San Diego Mayor Bob Filner Sexual Harassment Details

While we do not condone putting people on trial in the media, the current accusations against Mayor Bob Filner (D) are worth hearing. San Diego's Mayor is being portrayed as a "dirty old man" who sexually assaults women. One comment attributed to Mayor Filner, from a woman who kicked him out of her office for sexual harassment, "I'm the mayor. You can't kick me out of any office." (20 min mark in video).

It is worth noting that these accusation come from his former Democrat supporters. Only paid union supporters showed up to oppose the accusations.

This video is 30 minutes long. I recommend you fast forward to the 16 minute mark.
San Diego, California News Station - KFMB Channel 8 - cbs8.com

Full Transcript

Video Of The Day: Elbert Guillory Switches to Republican

Elbert Guillory, a State Senator from Louisiana, has issued a video explanation on his switch to the Republican party. Elbert is a black Senator and faces tremendous criticism for switching from the Democrat party. It takes courage to stand up to these pressures and we salute him. Moreover, his explanation is moving and has gone viral. Well said sir.

Here is the link. The video is also an enclosure in www.theSLOBs.org Windows 8 or Android app.


Hat Tips to TheRightScoop and TheBlaze for promoting this video.

Democrats Ask Zero Questions on Benghazi Events In Hearing

During the Benghazi hearings on the Al Qaeda attack on an American consulate in Libya the Democrats have not asked a single question about the attack. Despite four dead American patriots, the Democratic Congressmen and women have failed to address the issue at all.

The leading Democratic Congressman in the hearing, Elijah Cummings of Maryland, began by stating his support for the whistle-blowers who testified. However, it appears that his statements were intended to be a veiled final effort to offer amnesty in exchange for silence.

"I WILL DO EVERYTHING IN MY POWER TO PROTECT YOU" (if you shut up.)

Other Democrats attempted to provide cover for Hillary Clinton, then Secretary of State. One towering man who testified as a "whistle-blower" is named Eric Nordstrom. Mr. Nordstrom was the Libyan Regional Security Officer for the State Department during the attack. The security officer battled tears as he countered Hillary Clinton's claim by stating "It Matters!"

Gregory Hicks, Foreign Service Officer & Former Deputy Chief of Mission in Libya:

"My Jaw Dropped" when Susan Rice went on TV saying there was a protest in Benghazi related to a video.

Mr. Hicks has been praised by President Obama shortly after the attacks in Benghazi. He informed the State Department and senior Libyan officials asking for assistance throughout the attacks on September 11th 2012. Rep. Elijah Cummings repeatedly attempted to push against Hicks by stating that the U.S. military air power could not have arrived over Libya during the attacks. This is in direct opposition to the fact that drones were flying over the attack for several hours. It is nonsensical when one considers that the revolution in Libya relied upon U.S. air power.

The people on the ground who make security decisions were not able to get the resources needed to defend themselves and Ambassador Stevens. President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton decreased resources and then denied requests to save Americans surrounded by terrorists on American soil. The administration then lied about the situation. After that, the administration obstructed the investigation of the events in Benghazi both materially and through political proxies.

Hillary Clinton's right hand Cheryl Mills was directly referenced as the point person in the cover-up and silencing of whistle-blowers.

Progressives: Paul Ryan is the Devil

Over at the the Huffington Post, George Lakoff's Romney, Ryan and The Devil's Budget has jumped the shark with a jet pack. Once again progressives sink to fear, misinformation and vilification. Here are a few excerpts: 

The government's job was to carry out that moral vision and to do so it created what we call The Public, the provision of basic protection and empowerment for all.

Where is that in the Constitution? Morality is the job of government.

The Government is not "The Public" the two entities are separate. We The People approved The Constitution and all laws must flow from that as it is the only law approved directly by the people in US history. It enumerates the powers of The Government and all other powers assumed by The Government are taken at the expense of the states and of the people (The New Deal, etc..). These added powers are not moral. These powers were given to the states and the people because central government is not capable of morality. It is not capable of fulfilling these duties.

Budgets are moral documents. National, state, and local budgets are commitments about where and how to carry out the work of America's soul, or to abandon it. A national budget that abandons the Public and the freedoms it gives us is selling America's very soul. Such a budget is the Devil's Budget. It uses numbers for an evil purpose: to rob us of our basic everyday freedom.

"Budgets are moral documents." So Democrats failure to pass a budget for several years indicates their lack of morals? Does that mean that Barack Obama's zero vote budgets indicate that his morals are completely out of step with the American people?

Second, who would propose a Devil's Budget? Paul Ryan. Who wants to put it in effect? Mitt Romney.

The Devil is seductive. He is handsome, strong, charming, sincere, engages you in gentlemanly and respectful debate. He says he is on your side, that you are in a crisis. He offers to solve your crisis and makes it sound good. 

Did George proof read this?

The money is there. America is richer than she has ever been.

Laughable.

Those who advocate for such a budget may not be individually evil. That is an independent issue. Demonizing others is its own kind of evil, and we do not apply the name to Romney, Ryan or others. Perhaps many who advocate a Devil's Budget know not what they do.

...

Let's take "a while" to be until 2050. Derek Thompson, in TheAtlantic.com on March 21, 2012, surveyed The Congressional Budget Office's projection of the Ryan budget estimates to 2050. Defense spending would be kept relatively constant, while what the government has left would be "0.75 percent of GDP - about 100 billion for everything besides defense that the government does." 

Government is a godless god and the worship of it leads to misery. The proof is in the deficits. No matter how you slice it, entitlement deficits create a situation where only interest on the debt can be paid and all other government services are eventually cut off.  Government growth leads to the destruction of the nation. It "collapses the system," as progressives know all to well.

This article points out that the Ryan budget saves the military, as it is one of the few constitutional duties of the federal government. It is a step in the right direction. However, the article fails to identify why this is the situation we face. 

Thank goodness grown-ups will be in charge again after November.  

But wait, it gets better... Lakoff then demonizes the majority of Americans and of course Paul Ryan is the Devil.

The biggest lie is that there is, or should be, no Public. The biggest lie is that Democracy is about personal freedom alone, about the "liberty" to seek your own interests with no responsibility for the interests or well-being of your fellow citizens. The biggest lie is a moral lie.

The idea of American Individualism is a moral lie. There can be no Individualism without The Public. Individualism can only begin where The Public leaves off. Individualism begins after the roads are built, after individualists have had an education, after medical research has cured their diseases, after the individualists have received from The Public land grants, grazing, water, and mineral leases, oil and agriculture subsidies, after they have received crucial patents.

Are individualists willful liars? We doubt it. To lie, you have to know that you are lying and intending to deceive. ... And there is a reason for this blindness that follows from the way brains work.

You think with your brain; all thoughts are physical, a matter of the activation of brain circuits called "frames." Everything you understand uses frame-circuits that structure how you think. Without the right frame-circuits, there are facts you just will not be able to make sense of. The frames come in hierarchies, with moral frames at the top. With an extreme conservative morality, you will have an Individualism frame governing your political and economic frames. The fact that real individual achievements depend on what The Public provides to give them their start and help them along will not be comprehensible to extreme conservatives. Why? Because they do not have the American moral frame that requires both personal and social responsibility; the conservative moral frame has only personal responsibility, and the closest thing to social responsibility is imposing personal responsibility alone maximally in every area of life.

More "You didn't build that" and if you think you did, you must be an idiot or liar. "The idea of American Individualism is a moral lie. There can be no Individualism without The Public." This is laughable, academic nonsense from the perspective of reliance upon others to assign grades, merit and accolades. My rights as an individual do not depend upon government and they were not granted by government. At best, government is established to secure my individualism.

Paul Ryan is a personable individualist and extreme conservative. And he is smart -- seen as an intellectual by his conservative colleagues because has mastered budget policy enough to construct a Devil's Budget with all the right numbers. Not the right numbers to eliminate the deficit, as Paul Krugman has observed. But the right numbers to eliminate The Public, which is the real conservative goal.

Continue to make the case that progressives want to be "good" masters, but masters.  This is the wrong country for that nonsense. Continue to vilify honest, educated, moral people. Continue to believe everyone who disagrees with you is unenlightened, idiotic, uneducated or "Evil." Individualist Americans understand the consequences of these words when put into policy. George Lakoff continues to make the case that progressives should never again be in charge of a nation of men. 

This progressive article must have been written for the unthinking zombie horde.

Hat tip: Karin Summerford

Democrats' Post-ObamaCare Spin: Americans are Stupid

Tomorrow we find out if the Supreme Court begins the dismantling of ObamaCare. Regardless of the SCOTUS ruling, between 49.7% and 54% of Americans oppose the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The act has lost in the court of public opinion and it will be dismantled further in November.

"Progressive*" Democrats have tipped their hand in regard to spinning the defeat. They are concentrating on re-educating the public about the "good" parts of the law. The goal is to minimize the damage to President Obama's legacy.

Seriously, do Americans need re-education on ObamaCare? The law has been endlessly debated and discussed. We see how it is affecting the cost of health insurance. On all counts, the ACA is hurting more Americans than it is helping.

Here are a few obvious examples that cannot be re-educated away:

• Insurance premiums are rising faster due to ObamaCare
• Millions of young people and Amish who do not need or want health insurance are mandated to buy health plans.
• Millions more older Americans who need health insurance are losing their employer sponsored plans.

To be frank, the "progressives" think Americans are stupid. Everyday they patronize us. This is another example of how they push the narrative that "subjects just don't understand."

* It is obvious that "progressive" actually means "regressive" as the goal is to regress back to centralized control and away from individual rights, freedom and responsibility.

Peace: The Great Distinction Between Progressive and Conservative.

Please begin this short journey by considering, for a moment, your definition of the word "peace."

Researching definitions of "peace" has led me to a simple but important distinction between the two major definitions. The first common definition of peace is when conflict is resolved. The second definition is when  harmony is achieved. Both of these definitions seem harmless and even positive on the surface. However, each implies drastically different policies and goals when applied through governance.

The term Peace has been co-opted by many liberal, leftist and even communist movements. The classic peace symbol is a logo for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. The "Nuclear Disarmament" "N" and "D" create the symbol. It was never restricted via patent, copyright or trademark and has grown beyond it's original meaning.

Today, "peace" and "fairness" are common themes used by the political left. These are vague terms. As vague terms, research to find a common definition may bridge some of our political divides. At least, this research may explain some major differences between current ideologies and the policies they pursue.

While this blog attempts to be "fair" to parties with whom we disagree,  we are imperfect beings. It is our hope that you will correct us when we fall short. However, in this instance clarity is more useful than "fairness."

Current conservatives occupy the philosophical ground of Lincoln, Jefferson and the founding fathers of the Constitution who opposed the over-reach of the Federalists. Because of this ideology the emerging Republican party will either become the conservative party of private property and free markets or it will go extinct. Conservatives believe that our rights come from God, and that the only entity on Earth with sovereignty is man and not community, not society and clearly not government who is loaned power from the sovereign citizenry.

"Conservative peace" is equilibrium between human beings with competing interests and differing opinions that allows for cooperation. Conservative peace does not require complete agreement, just the absence of conflict. "Peace through strength" is a conservative theme and understanding what is meant by "peace" brings clarity to the adage. The threat of force is not needed to find agreement. Agreement coerced through threat is intimidation. Agreement coerced through force is conquest.

Let's be clear about conquest. It has been the order of the world from the caveman through the Spanish Conquistadors and it still exists today. The right of conquest is an absolute and universal right in every political ideology. It is not a conservative or liberal ideal, it is a political fact.

Modern conservatives are often prepared to seek "peace through strength", but such peace has never been pursued to extinguish opposition.

American progressives and the Democrat party has controlled much of America's political reality since FDR's "New Deal." Under this reality America has established a social safety net and promised a growing percentage of citizens benefits. The Democrat party has become the party of big government and public employee unions. This is a powerful position, and one that wields the threat of government violence and force against the citizenry.

The Democrat party has morphed from the anti-Federalist party that was founded by Jefferson.  Since the Republican's broke away prior to the civil war, the Democrats have become increasingly reliant upon their position and promises to hold power. A position which now has reached the end of the line.

Key in the rhetorical battle to gain Democrat support from the public has been the term "peace." President Barack Obama gained notoriety for opposing the Iraq War and treatment of prisoners. However, it has become apparent that Democrat's "peace" is not the same peace as defined by their supporters.

"Progressive peace" is when no one disagrees. It is harmony. This may be restated in many ways, and they all seem to apply. Holding the powerful position as the party of government and holding a force of threat unmatched in human history makes this realization dangerous.

When States and governors disagree with the goals of the left, recalls and federal lawsuits are pursued. When bloggers speak truth about left-wing operatives, families are threatened through "swatting." When tea parties opposed government policy they are labeled "racist" and even "potential terrorists." When facts emerge that prove the government is threatening national security or arming Mexican drug gangs, denials are not given, threats against those seen as "offensive" are made.  It is made clear that American citizens may be killed without due process.

When you disagree with the American left, your character is attacked. If smears are not sufficient to end your opposition, they will lie and cheat in order to win. If they still cannot defeat you, expect the threat of force.

Where conservatives proclaim "peace through strength," progressives have on occasion attempted to eradicate opponents:

• President Andrew Jackson vs the American Indian nations during "Manifest Destiny"
• Hitler's National Socialist party vs "inferior races"
• Communists in China and Russia through purges
• Margaret Sanger's progressives vs "undesirables." 

It is unclear which of these examples is the worst, but Hitler is viewed in the worst light. He was defeated. This may be an example of the right of conquest. The right to tell the story or the right to declare peace.

For my friends on the left, who see this as a partisan attack, let me guess why you may feel this way.

If you believe that peace only comes when disagreement is over, then my disagreement with your comrades' actions is an assault against peace and possibly against you personally. My disagreement is intolerable. In order to justify what must be done to establish peace, must you demonized and dehumanized the messenger? Seriously, question yourself.

This is only my theory but it explains my observations. Observations of family members who are intolerant of my ideas and opinions regardless of established facts.  Observations of acquaintances and friends who demonize and minimize Fox News. Observations of how political processes around us work. Observations of how money is spent by the left. Observations of "grassroots" groups being paid through Craigslist advertisements. Observations of the war on free markets, private businesses, banks and the Marxist term "capitalism." Observations of claims that "the debate is over" and that critical scientists are "climate change deniers."

More notably, this theory explains why Scytl is not the biggest news story in America. "Progressive peace" is when no one disagrees.

Please falsify this hypothesis, if you can.

Hat tip to fellow SLOB Beers with Demo for an excellent link on the forthcoming political revolution.

Bad News for Democrats

Last night was spent downtown San Diego with all the political activists watching election results. It was a night filled with major tea party inspired victories but with a few loses due to dirty establishment tricks. Overall, it was a very bad night for the national Democrat Party as their union power base was flushed in Wisconsin.

Gov. Scott Walker walked away with 53% of the vote. The mainstream media portrayed this as "survival" despite the fact that it is the same percentage of the vote Barack Obama "historically" received in 2008. The Wisconsin victory was a massive blow against the government labor monopoly power organized against the tax paying public. With 35% of the vote reporting in Wisconsin, Gov. Walker was leading 60% to 38%. The margin narrowed, but the election was easy to call from that point.

In San Diego, during a conversation with a young establishment Republican, we commented, "we are tea partiers here to make sure the good guys win." The look of alarm on his face was disarmed by my friendly smile.

The election results were terrific with one major exception. First, the good news:

1. Carl DeMaio, a San Diego mayoral Republican candidate and fiscal reformer won, but will be in a clearly defined run off against establishment Democrat Bob Filner.
2. State Proposition 29. Increased cigarette taxes failed with 51% voting against.
3. San Diego Proposition A. Bars the city from requiring Project Labor Agreements on municipal construction contracts passed decisively (58%)
4. San Diego Proposition B. Reformation of  San Diego City Employee Retirement Benefits passed overwhelmingly (66%).
5. El Cajon Proposition D. Proposed Charter City passed (57%). Grants the city of El Cajon increased flexibility in it's budget.

The bad: State Proposition 28. The deceptively worded expansion of term limits was passed.

This increases maximum terms for California state politicians from 14 to 24 years. This proposition was intentionally worded to mislead the public into believing that they were voting for term limits when in actuality they were voting to weaken term limits. The political game worked by yielding 61% of the vote. It appears that about 39% (plus those who knew they were voting to weaken term limits) of Californians are paying close attention to the tricks and tactics used against them.

Proposition 28 expands the influence of unions in California. The union bosses will keep their payroll of pawns in office significantly longer. This reduces the off-chance that a person of character will be elected and stand up to the bribery and manipulation of the public employee unions.

Please take a moment and congratulate all the brave men and women who ran for office.