Another Steven Crowder classic.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Fair or Foul? Go Daddy CEO shoots elephant in Africa
I am a little disturbed at the knee jerk reaction some people are having (especially on Twitter) to this story. It was not a horrible thing this man did, it was responsible conservation. IT protects the elephant population, the people living in the area, feeds hundreds of people, and protected crops.
The worse thing is that these same people all upset about this are more than happy to drive to the store and buy meat. I guess it is ok to kill as long as you pay someone else to do it for you. I expect everyone calling for a GoDaddy boycott to do two things ASAP.
1) Become a vegan (no meat at all)
2) Send food to Africa to make up for the food they would not get if you got your way.
If you don't do these two things. Then STFU!
As for me I say good job!
Support GoDaddy
The worse thing is that these same people all upset about this are more than happy to drive to the store and buy meat. I guess it is ok to kill as long as you pay someone else to do it for you. I expect everyone calling for a GoDaddy boycott to do two things ASAP.
1) Become a vegan (no meat at all)
2) Send food to Africa to make up for the food they would not get if you got your way.
If you don't do these two things. Then STFU!
As for me I say good job!
Support GoDaddy
Van Jones: "Stronger Than Bombs" (9/12/2001)
Oscar Mike Golf and Whisky Tango Foxtrot this was the DAY AFTER 9/11. 9/11 was one of the worst single acts of hate bigotry is modern times and these people bash the USA! I question their mental health.
Your Healthcare Choices Ultimately 'Controlled From the Government' Rep...
I find it sad that this mad is actually a doctor.
Dry Run or Wrong Turn? 3 Mid-East Men Try to Enter Calif. Marine Base After Allegedly Making Terror Threats
I am sure there are lots of dry runs or at least feints to keep the pot stirring. Why expend your resources when you can cause anixety without doing so?
From Jonathon M. Seidl at the Blaze
From Jonathon M. Seidl at the Blaze
Marine base Camp Pendleton — one of the largest military bases in the country — is reportedly on high alert after three Middle Eastern men tried to enter the base last weekend on multiple occasions in multiple vehicles. And while the men initially claimed they didn’t know each other and simply took a wrong turn, new information from a local gas station about “hateful comments” and “terrorist threats” casts doubt on their story...Read More
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Is Being Pro States Rights Racist? Al Sharpton Says The Tea Party is An...
This is an issue we libertarians/conservatives on which we need to educate ourselves. The "states’ rights" issue was used by Democrats as an excuse for all manner of individual rights suppression. People like Sharpton know that and use it to twist the debate. This is a more complicated issue than it might seems, when we in the Tea Party speak of states’ rights we mean a much different thing than did the people defending slavery and subsequent discriminations. The GOP was founded on the principles of individual liberty and rejected the argument that "owning" people was not in conflict with this. The fact that Tea Partiers now use the 10th amendment arguments has nothing what so ever to do with suppression of liberty. It is just the opposite we use states' rights to protect liberty.
This post is far from comprehensive. I barely scratch the surface. I suggest everyone educate themselves on the history of states’ rights, it is a fascinating study. Also, I recommend people read up on the 1964 presidential election and how much it changed the political landscape.
Hat Tip: The Blaze
This post is far from comprehensive. I barely scratch the surface. I suggest everyone educate themselves on the history of states’ rights, it is a fascinating study. Also, I recommend people read up on the 1964 presidential election and how much it changed the political landscape.
Hat Tip: The Blaze
Cuba to Qatar Should Get to Vote for US President: Radicals Ayers and Dohrn Preach One World Government in Lebanon
These people have no interest in the best interests of the USA. Actaully, their interests are in complete conflict with that of the USA. They are just as much terrorists as they have always been they just use a different mode to terrorize.
Hat Tip: Blaze
Hat Tip: Blaze
Monday, March 28, 2011
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Why Does Obama Hate Small Business?
Wayne Allyn Root at Big Government has a nice take on the Obama administration's hostility toward small business.
Why Does Obama Hate Small Business?
Why Does Obama Hate Small Business?
I’ve started more than a dozen small businesses. For one, over $20 million was invested by me and investors who believed in me. I’ve paid payrolls, health insurance, payroll taxes, workers comp, and unemployment insurance for hundreds of employees.
Because of that, my employees were able to pay their mortgages, buy groceries, send their kids to college, and provide for their families. For this same small business, I spent about $50 million dollars on things like advertising, marketing, promotion, lawyers and accountants. That money enriched and employed thousands of others. And, that’s just one small business. Think of the impact that thirty million small business owners have on the U.S. economy. No wonder we create 70% or more of America’s new jobs. Small businessmen and women are a far more powerful economic force than Exxon, Microsoft, GE, or Wal-Mart.
So why do Obama and his socialist cabal hate us? Why do small businessmen and women feel demonized and punished? Why is it Obama’s goal to drive us out of business?
Mug or rob me once? Maybe it’s ignorance or a mistake. Twice? It’s a pattern. But, coming up with ways to rob and destroy me and my businesses on a daily basis? It’s time to get the message. Without a doubt, Obama and the progressive left are the enemy of small business...Read More
Cato Senior Fellow Jerry Taylor on Green Economies and Renewable Energy ...
In honor of Earth Hour.
This video is AWESOME!
This video is AWESOME!
Saturday, March 26, 2011
The Spinning of Employment and Unemployment Numbers
During a recent news search online I stumbled across an amusing satirical article by Eoin O'Carroll of the Christian Science Monitor.
This article was poking fun at a recent report about the inability of American to pass a citizenship test. At the bottom of the article there was a link that read “RELATED: Are you smarter than a Fox News viewer? Take our quiz.” I clicked the link and was presented with a quiz, the first question being:
I stopped after reading this question because I remembered this from somewhere. My suspicions were correct when I read the pages fine print.
This article was poking fun at a recent report about the inability of American to pass a citizenship test. At the bottom of the article there was a link that read “RELATED: Are you smarter than a Fox News viewer? Take our quiz.” I clicked the link and was presented with a quiz, the first question being:
1.Is it your impression that most economists who have studied it estimate that the stimulus legislation:
1) Saved or created several million jobs
2) Saved or created a few jobs
3) Caused job losses.
I stopped after reading this question because I remembered this from somewhere. My suspicions were correct when I read the pages fine print.
“…American voters were quizzed on their knowledge of issues and facts raised in the 2010 midterm elections, in a survey by World Public Opinion, a project managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland.I remember hearing about this “study” and a subsequent rebuttal by Lee Doren on his “How the World Works” YouTube channel. Please go watch it after you read this article.
Respondents were also asked where they get their news from: Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, newspapers, network TV news, public broadcasting.
The survey found that "substantial levels of misinformation were present in the daily consumers of all news sources." But Fox News viewers were significantly more likely to be misinformed than those who get their news from other sources. And, greater exposure to Fox News increased the degree to which viewers were misinformed…”
Friday, March 25, 2011
Is Palin Really “Losing Ground”?
Is Palin Really "Losing Ground"?
Hat Tip: Wilson Research Strategies and The Hill Ad Review - Blog
Recent interpretations of national polling data have suggested that former Alaska Governor and Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin is “losing ground” based on movements in her image rating among all self-identified Republicans and Republican-leaning Independents. But what are we really looking at?
- FACT: The recent Washington Post/ABC news poll that is the basis the “losing ground” comments still shows Palin on the right side of the favorable/unfavorable scale with 58% having a favorable impression and 37% with an unfavorable impression.
- FACT: When a national survey asks self-identified Republicans “For whom would you vote for in the Republican primary,” the field is wide open. When the leader is polling south of 20%, no one is even come close to locking this up.
- FACT: The “self identified Republicans and Republican-leaning Independents” are very different from the actual caucus goers and Republican primary voters who will determine the Republican Presidential nomination. Fewer than five percent of these voters will actually be Iowa caucus participants or vote in one of the three or four early primaries that will be critical in deciding the next Republican nominee.
- FACT: At this time in 2007, the same national polls showed Rudy Giuliani as the prohibitive favorite for the Republican nomination and they continued to show him with sizeable leads even as it became increasingly clear he had no chance to become the nominee...Read More
Hat Tip: Wilson Research Strategies and The Hill Ad Review - Blog
Thursday, March 24, 2011
God HELP US: Future FBI Head to be Jamie Gorelick.
The administration want her to be the head of the FBI
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2008/09/jamie-gorelick-mistress-of-disaster.html
By Chris Neefus, CNSNews.comHat Tip: Doug Ross
The Obama administration reportedly is considering former Clinton administration official Jamie Gorelick, among others, to become the next director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
The Wall Street Journal’s Evan Perez first reported the news last week, citing “U.S. officials” familiar with the situation.
Gorelick served as vice chairman of the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) when the government-sponsored enterprise began bundling subprime loans into securitized financial instruments. Prior to that, she served as deputy attorney general in the Clinton Justice Department under then-Attorney General Janet Reno from 1994 to 1997......read more
By Doug Ross
"...It's not often that one person plays key roles in two -- count 'em, two -- trillion-dollar disasters. Welcome, my friends, to the world of well-connected Democrat Jamie Gorelick...read more
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2008/09/jamie-gorelick-mistress-of-disaster.html
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Heroes of the Week: World Trade Center SAR Dogs (and their handlers)
Nice Quote from the week following the attacks
"Not enough can be said about the heroic individuals, both bipeds and quadrupeds, who lend their abilities to the security and rescue efforts underway in the wake of last Tuesday's terrorist attack on America...Read More
More Links:
Dogs in the news
Dog Lics
Story of Servus (you will cry)
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Rewriting History – Tenth Amendment Center
Rewriting History – Tenth Amendment Center
Hat Tip: Tenth Amendment Center
If you read a recent piece entitled “Doomed to Repeat History” by policy analyst Ian Millhiser at the progressive think tank Center for American Progress the answer would be countless. His inaccuracies, partisan propaganda, scare tactics, and mistruths scream for a response. Of course, the statist zombies who sop up progressive talking points will probably view Millhiser’s work as the trump card against “tentherism,” but that is the principal problem. Millhiser has no idea what he is talking about (surprise!). He does not understand the objectives of the Tenth Amendment movement and his definition of “tentherism” is hardly accurate. Perhaps he doesn’t care, since demonizing those who support liberty and limited central government is what progressives do best, but Millhiser obviously needs an elementary lesson on the Tenth Amendment and American history in general...Read More
Hat Tip: Tenth Amendment Center
Monday, March 21, 2011
The President Setting Precedence
Why did the President not consult congress before authorizing the US Military to participate in the UN authorized attack of Libya? Simple, he is establishing a precedent.
This is SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) for the Obama administration. Whether it is defying court orders or having the EPA over step its authority or FCC and net neutrality, the goal is to set precedence.
This allows them to argue that they are just being consistent with precedence if they are challenged on even more divisive issues in the future. Once a court rules that the camel’s nose in the tent is legal or if no one challenges the nose in the tent, then it is much easier to bring in the whole damn camel, flies, hump and everything else. For example if the Individual Mandate in Obama Care is ruled Constitutional, then the government can use the "legality" of requiring a person to by health insurance to require them to buy almost anything.
Persuasive precedent (also persuasive authority) is precedent or other legal writing that is related to the case at hand but is not a binding precedent on the court under common law legal systems such as English law. However, persuasive authority may guide the judge in making the decision in the instant case. Persuasive precedent may come from a number of sources such as lower courts, "horizontal" courts, foreign courts, statements made in dicta, treatises or law reviews. In Civil law and pluralist systems, as under Scots law, precedent is not binding but case law is taken into account by the courts.
Generally the idea is to set precedents that are not “too” controversial or that are not too impactful on most citizens. The attack on Libya would easily get congressional approval, but by not getting that approval for a popular action, he makes it quasi-legal to take unpopular actions, using the prior action as legal justification.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
"Who The Hell Do You Think You Are?" Farrakhan Bla...
HotAirPundit: "Who The Hell Do You Think You Are?" Farrakhan Bla...: "Farrakhan goes on a rant on Chicago radio about Obama calling for Qaddafi to step down, this is from yesterday Louis Farrakhan with radio ..."
Hat Tip: HotAirPundit
Hat Tip: HotAirPundit
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Stossel - The Department Of Bull
I tend to be more of a hawk on foreign policy and anti-drug, but the rest of the video is great.
Friday, March 18, 2011
Palin Doctrine Emerges as Arab League Echoes Her Demarche on Libya
Benyamin Korn at the NY Sun details the emergence of the Palin Doctrine
The call by the Arab League for Western military intervention in an Arab state — in this case asking that a UN “no-fly zone” be imposed over Libya – is not only without precedent but it puts in formal terms what Governor Palin stated three weeks ago should have been America’s response to the political and humanitarian crisis now unfolding there.Hat Tip: NY Sun
The former GOP vice presidential candidate was being interviewed on February 23rd on national television by Sean Hannity on a range of issues. On the Libya crisis, she proposed a no-fly-zone to protect the armed and un-armed opposition to the Qaddafi regime. Mrs. Palin’s formulation had been blogged about for nearly a week when it was echoed by the man who, before the Iraq war, had led the Iraq democratic movement in exile, Ahmed Chalabi...Read More
Thursday, March 17, 2011
"Fukushima 50" Team Working to Avoid Nuclear Meltdown
I think these workers are such heroes. How many of us would go to work if it meant you have a good chance of dying? I know most of us would like to think we would be heroic but the truth is they are actually doing it. They are truly heroes. I bow to you Fukushima 50 (there are actually 180 of them)
Static Versus Dynamic Scoring
I get tired of hearing people people say this or that tax cut is for the rich. The following is taken verbatim from Freedomworks they explain it more concisely than I could:
Static Versus Dynamic Scoring
Static Versus Dynamic Scoring
When tax cuts are proposed, government economists calculate how much they will "cost" the government--"cost" being the expected decrease in tax revenue for the state as a result of the tax cut--to inform legislators before they vote. Two very different types of calculations exist, "static scoring" and "dynamic scoring."
Static scoring assumes the tax cuts will have no change on the economic behavior of the individuals that are effected. For example, it assumes that if $100 is taxed at 50%, producing $50 in revenue, then a lowering the tax rate to 25% on $100 will produce $25 of revenue, "costing" the government $25 in lost revenue. It assumes the lower tax rate won't encourage anyone to behave any differently than they currently do.
Dynamic scoring ads to the calculations the predictable changes tax cuts have on economic behavior. For example, it assumes that if a 50% tax on $100 produces $50 in revenue, then lowering the tax rate to 25% will produce $25 in revenue, as static scoring predicts, but also that individuals will work more (if it's an income tax cut) or realize more capital gains (if it's a capital gains tax cut, etc.) because they will get to keep more of their money. This changed behavior will produce an extra $100, for example, which is also taxed at $25, resulting in a total of $50 in revenue, and no loss for the state.
The history of economic growth following tax cuts, from the Kennedy tax cuts to the Reagan tax cuts to the Bush tax cuts, repeatedly shows that the static score predictions have been way off the mark (overestimating the "cost") while the dynamic score predictions have been much closer to accurate.
Issa pledges probe into ATF “gun walking” operation
Issa revealed his plans during an interview Wednesday evening on the Roger Hedgecock Show, saying it would be one of his “primary investigations.”
According to Issa, the official announcement will “come out in the next day or two.” He said that although he normally investigates “waste, fraud, and abuse in government that leads to loss of money,” in this case, two individuals — a Border Patrol Agent and an Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agent – “lost their lives needlessly because AK-47’s got over the border — not by accident — they got their as part of a plot by the very people that should be protecting them…”
“We’re going to get to the bottom of it … we’re going to hold those who lied to us early on accountable,” Issa promised Hedgecock.
Hat Tip: Daily Caller and Hot Air
British Teacher Saved 42 Teens From Tsunami | Orange UK
Quite a hero.
British Teacher Saved 42 Teens From Tsunami | Orange UK
British Teacher Saved 42 Teens From Tsunami | Orange UK
A British teacher has been dubbed a hero after he led his students to higher ground just moments before their school was obliterated by a tsunami in Japan.Hat Tip: Orange
Robert Bailey, 27, told how he was "terrified" but had a duty to keep the teenagers safe.
He had just eight minutes to get the class of 42 students to safety.
"We first heard a weird cracking noise, then came the violent shaking," he said, describing the moment the earthquake struck on March 11.
"I ushered the students outside on to the baseball field so they wouldn't be hit by falling debris...Read More"
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Davis Release Signals Recalibration of U.S.-Pakistan Intelligence Relationship
Thank Goodness...BTW Blood money is a normal cultural thing in middle east, so this is not surprising. People even buy insurance for it.
Davis Release Signals Recalibration of U.S.-Pakistan Intelligence Relationship The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.
Davis Release Signals Recalibration of U.S.-Pakistan Intelligence Relationship The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.
...After spending almost two months in a Lahore jail for killing two Pakistanis, CIA contractor Raymond Davis was released today, ending one of the most serious diplomatic standoffs between Islamabad and Washington in nine years of partnering in the fight against terrorism.Hat Tip: Heritage Blog
Davis was set free after family members of the Pakistanis killed by Davis told a Pakistani court that they were dropping charges in exchange for financial compensation, often referred to as “blood money” in Pakistan...Read More
Saudi Arabia emerges as key policeman in region
This is what happens when there is a vacuum in leadership from the most powerful man in the world.
Saudi Arabia has moved decisively to bolster Bahrain's embattled royal family, sending military forces across the causeway linking the two kingdoms after violent weekend pro-democracy protests by Shia demonstrators all but overwhelmed police.Saudi Arabia emerges as key policeman in region - English pravda.ru
Although the deployment on Monday was at Bahrain's request and came under the guise of the Gulf Co-operation Council, whose other members also sent troops, it marked another stage in Saudi Arabia's reluctant emergence as the key regional policeman, at a time when the Arab world faces unprecedented turmoil...Read More at Pravda
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Milton Friedman Schools Young Idealist (Stanford)
I just love Milton Friedman
In this classic footage from a Stanford University lecture, Professor Friedman takes Q&A after his talk "The Role of Government in a Free Society." In this exchange, a young man describes poverty as a "market failure." Friedman, in characteristic fashion, shows otherwise. Though this was recorded around 1979, the exchange is timeless.
Obama Looking For Ways Around Congress On Gun Policy
The American people overwhelmingly voted for a change in direction in November. If the administration does not like that then they can try to convince these same people that they should support them, but they do not have the authority or right to circumvent the constitutional limits placed upon them PERIOD.
Be afraid, be very afraid.
Hat Tip: Huffington Post
Be afraid, be very afraid.
Faced with a Congress hostile to even slight restrictions of Second Amendment rights, the Obama administration is exploring potential changes to gun laws that can be secured strictly through executive action, administration officials say...
...Administration officials said talk of executive orders or agency action are among a host of options that President Barack Obama and his advisers are considering...Read More
Hat Tip: Huffington Post
Celebs Mock Japan's Tsunami on Twitter: Gilbert Gottfried Fired by Aflac
Celebs Mock Japan's Tsunami on Twitter: Gilbert Gottfried Fired by Aflac
Aflac, If you hire I me I promise I will not be a douche like Gilbert Gottfreid
Aflac, If you hire I me I promise I will not be a douche like Gilbert Gottfreid
Monday, March 14, 2011
Heroes of the Week: SEALS of Spartan 01
This week's heroes are the SEALS of Spartan 01 whose heroic stand during operation Red Wings reflected great credit upon themselves and upheld the highest traditions of the United States Naval service.
LT Michael P. Murphy
STG2 (SEAL) Matthew Axelson
GM2 (SEAL) Danny Dietz
HM1 (SEAL) Marcus Luttrell
Visit the Lone Survivor Foundation and The Boot Campaign
Read more about them:
LT Michael P. Murphy
STG2 (SEAL) Matthew Axelson
GM2 (SEAL) Danny Dietz
HM1 (SEAL) Marcus Luttrell
Visit the Lone Survivor Foundation and The Boot Campaign
Read more about them:
Little Zangief: Casey Heynes Unloads on Bully
Little Zangief: Casey Heynes Unloads on Bully | The News is NowPublic.com
The video:
A video was posted to Reddit as "Child finally snaps after being bullied". As advertised, it captures a fight between two kids. The smaller kid is harassing the huskier kid, punching him in the face and stomach. The bigger kid just stands there and takes it... until he doesn't. The bigger kid then picks up the bully and slams him into the ground. The bully then has trouble getting up as the heavier kid walks away...Another take from Desdspin.com
Casey's had enough. The bigger kid on the right "has been bullied his whole school life," says the video description, "and this is what happens when he snaps!!" Hence the jackknife powerbomb...
The video:
Rasmussen Reports - Health Care Law
Ouch..!
Health Care Law
...Support for repeal of the national health care law has reached its highest level since May of last year. The number of voters who believe the plan will increase the cost of care has tied its highest level since the law’s passage last March.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Voters shows that 62% favor repeal of the health care law, including 51% who Strongly Favor it. Only 33% of voters oppose repeal, with 24% who are Strongly Opposed...
Health Care Law
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Battle: Los Angeles
I just saw Battle: LA and I was surprised how much I disagree with the critics. I read a bunch of reviews after seeing it and I can only conclude based on comments by reviewers such as “If you're the kind of person for whom "…they blowed it up real good" is a positive review, you'll love this film…” and “…Pretty much cardboard, down to the heroic patriotic speeches..” and “…the flat military characters with hackneyed dialogue and corny sentimentality…” Is that much of the criticism is based on the critics irritation at the pro-military, pro-USA, and Pro-Duty and courage the permeates this film.
Is it a great movie, probably not, but is it a good movie, YES. However, if you hate America, manliness, the military, heroes, etc. then you will hate this movie. And, if you are looking for wimpy military characters that crack at the first gun shot then you will hate this movie. If you hate honor, duty, and courage you will hate this movie.
If you like all those things you “might” like it. I also read a lot of criticism over special effects. I totally don’t get this criticism either. They are as good as they needed to be. If I had to give this movie a grade I would say B+.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Obama Administration Divided on Treatment of WikiLeaks Suspect Bradley Manning
Obama Administration Divided on Treatment of WikiLeaks Suspect Bradley Manning
I say send him to Gitmo until his execution
Manning is being held in the brig on charges of aiding the enemy. He’s in solitary confinement for 23 hours every day and is stripped naked before he goes to bed. Some in the Obama Administration believe he is being “mistreated” by the Marines. From The Guardian:
Hillary Clinton’s spokesman has launched a public attack on the Pentagon for the way it is treating military prisoner Bradley Manning, the US soldier suspected of handing the US embassy cables to WikiLeaks...
I say send him to Gitmo until his execution
Great Website - "City Journal"
I stumbled across a great website today called City Journal.
Here is the excerpt from the website's about us
Here is the excerpt from the website's about us
City Journal is the nation’s premier urban-policy magazine, “the Bible of the new urbanism,” as London’s Daily Telegraph puts it. During the Giuliani Administration, the magazine served as an idea factory as the then-mayor revivified New York City, quickly becoming, in the words of the New York Post, “the place where Rudy gets his ideas.” The Public Interest goes further, calling City Journal “the magazine that saved the city...”
A Quick Vent
Something that really bugs me is when members of an opposing political party or “journalists” who lean one way or another, try to tell the party that they do not belong to and who they do not support who they should or should not put forth as a candidate.
IT IS NONE OF THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS BUSINESS WHO THE REPUBLICANS NOMINATE FOR PRESIDENT...THEY WOULD NOT VOTE FOR ANYONE THE GOP NOMINATED.
Also, the "vetting" process for VP is the business of the GOP nominee and hie/her staff, not Chris Matthews or Rachel Madow! Especiall since NONE OF YOU VETTED OBAMA IN ANY WAY!
IT IS NONE OF THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS BUSINESS WHO THE REPUBLICANS NOMINATE FOR PRESIDENT...THEY WOULD NOT VOTE FOR ANYONE THE GOP NOMINATED.
Also, the "vetting" process for VP is the business of the GOP nominee and hie/her staff, not Chris Matthews or Rachel Madow! Especiall since NONE OF YOU VETTED OBAMA IN ANY WAY!
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Chris Medina - What Are Words
I posted this just because it is a touching song and video. No politics or message intended.
Do wolves have a right to eat?
Do wolves have a right to eat? If so what if they can’t catch a deer or rabbit or whatever else they like to eat?
What if they are a lone wolf or in a pack, does that make it different. What about the whelps (pups) do they have the right to eat? What if their mother gets killed or is sick and can not feed them?
If so, what about the burden placed on the wolves prey? Should the deer lie down so the wolf can kill it, just because it is hungry? Conversely, does the deer have a right not be eaten? Does it have the right to run away?
The answer is “no” the wolf does not have a right to eat; the deer does not have a right not to be eaten. However, the deer does have the right to run away and the wolf has a right to chase the deer.
But wolves, lone and in packs, do eat deer and deer do try to run away. So, what’s the point? The point is rights are inherent in nature, no matter what law is passed, wolves do not have a right to eat deer and deer can not have the right not to run away from the wolves that chase them.
A right can not impose an obligation on another and a right can not be infringed for the benefit of another.
Who can win the presidency? It’s not necessarily who you think.
Who can win the presidency? It’s not necessarily who you think. Conventional wisdom says that Lincoln, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, and Obama could not win.
Lincoln - 1860:
In 1860 Lincoln only won 39.8% of the vote, but was elected largely in part because of dual political schisms.
The Democrats were divided over the concept of “popular sovereignty” in the case of slavery. In the decades before the American Civil War, the term "popular sovereignty" was often used to suggest that residents of U.S. territories should be able to decide by voting whether or not slavery would be allowed in the territory. This concept was associated with such politicians as Lewis Cass and Stephen A. Douglas. Note: neither faction was in favor of ending slavery.
Die-hard former Southern Whigs and Know Nothings who felt they could support neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party formed the Constitutional Union Party. They wanted to compromise on slavery but otherwise were “similar” in other ways to the republicans.
As a result of this four way election, an unattractive failed lawyer managed to get enough votes to win the 1860 election, thanks to being the only choice of abolitionists. Keep in mind that in 1859 the biggest story in the country was the trial and execution of John Brown. This in no small part made slavery the trunk issue of 1860.
Therefore, thanks to political schisms, Ole’ John Brown, and other ancillary issues, Lincoln (who should not have been able to win) won.
Nixon – 1968:
Nixon who failed to win against Kennedy in the razor thin election 1960, came back to win against Hubert Humphries and George Wallace in 1968. Again this resulted on no small part to the split democratic ticket. Wallace represented the segregationist wing of the Democratic Party ran as an Independent when he failed to get the nomination from his party.
The Democrats, who wear the incumbent party in 1968, were also severely hurt do to anti-war sentiment bubbling up among their own constituents. The anti-war protests and the schism over segregation were the trunk issues of 1968.
Reagan – 1980:
Reagan ran for the Republican nomination ion 1976 and nearly defeated the incumbent president. However, despite this near success many did not consider him a serious candidate. He was vilified by the media in a time before there were any significant conservative outlets. There was no Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Internet, etc. He was also under attack from the dominate moderate/liberal wing of his own party. At best he was in a close race with Carter in late October; some people have suggested he was down 8% but a closer analysis suggest it was fairly even in the polls prior to the Oct 29 debate. Yet despite being an “amiable dunce”, just an actor, and too conservative… he came back and demolished Carter.
The horrible economy and the problems in the middle-east, both of which could be lain at President Carter’s feet, were the trunk issues that Reagan road to his victory.
Clinton – 1992:
Bush 41 had a 90% approval rating coming out of Desert Storm; there was serious media chatter that the Democrats should nominate him from president even though he was an incumbent Republican president. Many of the obvious choices from the Democratic nomination decided not to run.
However, Bush had alienated much of his conservative base by breaking his 1988 campaign pledge against raising taxes, the economy was in a recession, and Bush's perceived greatest strength, foreign policy, was regarded as much less important following the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the relatively peaceful climate in the Middle East after the defeat of Iraq in the Gulf War.
Just as in 1860 and 1968 the election of 1992 had an additional candidate who drew enough support to impact the elections result.
The public's concern about the federal budget deficit and fears of professional politicians allowed the independent candidacy of billionaire Texan Ross Perot to explode on the scene in dramatic fashion—at one point Perot was leading the major party candidates in the polls. Perot crusaded against the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), internal and external national debt, tapping into voters' potential fear of the deficit. His volunteers succeeded in collecting enough signatures to get his name on the ballot in all 50 states. In June, Perot led the national public opinion polls with support from 39% of the voters (versus 31% for Bush and 25% for Clinton).Perot severely damaged his credibility by dropping out of the presidential contest in July and remaining out of the race for several weeks before re-entering. He compounded this damage by eventually claiming, without evidence that his withdrawal was due to Republican operatives attempting to disrupt his daughter's wedding.
The trunk issues of the economy, the end of the cold war, and Perot’s candidacy resulted in Clinton winning with only 43.01% of the vote.
Obama – 2008:
The election of 2008 what noteworthy because it was the first election since 1972 that did not have an incumbent president or vice president on the ballet.
Barrack Obama, a junior senator from Illinois, decided to run against the Democrat’s presumptive nominee Hillary Clinton. Conventional wisdom held that his lack of experience, ultra liberal views, and even in mixed racial heritage made him unelectable.
He was however, able to ride enormous support from the old guard media, a recession, and waning support for two ongoing wars, to victory over a moderate Republican John McCain.
I have listed five unlikely winners of the Presidency and some of the reason why they won, what commonalities are there between the examples I have listed and how does this apply to today.
In three of the five (Lincoln, Nixon, Clinton) there were more then two candidates that received enough votes to sway the election. The other two (Reagan and Obama) had two had trunk issues of a bad economy and unrest in the Middle East.
What can we learn from this? How do five (by conventional wisdom) unelectable men get elected.
The simple answer is this. Despite any negatives a candidate may have, if he or she can articulate a message that resonates with the electorate. Then that candidate can win. That is not to say “any” message well articulated can be a winner that is not the case.
A candidate can not come across as “crazy.” Seeming crazy is easier to do than one might expect when in the sport light of a Presidential Campaign. Ross Perot, Howard Dean, and Ron Paul all have fell victim to the “sin” of appearing somewhat crazy. Opponents and their supporters in the media and blogosphere will pounce on a candidate who does or says something crazy.
A candidate can not be short or ugly. This might be unfair but the reality is short and or ugly candidates are less viable in these days of visual media. Height is often said to be the single physical characteristic that most often correlates to victory in a Presidential elections.
So can Sarah Palin, Chris Christie, Hillary Clinton, Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich…et al win. The answer is absolutely, but it depends.
How is the economy?
What is the national security situation?
How do they deal with their negatives?
How do they appeal to independents and single issue voters?
How do they handle a hostile media?
Can they articulate their message well?
Can they get their message out?
Lincoln - 1860:
In 1860 Lincoln only won 39.8% of the vote, but was elected largely in part because of dual political schisms.
The Democrats were divided over the concept of “popular sovereignty” in the case of slavery. In the decades before the American Civil War, the term "popular sovereignty" was often used to suggest that residents of U.S. territories should be able to decide by voting whether or not slavery would be allowed in the territory. This concept was associated with such politicians as Lewis Cass and Stephen A. Douglas. Note: neither faction was in favor of ending slavery.
Die-hard former Southern Whigs and Know Nothings who felt they could support neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party formed the Constitutional Union Party. They wanted to compromise on slavery but otherwise were “similar” in other ways to the republicans.
As a result of this four way election, an unattractive failed lawyer managed to get enough votes to win the 1860 election, thanks to being the only choice of abolitionists. Keep in mind that in 1859 the biggest story in the country was the trial and execution of John Brown. This in no small part made slavery the trunk issue of 1860.
Therefore, thanks to political schisms, Ole’ John Brown, and other ancillary issues, Lincoln (who should not have been able to win) won.
Nixon – 1968:
Nixon who failed to win against Kennedy in the razor thin election 1960, came back to win against Hubert Humphries and George Wallace in 1968. Again this resulted on no small part to the split democratic ticket. Wallace represented the segregationist wing of the Democratic Party ran as an Independent when he failed to get the nomination from his party.
The Democrats, who wear the incumbent party in 1968, were also severely hurt do to anti-war sentiment bubbling up among their own constituents. The anti-war protests and the schism over segregation were the trunk issues of 1968.
Reagan – 1980:
Reagan ran for the Republican nomination ion 1976 and nearly defeated the incumbent president. However, despite this near success many did not consider him a serious candidate. He was vilified by the media in a time before there were any significant conservative outlets. There was no Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Internet, etc. He was also under attack from the dominate moderate/liberal wing of his own party. At best he was in a close race with Carter in late October; some people have suggested he was down 8% but a closer analysis suggest it was fairly even in the polls prior to the Oct 29 debate. Yet despite being an “amiable dunce”, just an actor, and too conservative… he came back and demolished Carter.
The horrible economy and the problems in the middle-east, both of which could be lain at President Carter’s feet, were the trunk issues that Reagan road to his victory.
Clinton – 1992:
Bush 41 had a 90% approval rating coming out of Desert Storm; there was serious media chatter that the Democrats should nominate him from president even though he was an incumbent Republican president. Many of the obvious choices from the Democratic nomination decided not to run.
However, Bush had alienated much of his conservative base by breaking his 1988 campaign pledge against raising taxes, the economy was in a recession, and Bush's perceived greatest strength, foreign policy, was regarded as much less important following the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the relatively peaceful climate in the Middle East after the defeat of Iraq in the Gulf War.
Just as in 1860 and 1968 the election of 1992 had an additional candidate who drew enough support to impact the elections result.
The public's concern about the federal budget deficit and fears of professional politicians allowed the independent candidacy of billionaire Texan Ross Perot to explode on the scene in dramatic fashion—at one point Perot was leading the major party candidates in the polls. Perot crusaded against the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), internal and external national debt, tapping into voters' potential fear of the deficit. His volunteers succeeded in collecting enough signatures to get his name on the ballot in all 50 states. In June, Perot led the national public opinion polls with support from 39% of the voters (versus 31% for Bush and 25% for Clinton).Perot severely damaged his credibility by dropping out of the presidential contest in July and remaining out of the race for several weeks before re-entering. He compounded this damage by eventually claiming, without evidence that his withdrawal was due to Republican operatives attempting to disrupt his daughter's wedding.
The trunk issues of the economy, the end of the cold war, and Perot’s candidacy resulted in Clinton winning with only 43.01% of the vote.
Obama – 2008:
The election of 2008 what noteworthy because it was the first election since 1972 that did not have an incumbent president or vice president on the ballet.
Barrack Obama, a junior senator from Illinois, decided to run against the Democrat’s presumptive nominee Hillary Clinton. Conventional wisdom held that his lack of experience, ultra liberal views, and even in mixed racial heritage made him unelectable.
He was however, able to ride enormous support from the old guard media, a recession, and waning support for two ongoing wars, to victory over a moderate Republican John McCain.
I have listed five unlikely winners of the Presidency and some of the reason why they won, what commonalities are there between the examples I have listed and how does this apply to today.
In three of the five (Lincoln, Nixon, Clinton) there were more then two candidates that received enough votes to sway the election. The other two (Reagan and Obama) had two had trunk issues of a bad economy and unrest in the Middle East.
What can we learn from this? How do five (by conventional wisdom) unelectable men get elected.
The simple answer is this. Despite any negatives a candidate may have, if he or she can articulate a message that resonates with the electorate. Then that candidate can win. That is not to say “any” message well articulated can be a winner that is not the case.
A candidate can not come across as “crazy.” Seeming crazy is easier to do than one might expect when in the sport light of a Presidential Campaign. Ross Perot, Howard Dean, and Ron Paul all have fell victim to the “sin” of appearing somewhat crazy. Opponents and their supporters in the media and blogosphere will pounce on a candidate who does or says something crazy.
A candidate can not be short or ugly. This might be unfair but the reality is short and or ugly candidates are less viable in these days of visual media. Height is often said to be the single physical characteristic that most often correlates to victory in a Presidential elections.
So can Sarah Palin, Chris Christie, Hillary Clinton, Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich…et al win. The answer is absolutely, but it depends.
How is the economy?
What is the national security situation?
How do they deal with their negatives?
How do they appeal to independents and single issue voters?
How do they handle a hostile media?
Can they articulate their message well?
Can they get their message out?
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
NPR’s Diversity Doublespeak | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.
NPR’s Diversity Doublespeak | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.
Hat Tip Heritage.org
Just yesterday NPR’s president and CEO stood before the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., and declared that the taxpayer-funded news organization exhibited no bias against conservatives. Vivian Schiller even dared conservatives to show her the proof.
Less than 24 hours later, filmmaker James O’Keefe delivered the goods. Caught on camera was an NPR senior vice president calling “Tea Party people” a variety of derogatory names: “Islamaphobic, but really xenophobic, I mean basically they are, they believe in sort of white, middle-America gun-toting. I mean, it’s scary. They’re seriously racist, racist people.” ...Read More
Hat Tip Heritage.org
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Jesse Jackson Jr. Fix Unemployment by Changing Constitution So Every Ki...
Repeat after me JJJR "It is not a 'right' if it places a burden on another, in other words if someone has to provide it then it is not a right!"
See my earlier post of a video from Walter E Williams
See my earlier post of a video from Walter E Williams
Monday, March 7, 2011
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Thomas Sowell - Is Democracy Viable?
Great article by the Great Dr Thomas Sowell...enjoy!
Those who see hope in the Middle East uprisings seem to assume that they will lead in the direction of freedom or democracy. There is already talk about the "liberation" of Egypt, even though the biggest change there has been that a one-man dictatorship has been replaced by a military dictatorship that has suspended the constitution.
Perhaps the military dictatorship will be temporary, as its leaders say, but we have heard that song before. What we have also heard, too many times before, is the assumption that getting rid of an undemocratic government means that it will be replaced by a freer and better government.
History says otherwise. After Russia's czars were replaced by the Communists, the government executed more people in a day than the czars had executed in half a century. It was much the same story in Cuba, when the Batista regime was replaced by Castro and in Iran when the Shah was replaced by the Ayatollahs.
It is not inevitable that bad regimes are replaced by worse regimes. But it has happened too often for us to blithely assume that overthrowing a dictator means a movement toward freedom and democracy.
The fact that Egyptians or others in the Middle East and elsewhere want freedom does not mean that they are ready for freedom. Everyone wants freedom for himself. Even the Nazis wanted to be free to be Nazis. They just didn't want anybody else to be free...read more
SHOCKER! - German Investigators Suspect Islamist Motives behind Attack
<SARCASM>
Wow this is hard to believe!
</SARCASM>
Wow this is hard to believe!
</SARCASM>
Following initial investigations, security authorities in Germany are investigating whether Wednesday's shooting at Frankfurt Airport was a targeted attack on the US Army. They are also exploring whether US soldiers in Germany are at risk of further attacks....Read More at Der Speigel
What is a “worker” and what is “working class?”
Formal definitions are easy enough to find such as:
A more honest definition of “worker” would be “anyone who pays union dues.” Note that I did not say union members. This is because many employees working in “union shops” are forced to pay dues to unions to which they do not belong. In rhetorical terms “worker” and “working class” are anyone who fits the purpose of socialist leaning political activists.
The terms have been undefined and are functionally meaningless. There use is wholly political and designed to imply a class separation that does not exist. This is especially true in the case of the Wisconsin teachers, who are generally more educated, better paid, engage in little if any physical labor, and do not produce a tangible product. This is not to diminish the role of teachers in general, there are supremely important and are often underappreciated.
So what terms are more appropriate? I have five suggestions:
When we allow a words and phrases like worker and working class to because misused and morphed into political tools that have nothing to do with their definition then we are allowing ourselves to be manipulated.
Worker: member of working class: a member of the working class, especially a factory employee or manual laborer.These are somewhat precise, so how do these apply to teachers in Wisconsin? All are college educated, many with Master’s degrees, making above average wages? The simple answer is they don’t. By tradition etymology many of the so called workers in the United States are actually employees.
And
Working class is a term used in the social sciences and in ordinary conversation to describe those employed in lower tier jobs (as measured by skill, education and lower incomes), often extending to those in unemployment or otherwise possessing below-average incomes. Working classes are mainly found in industrialized economies and in urban areas of non-industrialized economies…working class is defined and used in many different ways. When used non-academically, it typically refers to a section of society dependent on physical labor, especially when compensated with an hourly wage. Its use in academic discourse is contentious, especially following the decline of manual labor in postindustrial societies. Some academics question the usefulness of the concept of a working class.
A more honest definition of “worker” would be “anyone who pays union dues.” Note that I did not say union members. This is because many employees working in “union shops” are forced to pay dues to unions to which they do not belong. In rhetorical terms “worker” and “working class” are anyone who fits the purpose of socialist leaning political activists.
The terms have been undefined and are functionally meaningless. There use is wholly political and designed to imply a class separation that does not exist. This is especially true in the case of the Wisconsin teachers, who are generally more educated, better paid, engage in little if any physical labor, and do not produce a tangible product. This is not to diminish the role of teachers in general, there are supremely important and are often underappreciated.
So what terms are more appropriate? I have five suggestions:
- Non-union employee: This is someone with a job who is not self employed and is not in a union, the more general term “employee” is also acceptable for this person
- Private sector union employee/member: This is someone with a private sector job who is in a union, e.g. a UAW member working for Caterpillar making tractors would
- Public sector union employee/member: This is someone with a public sector job who is in a union, e.g. our Wisconsin teachers
- Self employed: This is someone who owns the business or is an independent contractor, e.g. family doctor, independent website designer, car dealer
- Unemployed: Someone without a job
When we allow a words and phrases like worker and working class to because misused and morphed into political tools that have nothing to do with their definition then we are allowing ourselves to be manipulated.
Friday, March 4, 2011
Democrats and Racial Politics: From Jim Crow to Barack Obama
Good article from Francis Rice over at Newsblaze
By Frances Rice
Democrats have a 150-year history of using race as a political weapon to keep blacks in virtual slavery and Republicans out of power.
The recent firestorm ignited by Senator Hillary Clinton's racially-tinged attempt to derail Senator Barack Obama's presidential campaign shows the perils of Democrats using their race-based weapon against a black Democrat. In the black community, people are outraged about how Democrat demagogues, including Billionaire Bob Johnson of BET, are treating Obama as an "uppity Negro" who dares to defy their white Democratic Party masters.
Prior to the Clinton-Obama hullabaloo over Senator Clinton's disparaging remark about Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the Clinton campaign was being given a pass for using racial slurs against Senator Obama. When Democrats called Senator Obama a "Magic Negro," there was hardly a ripple of protest. Just as little concern is expressed when Democrats slander black Republicans, such as former Lt. Governor Michael Steele who Democrats depicted as a "Simple Sambo" and Dr. Condoleezza Rice who was portrayed as an ignorant "Mammy", reminiscent of the racial stereotypes used by Democrats during the days of "Jim Crow." Any Republican using such slanderous tactics against blacks would be castigated as a racist and destroyed politically.
If the controversy generated by Senator Clinton's remark that diminished the civil rights role of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. signals the beginning of an end to the type of racial divisiveness inflicted on our nation for over a century and a half by Democrats, then the angst created by Senator Clinton will be well worth it.
To fully appreciate the significance of this possible historical turning point, we must pause to examine briefly the Democratic Party's sordid racist history... Read More
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)