The Urban Grind

Via Clashdaily.com

The State is my shepherd,
I shall not want.
It makes me lie down in federally owned pastures.
It leads me beside quiet waters in banned fishing areas.
It restores my soul through its control.
It guides me in the path of dependency for its namesake.
Even though our nation plunges into the valley of the shadow of debt,
I will fear no evil,
For Barack will be with me.
The Affordable Care Act and food stamps,
They comfort me.
You prepare a table of Michelle Obama approved foods before me in the presence of my Conservative and Libertarian enemies.
You anoint my head with hemp oil;
My government regulated 16-ounce cup overflows.
Surely mediocrity and an entitlement mentality will follow me
All the days of my life,
And I will dwell in a low-rent HUD home forever and ever.
Amen.

Hat tip: The Minority Report

Right after Newtown, some people have written on forums about how they believed the whole thing to be a conspiracy to disarm Americans. While I don’t believe Sandy Hook was a set up, I am certain now that the left is using it to chip away at, and ultimately destroy our 2nd amendment.

First we have Iowa liberal calling for the death of gun owners and for Mitch McConnell and John Boehner to be dragged behind a Chevy truck.

…That’s obscene. Here, then, is my “madder-than-hell-and-I’m-not-going-to-take-it-anymore” program for ending gun violence in America:

• Repeal the Second Amendment, the part about guns anyway. It’s badly written, confusing and more trouble than it’s worth. It offers an absolute right to gun ownership, but it puts it in the context of the need for a “well-regulated militia.” We don’t make our militia bring their own guns to battles. And surely the Founders couldn’t have envisioned weapons like those used in the Newtown shooting when they guaranteed gun rights. Owning a gun should be a privilege, not a right.

• Declare the NRA a terrorist organization and make membership illegal. Hey! We did it to the Communist Party, and the NRA has led to the deaths of more of us than American Commies ever did. (I would also raze the organization’s headquarters, clear the rubble and salt the earth, but that’s optional.) Make ownership of unlicensed assault rifles a felony. If some people refused to give up their guns, that “prying the guns from their cold, dead hands” thing works for me.

• Then I would tie Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, our esteemed Republican leaders, to the back of a Chevy pickup truck and drag them around a parking lot until they saw the light on gun control.

And if that didn’t work, I’d adopt radical measures. None of that is going to happen, of course. But I’ll bet gun sales will rise.

We also have one Louis Michael Seidman a so-called Professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University writing an op-ed in favor of abandoning the constitution.

Vanity Fair Magazine has also gotten in the action. But they’re even more blunt about. The title of the piece is Let’s Repeal The Second Amendment.

According to Todd Hartley, the bigger the gun, the shorter the tool.

So, since I’m not particularly concerned about the National Rifle Association ruining my political career, I’ll be the one to say it: If you own multiple guns or feel the need to possess a military-style assault weapon, it’s because you have a small penis.

Let me clarify that statement a little, if I may. Owning a handgun to protect your home and your family is fine. Owning a rifle or shotgun for hunting or target shooting is also fine. But owning lots of guns or pseudo-machine guns means you have a tiny wiener and you’re incredibly self-conscious about it. That’s the plain and simple truth, even if it’s not true. Oh really? Has our intrepid columnist taken out a ruler and measured all these big bad gun owners?

Now, I know a lot of you are probably saying to yourselves, “But Todd, plenty of women also own guns. What about them? Do they have small penises, too?”

My answer to that question would be: yes. Yes they do. Women who own assault weapons have tiny penises, just like their male counterparts. That would explain why they’re angry enough to buy a weapon whose sole purpose is to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible. OK, how about this one? I think white male liberals are dickless excuses of men.”

{snip}

And to those of you out there who own assault weapons or numerous pistols, I encourage you to seek less violent ways to make up for your shortcomings. There are thousands of “natural male enhancement” products out there, and if Austin Powers is to be believed, Swedish-made penis-enlargement pumps might actually work. Give those a try. Surely there’s some product out there that can make up for your puny wiener more effectively than arming yourself to the teeth.

Hat tip: Ron L Via Facebook

After the Sandy Hook shootings, most people will be quick to hop on the gun control bandwagon. But it’s not that simple. As it is now, Connecticut’s gun laws are some of the strictest in the country. Obviously, that didn’t stop Adam Lanza.

Thanks to the deinstitutionalization laws put into effect in the 1960′s, schizophrenics and other mentally ill individuals were moved out of state mental hospitals.

In the 1960s, the United States embarked on an innovative approach to caring for its mentally ill: deinstitutionalization. The intentions were quite humane: move patients from long-term commitment in state mental hospitals into community-based mental health treatment. Contrary to popular perception, California Governor Ronald Reagan’s signing of the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act of 196712 was only one small part of a broad-based movement, starting in the late 1950s.13 The Kennedy Administration optimistically described how the days of long-term treatment were now past; newly-developed drugs such as chlorpromazine meant that two-thirds of the mentally ill “could be treated and released within 6 months.”14

At about the same time, two different ideas came to the forefront of American progressive thinking: that there was a right to mental health treatment, and a right to a more substantive form of due process for those who were to be committed to a mental hospital. If there was a right to mental health treatment, then judges could use the threat of releasing patients as a way to force reluctant legislatures to increase funding for treatment.15

The notion of due process for the mentally ill was not radical. American courts have been wrestling with this question from the 1840s onward.16 While perhaps not up to the exacting standards of the American Civil Liberties Union, by the end of the nineteenth century, there was something recognizably like due process before the mentally ill were committed.17 What changed in the 1960s was the result of ACLU attorneys such as Bruce J. Ennis, who claimed that less than 5 percent of mental hospital patients “are dangerous to themselves or to others” and that the rest were improperly locked up “because they are useless, unproductive, ‘odd,’ or ‘different.’”18

Until the 1960s, courts used a medical model when considering commitment: the government’s actions were part of “the historic parens patriae power, including the duty to protect ‘persons under legal disabilities to act for themselves.’ . . . The classic example of this role is when a State undertakes to act as ‘the general guardian of all infants, idiots, and lunatics.’”19 Instead, public safety alone became the legitimate basis for commitment, and with it, a more exacting standard, a bit less than is required for convicting criminal defendants.20

Neither a right to treatment nor a more demanding application of due process alone was particularly destructive, but in combination they made hundreds of thousands of seriously mentally ill people homeless,21 where many died of exposure22 and violence.23 They fell through the cracks, living shorter, more miserable lives, and often greatly degrading the quality of urban life for everyone else.24 A fraction became something quite a bit more unsettling than the mentally ill person begging on the street or disrupting the public library: they became the mad mass murderers of the modern age.

A Lousiana charter school has put this policy into effect, and of course the ACLU is threatening to sue them.

MONROE, La. – A Delhi Charter School policy that prevents pregnant female students from attending school and can force them to take a pregnancy test to continue attending school if administrators “suspect” pregnancy has drawn the attention of the American Civil Liberties Union.
The News-Star report the ACLU sent a letter Monday requesting the school revise its policy or the group will consider further legal action.
Delhi Charter School’s policy states the school seeks to maintain an environment where students will learn and exhibit acceptable character traits that govern language, gesture, physical actions and written words.

“The school reserves the right to require any female student to take a pregnancy test to confirm whether or not the suspect student is in fact pregnant,” the policy reads.
The policy also allows the school to refer the student to a physician of its choice. “If the test indicates that the student is pregnant, the student will not be permitted to attend classes on the campus of Delhi Charter School.”

Pregnant students wishing to continue attending Delhi Charter will be required to enroll in a home study course while pregnant.

“They’re punishing girls for making the choice to have the child,” Marjorie Esman, executive director of the ACLU of Louisiana said Monday.
Students who refuse to take a pregnancy test are “treated as a pregnant student and will be offered home study opportunities.”

The letter from the ACLU contends that the policy violates Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 because it excludes students from educational programs and activities based on sex and the equal protection clause because it treats female students differently than male students and relies on impermissible sexual stereotypes.
Esman said the policy is a pretext for sexual discrimination.

Shirley said that all public schools, including charter schools, must abide by federal law.

At the very least, children in public schools need a record of immunizations, among other things, to ensure they have no contagious diseases. And that you get by having a physical. And nowadays with the number of out of wedlock teen pregnancies, it seems only logical to include pregnancy along with immunizations. For example, let’s say some kids get into a shoving match, and a girl ends up miscarrying, I would think the school could get sued.

But the main issue for me is setting a standard of acceptable behavior. Class trouble makers have been expelled or suspended for (obviously) being trouble makers, and for encouraging copycat behavior among their classmates. Getting knocked up out of wedlock as a teen certainly qualifies in my view as bad behavior. A while back, I wrote about one group of girls and their guidance counselors who pushed for their public school to give them four weeks of maternity leave.

So I say, go ahead and ban their skanky asses!

A group of seven Canadian protesters are suing the Toronto police department. They’re claiming they were profiled, arrested and unfairly detained due to their hairy legs.

A group of seven protesters from Hamilton, Ont. are suing Toronto police for $1.4 million, claiming they were unfairly profiled, arrested and mistreated during the G20 summit.
Lawyer Davin Charney served the Toronto Police Service with a 44-page statement of claim on Wednesday, outlining a litany of allegations against the police force.

The lawsuit claims his clients were arrested without reason, held for more than 24 hours in a detention centre and, in some cases, sexually assaulted, before they were released without charges.
Charney said Toronto police unfairly profiled his clients, and arrested them because they appeared to be protesters based on their clothing and physical features, which included women with hairy legs.

“They followed a profile that was created by senior Toronto Police Service officers in targeting these seven individuals,” Charney told reporters outside Toronto police headquarters Wednesday.

“That profile included markers such as people who have backpacks, lawyers’ numbers on their arms, people with Quebec licence plates, people speaking French, people wearing black clothing.

“My clients fit into that profile, to some extent. And that is why they were arrested, and that is why many people were arrested during the G20.”

The group of seven claims they were wrongfully arrested on June 27, 2010, one day after protesters rampaged in downtown Toronto as world leaders gathered for a summit.

Hey, if the Birkenstock fits…

But seriously, from what I understand, these G20 and G3 conferences attract a violent bunch of protesters. So I just don’t understand what these women were thinking when they decided to protest alongside a bunch of violent hoodlums. Were the police supposed to ignore all the violent protesters and focus instead on some clean shaved businessman carrying a briefcase?

As for the hairy legs, conservative women (and even average moderate leaning women) generally don’t let themselves go. I think that young women who insist on having legs (and other body parts) do it to make a rebellious statement. It’s like they’re saying “Screw the norms of society, and screw the patriarchy.” No wonder they decided to protest alongside anarchists.

This exhibit, or whatever you want to call it, is being held at the Allegra LaViola Gallery on Manhattan’s Lower East Side. The brains behind this is one Laura Ginn. It’s called “Tomorrow We Will Feast Again On What We Catch.”

For the privilege of eating rat meat, guests can pay $100, and sign a liability waiver in case they get sick. The menu is not exactly road kill stew either.

The first course consisted of a goat cheese crostini overlain with a small piece of rat meat and a shot glass of (rat-free) gazpacho. Diners at our end of the table noted that the goat cheese mostly overwhelmed the rat, but we found the flavor and texture reminiscent of lamb.

Next came two circles of rat and pork terrine over a deconstructed salad containing cherries, greens, pickled carrots and Mexican sour gherkins (also known as mouse melons—clever menu planning). Though oily (hardly a criticism, it’s a terrine for god’s sake), it was salty and delicious.

“Rat Two Ways” was the main course. Reminiscent of rabbit, a pile of braised rat was so tender it fell apart as soon as our fork touched it. A roasted half rat—glazed meat stretched over its tiny rib cage—was placed over a sweet corn salad. Throughout the evening, Ms. Ginn continually paced around the table, making conversation generously filling wine glasses, but for this course she hunkered down and performatively sucked the meat off the bones.

After a palate cleanser (much needed for a few reluctant friends of the artist, who came along more for moral support than dinner) of lemon sorbet dressed with an edible flower, we were served a dessert of French toast with the closest thing to bacon the chef and artist could summon from a rodent: a sliver of crispy rat jerky. As the most dramatic plating of the evening, an entire crispy rat head sat on each plate, mouth open and teeth jutting forward, and a back leg sat atop the French toast, toes and claws clearly visible.

The meal was touted as a “post-apocalyptic hunter-gatherer feast.” The gallery’s site notes that “allowance to current social memes” would be made, and in this way, despite the American taboo of the main ingredient which is widely eaten in other parts of the world, it was a completely authentic contemporary New York dining experience—on offer were upscale versions of a “low class” food, spirited with an imagined nostalgia and a hobbyist approach to survival skills. It occurred to us that cooking with rat is a slightly less socially acceptable version of taking up pickling as a hobby, drinking small-batch moonshine and paying $15 for grits at Sunday brunch.

Nowadays, it seems like anything can pass for art, as long as you charge (gullible) people enough money, and host it an art gallery.

Via Debbie Schlussel

First off, Ron Paul has accepted a $500 donation from the head of a neo Nazi American website Stormfront, and refused to return the money. He has also been photographed with the head of that site, Don Black and his son.

Now if anyone is going to dismiss that, remember that white supremacist support for Paul did not stop at one $500 donation. Ron Paul’s top internet organizer in Tennessee was the notorious “White Will.”

You should also know that Ron Paul endorsed the notorious America hating, virtually communist pro-Muslim terrorist Jew hater Cynthia McKinney in 2008.

Also according to Redstate, the other candidate of interest Paul endorsed was the Arab anti-capitalist Ralph Nader.

Furthermore Ron Paul spoke at the Arab American Institute Leadership Conference. Click on the link above where Debbie has the video of his speech addressing these terror supporters. I don’t think I can stomach posting it here.

Anyway, here’s what former Ron Paul aide Eric Dondero wrote to Debbie Schlussel about his former boss:

He is . . . most certainly Anti-Israel, and Anti-Israeli in general. He wishes the Israeli state did not exist at all. He expressed this to me numerous times in our private conversations. His view is that Israel is more trouble than it is worth, specifically to the America taxpayer. He sides with the Palestinians, and supports their calls for the abolishment of the Jewish state, and the return of Israel, all of it, to the Arabs. . . .

On the incident that’s being talked about in some blog media about the campaign manager directing me to a press conference of our opponent Lefty Morris in Victoria to push back on Anti-Jewish charges from the Morris campaign, yes, that did happen. The Victoria Advocate described the press conference very accurately. Yes, I was asked (not forced), to attend the conference dressed in a Jewish yarlmuke, and other Jewish adornments. [DS: Eric Dondero's mother is Jewish, and, therefore, he is Jewish according to Jewish law, but does not identify as such, only as "half-Jewish."]

There was another incident when Ron finally agreed to a meeting with Houston Jewish Young Republicans at the Freeport office. He berated them, and even shouted at one point, over their un-flinching support for Israel. So, much so, that the 6 of them walked out of the office. I was left chasing them down the hallway apologizing for my boss. . . .

Ron Paul is most assuredly an isolationist. He denies this charge vociferously. But I can tell you straight out, I had countless arguments/discussions with him over his personal views. For example, he strenuously does not believe the United States had any business getting involved in fighting Hitler in WWII. He expressed to me countless times, that “saving the Jews,” was absolutely none of our business. When pressed, he often times brings up conspiracy theories like FDR knew about the attacks of Pearl Harbor weeks before hand, or that WWII was just “blowback,” for Woodrow Wilson’s foreign policy errors, and such.

I would challenge him, like for example, what about the instances of German U-boats attacking U.S. ships, or even landing on the coast of North Carolina or Long Island, NY. He’d finally concede that that and only that was reason enough to counter-attack against the Nazis, not any humanitarian causes like preventing the Holocaust. . . .

There is much more information I could give you on the sheer lunacy of his foreign policy views. Let me just concentrate on one in specific. And I will state this with absolute certainty:

Ron Paul was opposed to the War in Afghanistan, and to any military reaction to the attacks of 9/11.

He did not want to vote for the resolution. He immediately stated to us staffers, me in particular, that Bush/Cheney were going to use the attacks as a precursor for “invading” Iraq. He engaged in conspiracy theories including perhaps the [9/11] attacks were coordinated with the CIA, and that the Bush administration might have known about the attacks ahead of time. He expressed no sympathies whatsoever for those who died on 9/11, and pretty much forbade us staffers from engaging in any sort of memorial expressions, or openly asserting pro-military statements in support of the Bush administration. . . .

Ron was “under the spell” of left-anarchist and Lew Rockwell associate Joe Becker at the time, who was our legislative director. [DS: Lew Rockwell is an anti-Israel, anti-Semitic, isolationist libertarian nut.] Norm Singleton, another Lew Rockwell fanatic agreed with Joe. All other staffers were against Ron, Joe and Norm on this, including Lizardo. At the very last minute Ron switched his stance and voted “Yay,” much to the great relief of Jackie and I. He never explained why, but I strongly suspected that he realized it would have been political suicide; that staunchly conservative Victoria would revolt, and the Republicans there would ensure that he would not receive the nomination for the seat in 2002. Also, as much as I like to think that it was my yelling and screaming at Ron, that I would publicly resign if he voted “No,” I suspect it had a lot more to do with Jackie’s threat, for she WAS Victoria. And if Jackie bolted, all of the Victoria conservatives would immediately turn on Ron, and it wouldn’t be pretty.

If you take anything from this lengthy statement, I would hope that it is this final story about the Afghanistan vote, that the liberal media chooses to completely ignore, because it doesn’t fit their template, is what you will report.

If Ron Paul should be slammed for anything, it’s not some silly remarks he’s made in the past in his Newsletters. It’s over his simply outrageously horrendous views on foreign policy, Israel, and national security for the United States. His near No vote on Afghanistan. That is the big scandal. And that is what should be given 100 times more attention from the liberal media, than this Newsletter deal.

If it’s a choice between Obama and Ron Paul, I’m staying home on Election Day.

The more I read about these Occupy groups and their supporters, (as well as attacking the police, public defecations, etc.) the more I’m convinced that they’re all scum. So of course this scum will attract supporters of fakestinian terror against Israel. A few days ago, I posted about the Islamic terror connection to the Occupy Wall Street protests. But now we see the connection is even deeper. Occupy Miami spokesman Muhammad Malik, formerly of the Council On American Islamic Relations, and the American Civil Liberties Union (birds of a feather totally flock together) has led protests where people have shouted for Jews to go back to the ovens.

The recent executive director of the controversial Council on American-Islamic Relations’ South Florida chapter is a founder and spokesman of Occupy Miami, WND has learned.

Mohammad Malik currently is as an activist with several other Islamic groups.

He has led hate-filled anti-Israel protests in which participants were filmed wearing Hamas paraphernalia while chanting “Nuke Israel” and “Go back to the oven” – a reference to Jews being killed in the Holocaust.

Malik has been widely quoted in the Florida news media in recent weeks speaking for Occupy Miami.

The Miami Herald identified Malik as one of the organizers of Occupy’s Miami’s downtown campsite headquarters.

{snip}

Malik has served as coordinator of several other Islamic groups, such as the South Florida Palestine Solidarity Network, through which he has organized hate-filled protests; the American Muslims for Emergency Relief; and Students for Justice in Palestine.

Malik himself was the principal organizer of numerous anti-Israel rallies.

A rally in March was titled “Miami’s Third Intifada Rally for Palestine.”

{snip)

Malik himself was quoted calling Israel’s actions ”collective punishment,” accusing the Jewish state of “fuel[ing] terrorism.”

No tents or church basements for these two wealthy occuturds. They decided to stay at Manhattan’s chi chi W hotel instead.

A key Occupy Wall Street leader and another protester who leads a double life as a businessman ditched fetid tents and church basements for rooms at a luxurious hotel that promises guests can “unleash [their] inner Gordon Gekko,” The Post has learned.

The $700-per-night W Hotel Downtown last week hosted both Peter Dutro, one of a select few OWS members on the powerful finance committee, and Brad Spitzer, a California-based analyst who not only secretly took part in protests during a week-long business trip but offered shelter to protesters in his swanky platinum-card room.

{snip}

Spitzer, 24, an associate at financial-services giant Deloitte, which netted $29 billion in revenue last year, admitted he joined the protest at Zuccotti Park several times.

“I’m staying here for work,” said Spitzer, dressed down in a company T-shirt and holding a backpack and his suitcase. “I do finance, but I support it still.”

During his stay, hotel sources said, he and other ragtag revolutionaries he brought into the hotel lived like 1 percenters. He would order up a roll-out bed to accommodate guests, they said.

“He’s here all the time,” a hotel source said. “We all see him at the protest.”

{snip}

Meanwhile, Dutro, 35, one of only a handful of OWS leaders in charge of the movement’s $500,000 in donations, checked in on Wednesday, the night after police emptied Zuccotti Park.

While hundreds of his rebel brethren scrambled to find shelter in church basements, Dutro chose the five-star, 58-story hotel, with its lush rooms and 350-count Egyptian cotton sheets. He lives only a short taxi ride away in Carroll Gardens, Brooklyn.

“I knew everything was going to be a clusterf–k in the morning,” he told The Post, alluding to Occupy’s own disruption plans. “How would I get over the bridge when they were shutting it down?”

{snip}

Occupiers told The Post that they witnessed other General Assembly and group leaders stay in both the W Downtown and the Marriott Hotel — and said that key players were not present when cops stormed Zuccotti.

Now I did a little research and found this video of Pete Dutro via Facebook, being interviewed by Bloomberg. Just as I expected, he is complaining about “inequality,” and how it takes a whole society to build wealth — typical leftist tripe.

Here’s is what appears to be Dutro’s profile on LinkedIn.com.

Here is Brad Spitzer’s profile on LinkedIn.com. I wonder how his employers would feel about his siding with anti-caplitalists and anarchists? It looks like Spitzer is biting the hand that’s been feeding him.