I suppose that when you view of complex issues comes from Harry Potter novels and allows for no granularity you just know that you’re right and everyone else is a Nazi:
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.[1] Nearly eighty-nine percent of these births occurred outside of marriage.[1] The 2013 teen birth rate indicates a decline of ten percent from 2012 when the birth rate was 29.4 per 1,000.[1]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.[2]” (emphasis added)
I guess that President Obama is responsible for a twenty year trend?!
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.
Let’s accuse the racist white folks of hypocrisy without looking at the data more closely…
“Because the Taliban are not able to muster groups of more than several dozen fighters, they have been unable to mount offensives on anything more than small checkpoints.
Afghan and coalition officials said security forces have been able to hold terrain despite the high casualty rate among soldiers and police.”
“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?
Today I just felt like discussing whether feminist ideals of using government power to force an equality of results really makes any sense. If it’s equality that feminists are interested in, why aren’t they calling for equal death? 92% of workplace deaths in the U.S. are men.
Some other specific claims that the authors makes are “A woman makes less than a man no matter much education she gets, what job she chooses, or where she lives“. Concerning the source cited for education, the document only looks at what educational attainment was achieved and no other factors were controlled for. The number of hours worked and experience were not accounted for, just gross averages comparing the wages of all men and women with the same education received (scroll down to page 11 of the document for the applicable portion). A Bureau of Labor Statistics infographic was cited for the “job she chooses” statement. Once again, this document only controlled for a single factor, in this case, the industry chosen. Education, experience, and the number of hours worked were not considerations, just the average of all men compared to women in a field. Concerning the “where she lives” statement, the same fallacy has once again been committed. The source is a Slate article that compares the earnings of women and men by state and controls for no other factors.
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?
Alright everybody, I’ll just be posting up a few pictures to share with all of your friends and family with. As is usual, your progressive friends will find them to be the most enjoyable. Have fun!
What’s a progressive to do when choosing between Bernie Sanders and BillaryShillary Hillary Clinton?
Look, it’s the size of the United Kingdom!Danger close? Nonsense…
I’ll end this post just full of wonderful news with a video of Dear Leader and some propaganda photos to share with all of your friends. Enjoy fellow dhimmis!
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.
By really any measure, Tunisia has had the least violent revolution and amount of bloodshed. The Tunisians live in a constitutional republic now. Compared to pretty much everyone around them, Tunisia is doing pretty well. If we turn our attention over to Libya the government that was formed after Gaddafi was removed from power no longer controls the two main cities of Benghazi and Tripoli. A civil war rages on and the body count continues to rise in Libya, probably safe to say that Libya is a failed state. But hey, the internationally recognized government is trying. One of the interesting things I should point out is that the Pentagon did more to try and stop the U.S. from entering the war in Libya than the State Department under Hillary Clinton did. The Washington Times piece on this aspect of the story is well worth your time. As we can all see, the 110 Tomahawks fired at Libya were for a good cause. I guess Hillary would respond to this criticism by saying something like “What difference does it make“.
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…
Okay, the NY Times might not be the best source for news, but you get my point. If you’re a leftist, you’ll make claims that you support affordable healthcare and that republicans are evil.
Just think of the Affordable Care Act as a five-year plan.
On Facebook pages such as Being Liberal you’ll see them post up pictures about how leftists are somehow responsible for the drop in the deficit (not debt) in the last few years even as they decried “Austerity“. Aside from the fact that in the last six years eight trillion has been added to the debt, just look at this CBO data that shows how the deficit is about to go back up. For those of you who still believe that leftists/Keynesians have anything to do with spending less, just look at the President’s most recent proposal to spend more money. If you’re a leftist you’ll post photos such as these without looking at the actual amount of cash the deficit is:
For those of you who don’t think that adding eight trillion to the debt or that having a deficit of only $506 billion is a great accomplishment, here’s some photos for you:
I’ve already posted this one, but here it is again for good measure. Those Keynesians really do have some funny economic ideas.
Conservativenuke's Weblog 
