Accused Gore Fan, James L. Lee, A Critic of Man, Babies, and Civilization

Last week a James L. Lee invaded Discovery Television Headquarters and opened fire killing a number of the employed.   He had a funny view or two.

The following is part of an opinion article from today’s Washington Times:

“Heavily influenced by Al Gore‘s apocalyptic film “An Inconvenient Truth,” Lee saw mankind itself as the biggest threat to planetary survival. Lee logically concluded that reducing the number of human beings represented the only certain means of ending that threat. He took his anger out on the television network best known for its nature programming because it too often had shows that also glorified man’s achievement. “All programs on Discovery Health-TLC must stop encouraging the birth of any more parasitic human infants and the false heroics behind those actions,” Lee explained in the manifesto posted on his website, savetheplanetprotest.com.

Despite the network’s extensive “green” programming, Lee could not forgive Discovery for shows like “Extreme Machines” and “Future Weapons” that he described as “glorifying of civilization and its machinery.” Self-styled environmentalists frequently call for a return to nature and a rollback of society, placing the needs of obscure animal species above those of man. California homeowners, for example, can be prohibited from using firebreaks to protect their residences from wildfire because doing so allegedly would disturb the habitat of the Stephen’s kangaroo rat, in violation of the federal Endangered Species Act.

The left’s promotion of abortion likewise reflects the diminished value the movement places on human life. Not surprisingly, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger embraced the same overpopulation theories of 19th-century scaremonger Thomas Malthus that Lee cited as inspiration. Hollywood productions like “The Day After Tomorrow” brought these ideas to life on the silver screen, showing the destruction purportedly caused by mankind’s expansion over the planet.

Where Lee went wrong was in not following Mr. Gore‘s example. The Nobel laureate preaches the need for humanity to reduce its consumption, but he doesn’t actually reduce his own. To the contrary, Mr. Gore‘s 9,000 square-foot Tennessee mansion consumes 12 times the amount of energy an average family home might use. Mr. Gore has even added a 6,500 square-foot palace in Montecito, Calif., to his collection of luxury estates. Nor do any of Mr. Gore‘s Gulfstream-flying Hollywood companions follow their own pronouncements about the need to reduce carbon footprints. This healthy hypocrisy does wonders to dispel the risk of dangerous activism on behalf of Mother Earth.

Some in the media have been desperate to paint Tea Party activists as espousing violence, pointing to one individual holding a hateful sign to tar the entire movement. Tea Party principles are inherently peaceful, but this isn’t true of the environmental left. So long as this movement portrays mankind as a parasite and a danger, more Unabombers and Silver Spring gunmen will follow.”

The BBC Finally Confesses the Truth….It’s Been A Lefty Mouthpiece

John Hinderaker at Powerline caught this rare bit of frankness from a Newsdom.  No!  It’s not an an American realm, the one in London, the BBC…..one that has been a government owned “enterprise” for much of its life.  The title of his article is  “Confession is Good for the Soul”:

“The first of Alcoholics Anonymous’ famous twelve steps is to admit that you have a problem. The BBC did that today, acknowledging that it historically had a “massive bias to the left”:

The director general of the BBC admitted Thursday that his organisation had been guilty of a “massive bias to the left” but said “a completely different generation” of journalists now works at the broadcaster.

Mark Thompson told the right-of-centre Spectator magazine that there was an institutional bias when he joined the organisation, reinforcing the findings of a 2007 internal report which concluded that greater efforts were required to avoid liberal bias.

“In the BBC I joined 30 years ago, there was, in much of current affairs, in terms of people’s personal politics, which were quite vocal, a massive bias to the left,” Thompson said.

“The organisation did struggle then with impartiality. And journalistically, staff were quite mystified by the early years of Thatcher. “Now it is a completely different generation. There is much less overt tribalism among the young journalists who work for the BBC,” he added.

I like that phrase, “overt tribalism.” It’s a nice way to refer to the Journolist mentality. It leaves open, of course, the question whether left-wing bias at the BBC has been eradicated or has merely gone underground. In any event, the BBC’s confession can only be a good thing. It would be nice to see American news organizations follow suit. We can see it now: “My name is CBS, and I’m a liberal.”

Comment:  Some groups in our country are so brazen and proud of their leftwing pox, they’d shout out,  “I’m Public Television, and I’m Marxist”.

In London, despite the confession, nothing really has changed about the BBC coverage of American news.   These folks  polish up Obama’s Left  whenever they can.

---

Obama’s Eric Holder Declares War on Arizona’s Sheriff Joe Arpiao

America’s leading racists, Barack Obama and Eric Holder know their enemy when they see him.   Sheriff Arpiao has been upholding law in Arizona for many years.  The Sheriff has been charged with stonewalling a probe into allegations he is arresting an unusual number of brownish skinned people who speak only Mexican Spanish crossing into American territory surreptitously, many causing crime and displacement of American workers. 

Sheriff Arpiao, unlike Attorney General Eric Holder, is an elected official.  He has a widely held reputation of doing something about criminals and their crimes  when he discovers them.

According to a  today’s Wall Street Journal article, “Government Sues Arizona Sheriff”, by Evan Perez,   Arpiao ” has used his post to carry out operations aimed at detaining immigrants and turning them over to federal law enforcement for deportation. 

Civil-rights froups have long called Mr. Arpaio’s policies discriminatory.  Soon after Attorney General Eric Holder took office last year, the Justice Department said it was investigating those complaints and looking into possible violations of Hispanic’s civil rights.”

The Obama Justice Department suit ….  stated the “Sheriffs’s Office receives millions of dollars o federal funding and is required to cooperate with federal investigations as a condition of receiving that money.  The complaint cites a public statement by Mr. Arpaio in which he said he wouldn’t cooperate with the probe.”

Comment:  I have known about Joe Arpaio for several years.  From the limits of bits and pieces of information regarding how he enforces the law in Maricopa County,  I have been a quiet fan of his….enough so that I knew his reputation and what he looked like, I could recognize him in an instant when I saw him on Fox’s  O’Reilly screen.  I stopped everything to listen.

He was one cool fish and a man of few words and fewer smiles.  He’s about my age and he’s about my school of thinking. 

I could never come to be this strong, deliberate and devoted gutsy lawman.  I smile too much and sometime yack when I shouldn’t. 

Traditional America would advise it’s better for a law man to say very little.  It keeps everyone guessing.   I have never been a lawman.

By coincidence I received in this afternoon’s post, a mailing from this very Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

It read:  “Did you hear that the Mexican Drug Cartel has placed a $1,000,000 bounty on my head???” 

Sometimes respect is gained  via the enemies made.

“You have probably heard by now that a federal judge blocked key provisions of Arizona’s tough anti-illegal immingration bill.  This new law would have strengthened law enforcement’s ability to identify, arrest and detain those who are in this country illegally.

I supported and pushed for this new law 100%.  Even before this law was passed, I was the only law enforcement official in this state enforcing all the laws that our federal and state legislatures put in place to combat illegal immigration and human smuggling. 

Because I have taken the lead over the years by enforcing existing laws abainst illegal immigration, I have become the target of attack by radical, left-wing, open-borders extremists and the ultra-liberal   Obama administration.”

Mr. Arpaio knows his enemy well.

He continues:  “I’ve been sued, picketed, burned and beheaded in effigy, and even had the Reverend Al Sharpton come to Phoenix twice to lead protests against me.  Some of these radical opponents have even gone so far as to openly call for my assassination!

Joe says he won’t back down.  He asks for donations to help him in his efforts.  “President Barack Obama’s Justice Department then threatened to sue me if I didn’t back down and conform to their turn-a-blind-eye strategy when it comes to people entering our country illegally.” 

Joe Arpaio is running for re-election as Sheriff of Maricopa County……the county where Phoenix is.  He is asking for a contribution under $410 (the maximum) he mentions and that I should the send the contribution payable to “Re-elect Joe Arpaio 2012″.

I think that I shall do just that.  He may be a man of the past……but so am I.   How about you?  Do you still believe in Constitutional democracy?  I do. 

Should American borders become a free-for-all anarchic mob scenes  ruled by Marxists and criminals?   Or is there  something civilized still left in the bones of this once confident.  proud and law based democracy?

Maybe you can do something to help America remain INDEPENDENT too.

Obama Aiding and Abetting the Enemy with Afganistan Withdrawal Announcement

 Washington Post op-ed giant, Charles Krauthammer. is examining Mr. Obama’s decision to tell the world, including our mortal enemies, when he has decided to withdraw American troops from armed conflict in Afghanistan.    Woe be it to any person or group  dumb enough to ally themselves to America with this college graduate graduate student “in charge”.  Yet again, this Democrat president has has declared war on our American state of Arizona for attempting to enforce federal immigration law by passing a state law to accomplish what the federal has been legislated to accomplish but has decided not to enforce, …..control over its borders with a foreign nation.

Mr. Krauthammer writes:

“Many have charged that President Obama’s decision to begin withdrawing from Afghanistan 10 months from now is hampering our war effort. But now it’s official. In a stunning statement last week, Marine Corps Commandant James Conway admitted that the July 2011 date is “probably giving our enemy sustenance.”

A remarkably bold charge for an active military officer. It stops just short of suggesting aiding and abetting the enemy. Yet the observation is obvious: It is surely harder to prevail in a war that hinges on the allegiance of the locals when they hear the U.S. president talk of beginning a withdrawal that will ultimately leave them to the mercies of the Taliban.

How did Obama come to this decision? “Our Afghan policy was focused as much as anything on domestic politics,” an Obama adviser told the New York Times’ Peter Baker. “He would not risk losing the moderate to centrist Democrats in the middle of health insurance reform and he viewed that legislation as the make-or-break legislation for his administration.”

If this is true, then Obama’s military leadership can only be called scandalous. During the past week, 22 Americans were killed over a four-day period in Afghanistan. This is not a place about which decisions should be made in order to placate members of Congress, pass health care and thereby maintain a president’s political standing. This is a place about which a president should make decisions to best succeed in the military mission he himself has set out.

But Obama sees his wartime duties as a threat to his domestic agenda. These wars are a distraction, unwanted interference with his true vocation — transforming America.

Such an impression could only have been reinforced when, given the opportunity in his Oval Office address this week to dispel the widespread perception in Afghanistan that America is leaving, Obama doubled down on his ambivalence. After giving a nod to the pace of troop reductions being conditions-based, he declared with his characteristic “but make no mistake” that “this transition will begin — because open-ended war serves neither our interests nor the Afghan people’s.”

These are the words of a man who wants out. Most emphatically from Iraq, where Obama has long made clear that his objective is simply ending combat operations by an arbitrary deadline — despite the fact that a new government has not been formed and all our hard-won success hangs in the balance — in order to address the more paramount concern: keeping a campaign promise. Time to “turn the page” and turn America elsewhere.

At first you’d think that turning is to Afghanistan. But Obama added nothing to his previously stated Afghan policy while emphatically reiterating July 2011 as the beginning of the end, or more diplomatically, of the “transition.”

Well then, at least you’d expect some vision of his larger foreign policy. After all, this was his first Oval Office address on the subject. What is the meaning, if any, of the Iraq and Afghan wars? And what of the clouds that are forming beyond those theaters: the drone-war escalation in Pakistan, the rise of al-Qaeda in Yemen, the danger of Somalia falling to al-Shabab, and the threat of renewed civil war in Islamist Sudan as a referendum on independence for southern Christians and animists approaches?

This was the stage for Obama to explain what follows the now-abolished Global War on Terror. Where does America stand on the spreading threats to stability, decency and U.S. interests from the Horn of Africa to the Hindu Kush?

On this, not a word. Instead, Obama made a strange and clumsy segue into a pep talk on the economy. Rebuilding it, he declared, “must be our central mission as a people, and my central responsibility as president.” This in a speech ostensibly about the two wars he is directing. He could not have made more clear where his priorities lie, and how much he sees foreign policy — war policy — as subordinate to his domestic ambitions.

Unfortunately, what for Obama is a distraction is life or death for U.S. troops now on patrol in Kandahar province. Some presidents may not like being wartime leaders. But they don’t get to decide. History does. Obama needs to accept the role. It’s not just the U.S. military, as Baker reports, that is “worried he is not fully invested in the cause.” Our allies, too, are experiencing doubt. And our enemies are drawing sustenance.

Comment;  There have been an endless line of jokes about the stupidities, the absenses of mind, the flakes and weirdos which populate academia, especially in the Marxist era of  Women Studies, Black Studies, and Gay and Lesbian Studies Departments of America’s so-called institutions of “higher learning”. 

Mr. Obama has matriculated through “the finest”…..He learned his Christianity at Jeremiah Wright’s “Goddamn America”, his Democrat Party tenets from Saul Alinsky’s texts…Occidental, Princeton and Columbia, Chicago and now, the White House.

How and where  did  Mr. Obama  learn so much to develop so many skills  to aid and abet America’s enemies?