Thursday, November 20, 2014

Immigration Order Open Thread

Today is the day that Obama will have his revenge for the drubbing he got Nov. 4. Yes, folks this is our punishment for rejecting the Black man in the White House. [Their words, not mine].

Although I have another theory...

Friday, the Ferguson grand jury will make their decision on whether to indict Officer Darren Wilson and the impending riot that will insue either way. I know that it may be cynical of me, but maybe this is Obama's way of distracting the country. Or maybe he has chosen this exact moment ot distract from the whole Obamacare/Jonathan Gruber fiasco just as the open enrollment is being rolled out once again with the same problems as before. Like I said, I am cynical. Since we don't know exactly what he will do, we can discuss it as he makes his grand, imperial announcement. Maybe we'll be surprised.

Just remember these past words from the President when the Executive Order is announced...[I have added the highlights...]

Univision March 28, 2011:
With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed — and I know that everybody here at Bell is studying hard so you know that we’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws.

There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president.

Univision on Jan. 30, 2013:
Maria Elena Salinas of Univision: Now I know that you have reduced, this is another concern on Twitter, the number of deportations of non-criminals. However, in 2012 more than 184,000 non-criminals were deported. In the spirit of your push for immigration reform, would you consider a moratorium on deportations of non-criminals? Remember, these are your words: “This is not about policy. It’s about people.”

Obama: Well, I think it is important to remind everybody that, as I said I think previously, and I’m not a king. I am the head of the executive branch of government. I’m required to follow the law. And that’s what we’ve done. But what I’ve also said is, let’s make sure that we’re applying the law in a way that takes into account people’s humanity. That’s the reason that we moved forward on deferred action. Within the confines of the law we said, we have some discretion in terms of how we apply this law. The same is true with respect to the kinds of the length of time that people have to spend outside of the country when their spouses are already here for example.

Google Hangout on Feb. 14, 2013:
Jacky Guerrero of California: Your administration has deported a record high number of 1.5 million undocumented immigrants, more than your predecessor. And I know your administration took some steps last year to protect unintended undocumented immigrants from being deported. However many people say that those efforts weren’t enough. What I’d like to know is what you’re going to do now until the time immigration reform is passed, to insure that more people aren’t being deported and families aren’t being broken apart.

Obama: Well, look Jacky, this is something that I’ve struggled with throughout my presidency. The problem is that, you know, I’m the president of the United States. I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed, and Congress right now has not changed what I consider to be a broken immigration system.

And what that means is is that we have certain obligations to enforce the laws that are in place, even if we think that in many cases the results may be tragic. And what we have been able to do is to make sure that we’re focusing our enforcement resources on criminals, as opposed to somebody who’s here just trying to work and look after their families.

What we have tried to do is administratively reduce the burdens and hardships on families being separated. And what we’ve done is, obviously, pass the deferred action which made sure that the DREAMers, young people who were brought here and think of themselves as Americans, are American except for their papers, that they’re not deported.

Having said all that, we’ve kind of stretched our administrative flexibility as much as we can. And that’s why making sure we get comprehensive immigration reform done is so important.

September 17, 2013:
My job in the executive branch is supposed to be to carry out the laws that are passed. Congress has said, here’s the law when it comes to those who are undocumented, and they allocate a whole bunch of money for enforcement. But if we start broadening that, then essentially I would be ignoring the law in a way that I think would be very difficult to defend legally,” Obama said. “So that’s not an option. I do get a little worried that advocates of immigration reform start losing heart and immediately thinking, well, somehow there’s an out here — if Congress doesn’t act, we will just have the president sign something and that will take care of it, and we won’t have to worry about it. What I have said is that there is a path to get this done and that is through Congress.”

ABC News on November 16, 2014 while at the G20 Conference in Australia:
Jim Avila: Following up on immigration — in 2010, when asked by immigration reform advocates to stop deportations and act alone on providing legal status for the undocumented, you said, “I’m President, I’m not king. I can’t do these things just by myself.” In 2013, you said, “I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed.” Mr. President, what has changed since then? And since you’ve now had a chance to talk since July with your legal advisors, what do you now believe are your limits so that you can continue to act as president and not as emperor or king?

Obama: Well, actually, my position hasn’t changed. When I was talking to the advocates, their interest was in me, through executive action, duplicating the legislation that was stalled in Congress. And getting a comprehensive deal of the sort that is in the Senate legislation, for example, does extend beyond my legal authorities. There are certain things I cannot do. There are certain limits to what falls within the realm of prosecutorial discretion in terms of how we apply existing immigration laws.

And this is just a fun montage:


Well, you get the gist. He was against executive fiat before he was for it. By the way does it bother anyone else that Obama was making statements about domestic issues while in Myanmar and Australia rather than making these statement before the American people while in the US? Please feel free to comment as Obama makes his announcement...
[+] Read More...

Wednesday, November 19, 2014

Lost Generation of Democrats

There have been a lot of articles lately about the Democrats suffering long-term damage from the recent election. I find this interesting, though I don't think things are that simple. I also think this problem actually began back in 2008 because of Obama.

The Democrats expected to do a good deal better in the mid-term elections than they did. In particular, they were shocked to do so poorly in state races for things like governor and attorney general. Even more shocking, these losses occurred in reliably blue and purple states. Even worse, the Democrats saw the people who lost as their rising stars, i.e. their future leaders. These individuals included people like Michelle Nunn in Georgia, the daughter of the respected Sen. Sam Nunn, Alison Grimes in Kentucky, who would be seen as a giant-killer for unseating Mitch McConnell, Mike Michaud in Maine, who would have been the first openly gay governor, Anthony Brown in Maryland, the country's only black governor, etc. But a funny thing happened... each of these candidates lost, as did many more supposed future stars.

As a result of these losses, the Democrats are now fretting about having lost everyone they saw as their future leaders. And the loss of these people is making many Democrats think they are now handicapped in national elections for maybe as much as a decade. Others think these people can run again in 2016, win, and restore the farm-team. But even those people agree that this has hurt the party.

I find this interesting on several levels. First, I agree that this has hurt them. No matter how promising a candidate may be, having a big loss on the resume can be a killer. At the very least, this has delayed these people's careers for another election cycle. Secondly, I note that these people are all minorities -- women, blacks, gays. Up to now, the Democrats have remained competitive by running white males who then pretend to be more conservative than they really are, see e.g. Harry Reid. This group of candidates would represent a real shift in strategy, a shift which may send whites and males to the GOP in even greater numbers as it become harder for the Democrats to pretend to be conservative and to pretend not to be a party in the service of minorities.

Third, I think the real problem actually began with Obama's victory in 2008. It is often true that a president will harm their own party through things like protest votes registered at the mid-terms which wipe out candidates unexpectedly and by pulling strong candidates onto different career paths as federal agencies, where they effectively vanish into the federal black hole. But Obama has been worse. Obama's instincts seem to be to rid himself of potential competitors. Thus, he wiped out any possible challengers he could face by pulling them into the cabinet or ostracizing them. The result has been that the only Democrats who have appeared on the national stage since he took office have been either irrelevant to the future (e.g. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi), treated like outcasts (e.g. Hillary Clinton), or kept at a distance far away from relevance (e.g. Andrew Cuomo). The most obvious proof of this is the utter lack of alternatives to Hillary Clinton. Are they seriously talking about Joe Biden as a contender? Wow.

All in all, the Democrats definitely have a problem. They have no viable alternatives to Hillary Clinton, who is not very popular with their base or the public. They also have few heavy-hitters left who can anoint someone after Obama's "purges" and the debacle of Obamacare leading to mass retirements. And they have no viable set of princelings after the midterms who can step up and replace the likes of Reid, Pelosi and Obama. Moreover, they have lost so many governor's mansions and legislatures that they have no realistic way to show off their ideas to build their brand.

Interesting times.
[+] Read More...

Tuesday, November 18, 2014

We Landed On A Comet!

In the middle of all the stupid stuff going on, including the indignity of a certain woman with no discernable talent whatsoever parading naked all over the newspapers, we landed a spacecraft on a comet! Well, by "we" I mean, the European Space Agency not NASA. NASA doesn't do anything like this these days. Long gone are the days of grand Presidential challenges to explore the universe and reach for the stars. Nope, NASA has seen its shuttle fleet scuttled and has been reduced to hitchhiking to the International Space Station they built years ago. But that doesn't mean that we can't still marvel at others and their amazing feats of human ingenuity.

And an amazing feat it is. In 2004, the ESA shot a spacecraft called Rosetta and Philae, the lander decribed as "the size of a medium washing machine" into space to explore the surface of a comet 4 billion miles away. Think about that for a minute. Ten years ago, scientists, mathematicians, and engineers calculated with pinpoint accuracy, the trajectory of a piece of machinery blasted into space and managed to land it on the surface of a comet on November 12, 2014 - 10 years later and 4 billion miles away. It is astounding what humans can do when we put our minds to doing stuff that advances human knowledge.

One would think the world would be calling for a parade for these scientists, mathematicians and engineers, right? Well, not so fast. Watch this clip and at 1:40 you will see what happened that has feminists around the country shreaking and fainting in horror...



You thought you'd see a giant space bug or large-eyed alien peering into the camera? No, they were shreaking and fainting because of a shirt worn by Dr. Matt Taylor, one of leading mission scientist, during an interview as the lander was making its decent. The fabric of this offending shirt that made especially for Dr. Taylor by a female friend was a montage of large breasted, scantily=clad cartoon women. Nooooooo! Feminists far and wide took to Twitter decrying "Who cares what he has done. How dare he demean women this way!" and "That shirt has done more damage to little girls than anything ever and why they HATE science!"

So, instead of heralding another giant leap for mankind, it has devolved into a social media feminist rage-fest claiming "this is the sort of casual misogyny that stops women from entering certain scientific fields." Seriously. They so bullied this poor guy at the moment of his greatest achievement that he ended up having to give a tearful public apology days later. Not one of those fake "I am sorry you were offended" non-apologies that we have become so accustomed to these days, but a real honest and tearful mea culpa. And yet these same women who think he has set women back to the 1950's will swoon with delight at the bravery of a talentless imbecile as she objectifies women to down to their ample body parts - no brains needed. What a great example for little girls! This is exactly why I cannot and will never call myself a feminist.

Anything to add, subtract, multiply or divide?
[+] Read More...

Monday, November 17, 2014

Obama Follows Lead of Dictators

So here is what Obama is planning vis-√†-vis immigration, and it’s truly stunning. In fact, this is the first thing I’ve seen any modern President do that I would qualify as genuinely dictator-like. Indeed, the reason he claims he can grant amnesty to five million illegals is the precise kind of false legalism that only people like Hitler have tried, typically as they try to work their way out from under the restraint of law. Observe.

Obama is claiming:
(1) The Executive Branch has prosecutorial discretion in terms of who it will deport. Essentially, the Executive gets to decide which cases it will pursue and which it won’t.

(2) Prior Executives have granted protection to particular groups from deportation.

(3) The Executive Branch has the authority to grant work permits to the groups it seeks to protect.

(4) Ergo, the White House intends to use its discretion to extend this protection and to refuse to prosecute half the illegals in the US and to issue work permits to them in the process.
WOW! Let me explain how unbelievably wrong this is. First, prosecutorial discretion is one of those things that shouldn’t exist in an ideal world, but it does because this world is not ideal. The idea is that on a case by case basis, prosecutors should have the discretion not to prosecute someone who has technically broken the law but prosecuting them would lead to an injustice. But this type of decision is made on an individual basis and usually is only invoked where a significant injustice would result from prosecution... it has never been used as a means to nullify a law, as Obama is proposing now. In fact, doing so would be completely unconstitutional as it would give the Executive the power to ignore the legislature at its whim. To even contemplate this is dictator thinking and shocking.

Next, while the Executive has extended protection to some immigrants in the past, there has always been a very strong justification. Typically, these cases involve the protection of fundamental human rights or the preservation of life to protect these groups, such as where they are refugees from a war, ethnic cleansing or natural disasters, or where they face some sort of institutional harassment that borders on murder, e.g. gays in Africa, women seeking to avoid forced abortion in China, etc. Basically, it is to avoid returning them to a situation where they might be harmed. It has never been used as a means to circumvent the law or without a strong justification. Obama would be doing this on an unprecedented massive scale with no justification whatsoever.

Finally, let’s just square the circle by pointing out that if Obama thinks he has this right and power and that it’s justified, why only apply it to half the illegals? How does that make sense? What he is basically saying is that these people need to be protected from some evil that will befall them... but he’s only willing to help half of them. That discredits all of this even more. It shows he has no justification for protecting these people or he wouldn't leave half to suffer. It also shows that he bizarrely thinks that by only doing half, he can somehow sneak this through... incredible. And it shows that he's not acting on principle, he's acting deceptively. Even more importantly, it shows that he does think like a dictator and that the Constitution and rule of law mean nothing to him. In fact, this idea is so rotten that a great many liberals are freaking out that he may actually do this.

What has liberals most freaked out about this is something Obama apparently hasn’t even considered. Specifically, any future administration can use this same outlandish argument to invalidate any law they choose... or to apply it only to individuals and groups they dislike, e.g. why not exempt ____ from tax laws?! This is crazy! See, what Obama is doing is turning the US into a Banana Republic, at best, or a nascent Nazi Germany at worst. Once rule of law is rendered meaningless, it could take generations or bloodshed to restore it. It took our country almost 150 years to truly become a nation governed by laws rather than a nation controlled by powerful politicians who manipulate a graft-riddled government. This would undo that.

Thoughts?
[+] Read More...

Friday, November 14, 2014

Back Next Week...

Hi everybody! I wanted to apologize for not being around much the past couple weeks. Unfortunately, there was just no way I could write anything. Fortunately, however, I think I'm finally on the healing side of things, so I hope to be back full speed next week. Thanks for your patience and thanks a ton to Bev for all her help in stepping up as I've been out! :D
[+] Read More...

Thursday, November 13, 2014

Obamacare and those Stupid American Voters...

So what do the Democrats do when one of the architects of the Affordable Care Act admits that they pretty much had to lie to get the bill passed? No, they don't blame Bush...not this time. And what do the Democrats do when this same architect refers to them in terms of "the stupidity of the American voter"? Well, they blame the messenger Rich Weinstein. Who is this guy anyway?

Well, here's the story. Rich Weinstein, described as a "mildmannered investment adviser" from Philly, went on a mission to figure out why his insurance policy had been cancelled and his new improved ACA policy premiums had dramatically increased.
“When Obama said 'If you like your plan, you can keep your plan, period'—frankly, I believed him,” says Weinstein. “He very often speaks with qualifiers. When he said 'period,' there were no qualifiers. You can understand that when I lost my own plan, and the replacement cost twice as much, I wasn’t happy. So I’m watching the news, and at that time I was thinking: Hey, the administration was not telling people the truth, and the media was doing nothing!” - Bloomberg
Mr. Weinstein searched hours and hours of videos of "David Cutler, Zeke Emanuel, Jonathan Gruber and people like that" and listened to what they had to say. All he did was listen. Then he hit on this clip from ACA architect and MIT Professor Jonathan Gruber from a UPenn conference in September of 2013...



Did he just admit that the bill was purposely written is such a way that the CBO wouldn't be able score it as a tax? And did he just admit it was the lack of transparency that was the political key to getting the bill passed? Well, yes and they could do it because of the "stupidity of the American voter or whatever".

Needless to say, this video hit the Web-verse and has gone viral. Mr. Gruber realized he had been caught, so he went on Ronan Farrow's MSNBC show (the least watched show on TV) to explain that he spoke "off the cuff" and his remarks were "innappropriate". LINK

Mr. Weinstein says he has more video to refute the claim that Mr. Gruber's remarks were "off the cuff" gaffes. But Weinstein's over-arching issue was how did he, just a regular guy looking for information, manage to find all of this and not one journalist even tried? And I have to say he is right. With all the high-minded Woodward and Bernstein wannabe's out there looking for the gotcha moment, why didn't they track down these videos?

Though beside the point right now, the Supreme Court case that Farrow and Gruber are referring has been brought by several states that hinges on a small phrase that says "people qualify for tax credits to help pay insurance premiums when they buy a plan on an exchange “established by the state.” The dispute is whether the federal government can subsidize insurance when a state opts out of creating their own state run exchanges and whether that phrase were just a "typo" as Prof. Gruber describes them or a huge flaw that kills the federal exchanges and possibly the ACA.

And as an final point: When will it dawn on the Democrats and liberals that the stupid American voters of which Mr. Gruber is referring is them?

So here we are. Any comments or would you rather look at videos of animals doing cute things?
[+] Read More...

Tuesday, November 11, 2014

What Is Net Neutrality?

I am feeling "stupid" today. Maybe it's that new virus that scientists at Johns Hopkins Medical School and the University of Nebraska accidentally discovered or maybe I am just naturally stupid. But can someone explain "net neutrality" to me?

As our ever-pivoting President published today, he wants to focus his attention on "net neutrality" instead of...say...just about anything. Granted, my level of trust in this Administration has already gone into the negative numbers (as in -100%), but this just sounds like it is titled to do exactly the opposite of what he says it will do...

I apologize in advance that this message from whitehouse.gov makes your ears bleed, but it is blessedly short...



You are all bright people and probably have not yet been infected by the "stupid" virus, so someone please explain!

And for our brave "Band of Brothers and Sisters" -
This is Veterans Day, so as a tribute to honor you brave men and women who have worn the uniform of our military throughout the generations, here is the best speech about going to war ever written performed by a wonderful Shakespearan actor:


[+] Read More...

Friday, November 7, 2014

:-D

Life is good when your nine year old sends you a copy of this... unsolicited.

[+] Read More...

Thursday, November 6, 2014

The Tingle Is Gone...

I don't know about you, but I am tired. But here are some other election wins of which you may not be aware. Not only did the Republicans take the majority in the US Senate, but they increased their majority in the House from 233 to 243. And for the first time in 141 years, all the US representatives from Bill Clinton's home state of Arkansas are Republican. And Hillary batted zero in the places where she campaigned on behalf of candidates including Arkansas. That may not bode well for her Presidential aspirations. And to add to the Dem drubbing, Gov. Scott Walker won handily in Wisconsin which means he won three decisive elections for the same position in less than 4 years and is the only Governor to ever survive a recall election.

But the good news doesn't end there. In the state elections, Republicans will now control 67 of the 99* state legislative bodies. That is a change from 59 to 67. But wait there's more. Republicans now will hold the governor’s mansion and both chambers of the state legislature in 24 states. Not only that, but they will hold a supermajority in 16 of those states. The Dems will hold the same in only 7 states. In the other 19 states, Republicans will hold at least one chamber or mansion. In New York and Washington where Republicans held a tenuous control on the state Senate, they now will have the decisive majority.


And to think that in 2008, James Carville declared that the Republican Party was dead. Let's not screw this up...

Oh, and just to rub it in a little, here is a montage of Mr. Tingle-Up-My-Leg's reaction last night during the MSNBC's election coverage last night...


Any questions?

*Nebraska has a non-partisan unicameral legislature, but is unofficially Republican.
[+] Read More...

Wednesday, November 5, 2014

Some Thoughts On The Election

Last night felt good. It's always nice to see the Democrats go down the drain, and it's even nicer to see the public flip the bird to Obama... again. It's nice too to see the sedate/depressed looks on the faces of the MSM journalists as they spin a clear repudiation of Obama and his Democratic allies into a general anti-politics malaise. D-E-N-I-A-L. Anyways, here are some thoughts.

● Nothing Really Changed: Sadly, not much changed last night. There was no evidence of a political sea change in the country, meaning the public didn’t throw the Democrats out or embrace a new way. There certainly wasn’t a wave like we saw in 1980, 1994, 2008 or 2010 giving the outside party the chance to fundamentally change the direction of the country.

Even worse, this election, like most off-year elections, was about voter turnout. Blacks, the young and other Democrats didn’t turn out. The gender gap shrank last night. Generally apolitical people didn’t turn out either. So basically, this election involved hardcore partisans and those seeking to send a message to Obama. That won’t be true in 2016. If minorities and casual voters showed up last night, the GOP likely would have lost most of the races they won. That bodes poorly for our chances in 2016. In other words, this is not a victory so much as a chance to win the trust we need to win to earn a victory in 2016. That means, we need to be smart from hereon out.

● Democratic Response: Look for the Democrats to become insanely hostile. For one thing, they understand the demographic issue with their loses last night being the result of voter turnout, and they know that if they don’t change a thing, they are likely to win big in 2016. Hence, their primary goal will be to frustrate the GOP. Meanwhile, it will pay for them to have Obama push hard and fast to the left at the executive level now, which will let them reconnect with blacks, feminists and young voters while appearing to triangulate Obama for the middle class.

The one interesting question will be if they try a new approach to the “war on __” meme. Democrats need to reconnect with blacks, feminists and young voters and it is obvious that their attempts to smear the GOP on abortion and voting rights didn’t turn these people out. Basically, a full-court “war on __” press didn’t work, so they will need to try something new.

I think this means they let Obama do a lot of dirty work over the next year and a half as they comment carefully to avoid their positions being witnesses by the public at large. First up, immigration. Other examples include Executive Orders requiring equal pay for women, banning corporations from giving to politicians, imposing a severe carbon tax, tax hikes on the rich, gay marriage, backing racial gerrymandering, etc.

● The Obama Drag: CNN noted that Obama spent his time going to states where the Democrats were supposed to win, like Maine, Michigan, Wisconsin, Maryland, Colorado, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. Every one of those states except Pennsylvania either went Republican or was unexpectedly close. Interesting. But remember, 2016 will not be about Obama.

● The Agenda: I’ve been saying for some time that the GOP needs a real agenda. Many people will now demand that the GOP put just such an agenda into place (others will demand a harsher agenda). The problem is this, however: it will be impossible for the GOP to pass anything with Obama having the power to veto whatever he wants.

At this point, the smart move will be for the GOP to put together the happiest sounding, most popular parts of an agenda and send them up one by one for votes every couple weeks so that (1) the public will begin to associate an agenda with the GOP, (2) the public will see the Democrats standing in the way of an agenda they like, and (3) it will make Obama and the Democrats look like obstructionists.

Also, anyone who accuses the GOP of failing to implement anything needs to be savagely beaten about the hear and shoulders with a frozen penguin. And it will be impossible to shut down the government without the blame for that falling on the GOP. Hence, the key will be to market an agenda rather than trying to look macho.

● Blah Blah Blah: By the time you read this, talk radio will no doubt be spinning this election as follows: The RINOs told us that if we trusted them, they would win a landslide election. We trusted them and they barely won last night! Moreover, almost all the RINOs got destroyed. If it hadn’t been for good solid conservatives winning their elections by a landslide, this would have been a RINO disaster. So stop listening to them. We need to foam at the mouth and force our agenda through. We need to investigate Obama’s crimes and shut down the government.

Uh... no.

These people lost. They lost because you can’t win the public by pushing fringe ideas and by being angry about it. In losing, they did their best to wage a war against the GOP for the past 3-4 years. They tried very hard to destroy most of the candidates who won easy re-election. They said things that made it easy for the Democrats to turn out their voters. They spent money attacking the GOP, but never spent money helping the GOP – even after the primaries were over. They didn’t vote because they wanted to prove that the GOP could not win except with their candidates.

But the GOP fought back and crushed them. These fringers lost, and in the process made themselves irrelevant. It is stupid to listen to the people who did nothing by try to sabotage tonight’s victory on how we should proceed next.

And don’t let them create a false narrative either. Do not let them tell you that somehow the “RINOs” (read – anyone they dislike) blew this election. It was moderate, sane candidates who went out there and won the public’s trust. It was guys like Cory Gardner who defused the “war on women” attacks, not Ted Cruz, and who took down the best the Democrats had to offer. It was our silence on angry issues that denied the Democrats what they needed to take down the GOP.

Don’t let these losers, who have been wrong and disloyal every single step of the way, now tell you that we should embrace their ideas in victory. Forget it. Don’t let these losers tell you that the things that doomed us in 2012 and drove us to near extinction in 2013 should become our agenda.

● Hillary Is Finished: Finally, this election was a repudiation of Obama, but not the Democrats at a whole. That sets up nicely for Hillary to come along as a return to the good old days of Democratic rule. That makes her a winner tonight... a big winner.

Only, it doesn’t.

I suspect this result will radicalize the Democrats even more and that will make Hillary the odd-man-out. If I’m right, this means Hillary is toast. Every time she’s tried to act like a radical, it’s blown up on her... with the latest being her embarrassing dance of shame to backtrack on her “business doesn’t create jobs” comment. This election will likely push the Democrats into the arms of their won radicals and away from their establishment types like Hillary.

All told, I think the odds of Hillary winning the primary just fell in half and will get worse and worse with each executive order Obama issues and each snide roadblock Reid tries.

Thoughts?
[+] Read More...

Tuesday, November 4, 2014

Election Day - DON'T FORGET TO VOTE!!!

Election Day, Tuesday, Nov 4, 2014 - Thank God we are finally here! By all measures, the Republicans are poised to take over the Senate. But to do that Repubs need to pick up at least 6 seats to rid the world of Harry Reid. This means that maybe President Obama will finally learn how to engage Congress since he will have no one to run interference.

But let's not get cocky. It's not over yet and anything could happen. Hey, martial law could be declared or Obama could declare an Ebola quarantine on anyone who can locate Liberia/Guinea/Sierra Leone on a map or a sudden hurricane could strike like in 2012 or aliens could land on the White House lawn (most likely scenario since just about anyone can jump the WH fence and walk in the unlocked front door these days). But just in case none of that happens, here is what we should look for and where it all stands:

This info was extracted From HuffPo so it will be the most favorable to Democrats:

Solid Republican Wins predicted at least 98% probability:
South Dakota - Rounds (R) v. Weiland (D-Incumbent) = ROUNDS WINS - Second pick up for Republicans
West Virginia - Capito (R) v. Tennent (D-Incumbent) - CAPITO WINS - First Pick up for Republicans
Montana - Daines (R) v. Curtis (D-Incumbant)
Arkansa - Cotton (R) v. Pryor (D-Incumbant) - COTTON WINS - Third pick up for Republicans NEW!!

Senate races still in play with at least 80% probability:
Alaska - Sullivan (R) v. Begich (D-Incumbent) - This race predicted to be much closer and may not be decided tomorrow. No runoff possibility.
Kentucky - McConnell (R-Incumbant) v. Grimes (D) - GRIMES CONCEDES; MCCONNELL KEEPS HIS SEAT...

Senate races still in play with at least 60% probability:
Colorado - Gardner (R) v. Udall (D-Incumbent) -
Georgia - Purdue (R) v. Nunn (D) (Open race - Republican incumbent party) - If neither get 50%, there will be a runoff.
Louisiana - Cassidy (R) v. Landrieu (D-Incumbent) v. Maness (R/TP Independent) - With Maness splitting the Republican vote there will most likely be runoff between Cassidy and Landrieu if neither reaches 50% of the vote. Since the last days of her campaign, Landrieu managed to call her Louisiana constituents racists, she really has no hope even if there is a runoff.

Senate races still in play that are too close to predict:
Iowa - Ernst (R) v. Braley (D-Incumbent)
Kansas - Roberts (R0Incumbent) v. Orman (I)
North Carolina - Tillis (R) v. Hagan (D-Incumbent)
New Hampshire - Brown (R) v. Shaheen (D-Incumbent)

House Races -
Republicans are predicted to pick up at least 12 seats. I know there are many more, however these are three races to watch:
-Mia Love (R) in Utah District 4 is leading by 8% against Doug Owens (D). If she wins she will be the first black Republican woman to serve in Congress.
-In an open race in New York District 21 is predicted to pick up the youngest woman to serve in Congress - Elise Stepafik (R) against Aaron Wolff (D).
-And in another NY race - Michael Grimm (R/Staten Island) who is currently under a 21-count federal indictment, is leading his opponent by 19%. My feeling is that Grimm will be cleared on all counts eventually.

And just because it's going to be a long night -

Races for Governor to watch -
- Wisconsin - Scott Walker (R-Incumbent) v. Mary Burke (D) is too close to call. Walker is leading in the polls by 2.2% according to RCP.
- Florida - Rick Scott (R-Incumbent) v. Charlie Crist (D) and former Governor - This is so close (.6% RCP) that this may be decided by one of those famous Florida "hanging chad" recounts.
- Georgia - There probably will not be another Carter elected as Georgia Governor. Jason Carter (grandson to Jimmah) is in a three way race with Nathan Deal (R) and Andrew Hunt (L). Deal is leading by 4%, but this is another case where if no candidate receives 50% of the vote, there will be runoff. Most likely Deal will win in a runoff.
- There are races too close to call in Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island.

And I just can't help myself. I have to add the Texas Gubernatorial race between Greg Abbott (R) and Wendy Davis (D/Idiot) even though Abbott will win by double digits. This has been one for the ages. See, this is what happens when a party hangs all its hopes on a candidate with one issue and not a very popular issue at that. First, there was the much touted bid by Make Blue Texas that was launched in 2013 to...well...turn Texas from a red state to a blue state. By all accounts it has been a wonderfully miserable failure. And then there's Wendy Davis who ran one of the most ridiculously stupid one-issue campaigns of any major party candidate that I have ever seen. The most ridiculous was her last ditch effort to smear Greg Abbott, she leveled accusations that Abbott wanted to reinstate anti-miscegenation laws in Texas.

She confronted him with a "gotcha" question "Do you support mixed race marriages?" When he wouldn't respond to the question , her campaign turned it into some kind of indictment. Yes, that was an actual question. Now, not that Abbott's wife is of a different "race", but she is Hispanic. My take on it is that it was such a stupid question to ask in 2014, that he did not feel he needed to respond. From the 20 point lead that Abbott has, I am pretty sure most people in Texas agree. Fortunately for Texas, Greg Abbott is actually a great candidate and will make a great Governor.

Keep us posted on what is happening in your polling area! Now get out there and vote early and often!
[+] Read More...

Monday, November 3, 2014

Kit Had a Problem With Buzzfeed and You Won't Believe What He Did About It!

by Kit

Buzzfeed and the similar site Upworthy has recently become rather famous (or infamous) for its over-the-top style and content. It also gained some press for being Pew’s “Least Trusted Name in News” as it was the only news source every group, whether liberal or conservative or centrist, listed it as “More distrust than trusted” —and that was only among people who knew about it as many had never even heard of it. Other examples of its infamy include The Onion setting up a parody site, Clickbait, and College Humor doing a series of sketches mocking them.

But what is it about sites like these that annoy me so much? Well, they have two particular aspects which on their own can be only barely tolerable but fused make these sites absolutely intolerable:

(1) Click-bait Headlines with Sentimental Stories.

Buzzfeed and its darker cousin Upworthy are largely famous the way their headlines are written. This is probably the most famous complaint.

You see, whereas traditional headlines often attempt to give you a fair deal of information about the story, for example, “Motorcyclists Arrive at Funeral of Gay Soldier to Thwart Westboro Protestors”, their headlines are more obtuse, giving very little information about what exactly happened except what in writing classes would be called the “inciting incident” promptly followed with an exclamation that you would have difficulty comprehending what happened next, for example, “These Anti-Gay Protestors Showed Up at a Gay Soldier’s Funeral and You Won’t Believe What Happened Next!”

A more honest version of that headline would be “CLICK ME! CLICKE ME!”

And the stories are almost always sentimental, with the heroes standing up to the evil meanies or a shocking expos√© of some “evil” injustice that everyone with access to the larger world was aware of. This leads us to our next topic:

(2) Shameless Pandering to Liberal Demographics.

The demographic they seek, especially Upworthy, is a specific type of person; the urban left-of-center millennial who is very nostalgic for the 1990s (for some reason) and obsessive about pop culture but who fancies himself or herself as a progressive nerdy outsider and thus cares deeply about issues like women’s rights, gay rights, and animal rights. Also, an occasional fear of being seen as racist by one’s ethnic minority acquaintances. Not necessarily bad people, in fact a number of them are rather good, nor would I describe all of them as unintelligent but they do view themselves as very enlightened in their understanding of the world around them; a self-assessment that is actually highly debatable.

The result of the fusion of the aforementioned overly-sentimental click bait-style and their attempt to appeal to this particular demographic is what can only be described as a left-wing version of a pop culture-obsessed Drudge Report with more lists than an anal-retentive . Stories about somebody starting off a “monologue on acceptance” or standing up to mean old bigots or charts that reveal how backwards the United States is, such as this headline: “The Chart That Will Make You Laugh At Anyone Who Says Pakistan is ‘Less Developed’ Than The US” (the chart is one on mandatory maternity leave).

Such stories and articles are solely about making the readers feel good about themselves for being on the right side of history. For, on these sites, history is a great epic where the heroes of progressivism and liberalism do battle with the villains of bigotry and intolerance. And they will win because the heroes are wise and good while the villains are wicked, insane, or mentally deficient or some combination of the three and the battles largely consist in staging peaceful counter-protests in a free country or simply giving a lecture on tolerance to some old unenlightened bigot. Not terrible or bad acts, sometimes quite good, but they are put on a pedestal of “heroic” when very few risks to the physical body were taken aside from a bad cold due due to staging a protest in the winter at a time when a teenager in Pakistan can be shot in the head for trying to promote a girl’s right to an education.

Of course, that is not to say the sites are not solely political. There are lists such as “36 Things That Are Going To Make You Feel Ancient” and “25 Things All Basic White Girls Do During The Fall”. These sites also have a pop culture-savviness and ingrained celebrity-worship, with articles covering such topics as “The Hard Truths Maisie Williams Growing Up on Game of Thrones (Ms. Williams plays Arya Stark) and “These Pictures of Jon Hamm’s Little Hamm Will Restore Your Faith in Humanity” (It’s just a bulge in his pants). These, especially the celeb-focused articles, add a sense of superficiality to the sites, attempting to give the most trivial things to a feeling of deep significance. The simple facts of life one learns while growing up as a teen are recast as “hard truths” and a photo of the bulge of a famous man’s little man in his pants is capable of restoring one’s faith in humanity.

Like the stories of people “standing up” to bigotry through a long-winded lecture or Facebook profile picture these articles carry a sense of hyperbole that raises the trivial to a level equal to the historic. “Bravery” is telling an room full of voters in San Francisco’s Castro District that Gay Marriage is good. There are exceptions, of course, but this seems to be the rule, with the occasional in-depth article being the exception and frivolous political propaganda and celeb-worship being the rule. Its emotional manipulation plain and simple.
[+] Read More...

Thursday, October 30, 2014

An Even More Interesting Open Thread and other scary stuff...

Thanks to Koshkat, we have an interesting topic for discussion:
How do you define censorship?
No introduction or explanation. I have a clear definition, but what do you think?



Halloween Tradition:
What is your tradition for Halloween? I remember as a kid, it was THE best holiday ever. Even better than Christmas morning. We got to run around the neighborhood demanding candy...CANDY...from all the adults...AND they have to give it to us or face the threat of a trick! It was the perfect extortion plan. What could be better than that? Okay, so you had to wear a scratchy costume with a stupid plastic mask that you couldn't really see through that could cause bodily harm that sometimes required...ugh...a sweater, but CAAAAANNNNDDDDYYY! And you could wear lots and lots of red lipstick and EYE SHADOW and adults couldn't say anything even if it was blue!!!

Thousands (well, it seemed like thousands) of children running willy-nilly from house to house conspiring as we went along as to which house was giving the best treats! And free CAAAANNNDDDYYY everwhere you went. And every once in while there would be that special house that gave out full-sized Hershey chocolate bars! Full-sized!!! Yeah, and then there would be those houses that gave out fruit (what was up with that?) that could have been laced with razor blades or homemade popcorn balls that might have been filled with dangerous poisons like vitamins, but who ate those anyway, right? It was glorious. Of course we always had to have dinner first, but who could eat when you knew...KNEW...that all you had do to was suffer through dinner and then...well...CAAAAAANNNNDDDYYYY was waiting just for the taking! Ah, fun times.

And what is better on Halloween than more stuff about Ebola:
You know the doctor in New York City who devoloped Ebola that caused Govs. Cuomo and Christie to institute that mandatory quarantine? Well, it appears that his voluntary quarantine was not as he orginally described. He said that he self-quarantined himself in his Harlem apartment taking his temperature, however, now it is being reported that was all a big lie. It turns out the cops checked his Metrocard activity and discovered his travel schedule. So I am sure that the bowling alley that had to be shut down for decontamination has a case to sue him. Let the games begin.

Oh, and the nurse who was forcibly detained at Liberty Airport in New Jersey and quarantined is now in Maine. Now,the Governor of Maine has taken action to mandate a mandatory quarantine in Maine. As would be expected, the nurse has filed suit because she has been treated unfairly. Is it so unreasonable to ask that those who have had direct exposure to actually be responsible enough to limit their field of exposure for 21 days just out a sense of sensible caution and not to cause general panic?

On a finally note:

I would just like mention that it has now been two years as of October 10, 2012 since we lost our dear Lawrence Hawk (a/k/a LawHawkRDF and LawHawkSF) and may I speak for all us that he is still very much missed...
[+] Read More...

Tuesday, October 28, 2014

Interesting Question Open Thread

I have an interesting question for you tonight. Take a look at the image below. This was handed out as part of a vocabulary test recently to sixth graders. Do you think this is appropriate material to be giving them or not? Thoughts?


I will share my thoughts after you all have a chance to voice yours.
[+] Read More...

EBOLA and other headaches

I really did not want to have to discuss this again. But, are you panicked enough yet? Well, I'm not, but, if Govs Cuomo and Christie need an issue to rally the electorate...hey, who am I to judge. No doubt you have heard that Govs. Cuomo (D/NY) and Christie (R/NJ) conspired together to mandate a mandatory quarantine for anyone entering their respective atates who come from West Africa.

Firstly, I would think that common sense would say that if you have been in West Africa and been actively treating Ebola patients that volunarily limiting one's contact with the general public and travelling by subway should be limited for 21 days and that this should not be an unreasonble request. However, I am not sure exactly how state governors have the authority to mandate a quarantine since I would think that our airports fall under federal jurisdiction. [I mean, if Gov. Perry is condemned for being forced to activate his National Guard to protect his southern border, how is it that Govs Christie and Cuomo do not face the same criticism?] Though I understand that in election year, one with a political agenda must appear to be proactive and it may be politcal advantageous. But seriously, can't we do better than this?


A tent with no runnng water, no shower facility, and no other electronic capabilty other than a cellphone to communicate. What was Gov. Christie thinking? Is there anyone with a functioning brain actually in charge?

Oh, yeah, no one has brought this up, but I will. The CDC, that government body that is tasked with spending the taxpayers money to developing a solid protocol for combating real biological threats to humanity, would actually spend their time and valuable resources on issues other than fantasy threats like - Zombie preparedness And we wonder why our confidence in our goverment agencies is at an all time low and we are unprepared for any solid protocol for a real-life contagion. How much did this cost the taxpayers? I just wonder how much we paid for this? Is there any wonder why we have lost confidence in our government agencies and their preparedness?

To be accurate, both Governors have backed off their mandate to forcibly mandate a quarantine at the behest of President Obama. However, who is really in charge of the message? My panic is only that no one is willing to present a clear message.

Any thoughts?
[+] Read More...

Monday, October 27, 2014

Idiocy Repeated Is Still Idiocy

Stop me if you heard this before, but Hillary just said, “Don’t let anybody tell you it’s corporations and businesses [sic] create jobs.” I guess she got a hold of Obama’s “you didn’t make that” playbook. Morons.

Before we take Hillary’s idiocy apart, consider the following facts: there are 140 million jobs in the US. Of those, 120 million were created by private sector firms. The other 20 million are government jobs, which only exist because of funding obtained from taxing the other 120 million employees and the businesses that employ them.

Businesses in the United States invented almost everything you touch or use every single day. Sometimes, the government got the ball rolling, like with the internet, but their invention languished until the public got involved when private firms realized they could make a buck improving the internet. Even things the government “built,” like the nation’s highways, were actually built by private contractors. Heck, there were more private contractors making sure the military could function in Iraq and Afghanistan than there were soldiers.

So at best, Hillary’s statement is backwards: “Don’t let anyone tell you the government is capable of creating jobs.” But she didn’t say that because she’s an idiot. Instead, she said the same moronic thing Obama did. She said that the only people who can create jobs are the ones who actually create jobs without the help/aid of the private sector. She forgot (or ignored the fact) that the private sector is the group that responds to consumers, which is the primary reason for jobs to exist. She forgot (or ignored the fact) that without being able to skim private sector money, there would be no government. Even the communists depended on taxes taken from capitalists to keep their sclerotic system running.

Hillary went further too. First, she wrongly equated business with “trickle-down economics.” The two are not the same. Moreover, she said of “trick-down economics” that “That has been tried and failed. It has failed rather spectacularly.” Again, she’s ignorant at best. Reagan’s economy was the best the US has had in a hundred years. Her own husband presided over a second great economic period which also was based on the same trickle-down economics she now claims “failed rather spectacularly.” In fact, all of our best economic periods have involved the principles of “trickle-down economics,” and our worst have been the result of liberal economic meddling away from these so-called trickle-down principles. Obama and Carter are the worst for a reason: their passion for big government... LBJ didn’t send us into a generational economic malaise by accident, it was his passion for big government. FDR never did manage to dig us out of depression without all of our competitors literally being put to ruins; his efforts to force the economy out of depression with big government failed year after year.

Hillary either doesn't know this or is intentionally ignoring it. Either way, she's an idiot.
[+] Read More...

Thursday, October 23, 2014

Stuff Like This Makes My Head Hurt...

Like the title says, stuff like this makes my head hurt. You probably haven't been paying much attention to the plight of the transgendered community or all-women Ivy League schools, but this is the sign of our times. I realize that this subject may be uncomfortable for some of you, but issues like this are becoming more and more prevelant in our "gender fluid" new world order. This time it's at Wellesley College in Boston.

For a little background, Wellesley is one of the traditional all-women's ivy-league colleges and is part of the "Seven Sister Schools" - Barnard College, Bryn Mawr College, Mount Holyoke College, Radcliffe College, Smith College, Vassar College, and Wellesley College - all founded in the 19th Century. So you can imagine that they take their feminism really seriously. For the five school that remain "all woman", they now admit transgendered students - males who identify as female, females who identify as males and everything inbetween except males who identify as...well...male.

So here's the story. A female student who identified as male metriculated into Wellesley College as a freshman and asked to be referred to as "he" and as this NYT article indicates "he" was mostly accepted as a "he". So far so good until as a sophomore, he decided to run for the student-government position of the multi-cultural diversity coordinator who would be "responsible for promoting 'a culture of diversity' among students and staff and faculty members." That's when he suddenly found out exactly what happens to a white male who wants to run for a student government position at an all-women's college. When three others who signed up to run for the same position dropped out, the women at the college started a campaign calling for all to "abstain" from voting. And, dear Lord, this is what the leader had to say:
“It wasn’t about Timothy,” the student behind the Abstain campaign told me. “I thought he’d do a perfectly fine job, but it just felt inappropriate to have a white man [emphasis added] there. It’s not just about that position either. Having men in elected leadership positions undermines the idea of this being a place where women are the leaders.”
Seriously, as if being transgendered isn't enough to prove one's street cred in diversity, he is now being discriminated against because he...is...a...white...man. It's feminist insanity at its best or worse. This poor "man" not only has to deal with negotiating a hostile, confused world as a transgendered person, but NOW he has to contend with man-hating femini-nazis too. Like I said, it just makes my head hurt...

As a side note: Hillary Rodham Clinton graduated from Wellesley in 1969. God help us.
[+] Read More...

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

Idiocy and Ebola... Huffpo Style

So I found myself following a link which promised an educational article about Ebola. Sadly, it turns out the article was at HuffPo, so the chances of learning much fell to zero. Ultimately, the article told me nothing except that some woman thinks protective clothing is hard to wear. That's it. Well, actually, the article also told me again how poorly leftists “reason”... it’s just not natural to them.

I don’t remember the name of the woman who wrote the article and I don’t really care, but she spent several pages whining about how hard it is to put on, wear and then remove the protective suits that hazmat teams wear. None of that was particular shocking. Finally, she came to her conclusion. This is where it got stupid. First, she began her conclusion by claiming that our response to Ebola has “drawn out the true vulnerabilities in the health care system.” Interesting. Up to this point, the article has not addressed this issue in any way, so this conclusion comes from out of the blue and you should take it with a grain of salt.

So what does she tell us? Well, she begins by noting that we spend trillions of dollars on healthcare, but we spend it all wrong. Oh no! See, we don’t spend it on “population health.” Sadly, she never tells us what that means or how we misspend the money. So her point is lost at best.

Next, she proclaims that Ebola “should not be a threat to American citizen.” Heck, I agree! And if we kept it from entering the country, then it wouldn't be. But that's not her point. Instead, she says it shouldn't be a threat because we have clean water, information, a means to educate ourselves, proper hand-washing procedures and protective suits.

Ok, hold the phone. Apparently, our little airhead doesn’t realize that this single case of Ebola came from Africa via a man who lied to get on an airplane. It didn’t spring up in the US because we let our water get dirty, because we failed to educate the population about the safe handling of anything, or even from a dirty American toilet seat. So how does any of the above change what happened, much less cause it? It can't, so she's wrong... again. The only reason Americans are facing a possible Ebola problem is because no one has bothered to contain the disease by quarantining the carriers. Funny how she never mentions that. In fact, see how she continues:
“We have the technology, and we certainly have the money to keep Ebola at bay. What we don’t have is communication. What we don’t have is a health care system that values preventative care...”
“Preventative care”? WTF?! Is she really saying that the reason that two or three Americans have Ebola is not because they were infected by the man from Africa but because our insurance-based system doesn’t pay for people to engage in preventative care to prevent Ebola? Would Ebola screening and mammograms have done anything to change this result? Hardly. Again, she's a moron.

It gets worse:
“... What we don’t have is an equal playing field between nurses and physicians and allied health professionals and patients.”
Huh? How does that matter? This is union bullship and has nothing to do with how the Ebola virus works. The lack of communication that failed in this instance was the CDC failing to provide proper guidance to basically everyone who asked them, and that’s on Obama and his team... not some made up lack of unionization of nurses or socialization of hospital structures. If you want to make that kind of claim, you damn well better have at least a grain of evidence.

She continues blathering:
“What we don’t have is a culture of health where we work symbiotically with one another and with the technology that was created specifically to bridge communication gaps.”
Really? It’s interesting that every doctor I’ve ever visited has worked symbiotically with their nurses and staff. Where isn't this true? Again, the real problem here was the CDC and Team Obama politicizing this issue, not some phantom lack of communication among the hospital staff.
“What we don’t have is the social culture of transparency, what we don’t have is a stopgap against mounting hysteria and hypochondria, what we don’t have is nation[sic] of health literate individuals.”
This is so typical of the left. First, note that her position would be entirely flipped around if Bush had been president. Then she would talk about the failure of the evil Bush Team to protect the poor stupid public. But with Obama in charge, she goes the other way and blames the public for making a big deal about what's been done to them. That's calling blaming the victim. And keep in mind, this woman is herself making a big deal about this. In fact, she’s taken an isolated incident which has affected only a handful of people and would have been far less if the CDC had done their jobs, and she’s using that to recommend an unrelated wholesale restructure of the health care industry. That's called exploitation. That's called generating hysteria.

Also, isn’t the word “hysteria” sexist? The left has made this claim in the past.

Finally, our politicized ditship says the following:
“We don’t even have health-literate professionals. Most doctors are specialists and are well versed only in their field. Ask your orthopedist a general question about your health -- see if they can comfortably answer it.”
Wow. First, every specialist I’ve ever met also has basic medical knowledge. Secondly, it’s so painfully obvious that queen ditship doesn’t understand the concept of specialization. Specialization is a way to improve the breadth and depth of skills available. By letting people specialize, you let them focus on areas that a GP simply wouldn’t have the time or skill to do. There is nothing at all wrong with this. In fact, only a retard would say that a cancer doctor must also know how to perform plastic surgery or set bones or handle pediatric indigestion. Humans specialize so that everyone can cover manageable areas and together create a much stronger healthcare system, a system that covers more areas and in greater depth than would be possible without specialization... every field does this. A system that didn’t have specialization is a system that wastes training, wastes skills, and results in lower quality service. And pointing at a plastic surgeon and saying, “He’s not skilled at fighting Ebola” is as stupid as pointing at a waiter and saying, “He’s not skilled at writing computer code!” But ditship doesn’t realize that because her mind is weak and politicized and she's anti-doctor.

And you know what? Even if she was right about any of this, and she isn't, the cost of changing all of this is astronomical compared to quarantining the 2-3 people with the disease... "quarantine" is a word she never uses, by the way. Think about it. Putting 3 people in a hospital isolation ward for a month will cost a fraction of the trillions it would cost to remake the system as she wants it... and which changes aren't in any way justified by this Ebola event.

Sadly, articles like this will continue to get the mouth-breathers at Huffpo to rail against the parts of the healthcare system that work while hypocritically excusing the failures of their God Obama and his politicized, incompetent CDC team. Leftists suck.

Thoughts?
[+] Read More...

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

An Open Thread, the Opera...

Sorry, ladies and gentlmen, but I am little under the weather this evening so I will make this brief. And no, it is not Ebola. And anyway, that was last week's crisis. We are moving on to new, more improved crises for this week.

Here's one as we move into the final stages of "Election 2014". Obama is clearly panicking as he has already started throwing in everything he can think of at his potential election crisis. Now he wants to be fully evolved on the issue of same-sex marriage and has announced that the Constitution supports same-sex marriage. I do not disagree with him, however he should have evolved long ago for this not to look like such an obvious political play.

Speaking of political plays, or operas in this case, here is our newest NYC crisis: The Metropolitan Opera opened their new season tonight with a production of a new opera called "Klinghoffer" and has the entire city in an uproar. As explained in a Huffpo article, the opera "explores the murder of Leon Klinghoffer, an American Jewish passenger in a wheelchair by members of the Palestine Liberation Front during the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Lauro cruise ship".

Needless to say the family of Mr. Klinghoffer is outraged that the Palestinian terrorists who murdered their father in cold blood, are given a voice at all and especially at one of the most respected institutions in NYC. There have been calls for months from all quarters of the city to cancel the production because of its anti-Semitic overtones which has culmanated in a huge protest at Lincoln Center tonight which included former Mayor Guiliani. He stated, and I think that he is right in this:
“The Met, and those who decide to go see this production, have every right to do so, and it would be hypocritical and anti-American for us to interfere with that, and to stop that,” Mr. Giuliani said at the rally. “They have that right. But we also have a right, just as strong, and just as compelling to point out the historical inaccuracy and the historical damage this contributed to.”
He has a point and one that he has made before. In 1995, then Mayor Rudy Giuliani expelled Nobel Peace Prize winner and Palestinian leader Yassar Arafat from a concert at Lincoln Center for UN leaders because of the Palestinian attacks on the Achille Lauro. As I recall, Giuliani said that Arafat could be in the city because he was a delegate to the UN, but he couldn't enjoy himself while here. It became a huge headache for the President Clinton who called it an "embarrassing breach of diplomacy" and then invited Arafat to the WH for tea. But that is exactly why I liked Giuliani. He was brave enough to cause such a breach to do what was right.

So talk amongst yourselves and I will join in when I can.
[+] Read More...

Monday, October 20, 2014

Wake Me Up Before You Vote Vote

I saw an odd headline the other day about Michelle Obama. According to the headline, she was encouraging “women and minorities” to “wake up,” like some sort of call to arms. This struck me as an interesting appeal, especially given Obama’s track record with both groups. But it turns out that wasn’t what she meant. She literally meant to wake up and not to sleep through voting day. Good grief.

To start with, let me laugh at Michelle Obama having to tell her supporters to get their lazy butts out of bed. That really adds to the stereotype of her followers being lazy and useless, and it explains why they aren’t more successful. Seriously, what normal person needs to be told to get out of bed by their leaders? The pathologically lazy is about all who come to mind.

She did try to expand the point a bit to include those who simply aren’t paying attention, but that hardly makes it better. Basically, she wants her supporters to go grab their sleep nephews or college dorm mates, their indifferent aunts and neighbors, and the rest of their lazy families “who are like, no, I ain’t going to vote, or I couldn’t wake up.” So I guess laziness runs in families. Anyway, nice grammar, lady.

But let's look at the bigger picture, shall we? Let us assume Madame O actually meant “wake up and realize what is happening to you.” This is a rather ridiculous thing for her to say. Do you know why? Well, consider her behavior and her husband's record and you'll see.

First, Madame O has spent her time suckling off the taxpayers. Five star hotels. Shopping in the most expensive shops around the world. Taking Air Force One to restaurants. This woman has lived like Marie Antoinette on steroids. For her to claim that somehow these poor, supposedly-oppressed women and minorities should support her is borderline insane. Imagine if Warren Buffett made the same appeal! Not to mention, they already support her! Every penny of the social security they collect from the few who work and every dollar of the benefits the rest get that gets taxed goes to pay Michelle's lavish lifestyle. So her appeal to wake up really should be met with, "What the hell are you doing with my hard-earned money?"... and maybe a guillotine.

Then there’s her husband. He has presided over a collapse in minority employment, minority household incomes, and minority net worth. They took the brunt of the housing bubble because they owned the subprime homes and nothing was done to bail them out. They were tricked by liberals into getting worthless degrees in African American or Gender Studies which left them unemployable and with vast debt. Liberals run the schools that seem to specialize in not teaching minority kids to read and write or do math. And Obama has done nothing to shake any of this up, even as middle class white parents are pushing their kids into charter and private schools at amazing rates. To the contrary, he's tried to block the door to save his teachers union buddies. He didn't fix the housing issue either, preferring instead to send trillions to the nation's largest banks. He's done nothing to help small (minority) businesses get credit either.

From the ranks of identity politics, he’s presided over the collapse of the black Congressional district under the Civil Rights Act with nary a genuine peep. He’s watched helplessly as voter ID laws quickly spread around the country. He’s whined, but done nothing else, as Affirmative Action basically has been strangled by the Supreme Court. He did appoint a black guy as Attorney General and an Hispanic chick to the Supreme Court, but neither is all that competent and won't make anyone proud. Beyond that, his minority appointments have been few and far between, and the White House continues to pay women far less than it pays men, not to mention it fought the extension of benefits to gays for as long as Obama thought he could. And look at Hispanics. He’s made all kinds of false promises to them!

So what exactly has Obama done to help minorities? We know what he’s done to crush them, but what has he done to help? The answer is nothing.

You know, Michelle is right, it is time for minorities to wake up and to see that Obama and the democrats are not their friends. So yeah... wake up. Oh, and get out of bed and get a job.
[+] Read More...