration from progressives.
“The notion that gun laws don’t work, or just will make it harder for law-abiding citizens, and criminals will still get their guns – it’s not borne out by the evidence,” and “We know that other countries in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings.”
Of course, Dear Leader doesn’t take the time to cite any evidence. I wonder how citizens of Chicago feel about this? In 1997 Australia enacted the National Firearms Agreement in response to the Port Aurthur massacre. There were actually “mass shootings” in Australia prior to In the years immediately following the extremely tight (though not complete ban) gun control laws, violent crime didn’t go down. Perhaps the reasons for crime are more complex than simply allowing citizens to carry guns?
Let’s take a look at some of what is written in this document:
“Because of the large proportion of violent crime that is unreported (that is, what criminologists call the “dark figure of crime”), the dramatic increases observed in violent crime as measured by the police may be directly related to improved effectiveness and efficiency with which the police record crime. In other words, the police may be recording more crimes of violence because they are recording crimes that in previous times would not have been recorded. Increases in police records of violent crime might reflect the shrinking of the dark figure of crime rather than an increase in underlying violence in the community.”
So with better technology and better enforcement crimes are simply being reported more often? Seems reasonable enough.
“Furthermore, the increase that did occur between the 1951-70 period and the 1971-88 period is most likely explained by the changing demography of the Australian population. The proportion of the population accounted for by young males was at an historically low ebb during the middle part of the century and the resurgence in the strength of this sector is the most conservative explanation for the observed change in the homicide rate.”
People commit crimes, not guns. People can commit crimes with blunt objects, knives, vehicles, or make bombs with common chemicals. Crime occurred before the advent of handguns, shotguns, and “assault rifles”. One needs to look at why people are committing crimes, not just say that they did so because they had guns.
“A number of criminologists have argued that it is police productivity and not real increases in violence that explain increases in police recorded violence. For example, and most recently, O’Brien (1996) examined the differences between police records and victimisation survey findings in the United States. As in Australia, it is only the police figures that are suggesting increasing levels of violence, both the homicide rate and victimisation survey findings suggest the level of violence has not changed over the last 20 years.“
As stated earlier in the publication, changes in data collection and police enforcement can also affect crime statistics.
“Compared with other similar western countries such as New Zealand and Canada, Australia’s homicide rate is moderate, suggesting the prominent role of socio-cultural factors rather than any particular or peculiar aspect of Australia’s policy, practice or population.“
Progressives would apparently disagree with this statement. According to them, we could stop murder if we could just pass some laws.
“Australia’s homicide rate increased by a third between the 1951-70 period and the 1971-88 period. Similarly, between 1955 and 1971 the proportion of Australia’s male population that was aged 18 to 24 increased by a third. It is interesting to note that throughout the 20th century the proportion of Australia’s population accounted for by this sector has been steady or falling slightly.”
I’m OK with blaming rises in crime on baby boomers.
“Gartner and Parker’s analysis is important in illustrating that violence is not the result of a single cause or even a single category of causes. Rather, the rate of violence, as reflected in the homicide rate, is an expression of multiple factors and complex interactions. The pressure to conceptualise violence as the result of simple or singular phenomena needs to be resisted. Some of the relevant factors may be changing in such a way as to reduce violence while others are pushing in the opposite direction.“
Someone needs to inform the President of this. I would think that a college educated man would’ve heard that “correlation doesn’t prove causation” at some point. That’s not important when you need to politicize something before you have any facts though.
“This brief consideration of trends in violent crime in Australia has emphasised the complexity of the task and the inadequacy of the data. The limitations discussed point to the need for cautiousness in interpreting the rates. Certainly, and most importantly, the popular understanding that violence in this country has increased dramatically and consistently in recent years is unfounded. “
Really, someone needs to inform Mothers Demand Action about this. I guess that reason and logic aren’t as important as emotion though.
Back to what the President has to say though.
“I would ask that news organizations put facts forward, have news organizations tally up the number of Americans who have been killed through terrorist attacks over the last decade and the number of Americans who have been killed by gun violence; and post those side by side on your news reports. This won’t be information coming from me it will be coming from you.”
Why would the President care to present his own data or evidence on this matter? He’ll get the media to do it for him. I’m sure that MSNBS will be more than happy to comply.
“If you think this is a problem, then you should expect your elected officials to reflect your views. And I would particularly ask America’s gun owners who are using those guns properly, safely, to hunt, for sport, for protecting their families, to think about whether your views are properly being represented by organizations that suggested speaking for you.”
Considering that the Democratic Party did horrible in the 2014 election, I think that it’s safe to say that the Republican gains in Congress were a refutation of the policies Obama has instituted and wants to enforce upon the American people. I’m still wondering what “modest” gun control would look like to the President?
Further down the line, the author claims: “While some of the wage gap can be explained by things such as work patterns, job tenure, race, and marital status, some of it just can’t be explained by different life choices or characteristics and instead is likely thanks to discrimination“. The citation for this little gem is a General Accounting Office (GAO) report concerning gender differences in pay. While the author of the ThinkProgress article may claim that discrimination may be the cause for differences in pay (and for once, his source actually controlled for more than one factor) she offers no proof to substantiate this claim. I guess I’m just supposed to take her word on this, because the GAO doesn’t offer proof that discrimination is the cause. On page six they write the following:
In other words, Ms. Covert is implying a conclusion that the data does not claim. The Factual Feminist (a.k.a Christina Hoff Sommers) wrote an interesting piece on the Huffington Post concerning the “gender wage gap” that progressives just can’t ever shut up about. This article uses data from the fine folks at the AAUW to disprove the claim that women make 77% of what men do for the same work. As it turns out, you really do have to control for relevant factors to fully understand what the data is telling you. A man who has to support a wife and several children might work a few extra hours, which would explain the extra money made by married men that ThinkProgress laments so much. Let’s hear some more fun facts about the gender pay gap from Dear Leader and Comrade Carney:
Let’s here some more thoughts on why the wage gap exists and how it’s not the way feminists portray it:
For all of the feminists who claim that life is easier just because you’re a man, have you ever tried to live as a man does? A lesbian woman who decided to become a man for over a year turned back into a woman. Feminists certainly aren’t interested in liberty, but do they even want equality or just special privileges? Do progressives actually care about the suffering of all people equally? Or is it just special interest groups, votes, and power that matter to socialists/feminists/progressives?
I recently happened to stumble upon a video depicting just how successful the Arab Spring that President Obama was a big proponent of, is going. The video depicts Salafis in Tunisia and what they believe in. Just watch how much they want to live in peace and stand in awe of how they want to be in a prosperous, free republic.
One of the videos I’ve watched about immigration recently was put together by progressives and decries those who support any enforcement of border control. You know that the guys at Brave New Films must be worth watching if they’ve succumbed to Koch Derangement Syndrome. Below is the video and my own critique of it for anyone who’s interested.
It’s funny how the video states that Russell Pearce Pearce has “obscure ties to Neo-Nazi” groups. What does that mean? What source are they citing? Robert Bryd was a U.S. Democratic Senator of West Virginia until 2010. He was among other things, the Senate Majority leader for a time. He was also a KKK member and actively recruited people to join up with him. So much for the Democratic Party and progressives defending minorities. http://dailycaller.com/2010/06/28/sen-robert-byrd-not-only-was-a-kkk-member-but-led-his-local-klan-chapter/ This video points towards how money has been spent on some conservative candidates, yet acts as if progressives have donated no money. Some simple research will show that leftists donate large amounts of money to their own causes. Plenty of rich liberals like George Soros and Tom Steyer donate money to their causes, ignoring this influence while decrying money spent by others is simply disingenuous. https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.phphttp://www.politico.com/…/blue-billionaires-on-top…