The Classical Liberal

One Year Away from Hope and Change

2012-01-20T19:37:00.001-05:00

1/20/13. Only one more year until Obama is out!

I hope. I really hope for change.

What did you expect - Higher Taxes Doesn't Solve Problem

2012-01-19T23:37:00.004-05:00

Illinois raised personal and corporate taxes in order to solve their budget crisis. They used the time honored argument: if only the rich would pay their fair share everything would be ok. Who knew that it wouldn't work out as advertised?

Judy Topinka, the Illinois State Treasurer, says that this is "extremely disappointing" as a year ago Illinois increased income taxes by 67 percent and also corporate taxes.

“After the largest tax hike in our history, the state continues to be in this precarious fiscal position with persistent payment delays, and frankly, the situation is unlikely to significantly improve in the near term."

And here I thought that budget deficits were due to not enough revenue. I suppose Illinois will have to raise its income and corporate taxes a little more this year - that will solve the problem.

So Disappointed in Perry and Gingrich

2012-01-10T00:42:00.004-05:00

I’m now officially opposed to both Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich. Their attacks on Bain Capital were the final straw. As far as Rick Perry goes he can't string ideas together and his Small Government critics were right: he really is a Yellow Dog Democrat. He may get me excited by calling Social Security a Ponzi Scheme but how can I back him if he bashes business as he did by calling Bain Capital "Vulture Capitalism". Perry, what were you thinking?

And Newt - I love a lot of what he says. I love the way he turns the tables in debates and doesn't let himself fall into trap - but then he turns around and backs government-run health care, call the Paul Ryan plan "right-wing social engineering" even though it really is too-little-too-late; and now he bashes businesses like Bain Capital? I can forgive Gingrich for falling for the global warming crap but this I cannot.

I don't expect Gingrich to take punishment without hitting back - he should attach Romney on his ideas, attack him on his policies, attack him on not being able to connect with the American people - but to attack him for Bain Capital? No. With that you lost my support.

EDITED 1/20/2012

Obama may truly be Carter 2.0

2011-12-16T18:41:00.001-05:00

As of now there is no crystal ball for the 2012 elections. There are almost no certainties except that Obama will not better his 2008 performance. As of now not much has changed from a year ago when I wrote that we are going to have a return to the 2000 electoral map and have another close race.

The only thing that has changed is that I think that there is real chance for a Republican blow-out as happened in 1980. There is so much disapproval of Obama, especially among working-class labor voters (teamsters, laborers, machinists, etc... ) that the loss of this core Democratic block would result in an electoral blow-out.

A generation ago this voting block was called Reagan Democrats. It was nothing like that - it was that construction union members felt estranged from Carter in much the same way their children feel estranged from Obama. The more the Republicans bring up Keystone and Solyndra the more "Reagan Democrats" will be tempted to vote for the Republican candidate. For this to be true the Republican candidate must, in the same way that Reagan did, prove that he is not the evil, brain-dead, dangerous caricature he is made out to be. It may very well be close until the last month before voters move en mass away from Obama.

The Rick Perry Comeback?

2011-12-12T15:29:00.000-05:00

I'm not a Rick Perry fan (not being a social conservative) but I must say I've been impressed with his latest debating performances. Perry's road to the Whitehouse would have been fairly smooth if not for his numerous debating blunders. It was a major strategic error for him not to have spent months honing his debating skills before announcing his candidacy. As it is his candidacy is on lifesupport and his only chance is for Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich to bloody themselves while he resurrects his campaign.

Can Rick Perry do that? Yes, but only if he runs a flawless campaign AND his debating performances improve to the point where he can battle Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney head on. He needs to prove that he will not embarrass himself and his supporters come his debates with Obama next fall.

Right now Mitt Romeny is in a terrible position: social conservatives, libertarians, and Tea Party types do not want him as their nominee. Gingrich is suspect (Health Care, Global Warming, "Right-Wing Social Engineering") but, when on message, says all the right things. If Newt and Romney split the early delegates and Perry catches on strong we may very well have a brokered convention. Perry, as a sitting governor; as a candidate coming on strong; as an establishment favorite would have an excellent shot at walking out with the nomination.

Romney Flip-Flopping

2011-11-19T21:04:00.001-05:00

I'm not much of a Romney fan, but I have to say that this Romney campaign flyer from 1994 is quite interesting. Romney may have his flip-flopping issues but it's nothing like Kerry's "I was for it before I was against it" statement.

In this campaign flyer Romney states that he is for lower taxes, against endless government deficits and against federally mandated health care.

You're Going to Need Some Brand New Lines

2011-09-14T20:49:00.000-04:00

An excellent video: Obama's Going to Need Some Brand New Lines

Solyndra & Obama: Another Example of Government Picking the Winners

2011-09-02T22:03:00.001-04:00

Government can pick the winners say statists of all sorts. And, once again, with the bankruptcy of Soyndra we see the problem of corporatism -- government experts cannot pick the winners. In the 1980s numerous American statists pointed to Japan as the way of the future. Japan, Inc. it was called. Corporatism was the perfect blend of big business and big government.

The future didn't work the way the statists expected; but then it never does. The US government sunk over $500,000,000 in Solyndra only to have it end in bankruptcy.

The California solar panel manufacturer that received a high-profile $535-million Energy Department loan guarantee said it was ceasing operations, laying of 1,100 workers and preparing to file for bankruptcy protection. ...
It was quite a fall from late 2009, when Solyndra received a $535-million federal loan guarantee as part of the $787-billion economic stimulus package. In May 2010, company executives hosted President Obama on a factory tour and said they expected to add employees. ...
Solyndra would become the third such company to file for bankruptcy in recent days. Spectrawatt Inc. of Hopewell Junction, N.Y., filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection Aug. 19. Evergreen Solar Inc. of Marlboro, Mass., filed for Chapter 11 on Aug. 15.
Solar panel firm Solyndra to cease operations

Global Warming: It's the Suns' Fault

2011-09-02T21:26:00.004-04:00

For years now AGW proponents have argued two points: that their models are accurate (and becoming ever more so) and that the debate is settled, namely that all scientists agree that human activity is the cause of the "dramatic" increase in global temperature and CO2 in the atmosphere.

People like me, who question the accuracy of the findings (and are appalled by the politics surrounding the issue) are derided as anti-science, anti-reason boobs.

Now, out comes a research study from CERN, a study long-delayed due to political intereference, which turns the AGW positions on its head. It's findings, if true, completely invalidate the existing climate models. Second, and as important, it once again underscores the fact that AGW is not "settled" science.

The CERN press release states that "it is clear that the treatment of aerosol formation in climate models will need to be substantially revised." The press release concludes with the statement "However, it is premature to conclude that cosmic rays have a significant influence on climate until the additional nucleating vapours have been identified, their ion enhancement measured, and the ultimate effects on clouds have been confirmed."

The concluding statement is a necessary show of scientific humility, one not taken by the AGW zealots.

If you want to hear a presentation made by Jasper Kirkby at a TED conference, here it is:

EDIT: 9/14/2011

For further evidence that the science is not settled note that Nobel Prize Physicists are resigning from the American Physical Society over the position that the debate is settled.

Thank you for your letter inquiring about my membership. I did not renew it because I can not live with the statement below:

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate....

For further reading see the following from the American Physical Society:

There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution.

As for example the following quote from an APS article, Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) concluded that anthropogenic CO2 emissions probably caused more than half of the “global warming” of the past 50 years and would cause further rapid warming. However, global mean surface temperature has not risen since 1998 and may have fallen since late 2001. The present analysis suggests that the failure of the IPCC’s models to predict this and many other climatic phenomena arises from defects in its evaluation of the three factors whose product is climate sensitivity:

1.Radiative forcing ΔF;
2.The no-feedbacks climate sensitivity parameter κ; and
3.The feedback multiplier ƒ.

Some reasons why the IPCC’s estimates may be excessive and unsafe are explained. More importantly, the conclusion is that, perhaps, there is no “climate crisis”, and that currently-fashionable efforts by governments to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions are pointless, may be ill-conceived, and could even be harmful.

Food Stamps Stimulate Jobs

2011-08-17T10:00:00.001-04:00

Obama's Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack thinks that food stamps are an economic stimulus. If that's the case then why don't we expand the program? Surely giving everyone food stamps will expand the economy even faster. And why stop there? Why don't we give everyone $1000.00 gift certificates that they can spend at any store? Surely that would stimulate the economy in the same way. Think of all the jobs that would be made designing the gift certificates, putting them into envelopes and mailing them. Think of the jobs created as people use these certificates buying TVs and cars and going out to restaurants.

What a wonderful idea. Why haven't I thought that before? Oh, I did - it's called The Ditch-Digger's Fallacy.

Obama's Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack: "Well, obviously, it's putting people to work. Which is why we're going to have some interesting things in the course of the forum this morning. Later this morning, we're going have a press conference with Secretary Mavis and Secretary Chu to announce something that's never happened in this country -- something that we think is exciting in terms of job growth. I should point out, when you talk about the SNAP program or the foot stamp program, you have to recognize that it's also an economic stimulus. Every dollar of SNAP benefits generates $1.84 in the economy in terms of economic activity. If people are able to buy a little more in the grocery store, someone has to stock it, package it, shelve it, process it, ship it. All of those are jobs. It's the most direct stimulus you can get in the economy during these tough times."

I will work every day to make Washington, DC as inconsquential in your life as I can

2011-08-15T14:41:00.004-04:00

I don't yet know what I think about Rick Perry but any elected official that thinks that Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme and wants to limit the power of Imperial Washington is, at the very least, saying the right things.

EDIT 8/16/2011

Interesting articles regarding Rick Perry and the 2012 Elections:

Seventeen (17) things that critics are saying about Rick Perry
from Pesky Truth

Romney vs. Perry: How the Numbers (and the Calendar) Stack Up by Sean Trende

The Fall of the Midwest Economic Model by Michael Barone

EDIT 8/17/2011

An excellent review of the "Texas Miracle"

Rick Perry and Texas Job Numbers

Wisconsin Recall Elections - A recap

2011-08-10T10:58:00.003-04:00

It looks as if both sides think they did well in the Wisconsin Recall Elections. I think the Tea Party did well. Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos thinks that Progressives did well. That’s a good thing isn’t it, in this period of rancor and distrust? Both sides did well.

The argument, promoted by Progressives, union leaders and the MSM, has been that the Tea Party legislators are backed by a small minority of Americans. The legislators managed to win seats in an off-year election and, when in office, acted irresponsibly and against the will of the majority of the electorate. The Wisconsin electorate, it has been argued, is horrified by the actions of Governor Walker and the State Legislature and are attempting to right a wrong.

This time, it is argued, the people are not caught unawares; this time the people will stand up and remove the hateful ideologues who are plaguing their great state. Millions of dollars were raised as well as tens of millions of dollars worth of volunteer labor from Wisconsin labor and progressives and their supporters in the neighboring states of Illinois, Michigan and Minnesota.

What was the end result? Democrats managed to recall the elections of just 6 of the19 Republican State Senators. And after millions of dollars were spent only 2 of these Republican State Senators were recalled. On the face of it “taking back” 2 seats is very positive for the Democrats who want to “Take Wisconsin Back.” There are several points that modify this position.

First, when you threaten to destroy your opponent if they don’t stop what they’re doing (ending collective bargaining for government workers) and they continue what they’re doing you better deliver on your threat. The Democrats and the Unions did not deliver.

Second, the reason for the recall was supposed to be about the workers' rights and collective bargaining but these points were not the focal point of the Democrat attack ads. In fact these salient points were not mentioned at all.

Third, reviewing the two seats that the Democrats won show that it is even less of a “moral” victory than first meets the eye. One of the Republicans, Dan Kapanke, was a Republican in a Democrat district and was considered to have little chance of winning, the other was scandal plagued. Randy Hopper left his wife and children and moved in with his mistress. If anything it is surprising that this race was so close (51-49).

Fourth, there is no reason to believe that these elections are part of a trend which will shortly remove the hated Governor Walker and other Tea Party Republicans from office. Each of the Republican State Senators facing recall yesterday were in toss-up districts that went for Obama in 2008 – they were not in deep Red districts in which one would not expect a Democrat to win. Next week two Democrats are themselves facing recall elections and it looks as if Jim Holperin will lose, for much the same reason as Kapanke, the Republican, did. He’s a Democrat in a Republican district. The other Democrat seems to be safe – if he is turned then this adventure by the Democrat Party, President Obama, and public unions is nothing less than a complete repudiation of their basic tenant: that smaller, live-within-your-means-without-higher-taxes government is "extreme" and not mainstream.

Wisconsin Recall Elections

2011-08-09T22:25:00.001-04:00

If the Democrats only win 2 tonight they are hurting, not only in Wisconsin Politics but how it affects the 2012 election in a million little ways. It emboldens Tea Party activists, gives strength to squishy legislators and depresses government paycheck workers. Wow. What a change in this country in only 3 years.

Here's some Milton Friedman Videos for your viewing pleasure

2011-08-05T10:03:00.001-04:00

Those Evil Republicans and Tea Party Types

2011-07-07T11:46:00.001-04:00

The NYTs has an article, Looking for a Pool and Coming Up Dry as Cities Shave Budgets, bemoaning the fact that pools around the nation are closed due to budgetary issues. As usual the entertainment (and the horror) comes from reading the comments:

Said one person:

Why not keep the pools all closed? And the rec centers too! That way we can breed even more criminals and the Republicans can be happy keeping American prisons the busiest in the world.

Said another:

Capitalism has devolved into buying and selling companies (and often leaving them weak, like Mitt Romney did at Bain), rather than creation of real wealth and lasting enterprise. Rewarding the stripmining of our economy hardly constitutes rewarding effort, as libertarians would have use believe.

And yet another:

just another reason why republicans are like vacuum cleaners.

And yet another:

The wealthy often own ocean/lakefront property, just as they have their private swimming pools. Based on the Koch mentality, low- and middle-class people have no right to believe that they should have access to a luxury such as a public pool.

And yet another:

Well, closing pools because of insufficient public funds illustrates how the Tea Party (etc) approach to "starving the beast" (cutting taxes as a matter of course) is really about starving the middle class and the poor.

And yet another:

The credo of the Tea Party and Republicans: let's get rid of the common good.

And yet another:

But as long as Americans continue to elect people who advocate for anti-tax corporatists, things like shuttered pools will be the new normal.

Of course it never enters anyone's mind that perhaps you can have pools and beaches without lifeguards. Here's a suggestion - swim at your own risk. Just say no to the lawsuits and say yes to individual freedom and individual responsibility.

Don't blame taxpayers for wanting to curtail spending - blame our tort laws that require lifeguards.

The Minnesota Government Shutdown

2011-07-07T11:27:00.003-04:00

How far will Republican lawmakers go to protect millionaires? Those who think a default on the federal government’s credit seems implausible should take a sobering look at the “closed” signs dotting Minnesota. The Republican Party there readily shut down the state’s government on Friday by refusing to raise taxes on the 7,700 Minnesotans who make more than $1 million a year.

Gov. Mark Dayton, a Democrat, campaigned for office last year promising to raise taxes on high earners, so it was no surprise when he proposed a tax increase on families making more than $150,000 a year to help close a $5 billion budget gap. In negotiations with the Republican majority in the Legislature, he compromised and reduced the increase to those making $1 million or more, but Republicans are refusing to consider any income tax increase.

Antitax Extremism in Minnesota

It’s truly sad that the above paragraphs make sense to some. Let’s look at this in closer detail. The NYT editorial board thinks that the budget can be closed by taxing the wealthy. This is a common disease among the left. They think that problems can be solved simply by “taxing the rich.” Well – let’s look at this shall we. According to the NYTs there are 7,700 Minnesotans who make more than $1 million a year. Let’s assume that’s true. Governor Dayton was willing to cut two billion in services provided those making over a million would pay for the rest? How much would you have to raise taxes to collect three billion off those 7,700 families? Assuming the average earning of these millionaires is 1.5 million (it’s probably much less than that) their total income per year would be 11.5 billion. To close the gap from these millionaires you would have to take another 25% of their earnings.[See Footnote] The current tax rate is 7.85% for those making over 74,651. To meet Governor Dayton’s goal their state tax rate would quadruple to over 34%.

Any guesses on how many of these millionaires would leave Minnesota? Any guesses on the difficulty on attracting businesses and wealthy people to relocate to Minnesota? Funny how those questions never cross people's minds.

One of the reasons China is doing so well is that they have learned (as too many ~~socialists~~, umm ~~progressives~~, urr, make that liberals have not) that redistribution of income hinders wealth creation. I’m not suggesting that we go the China route – only that one of the reasons China is doing so well is that they understand that the massive redistribution of wealth, as espoused by Minnesota’s Governor Dayton and the NYT's editorial board, doesn’t work IF you are trying to build wealth.

FOOTNOTE:

11,500,000.00 (7,700 * 1.5 million)
3,001,500.00 (desired extra 3 billion in revenue)
0.261 (tax rate required to raise revenue)

Maybe Keynes Wasn't Right

2011-06-24T15:16:00.001-04:00

"We don't have a precise read on why this slower pace of growth is persisting," Bernanke said. He said the weak housing market and problems in the banking system might be "more persistent than we thought."
Bernanke: Drags on economy may last into next year

Here's some ideas for you - central planning doesn't work; the free market isn't an idle pipe dream; Keynes was wrong.

Obama Health Care - Let's Give a Waiver to the Entire Country

2011-06-24T13:11:00.004-04:00

They [the administration] began with the claim that there was no difference between activity and inactivity, since both involved decisions, and thus could be reached under the commerce power. Having largely abandoned this unwinnable argument, they now claim that the mandate does not really compel individuals to buy insurance, but merely regulates their inevitable future health-care consumption.

But because the future consumption of nearly all existing goods and services is inevitable across the entire population, this argument means that Americans can then be compelled to purchase an infinite variety of goods and services chosen by Washington. Far from limiting what government can do, this is the ultimate enabling principle. Even Soviet apparatchiks, who told producers what to make, did not dare tell people what to buy.

I hope, pray, that enought people have woken up; that the 2010 elections were for real; that the anger at big government liberalism and disgust at entitlement programs remains - even as a voter's "own" entitlement program gets cut.

If the above is true then Obama Care is toast come 2012 and we can go to the next step - a revival of respect for the 10th Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

and the concept of "States Rights" and "Laboratories of the States".

And then finally have it remembered that the locus of sovereignty resides in the people; that government has no power that was not delegated to it.

"That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them."

Virginia Declaration of Rights

Maybe then we can start pushing back against the Counter-Enlightenment (Marxism and contemporary liberalism) and return to the Enlightenment ideals of individualism, liberty and reason.

Farrakan takes on Obama over Libya

2011-06-20T15:27:00.001-04:00

Besides the obvious about any Farrakan speach - what's going on with his Christian preaching? I know that a few years ago he claimed that he was both a Christian and a Muslim but I must say that I found his continual use of Christian imagry to be surprising.

How much does this speach indicate a softening of support for Obama in the Black community? Will Black turnout for Obama decrease by 1%, 2%, 5%?

Libya Action not Covered by the War Power Act

2011-06-16T16:10:00.003-04:00

How is it possible that people can still be disgusted with Bush and not with Obama? Whether one thinks that Iraq made sense or not - it was approved by Congress and it followed numerous UN resolutions. I would not have started the Iraq War but once started it needed to be finished. That said - does anybody think for one second that actions such as exist in Libya aren't covered by the War Powers Act?

According to the White House the “U.S. operations [in Libya] do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve U.S. ground troops", therefore this operation does not require the Obama Administration to ask for Congressional approval under the War Powers Act. I have not parsed the War Powers Act but if the sinking of the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor and 9/11 were considered acts of war by the US then isn't understood that launching missles are also acts of war?

And, if it can be argued that the Libyan actions do not contravene the War Powers Act as flying sorties does not equal introducing American forces into hostilities and that the examples of Pearl Harbor and 9/11 are irrelevant to the argument then at least, isn't it interesting that the whole argument comes down to original intent? Listen to what Mr. Harold Koh, the State Department legal advisor, said:

"We are not saying the president can take the country into war on his own,” said Mr. Koh, a former Yale Law School dean and outspoken critic of the Bush administration’s expansive theories of executive power. “We are not saying the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional or should be scrapped or that we can refuse to consult Congress. We are saying the limited nature of this particular mission is not the kind of ‘hostilities’ envisioned by the War Powers Resolution.”

Sounds like an original intent argument to me. Isn't it delicious to hear Democrats and fellow-travellers arguing over original intent? My understanding of the "original intent" of the War Powers Act was that Presidents couldn't unilaterally take us into war; that such actions required Congressional approval. If this action in Libya is not covered by the War Powers Act then we must amend and update the act to include such actions.

The quotes come from a New York Times article: White House Defends Continuing U.S. Role in Libya Operation

On the Killing of Osama Bin Laden

2011-05-04T17:10:00.001-04:00

If Guantanamo means more terrorists; if the Iraq War means more recruitment for Al Qaeda then won't killing OBL mean more terrorists and even better reqruitment?

The Arab Spring and the Womens Liberation Movement

2011-05-04T16:21:00.002-04:00

There’s been so much to discuss over the last month – and I simply haven’t had enough time to finalize my posts. One thing that I’ve been very interested in has been the “Arab Spring.” Namely are we truly seeing the Arabic peoples rejecting despots and leaning towards a form of democracy? Are we seeing Muslims, particularly Arab Muslims, adjusting to the “shock” that the West had surpassed them in learning and technology; have they rejected all the “5-Year Plans” (to mix metaphors) employed over the last 150 years in order for them to regain their rightful place in the world? Have they gotten past their colonial experience? Are they willing to try a new means to superiority, something besides socialism (tried by their grandparents) or Salafist purity (a return to the pure and Golden Age of Muhammad) which has been ever more dominant over the last 30 years?

If we are to compare to Western History then this would be the 17th C when people, horrified and exhausted by the previous decades of civil war, decided to wage war no longer. One cannot make too close a comparison between the eras as it simply doesn’t hold. However, what I’m looking for is an Arabic world that looks to take care of itself economically and politically rather than one which states: “If all were pure as in the days of the prophet and there were no infidels then everything would be good and wonderful. Bread and dates in every home.”

We see what looks like “green shoots” all over, and in the strangest of fashions – I thought that Sila Sahin was a sign of the times. Here’s a quote from an article:

A Muslim beauty who bared all for Playboy may well be the next victim of an honor killing in Germany, if orthodox Muslims get their way.
When Şahin threw down the g-string, Islam was not amused. Şahin, apparently, grew up in a strict Muslim household. “What I want to say with these photos is, ‘Girls, we don’t have to live according to the rules imposed upon us,’” she told Playboy magazine. “For years I subordinated myself to various societal constraints. The Playboy photo shoot was a total act of liberation.”

Liberation for women isn’t exactly a top item on the Muslim man’s agenda. According to the New York Daily News, “Commenters [on the Internet] spewed that Şahin was ‘shaming Muslim womanhood’ and ‘prostituting herself for money,’ while others warned that she ‘needs to be very careful.’ ”
Muslim Playboy Model Sila Sahin May Lose More Than Clothes

Now, the response of “kill her,” “beat her” are expected. What is not expected is that she posed and that she said that she did so as an “act of liberation.” The women’s movement in the West is missing a big opportunity here, further proof – in case you needed it – that they are more socialist than they are for women’s liberation. I’m a big fan of the women’s liberation movement – not the socialist part; not the nanny state; not the “why can’t boys act more like girls” mentality; not the PC cowardice that is their contribution to the present day Progressive Movement – no, my appreciation for the Women’s Movement is in its individualistic roots where they are argued for women’s right to vote, to drive, to drink, to smoke, to play sports … to be free people.

That’s the Women’s Movement we need to see again.

EDIT: 5/9/2011

Take a look at this video. Is a change really happening in the Muslim world? Or am I being overly optimistic?

Why is the MSM ignoring the Republican Candidate for President?

2011-04-27T15:00:00.004-04:00

Why is it that the man who has actually announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination for president does not received any press attention while potential candidates like Donald Trump are mentioned every day?

Is this the MSM doing their job? And, if so, what is their job? Is it to sensationalize the issues? Is it to avoid topics and be snarky? Whatever their job is - it is not to hold a light up to the stories of the day and to give a rational, objective analysis of the facts at hand. The entire Obama Birther issue, for example, is due to the press not doing their job in 2008.

Again, why doesn't the MSM cover the man who has ACTUALLY announced his candidacy? Gary Johnson, is the ex two-term Governor of New Mexico who wants to introduce school vouchers, thinks that Gay Marriage ought to be legal and wants to legalize marihuana. Aren't education, gay marriage and the drug war topics worthy of discussion? Aren't Johnson's opinions different than what you would expect from a Republican candidate? Surely this ex-Governor should be able to break into the news cycle.

Why are this man ignored? Is it because he doesn't fit into the established narrative? Is it that we can't have people knowing that some Republicans want to legalize drugs or gay marriage?

EDIT: When I first wrote this post an hour ago I was under the impression that Herman Cain had announced his candidacy. I edited this post and removed my comments on Herman Cain.

Justin Amash, Freshman Congressman from Michigan

2011-04-15T11:42:00.000-04:00

Thank you to the NYTs for introducing me to Justin Amash, a 30 year old attorney who is the grandson of Palestinian Christian immigrants and is now a freshman Congressman from Michigan. I hadn't heard of him before and am pleasantly surprised to find another legislator who seems to truly be in favor of limited government and is acting on his beliefs.

Representative Justin Amash does not believe the government should subsidize public broadcasting, vehemently opposes abortion rights and thinks Democrats are wrong about spending. Yet he has voted against every Republican measure that conforms to those views. ...

He has even voted against the routine matter of approving the journal of the previous day’s proceedings, because, he says, there is not enough time to read it. (This is a bit like not clicking “I Agree” on a hotel Wi-Fi agreement because you don’t have time to read the fine print.) ...

“I follow a set of principles, I follow the Constitution,” said Mr. Amash, who keeps a picture of the seating chart for his constitutional law class from the University of Michigan on his office wall. “And that’s what I base my votes on. Limited government, economic freedom and individual liberty.”
In Class of Colorful Freshmen, Meet the Most Contrarian

He explains his votes on his Facebook Page www.facebook.com/repjustinamash and I was delighted to see that he quoted Hayek as to why he did not vote for a particular bill.

"By 'law' we mean the general rules that apply equally to everybody . . . As a true law should not name any particulars, so it should especially not single out any specific persons or group of persons." —F.A. Hayek

Maybe the United States has a chance after all. When gadflys become commonplace we may yet have a chance of not falling down the socialist rathole.

Nickeled and Dimed to Death

2011-04-14T12:23:00.002-04:00

When you are being nickeled and dimed to death there is no big solution. The solution is nickels and dimes. Any and all items on a budget will have fervent supporters. It is, after all, their job on the line. Most of the opposition will not feel as passionate about its removal which explains why, once a bureaucracy is created, it assumes a life of its own. And, as all life, will fight to protect itself.

There are many approaches to cutting government spending. Mine focuses first on what is the role of government – should it be participating in this particular activity in the first place. If the action is not specified in the constitution then we must place the activity on the TBD (To Be Determined) list. Second I would go for low-hanging fruit. There will be much anger and tribulation over cutting anything. Not only will those directly affected be passionate in its defense but so too will all those who think that government should distribute the wealth of society.

The first entity cut will be the most difficult as all who see their little fiefdom threatened will take the approach of UNITED WE STAND and DIVIDED WE FALL. They will fight fervently for keeping even the most inane agency; the most constitutionally irrelevant spending in place. They will argue that the cause is noble and ignore the constitutional limit on government; will argue that it provides jobs (see The Ditch-Digger’s Fallacy) and will argue that without government sponsorship society will suffer the loss of an important entity – and, after all – we’re only talking about a few dollars.

They’ll break down a hundred million dollar expenditure to “It's only 33 cents / year per person. Isn’t this activity worth 33 cents?” The proper response to the last remark is that if you think it’s worth 33 cents then stand up, act as a free man, act as a citizen of a great society and not as a serf and support this important entity.

EXAMPLE:

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has vowed to bring the Senate to a standstill unless congressional leaders agree to allocate $40,000 for a federal study on deepening the Port of Charleston.

Graham says one out of five jobs in South Carolina stem from trade through Charleston’s busy port, and he warns the entire state economy will suffer unless the port is overhauled.
Graham vows to bring Senate to standstill over $40K for project

Good. Then if it's so important let the people of SC pay for it. The population of South Carolina is over 4.5 million. That's less than one penny per person. If it's that important South Carolina will raise the money.

Atlas Shrugged, The Movie

2011-04-11T13:17:00.006-04:00

I just saw the Atlas Shrugged movie trailer and must say I was a little disappointed: the dialogue seemed stilted and I wasn't "sold" on the characters. I did like the fact that the story takes place in the NOW; I did like the fact that it shows politicians as anti-business and anti-individual. I have hope that the movie will focus upon the downward, corrupting, death spiral that is socialism and spotlight the need for a revival of, and the respect for, the role of individual freedom in society.

The second time I saw the trailer I liked it better. Here is an interview with the producer.

Some lamebrains on the left will call this a "conservative" movie. There is nothing "conservative" about Ayn Rand. If you have any questions about how conservatives have felt about Ayn Rand then read what Whittaker Chambers and other conservatives have written about her. Ayn Rand is an atheist who ridicules the concept of God and revealed knowledge of any sort. How then can she possible be considered a conservative?

If you see that "conservatives" are now promoting Ayn Rand - then you, the intelligent liberal that you are, need to acknowledge that the concept conservatism has changed - and, in fact, should start realizing that the word "conservative", along with "liberal", are ones not properly defined. After all, Ayn Rand could legitimately be called a liberal as she promotes individual liberty as opposed to government control; rational, non-religious discourse as opposed to revealed truth; and capitalism (the free exchange of goods and services) as opposed to socialism (distribution of goods and services by government fiat).

Do you think that I'm crazy for thinking that? If so then I'm in good company. Here's Milton Friedman on the subject

"I never characterize myself as a conservative economist. As I understand the English language, conservative means conserving, keeping things as they are. I don't want to keep things as they are. The true conservatives today are the people who are in favor of ever bigger government. The people who call themselves liberals today -- the New Dealers -- they are the true conservatives, because they want to keep going on the same path we're going on. I would like to dismantle that. I call myself a liberal in the true sense of liberal, in the sense in which it means of and pertaining to freedom."

If you're interested here is an interesting review of the movie written by Frank Beckmann writing for The Detroit News:
'Atlas Shrugged' makes it to screen

After viewing a preview copy of "Atlas Shrugged-Part 1," I can attest to its success in following the Rand story line with several exceptions, including its setting in 2016.

But the changes don't alter the book's message that an over-reaching government will destroy American capitalism and innovation much as critics of Obama administration policies believe is happening today.

Years ago I put out "Who is John Galt" stickers on NYC streets and the subways. Perhaps it's time to do it again.

The Republican Freshman

2011-04-11T07:57:00.000-04:00

As with everyone else hoping that "change" would come to Washington I was worried about how the new freshman would behave once they came to Washington. If the New York Times in the article: Close-Knit, New to the House, and Resistant to Blending In, is correct then perhaps there is hope afterall.

Even by the standards of Capitol Hill, where the bonds of friendship form quickly and endure, the four Republican freshmen from South Carolina stand out.

If the four South Carolina freshmen are any indication, though, the new members are doing just the opposite — turning to one another for mutual reinforcement and support, creating a ballast wall against the business-as-usual climate that tends to homogenize elected officials. And there are signs that their fellow freshmen from states like Arkansas, Florida and Illinois are standing together as well.

Here's hoping they keep fighting the good fight.

Obama Administration and the Fourth Amendment

2011-04-09T17:47:00.004-04:00

And you thought Bush was Evil? There have been many evil ideas put forth by the US Government but view as detrimental to the health of the US than the Obama Administrations argument that data which is NOT on your computer is not protected by the 4th Amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I am less opposed to the Patriot Act then what is now coming out of the Obama Whitehouse. The Patriot Act, for all the vitriol hurled its way, appears to be nothing more than consolidating hundreds of different law enforcement techniques and then placing them in the hands of counter-terrorist officials. From what I understand -- and please correct me if I'm wrong -- the only new provisions of the Patriot Act have to do with tracing money transfers.

In particular the US Government has, in at least one prosecution, invoked the 1986 Stored Communications Act which held that any email stored on a server for 6 months were to be considered abandoned and could be viewed by the government without a subpeana. This bill was enacted at a time when e-mail wasn’t stored on servers for a long time. They were held on the servers for a short time until downloaded to the recipient’s inbox.

See Wired Magazine:

Thankfully a group of ISPs, computer corporations and organizations have combined to fight this, Digital Due Process

The only reasonable course of action is to consider that any information held in an account is to be under the protection of the 4th Amendment.

The Media and Statistics - why is the MSM so poor at reporting the news?

2011-03-23T12:27:00.004-04:00

I was watching NY1, a local news channel in NYC, and heard the following report. [NY1: City Lags in Bike Commuting]

A new study finds other cities are leaving New York in the dust when it comes to bicycling to work.

OK, I think, that's interesting as I've noticed a big increase in New Yorkers bicycling. Other cities must have really stepped up their game. Then comes the next statement:

Researchers at Rutgers and Virginia Tech found the percentage of New Yorkers commuting on two wheels barely changed from 1990 through 2009, from 0.3 percent to 0.6 percent.

Perhaps we've lagged behind but it's not as if the percentage barely changed - the percentage of New Yorkers cycling to work has doubled in 20 years (0.3 - 0.6). And, since NY's population has increased from 7.3 million to 8.3 million, from 1990 to 2009, one can clearly say that the population of New Yorkers commuting to work by bicycle has more than doubled in the last 20 years.

Furthermore as NY is a walking based city and we have a lot more combined commercial/residential areas than we had 20 years ago I would bet that the population walking to walk has increased as well.

Nuclear Power is Safe

2011-03-15T09:10:00.006-04:00

I’ve never been a fan of nuclear power for a whole slew of reasons. These reasons often times boils down to the fact that nuclear power is uneconomical as it relies on government subsidies to survive: for example the transportation and long-term storage of waste and the limited liability in the case of an accident. Safety, as regards the long-term storage of waste, was also a major concern and the immediate safety of the nuclear power plants was for me, as for a lot of people, a nagging concern. I think that the Japanese experience has put that particular concern to rest.

In this case a 40-year old nuclear reactor built with what would now be considered a primitive design gets hit by a 9.0 magnitude earthquake; slammed with a resulting tsunami which knocked out the back-up generators; followed by an explosion due to the buildup of hydrogen gas; and yet the core remains intact and contained. I still have the aforementioned problems with nuclear power but I think we can say that the plants themselves can take a beating and remain safe.

Even if there are further problems with the reactors I would think them safe. Why? Because there are many areas in the world where 9.0 earthquakes simply don't happen (often enough). In the Japanese case the nuclear reactor handled a major earthquake. It appears that all the resulting problems are due from the back-up generator going down. Would placing the generator up on a 20 or 30 foot platform have solved the problem?

Can Imagine the Uproar if Palin Said This:

2011-01-31T10:42:00.009-05:00

"We have three branches of government. We have a House. We have a Senate. We have a President. And all three of us will have to come together ..."

Senator Charles Schumer
CNN’s State of the Union
January 30, 2011

I disagree with Senator Schumer on just about everything. I don't doubt that, in the proper context, Senator Schumer would list the three branches of government correctly. However just imagine the late night jokes if George Bush or Sarah Palin had said this.

Data Privacy and the 4th Amendment

2011-01-30T18:16:00.000-05:00

Piggybacking off the previous post (the need for data privacy) the way we conceive of the 4th Amendment needs to be reviewed. In the 18th Century your papers and other vital information were stored in your house and government officials would have to enter your house and physically seize the papers.

Today your vital papers are stored at your bank(s), your credit card companies, your employer, doctor's offices, internet service providers and numerous others. The government having access to this information should be as difficult to get as the permission to enter your house and take the information from your office.

Amendment 28 to the US Constitution

2011-01-30T12:48:00.002-05:00

I just saw something terrific on slashdot. In a response to the US government creating an internet "kill switch" (similar to what's happening in Egypt) one person proposed that we augment the 1st Amendment with the following:

AMENDMENT 28

"The right of the people to receive and provide information services without tracking, interception, or interruption thereof shall not be violated by the Government or agent thereof except by judicial warrant naming persons, data, and services to affected."

Guns Equal Death Therefore We Ought to Ban Them

2011-01-19T18:37:00.002-05:00

While the gun crazies are telling us that ever more Americans need to be walking around armed, we should keep in mind that more than a million people have died from gun violence — in murders, accidents and suicides — since Dr. King was shot to death in 1968.

We need fewer homicides, fewer accidental deaths and fewer suicides. That means fewer guns. That means stricter licensing and registration, more vigorous background checks and a ban on assault weapons. Start with that. Don’t tell me it’s too hard to achieve. Just get started.
How Many Deaths Are Enough? by Bob Herbert

Wow. What a horror! One million people have died from gun violence in 40+ years: that's approximately 25,000 a year. More American civilians have died since Martin Luther King was assassinated than American soldiers in World War II, the Korean War, Vietnam, the Gulf War, the Iraq War and Afghanistan combined! Bob, you're so right - we need to stop this epidemic of violence.

Or is Bob Herbert mistaken? Certainly we need fewer homicides but clearly if all guns were illegal (or magically removed) we would still have homicides wouldn't we? Therefore we can't blame ALL homicides on guns. Let's say that all accidental gun deaths would be eliminated if guns were illegal. That's not entirely true as professionals still make mistakes as well as illegal gun owners. Finally, is it just to blame guns for suicides? Certainly that ought to be removed from the equation as drugs, cars, windows and bridges would remain giving people intent on suicide numerous alternatives.

A quick look at the US Statistical Abstract shows that, on average, about 650 Americans die by accidental gun deaths. At the same time approximately 3,200 Americans drown; 19,000 die from falls and 48,000 from car, boat, airplane and other "transport" accidents. Since safety is the primary concern perhaps we ought to ban swimming, driving, flying and other dangerous activities as well.

Clearly as tragic as the 650 deaths are it is not a reason to outlaw guns. First of all not all these deaths are children accidently playing with their parents guns, some are gun-owner accidents; others are hunting accidents. We don't stop skiing because approximately 40 people die per year skiing; or sky diving because about 30 people a year die from them; or scuba diving, hiking, mountain climbing or other such activities.

Regarding suicides: approximately 34,000 people per year commit suicide in this country and about half (a little bit more than half) use guns. Certainly we cannot blame guns, in any way, for the suicides. The suicide rate in Japan is more than twice ours and they have some of the most stringent gun control laws in the world.

Let's review Bob Herbert's contribution to the debate:

We need fewer homicides, fewer accidental deaths and fewer suicides. That means fewer guns.

That means stricter licensing and registration, more vigorous background checks and a ban on assault weapons. Start with that. Don’t tell me it’s too hard to achieve. Just get started.

Bob Herbert is correct. There would probably be less homicides if we had stricter gun laws as about 2/3rds of the homicides are by guns. Still, if Mr. Herbert was interested in fewer gun homicides he would support increased penalties for using guns in crimes and doubling down on these increased penalties when it comes to gang crime. This would decrease gang violence and make poor neighborhoods safer. How about this: rather than banning the "assault" weapons for everyone (true assault weapons are outlawed) how about increasing the penalties for using these "assault" weapons in a criminal manner. Let's start penalizing criminal behavior and not gun ownership. Let's start with that. It's not too hard to achieve.

Somehow I don't think Bob Herbert would go for that.

Civility in Public Discourse and the Arizona Shooting

2011-01-14T11:15:00.004-05:00

Obama is asking that we return civility to the public discourse. "We" are all to blame for the heated rhetoric that led to the Arizona shooting. There are two things wrong in the media reaction to Obama's speech. One: "we" are not responsible for the shooting, nor is any of the political speech from either the left or right. Second, Obama and the left are willing participants in the politics of destruction. Look at the civil way the left and the media has handled their disagreements with George Bush and Sarah Palin.

The heated rhetoric is from both sides, and I dare say, that if - and hopefully when - Obama care is defunded, declared unconstitutional, and repealled in every way that we will see even more violent rhetoric from the left than we do now. I wouldn't be surprised by violence similar to that in the anti-World Bank / G7 riots we see the world over. By the way those riots you've seen on your TV screens are coming from the left not the free-market right.

The frauds at MSNBC and the NYTs choose not to cover or sensationalize activities that don't promote their narrative. Example an anti-illegal immigration sherrif in Arizona was hung in effigy; pinata with his name was beaten until the head fell off and then the head held up to the jeering crowd. Now, I have little problem with this display, but imagine if the person beaten in effigy was on the left? That video, with its accompaniment of head-shaking actors pretending to be objective newscasters, would be played for days on end; with these same objective newscasters tut-tuting sadly; bemoaning the "extremism" on the right; and "fearing" for the future of our great republic.

Back to Obama: some of Obama's speech is very, very good:

As we discuss these issues, let each of us do so with a good dose of humility. Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let’s use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy and remind ourselves of all the ways that our hopes and dreams are bound together.
Obama Urges Civility at Tucson Memorial

So, Obama, does anything in the above paragraph apply to you in how you view the world and your political adversaries? Will you criticize your staff and the media when they simply point fingers and irrationally assign blame? Will you review your rhetoric and your allies rhetoric regarding the Arizona immigration law? Or healthcare? Or gay rights?

Krugman and the Arizona Shooting

2011-01-11T20:37:00.010-05:00

What is it about small, constitutionally limited government which terrifies so many people? What is it that scares them so much that they equate the love of individual freedom with tyranny, oppression and collectivist evils of all sorts (racism, fascism)?

When Major Hasan killed 13 people at Fort Hood commentators said not to rush to judgement. Even after it became clear that he had communication with "radicalized" imans the media still refused to make a connection between the shooting and islamo-fascists.

Now a deranged man whose belief systems have nothing in common with the Tea Party becomes a poster boy representating those who are in favor of limited government. What happened to not rushing to judgment? Read Krugman's blog post. The connections Krugman draws are not based in reality. It is one big smear. He writes: "We don’t have proof yet that this was political, but the odds are that it was." Sure, as was the Time Square bombing attempt and the lunatic who flew his plane into that building in Austin earlier last year. In both those earlier incidents blame the Tea Party accusations were building up until it became clear that no possible connection could be made.

There is no connection this time either. What this is, what Krugman and others are doing, is stiffling debate. After all, they are insinuating that only kooks could possibly want a backwards, anti-progressive agenda such as a constitutionally limited government. By portraying the Tea Party in such a way they are saying to people: "You aren't a kook are you? Therefore you can't be for these wacko Tea Party types." This method, I hate to say it, works. I held off from tying myself to the Tea Party for months as I wasn't sure who, or what they were. Maybe they were the small-town, 3-tooth, inbred, brain-dead, racist fools that the media made them out to be.

The racist meme was tried and that didn't work for long. Now we have the climate-of-hate meme coming from people wearing Che t-shirts. Oh, the irony of it all. But now we see how scared and insignificant Krugman and his cronies are. Look at this update by Krugman:

Update: I see that Sarah Palin has called the shooting “tragic”. OK, a bit of history: right-wingers went wild over anyone who called 9/11 a tragedy, insisting that it wasn’t a tragedy, it was an atrocity.

9/11 was not a tragedy. It was a calculated act of war executed by 19 individuals who had material, financial, technological, and logistical help from dozens if not hundreds more. A tragedy is an act of nature or the random act of a madman. The shooting of John Lennon was a tragedy. The bombing of Pearl Harbor was not. The assassination of William McKinley was a tragedy. The firing of Washington by the British in 1814 was not.

Krugman and other small-minded people are going to call Palin a hypocrite for describing the shooting as "tragic." What's tragic is the left's refusal to consider any dissent from the party line. I'm pro-choice and respect the pro-life position. But to many on the left one cannot be pro-life and be rational at the same time. I'm pro gay-marriage and yet too many on the left cannot realize that WE (the pro-gay rights crowd) are attempting to change centuries of tradition in less than a life time. The animosity coming from the "multi-cultural" left to those with a different belief system, to those from another culture, is nothing short of, dare-I-say-it: reactionary.

Assange is not protected by Freedom of Speech

2010-12-20T09:28:00.006-05:00

It’s a provocative headline but accurate. Freedom of Speech only covers what one says and extrapolating to a minor degree what one does. For instance one can’t burn the American Flag on public property and then claim that you can’t be prosecuted because of the First Amendment’s Freedom of Speech clause.

Among things we’re missing in today’s political discourse, aside from civility, is clarity in political thought: Roe v Wade is not synonymous with being pro-abortion; Congress did not just pass a tax-cut (aside from a temporary payroll modification which was not a focal point of the debate); Assange is not protected by Freedom of Speech.

Freedom of Speech applies to what one personally says; that you cannot, within reason, be prosecuted for expressing political thought. (Advocating political assassination and outright insurrection are excluded.) Freedom of speech is, to a limited degree, expanded to non-political thought and applies to even a lesser degree to forms of political activity. It would be useful to start identifying how political activities are protected by the US Constitution. I would say, for example, that burning the American flag is NOT permitted by the Freedom of Speech clause. If burning a piece of cloth on public property is not permitted then the fact that the cloth that’s being burned was manufactured as a US flag does not, by the Freedom of Speech clause of the First Amendment, give you immunity from prosecution for burning that piece of cloth. It would, I would argue, protect you from added penalties for burning the US Flag – but it would not protect you from the liabilities involved in burning a piece of cloth on public property and “endangering” the lives of the people around you.

Regarding Assange, he is protected by the Freedom of the Press clause of the First Amendment, not the Freedom of Speech clause. This is not a matter of semantics. It is important in how we view the issues involved. Freedom of the Press expands Freedom of Speech, not only to the printed word (and by extension radio, TV and the internet) but also means that the ideas in question need not be ones’ own. A publisher is protected by the Freedom of Press clause.

How does that apply to Assange? Does it mean that he, like any other publisher cannot be prosecuted for publishing the ideas and thoughts of anyone else? Yes and no. Yes, he is protected as any other publisher, and no – a publisher may not publish the ideas and thoughts of anyone else. If The New York Times received a stolen manuscript of J. K. Rowling’s Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows and published it would they be protected by the Freedom of the Press clause? No. We have copyright laws that protect ideas from being published without the owner’s approval.
Assange KNOWINGLY published stolen material. Why would he be any less liable than the NYTs in the above scenario? Does the fact that he did or didn’t make any money off publishing the material matter? No. Does the fact that Assange published classified material make him less liable than someone publishing a work of fiction where the only damage done is to the author and publisher’s bank account? No.

Without a doubt there is a societal benefit to exposing the activities of the government; we know that transparency is an important counter-measure to government power; and we know that reporters often get and then report on classified information from their sources. Therefore how do we balance these conflicting priorities – that some information needs to be private, and the people’s right to know?

The issue isn’t particularly about Assange. It is: How do we deal with the national security; criminal investigations and other issues if, at any time this information can be published without consequences? How do we deal with an arrangement between an Assange and a traitor / thief / spy who takes and then, through Assange, publishes information. This makes Assange, and others like him, part of a shadow-government, power-brokers who choose what information will be and will not be made public.

Lastly I find that the argument - made by many on the left - praising increased transparency to be deceptive at best. If one is concerned about an over-reaching government then the best thing to do is to limit government power to the bare minimum. I don’t find the transparency argument convincing by those who want to increase government’s power – especially by those who seem to find no limit in what the government can force its citizens to do.

UPDATE: May 4, 2011

"Wikileaks released a set of leaked Guantanamo prisoner files to the public last week. Among them is a document dated from 2008, which mentioned both Osama's trusted courier's name and Abbottabad, the city in which Osama had been hiding. There are speculations that, fearing al-Qaida realized their courier may have been tracked and move Osama, the US administration accelerated their plan and attacked the target site over the weekend. This link highlights the relevant section of the document."

UPDATE: November 18, 2011

Just found out that the USSC has ruled on flag burning.

Texas v. Johnson did not strike down fire codes, or even set out an exception to them for expressive purposes. It said the government may not penalize the specific act of burning a flag because of that act's symbolic meaning.

The New Tammany Hall: Early Elections and Voter Fraud

2010-12-13T13:04:00.003-05:00

This has not been a good year for elections in New York State, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said Monday. The state recorded one of the lowest turnouts in the midterm elections of any state. And over the last three federal elections, New York has averaged 47th among the 50 states in voter turnout.

Mr. Bloomberg presented his critical assessment of the state’s electoral picture as he proposed a package of changes to state laws that he said would help remove the obstacles that make it hard for New Yorkers to exercise their right to vote.

“Our voting restrictions and requirements actually discourage citizens from participating in elections,” the mayor said. “We are proposing four changes to state law that would make it easier to participate in elections and easier for New York voters to have their voice heard.”

So, NY voters, in 2010, were uninspired with their choices for Governor and Senator - and knew, before hand, that the Democrat nominees were going to win the election. Were there any doubts in 2008 and 2006 and 2004 who were going to win? None whatsoever. So now Bloomberg and others say they're surprised and disappointed that voting participation is down. What is their solution?

The mayor proposed allowing for early voting, moving the deadline for registering to vote closer to Election Day, making the ballot easier to read and making absentee voting easier.
Bloomberg Seeking Election Law Changes to Increase Voter Turnout
by Elizabeth A. Harris

All these changes do is make fraud easier and increase suspicion of ballot-box rigging, ala Tammany Hall of yesteryear.

Mayor Bloomberg do you want to increase participation? How about making it easier for third parties to get on the ballot? How about we let some decisions be decided by referendum (such as allowable decibel levels coming from car or home stereos). Such changes would dramatically increase voter participation.

The solutions put forth are at best window dressing and at worse increases the power of the local political machine and make elections feel even more one-sided, if not actually rigged.

Assange, Freedom of Speech and Neo-Imperialist America

2010-12-08T13:27:00.004-05:00

It's hard to take seriously the crap that's being printed in the New York Times. Do people really believe the nonsense quoted below?

First, for the record, I think that for the United States to prosecute Assange would be idiotic, un-American and a threat to the future health of investigative journalism. Second, the New Republic piece by John Judis that I linked to above is well worth reading. Judis emphasizes, as I do, the possible virtues of WikiLeaks exposing secret deals with other countries, but he situates his analysis in a different context: the history of imperialism, and the periodic disruption of imperialist schemes by revelation of the secret deals they involve. In this view, America’s alliances with dubious regimes — whether to secure oil, cooperation against terrorism, whatever — are a form of neo-imperialism, and WikiLeaks is anti-imperialist. Judis himself doesn’t necessarily embrace the characterization of American foreign policy as neo-imperialist, but I’m pretty sure Assange would ...

Julian Assange: Neocon Tool? by Robert Wright

Here's the salient point: Mr. Assange was dealing with stolen goods. He did not have a right to the information. All governments at all times have secrets. Who decides which information is to be kept secret and which is to be revealed, and at which time? Our elected officials that's who. If you don't like what they're doing elect new ones that do. If that doesn't work what do you propose Mr. Wright: rebellion? civil war? anarchy?

Are we now to believe that leftists, those that want to increase the size of government; those people who have contempt and disdain for those who want limited, smaller government are advocating that governments have no secrets: that we the people should have access to all the information? No. There is nothing but hypocrisy and lies coming from Mr. Wright, The New York Times' and The New Republic' editorial boards.

EDIT: See Assange Is Not Protected by the Freedom of Speech Clause of the First Amendment

Pearl Harbor going the way of "Remember the Maine"

2010-12-07T19:22:00.001-05:00

Funny how the media tut-tuts the fact that American public has such a limited knowledge of history and geography - and yet nary a peep about Pearl Harbor in today's papers. The Day Which Will Live in Infamy is already forgotten.

Media, The Treatment of Two Administrations: Bush and Obama

2010-12-07T09:55:00.001-05:00

Unusual methods helped ICE break deportation record,
emails and interview show

Can you imagine the headline in the Washington Post if Bush were president? How about if Palin is President? Could you not hear the calls for investigation; the demand for heads to roll?

ICE lies about its performance; "included more than 19,000 immigrants who had exited the previous fiscal year" and "ran a Mexican repatriation program five weeks longer than ever before, allowing the agency to count at least 6,500 exits that, without the program, would normally have been tallied by the U.S. Border Patrol." In addition officials were directed "to bypass backlogged immigration courts and time-consuming deportation hearings whenever possible."

Sarah Palin is about as sharp as a wet balloon.

2010-12-05T21:48:00.010-05:00

Nancy Pelosi's keen intelligence and profound understanding of Keynesian theory has led her to proclaim that unemployment insurance stimulates the economy and help lead us out of our economic malaise.

Meanwhile "sharp as a wet balloon" Palin thinks that the more the government grows, the more it takes through taxes, the less the private sector will grow jobs. Nancy is smart because she knows that government knows best. Palin is "hollow, dim and mean." Is there anyone who advocates free markets who would not be so smeared? Wouldn't I be so labeled if I was foolish enough to run for office.

I would rather have someone with a more accomplished resume than Palin but if Obama and Pelosi are the left's idea of intelligent and competent then I would rather have Palin.

Palin's a strategic thinker. Laugh if you will. But look at the end run she did when the left was trying to ruin her financially and destroy her political career by tieing her down with frivilous lawsuits. She did the unimaginable - she resigned her position as Governor. The left laughed with glee. One year later she is more powerful than she was before.

She has courage. She grows stronger the more she is attacked. Unlike the current occupant of the White House Sarah Palin rises to the occassion. This is a useful, and not irrelevant, trait.

Some say that Palin brings on and deserves all of the scorn she gets; and that she is a dangerous demagogue. I would answer this by saying that the media is trying a new tact. At first Palin was simply laughed at - now she is being portrayed as a dangerous demagogue. So Sarah Palin is a demagogue but Barack Obama isn't? Take another look at the Obama imagry, an idoltry reminisent of the smartest regimes of the last century: Hitler, Stalin, Mao and the other dear leaders of our time.

National Security Song and Dance, Part 2

2010-12-01T12:14:00.006-05:00

Last week the Department of Homeland Security shuts down Torrent and yet does nothing but send a letter regarding Wiki Leaks displaying classified information.

“My domain has been seized without any previous complaint or notice from any court!” the exasperated owner of Torrent-Finder told TorrentFreak this morning.

“I firstly had DNS downtime. While I was contacting GoDaddy I noticed the DNS had changed. Godaddy had no idea what was going on and until now they do not understand the situation and they say it was totally from ICANN,” he explained.

Critics of the bill object to it on a number of grounds, starting with this one: “The Act is an unconstitutional abridgment of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment,” the 49 law professors wrote. “The Act permits the issuance of speech suppressing injunctions without any meaningful opportunity for any party to contest the Attorney General’s allegations of unlawful content.” (original emphasis.)

Wired: Web Censorship Bill Sails Through Senate Committee

And Tim Berners-Lee, who invented the world wide web, said, “Neither governments nor corporations should be allowed to use disconnection from the internet as a way of arbitrarily furthering their own aims.” He added: “In the spirit going back to Magna Carta, we require a principle that no person or organization shall be deprived of their ability to connect to others at will without due process of law, with the presumption of innocence until found guilty.”

Wired: Web Censorship Bill Sails Through Senate Committee

The government acts tyrannically with COICA but does nothing regarding WikiLeaks. Are Wiki Leaks true leaks or is the Obama administration leaking this information for gain. If the government can shut down servers for illegally disseminating copyrighted material then surely it can do so for classified information.

A copy of the letter that the State Department sent to Wiki Leaks can be found at Reuters: Text of State Department letter to Wikileaks and The New York Times

A portion is presented below:

Dear Ms. Robinson and Mr. Assange:

I am writing in response to your 26 November 2010 letter to U.S. Ambassador Louis B. Susman regarding your intention to again publish on your WikiLeaks site what you claim to be classified U.S. Government documents.

As you know, if any of the materials you intend to publish were provided by any government officials, or any intermediary without proper authorization, they were provided in violation of U.S. law and without regard for the grave consequences of this action. As long as WikiLeaks holds such material, the violation of the law is ongoing. ...

Publication of documents of this nature at a minimum would:

* Place at risk the lives of countless innocent individuals -- from journalists to human rights activists and bloggers to soldiers to individuals providing information to further peace and security;

* Place at risk on-going military operations, including operations to stop terrorists, traffickers in human beings and illicit arms, violent criminal enterprises and other actors that threaten global security; and,

* Place at risk on-going cooperation between countries - partners, allies and common stakeholders -- to confront common challenges from terrorism to pandemic diseases to nuclear proliferation that threaten global stability.

(The letter is signed by Harold Hongju Koh, legal adviser to the State Department)

So WikiLeaks is a true threat to international stability and our government doesn't do anything. But they close Torrent?

Makes sense to me.

Below is a copy of the actual letter sent by the DOJ to WikiLeaks:

National Security Song and Dance, Part 1

2010-12-01T11:59:00.003-05:00

Ever get the idea that national security is not important to some government types? Ever get the idea that the TSA screening guidelines are just one big song and dance to give the illusion that the government is doing their best to "protect" us?

For years I've been ridiculing the TSA's ban on nail clippers: the logic being that if you're so good that you're able to kill people and take over an airplane with nail clippers - then you don't need the nail clippers to do so. Furthermore a ball point pen is more effective in hand-to-hand combat than a pair of nail clippers and we don't confiscate them.

Now we get this article (HAT TIP: slashdot > think.co.uk > redstate

Soldiers boarding a military charter from Baghram Air Field in Afghanistan were apparently filed through the sort of full-body scanner which has been causing so much trouble in the good ole US of A.

The flight eventually landed in Indianapolis to discharge some of its passengers, but according to a report at Redstate.com, all 330 passengers were made to disembark.

"It’s probably important to mention that we were ALL carrying weapons," the anonymous source of the yarn writes. "Everyone was carrying an M4 Carbine (rifle) and some, like me, were also carrying an M9 pistol." The weapons weren't loaded, or course.

Despite having already been vetted, when the soldiers tried to re-board the plane they were subject to TSA checks. And one soldier was stopped and told he couldn't take his nail clippers on board.

"You’re not suppose(d) to have them," a TSA official informed the startled grunt.

"Why?" he asked.

"They can be used as a weapon," the official informed him.

The soldier then touched butt stock of the rifle he was carrying. "But this actually is a weapon. And I’m allowed to take it on."

"Yeah but you can’t use it to take over the plane, you don’t have bullets," the smug official replied.

"And I can take over the plane with nail clippers?" the soldier said, a suggestion that was met with 'awkward silence' according to the source

At which point the solder handed over the clippers and was allowed to board the plane.

You couldn't make it up.

I'lld like to know if this story is true. I have to say, as I'm rereading this post, that it sounds like bullshit to me. HOWEVER, the gist of the post is the silliness, and ineffectiveness of what the TSA is doing, not whether the above story is true or not.

Palin Derangement Syndrome, Again

2010-11-30T10:29:00.008-05:00

PALIN'S RECKLESS VIEWS ON OBESITY

A few days ago Roland Martin, of CNN fame, added one more example of Palin's inane ideas to the public record . Surely by this time we all know that Palin is an embarrassment to the body politic: unlike Biden, Hank "Guam May Tip Over" Johnson or Sheila Jackson Lee. Well, let's laugh at Palin's stupidity one more time. After all, who can't use a good laugh every now and then?

ROLAND MARTIN:
It's clear that we can't go 24 hours without Sarah Palin saying something so stupid that it defies logic, but leave it to the Kim Kardashian of politics to find something wrong with first lady Michelle Obama's effort to curb obesity in America's kids.

What did Palin say that was so stupid?

SARAH PALIN:
And I know I'm going to be again criticized for bringing this up, but instead of a government thinking that they need to take over and make decisions for us according to some politician or politician's wife priorities, just leave us alone, get off our back and allow us as individuals to exercise our own God-given rights to make our own decisions and then our country gets back on the right track.

Palin is truly out of the mainstream here. Martin is so correct: who can pay attention to this Kim Kardashian of politics when obesity rates have "tripled in the last three decades, and one in three children are obese." Palin must be crazy to think that the parents ought to decide. Obviously the parents don't know what they're doing. The government must step in to save the children. They're our future after all.

ROLAND MARTIN :
This latest broadside by Palin shows how reckless and ridiculous she is.

Libertarians and far right conservative Republicans are always talking about government intrusion into our lives, but when we look at clean water, air quality and food supply, thank God for governmental standards.

There's a lot wrong with your arguments Roland. I'll mention two things. First, let’s focus directly upon your statement of government standards. You would see, if you cared to look, that water and air quality were improving before the EPA was founded. Take a look at the same graphs and you will not see a change in the slope of the curve; thus showing that the value of the EPA is debatable.

Second, the fact that government has a role in upholding contracts (that what one says is in the food actually is) and in making certain that a person/company does not damage another person's property (pollution) has nothing to do with the government forcing people to eat good food.

Nobody is against a plain and simple "education" message. Nobody is against the first lady saying "brush your teeth," or "read to your kid every night," or "don't eat too much," or "eat more fruits and vegetable." What we're against is government intrusion; what we're against is the rise of Euro-socialist nanny state where laws and government power is used to enforce such a standard.

We have a social contract here: I promise not to kill you and take your stuff, if you promise not to kill me and take mine. We entered no such arrangement whereby I promise to stop you from eating too many Twinkies if you promise to stop me from eating too much meat.

2012 - Does Obama have a chance?

2010-11-29T14:53:00.005-05:00

The short answer is YES. Absolutely. The country has reverted back to the 2000-2004 electoral map. The 2012 election will probably be very close.

2000 Electoral Map (Bush-Gore)

The 2000 map will exist in 2012 for three reasons. The House and Senate Democrats elected in 2006 and 2008 were largely in response to Republicans thinking they could stay in power by government largess (as the Dems did for 40 years). The Democrats who were elected, for a large part, campaigned as fiscal conservatives, and often times as social conservatives as well. Many of the newly elected Blue Dog Democrats ran far to the right of their Republican opponents. Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid pushed these congressmen to make several very unpopular votes in 2009 and 2010. We saw the result of those votes in the 2010 election. The long-term result of these votes is that whatever patina of "centrist Democrat" that existed in the minds of many Americans has been wiped away. This is particularly true in the South and Mid-West.

Second, it appears likely that the Republicans will win both the House and Senate. There will be some that will want to have a divided government and be less inclined to vote for a Republican President. If, for instance, the Democrats were a lock to hold onto the House and Senate some Progressives might have been willing to let Obama lose. We know that many on the left are angry at Obama for not following his campaign promises: such as closing Gitmo, pulling troops out of both Iraq and Afghanistan, and overturning "Don't Ask Don't Tell"; as well as not holding firm on "single-payer" health care and other issues. However the same people, fearing a Republican President and Republican controlled Congress, will be animated and very likely to show up.

The third reason for the return to the 2000 map is that there isn't a Republican that can rally the base as well as reach out and carry non-progressive Democrats. There are many Democrat voters who are not socialists, who are not progressives, by any stretch of the imagination who are appalled at what's happening but don't associate the ridiculous laws with the democratic party. Many, as an example, may be for zero illegal immigration and lower taxes but would still vote straight-line Democratic. To break the 2000 electoral map wide open there would need to be a Ronald Reagan, but there aren't any available for the 2012 election. It must be stated that most of these Democrats live in Blue States. For those reasons I don't see the 2000 map, shown above, to morph into the 1980 map (Ronald Reagan versus Jimmy Carter) shown below.

1980 Electoral Map (Reagan-Carter)

Obama can win even if he loses Florida. Nevada and Colorado are turning purple-blue and I can see them being more reliably Democrat in the future. Gore won New Mexico by fraud, IMO, and, unless Susana Martinez turns things around for the Republicans, New Mexico will probably joing Nevada and Colorado as Purple-Blue states.

2000 Electoral Map (Bush-Gore)

EDIT: 12/16/2011
See a follow-up post: Obama May Truly be Carter 2.0

Sarah Palin and North Korea

2010-11-26T12:03:00.019-05:00

I'm not a Palin-phile but that doesn't mean that she shouldn't be defended from the garbage the media is throwing her way.

Obama misspeaks and says "57 states" and nobody bats an eye. And rightfully so. But Palin misspeaks and it becomes international news.

Looks at the headlines:

SARAH PALIN MAKES GAFFE, SAYING NORTH KOREA IS US ALLY

Former Alaskan governor and potential 2012 presidential contender Sarah Palin has made a gaffe on a radio show by saying North Korea is a US ally.

A review of the transcript shows that it was a mis-statement. One thing that's for certain Sarah Palin is much tougher, much more comfortable in dealing with a critical press, and, I think, much better at handling tough situations than President "voted present" Obama.

The transcript of the interview is below:

PAT: Sarah, you said in the last few days that you are considering a run for president.

SARAH PALIN: Yes.

PAT: And polls show that you would probably win the Republican nomination. How would you handle a situation like just developed in North Korea?

SARAH PALIN: Well, North Korea, this is stemming from I think a greater problem when we're all sitting around asking, "Oh, no, what are we going to do" and we're not having a lot of faith that the White House is going to come out with a strong enough policy to sanction what it is that North Korea's going to do. So this speaks to a bigger picture here that certainly scares me in terms of our national security policies. But obviously got to stand with our North Korean allies. We're bound to by treaty. We're also bound to by ‑‑

STU: South Korea.

SARAH PALIN: Yeah. And we're also bound by prudence to stand with our South Korean allies, yes. And, you know, to remind North Korea, well, we're not going to reward bad behavior and we're not going to walk away and we do need to press China to do more to increase pressure on that arena.

Obviously this was an informal conversation and she misspoke. Imagine though, that Sarah Palin was in Austria and said that "she didn't know the term in Austrian."

Should that comment by Obama automatically be taken as a misstatement? No. Imagine the outcry had Sarah Palin made the exact same statement.

Look at the accompanying photo: can we get a more unflattering picture of Sarah Palin than that? Why try to evoke images of Hitler and other dictators? "Oh, I know, I know": because the BBC is trying to implant this image, and yet maintain a pretense of objectivity by including this last paragraph in their article:

The conservative US website The Weekly Standard came to Ms Palin's defence, pointing out that "she correctly identified North Korea as our enemy literally eight seconds before the mix-up".

Once again we see the objective media at their best.

EDIT: 11/27/2010
What follows is an audio file of Sarah Palin's comments:

HAT TIP: rctlfy

North Korea, McCain Speaks up

2010-11-23T10:42:00.005-05:00

I'm not much of a John McCain fan but if things heat up much more between North and South Korea it would be interesting to hear what McCain has to say. I don't think this is going to escalate to full-scale war; it's one more "pay-attention-to-me" ploy by North Korea because it needs money, or rice, to last through the winter. I wonder if the harvest was bad.

China will be a BIG loser if there is a full-scale war and I think they'll put the kibosh on this right quick if there is any major troop movement.

McCain speaking up will provide US voters with a comparison. The voters chose Obama, who is now weak for a whole slew of reasons -- the ongoing TSA mess -- among them. McCain speaking on the issue would remind people of their choice in 2008 and would, for many people, cement the idea that America cannot afford Obama having a second term.

This is an overtly political calculation on my part, one I usually do not support, but I feel that Obama and his ~~socialist~~ progressive policies are harming, purposefully harming the United States. It's time for this man, and the policies which he represents, to be taken out politically. One of the interesting ramifications of such a move by McCain would be that it would dramatically harm Palin's chances in 2012. She, as with Obama, doesn't have the necessary experience to deal with the presidency. The fact that she has more experience than Obama doesn't mean that she has enough to be President of the United States.

McCain is famously known for holding grudges. We're told that he doesn't like either Obama or Palin. Hmmm. I wonder what he and his advisors are thinking about?

Two new voting machines were located last night in Buffalo

2010-11-20T18:49:00.004-05:00

Two new voting machines were located last night in Buffalo, according to Sen.-elect Mike Gianaris, a Democratic attorney helping his party’s efforts in ballot counting.

Incumbent Democratic Sen. Antoine Thompson trails GOP challenger Mark Grisanti by 821 votes, but Gianaris said the new voting machines and how they’ve been handled are a “total disaster” and “complete mess,” adding that lawyers for Thompson are considering legal action that might force a complete recount of paper ballots optically scanned by the machines.

This would involve an amount of paper not seen in 50 years; elections in recent New York history have until this year been conducted with mechanical voting machines, not electronic machines that scan paper ballots. Such a recount would take a long time, to the dismay of people hoping the Senate will be clearly decided before January, when it is set to reconvene.

Capitol Confidential

HAT TIP: Legal Insurrection

I've been waiting to see if this story was going to be picked up by the MSM. It hasn't.

One of the major issues that neither our media nor our political parties address is the transparency and competence of our elections. It is relatively simple to have fair and honest elections and yet we do everything we can to complicate matters and to bring the fairness of the elections into play.

For more reading:
Key New York Races Remain Undecided

Internet Piracy, Copyright Laws and Censorship

2010-11-19T12:40:00.002-05:00

The Senate Judiciary Committee has just approved the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA). This bill would allow any website to be shut down by the U.S. Attorney General if copyright infringement is deemed "central to the activity" of the site.

Few people, especially those working with intellectual property, have any problems with the idea of protecting property rights. But this goes too far. If a site is doing something illegal, this illegal activity must be proved in a court of law before the site is shut down.

If there is a timeliness factor to this special courts can be set up that deal with this issue alone. Piracy ought not be difficult to prove. And if it is difficult to prove, it shows that the decision ought to be made in a court of law and not by the Attorney General.

UPDATE: See National Security Song and Dance

Aftermath of 2010 Elections

2010-11-17T22:51:00.002-05:00

Executive Summary: Outside of Deep Blue areas Republicans did very well.

The Effects of ObamaCare
We were told by the Obama administration that passing the health care bill would help keep the Democratic majority; we were told by Nancy Pelosi that after the initial fear mongering was over and that it was passed that the American people would appreciate the work done in their behalf; we were told by Democratic strategists that the collapse of Democratic fortunes in 1994 was because they didn’t pass HillaryCare.

And come the November elections few Democrats, even those in blue areas were touting their efforts on passing ObamaCare. Furthermore saw Democrat supporters running against the HealthCare law and then dropping by the wayside as the election results came in. A clear example of this was the race between Cravaack and Oberstar, an 18-term incumbent who chairs the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Cravaack focused on Oberstar's support of the health- care legislation and vowed, that should he be elected, he would work to repeal the new health care law. After winning 18 straight elections Oberstar was defeated.

The Realignment of the South
Since 1994 the South has been very favorable to Republicans on the national stage, but considerably less so on the state level. We haven’t fully digested the changes brought by the 2010 elections but it looks as if the states are turning Republican on the state and local level as well.

The Realignment of the Mid-West
For years Republicans have been trying to make inroads into what they thought was fertile territory -Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan – for years it looked like fools gold. This past mid-term election might have been the election which has changed the electoral map here for good. The Michigan House, the Minnesota House and Senate and the Wisconsin Assembly and Senate all switched from Democrat to Republican control. We won’t know for sure for another two election cycles.

Fools Gold
Neither California nor Pennsylvania will go Republican anytime soon on a state level. Republicans always feel that they can do well in Pennsylvania. They can outside of Philly and Pittsburg but the Political Machine, I mean the fraud, is too high for time, energy and money to be placed in either state.

Obama Himself
One of Obama’s most persuasive arguments in the 2008 elections and one that inspired much of the electorate was his desire to change the way Washington works, to end the red-state/blue-state rancor: as Obama put it “there is no red state - blue state” Does anyone believe Obama anymore? In 2012 he will get the Progressives and SEIU types out en masse. Who else? The black population, yes. Latinos? Probably not as much as 2008.

Red v Blue state economies: the experiments
Michigan is one thing, but California is another. The trashing of the Californian economy can be laid directly upon the rise of Euro-Socialism. If a declining California becomes the poster boy for progressive economic policies, and a rising Texas becomes the poster boy for free markets the Democrats will be hurt badly in the 2012 elections. It’s not that a progressive state, like Michigan, is doing badly and that a semi-free market state, like Florida, is doing well: it’s all the extra symbolism that’s attached to each state. If we clearly see a rise in the economic well-being in several red states, along with Texas, and “malaise” elsewhere the political transformation of the south and the mid-west will be complete.

What does the electoral map look like in 2012?
It’s way too early for specifics. Indiana and North Carolina are definitely Red again. New Hampshire and Florida are likely Red; and Virginia and Ohio are lean red. Those changes alone would give Obama a very narrow victory. Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada are toss-ups and right now, along with the Mid-West Lake Region states could determine the election.

Scientifically Illiterate Media: Cats have innate knowledge of gravity

2010-11-15T10:24:00.001-05:00

Taking the Purrfect Drink is All Physics to a Cat

According to the researchers cats understand innately the relationship between gravity and inertia, one force, inertia, pulls the liquid up while the other, gravity, draws it back down. The cat instinctively knows when those forces are in balance and closes its mouth around the column at exactly the right time.

I hate reporting like this. Cats do NOT have an innate understanding of the "relationship between gravity and inertia;" they do not "instinctively know when these forces are in balance." This is as stupid as saying that a cat lands on its feet because it has an "innate understanding of gravity." And it begs the question: do other animals have an innate understanding of gravity? Do humans? After all 3 year olds can catch a ball: a child can see the ball leaving his parents hands; observe the arc; calculate the force of gravity, air resistance and the curvature of the earth and put his hands up at the right time and place to catch this thrown ball. Whoopee! We've just proved that knowledge of gravity and air resistance is innate in human beings.

How is it possible that this sort of reporting takes place? What kind of idiocy is this? How could a journalist write this; how could the editorial staff approve of it? How could the fact checker let this go by?

Oh yeah, I know, because they're ignorant of even the most basic scientific principles. It doesn't help that journalists can write well if they don't understand what they're writing about. This video is one of the reasons adults remain scientifically illiterate. It is one of the reasons we have such silly debates over global warming.

Jesus and Mo, the Comic Strip

2010-11-15T09:13:00.001-05:00

Some of these are very funny.

Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme

2010-11-11T14:50:00.012-05:00

Wow!!! Libertarian, free market ideas are becoming mainstream. Who would have thought a mainstream Republican would say something like this:

“I want people to be afraid not to talk about that Social Security is bankrupt and is a Ponzi scheme and if you've got a young 20-something-year-old, they know for a fact that they're not ever going to see that. ... So let's fix it.”

Way to go Governor Perry (TX)

Milton Friedman on Social Security

EDIT: 11/15/2010

Milton Friedman debating a young Michael Moore on Ford's cost-benefit analysis regarding the Pinto.

Veterans Day (Armistice Day or Remembrance Day)

2010-11-11T10:26:00.010-05:00

Armistice Day with the images of WWI, Islamofascists and bumper stickers with CoExist on it bring to mind a great quote attributed to Winston Churchill

"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

Thank you to everyone who served protecting this country and our freedoms.

IN FLANDERS FIELD
In Flanders fields the poppies blow 
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie,
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

I wonder what our Commander in Chief will do for this Remembrance Day?

Obama Administration: Opposed to repealing DADT

2010-11-11T10:18:00.002-05:00

Isn't this a treat: Obama campaigned against DADT and now his administration is presenting an argument in the US Supreme Court (Log Cabin Republicans v. United States, 10A465) that Obama should not be forced by the court to sign an executive order eliminating DADT but that instead the law needs to be changed by Congress.

Now, I agree with this -- but since when has Obama thought that way? He hasn't. It is just convenient for him to argue this point today. Yesterday he agreed with Florida Court overturning the Florida Secretary of State in 2000 elections. Tomorrow he'll reverse himself when it comes to abortion, or illegal immigration, or people eating greasy food.

One thing that the media doesn't explore is: What does it mean to repeal DADT? Will homosexuality once again to be considered a mental disease with the military having a right, and obligation, to find and discharge homosexuals from their ranks? Too many people forget that DADT was a major advancement.

OK, let's assume that repealing DADT (which prohibits the military from finding and revealing the sexual prference of closeted homosexuals) means that the gay and lesbian community can openly serve in the all parts of the US military. Since DADT was an executive decision made by the Clinton Administration why is it all of a sudden a legislative or judicial issue and not an executive one? Once again, Barack Obama, who voted present on almost every controversial pieces of legislation, has chosen to pass the buck. Aren't you glad YOU voted for him?

Basic Economics: We're Runnng Out of Chocolate

2010-11-10T22:35:00.006-05:00

I don't know how I got to this article at Gizmodo but the author writes:

At the rate we're going, chocolate is going to be a rare—and extremely pricey—commodity within the next twenty years. Somebody needs to light a fire under those Oompa-Loompas, stat.

The problem's easy to explain, and much harder to fix. According to the Cocoa Research Association, we're consuming more chocolate than we're producing cocoa. Which means, eventually, we're going to run out. ...

What will the shortage mean? $11 Snickers bars, sooner than you think.

and quotes John Mason from the Nature Conservation Research Council who says:

"In 20 years chocolate will be like caviar. It will become so rare and so expensive that the average Joe just won't be able to afford it."

I don't expect quality business and economic analysis from Gizmodo but it is representative of much of the thinking that's out there.

Where to begin to unpack all these economic fallacies? Oh yeah, let's start with markets. If demand continues to rise what will farmers do? They will grow more cocoa. Duh! Unless there is cocoa weevil, which destroys the plant world-wide, why would cocoa become rare? As the cost of cocoa increases relative to other crops farmers would rush to cultivate it. Farmers with a choice of growing corn to eat, or cocoa to make a huge return, would grow cocoa and buy corn from someone else.

Let's assume the writer and the quoted expert believe their story. They should then buy cocoa futures and become wealthy. Assuming the price of cocoa is 10% of a dollar chocolate bar (I would guess that it's less than that) then the price of cocoa would have to rise about 100x (10,000%) for the cost of a chocolate bar to be eleven dollars in twenty years.

The current price of cocoa is roughly 2,900 dollars per metric ton, so if they are correct we should see the price of cocoa to rise to 290,000 dollars per metric ton. I'm willing to bet my house to a cup of coffee that cocoa will not be anywhere near 100,000, let alone 300,000 dollars a metric ton - in constant dollars of course.

Yes, the world is much more complicated than I made it out in the above example. If commodity prices rise, especially soft commodities, it won't be simply cocoa. Sugar would rise, as would milk, both components of chocolate bars. IF the US doesn't end its flirtation with socialism commodity prices will soar relative to the dollar.

Still, relating to the thinking behind the statements in the article, how are we to deal with silliness such as the following:

"we're consuming more chocolate than we're producing ... eventually, we're going to run out."

And how do we deal with writers and "experts" making predictions that they obviously don't believe. (Oh they'll scream at that statement.) Examples include the above cocoa expert predicting $11 chocolate bars and those experts and pundits saying that Big Pharma, and Big Oil, and Big Banks are making obscene amounts of money. If they truly believed that they would invest all they have in these markets, become "filthy rich" and redistribute part of their obscene profits to those in need.

EDIT 11/15/2010

Re-reading this I see that I forgot to mention a very important point (price elasticity). There will come a point, long before $12 chocolate bars, where people will refuse to buy chocolate, or will drastically reduce their consumption. At that point demand drops with supply rising (as farmers are planting more and more cocoa). Soon thereafter what do you think will happen to the price of chocolate?

If you have any question look at the price variation of hops over the last few years. First there was a shortage and price rise, then there were increased plantings followed by a price drop. Now there is a glut and it looks as if farmers will plant less hops.

Allen West will join the Congressional Black Caucus

2010-11-09T15:33:00.001-05:00

I don't know if this is the best use of his time but I sure hope he shakes that Caucus to the core. If anyone can do it he can.

As an aside I love his comments on the criticisms of the phrase "take the country back."

The Democrats are in denial, what will they do?

2010-11-08T07:37:00.006-05:00

The Manchurian Candidate goes to India. He thinks he didn't get his message out well enough. I assure you President Obama, outside of re-education camps, you can't get the message out any clearer. We know what Obama will do. He'll double down on stupid, I mean, his progressive/Socialist agenda. What we don't know is what the Republicans will do. Will they start tearing down the Leviathan or are they simply going to give lip service while the Federal Government gets ever larger?

As far as the Democrats come-back strategy they are bringing out their race card again. I'm hearing the "Republican Southern Strategy" rearing its ugly head again. Of course people willfully distort the story of Nixon's Southern Strategy, turning a political calculation based upon a 3-man race, into a Republican attempt to turn Democrat racists into mainstream Republicans (more on this Southern Strategy sillyness in a subsequent post).

The real question of the moment is: are the Democrats going to fight the Republicans with ideas - pitting their ideals of a big government liberalism/progressivism/socialist utopia against a small government Goldwater, Friedman, Randian heterodoxy? * Or are they simply going to bring out and rely on the same divisive tropes that they usually do?

"racist"
"mean"
"hateful"
"extremist"
etc...

*I'm not suggesting that that would be the position of the Republican Caucus but I can dream can't I?

Obama = Keynesian, or is that Kenyan?

2010-11-04T10:27:00.017-04:00

HAT TIP: HOT AIR

This is too funny for words. And these people would be among the first to ridicule Sarah Palin and George Bush; and consider that Tea Party supporters are poorly educated dolts.

They know that free markets don't work, think the idea is stupid and yet have probably never heard of Frederic Bastiat, Karl Menger, Ludwig von Mises, Frederick Hayek, Murray Rothbard, or Milton Friedman. Obviously many have not heard of one of the most influential - unfortunately - economists of the 20th C: John Maynard Keynes, nor probably have they heard of Paul Samuelson one of Keynes foremost supporters, writer of one of the most successful textbooks in Economics, and mentor to Paul Krugman (now of NYTimes fame).

And yet I'm stupid and laughably ignorant for being a supporter of limited government and the free market.

Too early to recap but very disappointed

2010-11-03T08:07:00.000-04:00

I have to see what bright lights exists but, all in all, I'm disappointed in the election results. Over the last day I let myself get very enthused about the potential turnover.

Races to Root For: Senators

2010-11-02T19:13:00.002-04:00

There are some clear choices here:

Ron Johnson (WI)

It’s ironic that Feingold, who is possibly the most independent member of the Senate, a Mr. Clean who votes against his party regularly, is among the incumbents in the most danger from an anti-Washington voter rebellion. Especially since Johnson is not all that impressive. Unless you like Ayn Rand and are yearning to see the country run just like a plastics business.
Elections: Oshkosh Shrugged
By GAIL COLLINS
Published: October 22, 2010

Well, since I’m a fan of Ayn Rand, yes sir this would be a great and wonderful change. By the way Gail, did you think this was simply an anti-incumbant, anti-Washington voter rebellion? I certainly hope it’s not. I’m hoping that it is a constitutionally-minded small-government, free-market rebellion rising up against the forces of an ever-encroaching, government-knows-best mentalite. And, that being the case, Russ Feingold definitely must go.

Marco Rubio (FL)
Definitely a rising star. He may be great: he says the right things, the left is terrified of him gaining a national stage.

Sharon Angle (NV)
If she is truly for the elimination of the Veterans Agency and privatise veteran health care! WOW!!!! Go Sharon. And she would replace Harry Reid. OMG.

Carly Fiorina (CA)
She seems good and she would take out Barbara "Call Me Senator" Boxer.

Rand Paul (KY)
Seems interesting. Would be good to have a free-market gadfly in the Senate.

Races to Root For: Governors

2010-11-02T17:40:00.004-04:00

Aside from rooting for generic reasons that Republicans *are supposedly* more free-market, limited, constitutional government than Democrats and that we're at a crossroad in this country I am rooting for the following Republican candidates for governor. I must reiterate that, until this year, I have never rooted for Republicans.

Rick Scott (FL)
I like Scott in Florida: one to punish Crist and two because his running mate is a Trinidadian immigrant: Jennifer Carroll. Other than that I haven't really seen a reason to particularly root for him. But, then again, I didn't foresee how great Chris Christie would be.

Susana Martinez (NM)
She seems to be for limited government, and as a Hispanic, will help break the idiotic meme: Republicans are Racist.

Brian Sandoval (NV)
Same as for Susana Martinez plus it might take down the potential of the Reid family dynasty. Is there anything more disgusting than a dynastic claim to office?

Tom Tancredo (CO)
He seems!? to be committed to limited government, for closing the border to illegal immigration and his opponent, Hickenlooper, is terrible.

Jan Brewer (AZ)
She deserves to stay after that nonsense with Obama, the justice department and the media over the state immigration policy.

Some states, such as Ohio, Illinois, Pennsylvania matter for political reasons: such as redistricting and the 2012 Presidential Elections, but aside from the premise that we need to take down the progressive/socialist infrastructure and force the Democrats to kick this wing of their party to the side in order to survive as a political force, I see little reason to be enthused about their victories.

I haven't figured out whether I really care who wins California. They may need to be smacked up side the head some more with their idiotic socialist policies. California needs to sink, not be bailed out, declare bankruptcy and then renegotiate their labor contracts.

The Audacity of Hope v2

2010-11-02T16:57:00.003-04:00

I'm hoping that numerous free market capitalists, small-government types win and keep their footing while in Washington - whether I know their names or not;

that 10+ members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus lose their seats;
that the Republican gain over 100 seats;
that 5+ Black Republican Congressmen win;
that there will be 35+ Republican Governors and
52+ Republican Senators;
that Barney Frank and "Just Call Me Senator" Boxer go down,
that numerous down ticket Democrats are slaughtered and that Republicans control redistricting in the states where there is change in the EV count.

The audacity of hope.

It's time for socialists and their fellow travelers to be kicked to the side and be seen as the despicable anti-enlightenment, control-freaks that they are.

Ken Buck's ad describes the mood of the nation

2010-11-02T10:37:00.000-04:00

This Ken Buck ad describes my mood, and the country's mood, very well.

“We protested when the government ran up trillions of dollars of debt. We sent e-mails when they nationalized health care. We asked them to get off the backs of small business so we could create jobs. We pleaded with our government to secure our border.

“And you know what? They heard us, and yet they ignored us. And folks, on Nov. 2, they will ignore us no more.”

Candidates to Root for, as well as those to root against

2010-11-02T00:09:00.001-04:00

I’ve been working on a list of which candidates I’m rooting for and why. It’s important that we get more than numbers, although numbers do count. Especially as we are now seeing articles that say that the “realistic baseline” for this year, due to structural conditions, would be a Democratic loss of 45 seats. Of course we are then meant to forget the political posturing of Nancy Pelosi, several NYT writers and numerous others saying that the Democrats would hold the House this year.

Remove Socialist Candidates from office:
What counts more than numbers is the change of personnel. Of all the Democrats there are some that I want to lose more than others. The more socialist the candidate is, the more committed the candidate is to promoting state control and, almost as a corollary, destroying the constitution by ignoring the limits placed upon the legislature, the more I want that individual to lose. The Congressional Progressive Caucus is a good measure of the far left in this country. The more CPC members that lose, the better.

A socialist replaced by a free-market capitalist changes the system more than if a Blue-Dog is replaced by a RINO. Barney Frank going down is a huge turnover; so is Kucinich. Grayson going down is less of a turnover simply because he doesn't have seniority but it's still huge.

Furthermore the addition of free market activists will create – hopefully create – a free-market voting bloc that must be accounted for.

Time to end the “Republicans are Racist” meme.
I want the meme that Republicans are racist to end. It is divisive in the worst of ways and allows socialists to continue the argument, unchallenged, that anything other than socialism is racist. We need to break this meme and the related narratives such as: proponents of limited-government are racist. The way to destroy that is to elect Black and Hispanic and Asian Republican representatives and governors. Then we can better focus on the issue at hand, the conflict between state control and individual freedom.

Sweet, Sweet Justice
Another category is one which I call “Sweet, Sweet Justice.” There are some people who are simply odious and it would be sweet if they were simply removed from the halls of power. Frank and Grayson are two of these as are Eddie Bernice Johnson (she of scholarship fame); and Phil Hare (IL-17) who “doesn’t worry if it’s in the Constitution” and Raul M. Grijalva, (AZ-7) a four-term congressman from Arizona who became nationally known for calling for a boycott of his state after Gov. Jan Brewer signed Arizona’s immigration law. Not surprisingly each of these incumbents is in the Congressional Progressive Caucus. The one major name in this category that is not on this list is Nancy Pelosi.

There is one last category of candidate: advocates of limited, constitutional government who have been vilified by the national press and targets of the DNC and other groups. Michelle Bachmann, Marco Rubio and Susan Angle are three that come to mind. Rand Paul would have been part of this list if his race had remained close. Think of this group as Sweet, Sweet Justice Part II.

The actual list of candidates will come in following posts.

Miller, Anchorage Media Fabricating a Story

2010-11-01T09:31:00.000-04:00

Not that I can add anything to this except: "are you really shocked?"

Here's the statement from KTVA:

A press release issued Saturday October 30, 2010, by the Joe Miller campaign claims that KTVA personnel, "openly discuss creating, if not fabricating, two stories about Republican nominee for U.S. Senate, Joe Miller." KTVA General Manager Jerry Bever says, "It's unfortunate that this recording has happened. It's unfortunate because it does not accurately reflect the journalistic standards of our newsroom and the garbled context will no doubt leave more questions than answers. The Miller campaign's analysis of the recording is incorrect in many material ways ranging from personnel involved in the conversation, the interpretation of conversation snippets and the reported transcript of the perceived garbled conversation."

"While the recording is real, the allegations are untrue," said Bever. "The recording was the result of a cell phone not being hung up after a call was placed to Randy DeSoto, Joe Miller campaign spokesperson, Thursday afternoon to discuss Joe Miller's appearance on that evening's newscast. That phone call was placed near the end of a coverage planning meeting in our newsroom regarding that evening's Miller rally in downtown Anchorage. The group of KTVA news personnel was reviewing potential "what-if" scenarios, discussing the likelihood of events at the rally and how KTVA might logistically disseminate any breaking news."

Bever continues, "The perception that this garbled, out of context recording may leave is unfortunate, but to allege that our staff was discussing or planning to create or fabricate stories regarding candidate Miller is absurd. The complete conversation was about what others might be able to do to cause disruption within the Miller campaign, not what KTVA could do."

While Bever would not discuss any personnel issues linked with the recording, Bever says "Have we had internal discussions about the level of professionalism we need to bring to our conversations, internally and externally? Of course we have, this is a lesson to learn from."

It just makes me wonder? How many journalistic teams looked for sex offenders who might have worked for Barack Obama, or Nancy Pelosi, or Barney Frank? Is this sort of research normal for KTVA? Have they looked for sex predators in Lisa Murkowski's camp? Did they look for them in her father's?

As to the response by KTVA. You heard the tape. You read the response. It's up to you to draw your own conclusion.

There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power

2010-10-28T19:42:00.001-04:00

Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations.

James Madison
Elliot's Debates
Friday, June 6, 1788.

"I don't worry about the Constitution." Phil Hare, Democrat (IL-17)

And you think the Tea Party and other small government types are crazy?

"Are you serious? Are you serious?" Nancy Pelosi, Democrat (CA-8)

"We have to pass the health care bill so that you can find out what is in it." Nancy Pelosi, Democrat (CA-8)

You still think we're crazy?

President Palin, The most terrifying words in the English Language

2010-10-27T13:06:00.001-04:00

Funny, how promoting limited government equals a totalitarian state and that promoting more and more government control over ones life equals freedom.

And you think President Palin is stupid?

Olivia Wilde and MoveOn.org what is it about individuality that scares you so much?

Environmentalists are now part of Obama's Enemies List

2010-10-27T11:43:00.000-04:00

If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, "We’re going to punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us," if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it’s going to be harder, and that’s why I think it’s so important that people focus on voting on November 2.

Barack Obama on Univision, October 25, 2010

Oh, Obama certainly didn't mean it that way, and doesn't see it that way - that Environmentalists are "enemies to be punished", but a key component of the Democrat Coalition, the environmentalists, are largely against immigration. They're against immigration for a whole slew of reasons among them resource and habitat use; and belief that the ideal size for the United States is 150-200 million instead of the 300+ a growing population.

Quoted from the Negative Population Growth website:

Immigration, as it relates to population, is not a racial issue; it’s about numbers, not race, ethnicity or skin color. It is not racist to consider what doubling or tripling our population would require of our resources and environment.

Negative Population Growth

There are some Reds in Green clothing, analagous to the NAACP, who use environmentalist arguments as a way of promoting their cause, but environmentalists who want less immigration are now ... what? Inadvertently they have now joined the group that needs to be punished.

How about union members who don't want business to under cut them with cheap "imported" labor. Are they also "enemies;" or are they simply misguided and need to be re-educated? Of course the SEIU leadership, who are a national verision of yester-year's Tammany Hall Machine exchanging favorable contracts for providing a massed army of small-time thugs and loyalists who know they have to produce votes would beg to differ.

For you Obama supporters: Does Obama sound like a Ward Leader or someone who is going to heal the divides of this country? Does he sound like a community organizer, intent of dividing the country or a president of the entire country?

What would you say if Bush called his critics "enemies" that needed to be "punished"? I can hear the outrage - "divisive", "hateful", "fear mongering", "unpresidential", "Nixonian" - and yet how little of this is said about Obama.

For you environmentalists: why do you still support this President, why are you going to vote straight "D" this November?

Mexico, a Failed-State:but let's leave our borders wide-open.

2010-10-25T12:34:00.004-04:00

And people still object to the US sealing it's borders? There's a lot we can can change regarding immigration but the first thing that must be done is to control the borders. Funny how the very people who are for regulating everything are against regulating borders. These same people who don't see limits on what government officials can do to regulate our lives: don't open new McDonalds, put on your seat belts, eat more vegetables, don't do this, don't do that think that we shouldn't know who enters our country.

What a load of nonsense.

What can we do about the narco state below our borders? One thing we can do is start legalizing drugs, take the power and money away from illegal entities and have them taxed and regulated. Notice how few gang killings we have over the sale of beer and whisky compared to the 1920s?

UPDATE: 10/28/2010

Entire police force in Los Ramones, Mexico quits after gunmen attack headquarters

The entire police force in a small Mexican town abruptly resigned Tuesday after its new headquarters was viciously attacked by suspected drug cartel gunmen.

All 14 police officers in Los Ramones, a rural town in northern Mexico, fled the force in terror after gunmen fired more than 1,000 bullets and flung six grenades at their headquarters on Monday night.

As the President of Mexico Felipe Calderón, who, in 2009, angrily denied that Mexico was becoming a "failed state," described the situation in February 2010 as a fight for "the very authority of the state."

Why I Love Allen West

2010-10-24T15:31:00.000-04:00

Can you imagine this man in Congress? He NEEDS to be in Congress. Talk about speaking truth to power.

America you choose: Barack Obama or Allen West. I pick Allen West.

[Hat Tip: Just a Conservative Girl for the Videos.]

Kickback or Illegal Access

2010-10-23T15:23:00.001-04:00

Too many people think that companies give money solely to influence and corrupt congressmen. All the rhetoric behind McCain-Feingold assumes that the congressman is getting rolled by big-bad businesses and special interests. Too many forget that kickbacks are involved as well as extortion.

God Bless a Congress that can do whatever it wants </sarc> and God Bless candidates who present this clearly to the voters.

I'm an Extremist

2010-10-22T23:47:00.000-04:00

The left calls people like me "extremists." For the moment let's leave to another conversation how we determine and what we consider to be extreme. Let's look at the following statement:

"The bigger the majority, the easier it is to advance an agenda, especially if it includes some of the GOP's more divisive priorities such as school vouchers, court system changes or a constitutional spending lid."

Missouri House may gain more GOP members

You may be for or against school vouchers but is this truly an extreme position? How about passing a law saying that the state can't spend more than it takes in? These ideas are what some people consider to be extreme. If balancing the state's checkbook is extreme then I'm an extremist.

Just Call Me Senator, Barbara Boxer

2010-10-22T17:37:00.000-04:00

This is a laugh-out-loud spoof of the event as it was "supposed to happen."

Call Me Senator from RightChange on Vimeo.

In case you haven't heard it -- here's the original version:

Islam in Paris. Worth Seeing

2010-10-22T09:35:00.001-04:00

Defund NPR

2010-10-22T08:48:00.003-04:00

NPR should never have been on the government teat. In paring down government it is one of the low-hanging fruit. It's disgusting that it wasn't done under Reagan or Bush 41 or Bush 43. I consider this to be one of the tests of the so-called new Republican leadership: "get rid of NPR, defund it." It is not the role of government to support a radio station.

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Article I, Section 8

NPR repeatedly states that government funding is a small percentage of their budget. Well that's good, it won't be difficult to replace the funding.

As a "radical", "extremist" ~~fascist~~ ~~right-winger~~ ~~tea-partier~~ classical liberal I would also defund the CPB. It's not that I find fault with CPB or its politics it's that, as a proper extremist, I like to be consistent. IF it's not the government's role to fund TV stations then that applies to ALL publicly funded TV stations.

To clarify, it's not because of NPR's politics, or the firing of Juan Williams, or the idiotic statement of Vivian Schiller that Juan Williams should have kept his feelings about Muslims between himself and "his psychiatrist or his publicist:" it's because funding of radio stations is not the role of government.

The Juan Williams fiasco brings NPR to the forefront and makes this a convenient time to, once again, push for its defunding.

UPDATE: 10/25/2010

An interesting point is raised by Seth Lipsky in his article The Real Case for Defunding NPR

My quarrel with government subsidies to NPR—via grants from the federally funded Corporation for Public Broadcasting—is that they cast a chill over the markets in which private entrepreneurs seek to raise capital for what might be called highbrow journalism. It is hard to quantify this. But it is a conclusion that I have reached after more than two decades spent seeking to raise capital for privately-owned publications competing in this arena.

More than once I have been interrupted, while singing the song of quality journalism to a potential investor, to be asked, "Isn't this already being done by public broadcasting?"

This is one more of the many reasons that we shouldn't have government funding of NPR. But the core of the issue is that this isn't something that government should be doing.

Allen West (FL-22) has a lead.

2010-10-21T12:35:00.000-04:00

There has been no public polling data on Allen West since August. The Sunshine State News/VSS poll -- unfortunately not a well-known polling outfit -- has Allen West up over incumbant Ron Klein 47-43.

I'm crossing my fingers that West wins. What a phenominal turnaround that will be for this district, exchanging a Health Care, Cap and Trade, statist for Allan West, a free-market, military hero; and another inductee to the Conservative Black Caucus, joining Tim Scott (SC-1) who is an almost guaranteed winner for his seat.

Democrats create jobs, the American way.

2010-10-21T11:14:00.000-04:00

Donna Brazile, in yet another article, Brazile: Republicans Aren’t Enthusiastic, Just Mad shows the total lack of understanding by the left about their opposition.

But let’s dispose of some myths. The country is not “disgusted” with Democratic policies, as some media commentators wish we would believe. For instance, strong majorities favor a Medicare-style national health plan, even if they have to pay more for insurance, and even if the question is phrased with an insurance industry bias, according to a Harris Interactive poll.

And yet the unifying factor in the Tea Party movement, that which unites Social Conservatives and Libertarians is the overreaching of government involvement in society as epitomized by the Health Care bill. Are there pockets, or even large sections of Americans, who are in favor of socialized medicine? Yes. But they're not enthused by the bill that was passed and the opponents of the bill are demanding that this monstrous legislation be repealed. In my opinion, if the Republican Party, does not defund and work to its repeal there is a real possibility that the Republican Party, as we now know it, will be gone in one or two more election cycles.

Is there really an enthusiasm gap between Democratic and Republican voters this election cycle?

Well, that all depends on what you mean by “enthusiasm” and what you mean by “gap.”

...[Y]ou don’t draw the kinds of crowds President Barack Obama and former President Bill Clinton have been drawing if there’s a lack of enthusiasm.

Nobody says there isn't ANY enthusiasm on the left, only that it pales in comparison to the coalition that has formed to oppose the statist policies put forth by Obama and the Pelosi-Reid Congress.

“What about all those angry tea partiers, though?” you ask. The key word is “angry.” Angry people aren’t enthusiastic; they’re just angry. And once the object of that anger is gone, there’s not much left, except perhaps more undirected anger.

Tea-party anger is not enthusiasm for Republicans or Republican policies — the only folks more disliked than incumbents are those inside the tea-party movement itself. Polls show a majority of Americans don’t align themselves with the tea party. A late August CBS poll, for example, found that 54 percent did not support the movement.

You're right, once the object of their anger is gone: the health care bill, cap and trade, take-over of industries, excessive taxation is gone - then the anger will dissipate. You mention that 54 percent did not approve of the movement and forget that 46 percent do favor a strong movement that is very Libertarian, very much for limited government, very much for rolling back government excesses, very much for a re-reading of the constitution and limiting the Federal government to those stated powers.

This is an extraordinary shift and you're missing it.

Finally you quote an article from the Huffington Post and say that:

Democrats create jobs, the American way.

Which way is that Donna? Since when is creating government jobs, and having people live off of government largesse the American way?

Don't Party Like It's 1773, Yet!

2010-10-20T10:23:00.000-04:00

Once again the Stupid TeaBaggers' hero Sarah Palin puts her foot in her mouth. As Markos Moulitsas puts it Sarah is "so smart." And, as Gwen Ifill so succinctly puts it "party like it 1773! ummm." How is it possible that this dolt, this Tea Party idiot, Sarah Palin, doesn't know that the Declaration of Independence took place in 1776!?

Maybe it's because the actual "Tea Party" took place on December 16th, 1773 and Sarah Palin was referring to that event and not the Declaration of Independence. Maybe, horror of horrors, Palin isn't as stupid as you portray her to be.

Weren't the left the ones that were mocking the Tea Party movement for not knowing their history and deprecating the very use of the phrase Tea Party? I've dealt with the appropriateness of the term, Tea Party, in an earlier post so I won't go over it again.

I'm not a Republican, but I am aligning myself with them in this election, and hope that come the night of November 2 we're partying as if it was 1894. (The election of November 6, 1894 saw a massive realignment in US politics. Interestingly enough, the Republicans of 1894 were for government intervention in the economy in ways that the somewhat free-market Democrats were not.)

You can see Sarah Palin's speech regarding "partying like it's 1773" at The Right Scoop

From Liberal to Socialist

2010-10-19T12:32:00.000-04:00

It's time that people see the connection between Liberal/Socialist ideals and their results.

If we follow Nancy Pelosi and the Progressive Caucus with ideas such as is espoused below we will quickly turn into another failed European Socialist State.

These ideas by Nancy Pelosi:

"We're talking about addressing the disparity of income where the wealthy people continue to get wealthier and some other people are falling out of the middle class when we want to bring many more people into the middle class. But that disparity is not just about wages alone, that disparity is about ownership and equity. It's all about fairness in our country.

SEE VIDEO ON REAL CLEAR POLITICS

lead to a society that responds like this:

These riots are coming from a society that doesn't want to accept that there is no money for all the government give-aways. They come back with the standard retort: tax the rich and then everything will be alright. All this because the Sarkozy government plans to raise the minimum retirement age from 60 to 62 with full pension at becoming active at 67 instead of 65.

Or how about this from Greece, for just about the same reason:

And you have comments such as

Greek people are not attacking anyone, we are defending ourselves from poverty, slavery and free market. It's easy to condemn when you are sitting in a couch.

[youtube.com: shinobi1311991]

"Slavery and the Free Market." Wow!!!

Well, if freedom equals slavery and slavery equals Freedom, then certainly it's not a stretch to equate liberalism with socialism.

2010 Election Predictions

2010-10-14T22:47:00.000-04:00

It's getting down to the wire and time to start firming up predictions. I find it hard to believe that labor is going to be more energized in this election than they were in 2008. I think it is ridiculous to imagine that the Rock the Vote crowd, and the general Black population is going to be anywhere as enthused this year as they were two years ago.

There was a scary cult-of-personality aspect to the Obama run; that cult has definately run its course and has not matched expectations. When expectations are set in close to Biblical terms all you can do is go down.

While I'm not a Republican, in this election I am rooting for a Tsunami, a clean wipe out of Obama-Pelosi-Reid Democrats. Unfortunately there will not be a rooting out of this Socialist plague from our shores. There are too many socialists in America and at the end of the day there will still be 60-70+ member of the Progressive Caucus still in power.

And yet I have hope that the Democrats have over-reached; that Obama's experience as a community organizer, while effective at getting into the Oval Office, has not proved sufficient in pursuading others to his cause. Further Obama's lack of political experience shows in his inability to gracefully deal with political opponents or even the mildest of criticism.

His political skills, or lack thereof, will determine if he is a one-term president or if, in 2012, he can triangulate by warning people against one-party rule and extol the virtues of a split government.

As far as predictions: I would put the floor at a gain of 55 seats by the Republicans in the House, 8 in the Senate and 8 Governor's Mansions. I have no estimate for State Houses and Senates but would be surprised if the Republicans did not get a clear majority of both.

I think it is most likely that Republicans will get 65+ seats in the House, 9 in the Senate and 10 Governors Mansions.

My hope is much, much more but I think there are too many committed socialists and fellow-travellers for that to happen.

Obama is in Over His Head

2010-10-11T11:20:00.000-04:00

With the exception of core Obama Administration loyalists, most politically engaged elites have reached the same conclusions: the White House is in over its head, isolated, insular, arrogant and clueless about how to get along with or persuade members of Congress, the media, the business community or working-class voters.

Time Magazine

You think? What do you think happens when you hire a neophyte with little-to-no experience and a propensity for avoiding making decisions?

Breitbart, Acorn and the 2010 Elections

2010-10-06T11:03:00.000-04:00

A year ago in an interview with Hannity Andrew Breitbart (see 3:50 in the above video) said the following:

Breitbart: There’s a lot of hypocrisy and the dust has settled for ACORN and at the end of the day they’ve recognized that Eric Holder, the Attorney General, has not initiated an investigation into ACORN after we now have seven tapes. There were five initially that came out, ACORN was defunded by the Senate, was defunded by the House, lost it’s link to the Census; while all that damage occurred, Congress didn’t come in to investigate them, obviously not the Attorney General’s office, and they’ve now realized let’s get back into business because they realized that the dust settled and they were not being investigated, it was Hannah, James, and me who were being investigated, that’s why we’ve been forced to offer this latest tape.

Hannity: Are you saying, Andrew, that there are more tapes?

Breitbart: Oh my goodness there are! Not only are there more tapes, it’s not just ACORN. And this message is to Attorney General Holder: I want you to know that we have more tapes, it’s not just ACORN, and we’re going to hold out until the next election cycle, or else if you want to do a clean investigation, we will give you the rest of what we have, we will comply with you, we will give you the documentation we have from countless ACORN whistleblowers who want to come forward but are fearful of this organization and the retribution that they fear that this is a dangerous organization. So if you get into an investigation, we will give you the tapes; if you don’t give us the tapes, we will revisit these tapes come election time.

Hannity: This is a blockbuster, what you’re saying here. You guys have more tapes, you’ll release them before the election, that could have a big impact on the election, obviously…

Well, the 2010 Elections are coming soon. Are all the October surprises coming from the left such as the Whitman Maid story, or shall ACORN and the others be brought in the game?

Do Jews Have a Double Loyalty?

2010-10-06T10:03:00.000-04:00

Do Jews have a double loyalty to both Israel and The United States? And, if so, to which country does their loyalty truly lie? I always thought of this as a BS question asked by joo haters of all stripes. Ed Koch, the former mayor of NYC, in talking about the firing of Rick Sanchez, the dopey CNN commentator, answered it in this way:

I told them, you never ask that question of Italian, German or Polish-Americans (I should have also included Cuban-Americans) who treasure their ancestry, traditions and the countries from which their ancestors came; you only ask it of Jews. Let me tell you why the security of Israel means so much to many Jews.

We know that when Hitler offered in the 30s to allow the Jews to leave Germany, if any country would take them, few countries agreed to accept the Jews and then only in small numbers. Indeed, in 1939 the U.S. under F.D.R. turned away the 900 or so Jews on the SS St. Louis who had earlier been turned away by Cuba (from which country Mr. Sanchez hails; he was not born at the time). F.D.R. refused to allow them to land in the U.S., and even sent a Coast Guard cutter to make sure no one jumped overboard and tried to swim ashore. So the Jews were sent back to Europe, where the majority perished in concentration camps.

If Israel had existed then, it would have taken in every single Jewish refugee, no matter how sick or old or incapacitated or poor. Then I said to my fellow Congress members, raising my right hand, and this is literal, "I swear to you, if Israel ever invades the U.S., I shall stand with the U.S." My fellow members of Congress applauded.

On the Firing of Rick Sanchez by CNN

Of course, this doesn't answer those who think that we have unnecessarily made enemies in the Muslim World by supporting Israel.

October 2 Rally in Washington

2010-10-05T15:37:00.000-04:00

Reuters portrays the rally as such:

(Reuters) - Tens of thousands of people rallied near the Lincoln Memorial in the U.S. capital on Saturday as liberal groups attempted to energize their base a month before pivotal congressional elections. ...

The rally was sponsored by unions, civil rights groups and liberal activists who have been struggling to get their messages heard during an election campaign in which media coverage has focused on voter anger over unemployment, a weak economy and government deficits.

Here are some photos from Director Blue

Why is it that the objective media always edit out the Socialist signs? Is it because these "liberal activists" are somewhat damaging to the image the media wants to put forth? After all, what's wrong with being a Socialist?

Isn't Keynesian "middle-of-the-road?"
Isn't higher taxes on the rich and ever more regulation "middle-of-the-road?"

What is the difference in policy objectives between those marching under the Socialist banner and progressives?

Islam and The Golden Mean

2010-10-04T17:06:00.000-04:00

"PROOF" that Islam is the One True Religion. I found it interesting -- not convincing of course -- but I guess it proves that I'm a sucker for these Golden Mean arguments.

By "sucker" for Golden Mean arguments, I'm not suggesting that I am swayed by the argument, only that I enjoy hearing it.

Assuming that there were no "mistakes" in the Golden Mean calculations the key counter point to this "Mecca and the Golden Mean" argument is: "are there any other places, especially religious sites, on this planet by which the same argument could be made?"

Frazier Gives Obama Political Advice

2010-10-01T09:56:00.000-04:00

I never particularly liked or watched Cheers but this video (Hat Tip: The Hedgehog Report) was funny and spot on.

Frazier: "Just tell us more of those farm stories. People seem to love those."
Frazier: "If that doesn't work just say the word change about 100 times."
...
Frazier: "Trust me Woody, with my brains and your smile who knows how high we can go, Congressman, Senator, who knows?"

Cheers: Woody Gets an Election
First Aired: April 22, 1993
Season: 11
Episode: 265

Taliban Dan

2010-09-29T16:20:00.000-04:00

A harsh ad. The first thing I thought was "I would like to see the context in which this was said. Dan Webster was talking to fathers at a church group. This is what he said:

Webster: So, write a journal. Second, find a verse. I have a verse for my wife, I have verses for my wife. Don’t pick the ones that say, ‘She should submit to me.’ That’s in the Bible, but pick the ones that you’re supposed to do. So instead, ‘love your wife, even as Christ loved the Church and gave himself for it’ as opposed to ‘wives submit to your own husbands.’ She can pray that, if she wants to, but don’t you pray it.

As Fact Check puts it:

The phrase "if she wants to," though, shows that Webster was not imposing his "radical fundamentalism" even on the people at the religious training conference.

I may or may not disagree with these religious teachings but as long as it's not imposed on non-believers there can be no problem with it.

Here is Grayson's response: He states that his ad did not take things out of context:

To be fair to Grayson he made some good points regarding Webster's positions and votes -- I would like to hear more about this without the Taliban hyperbole.

God Bless Allen West (FL-22

2010-09-29T01:51:00.000-04:00

Politico: Black GOP hopefuls could boost ranks – to one

2010-09-28T21:25:00.000-04:00

The Republican Party has nominated 14 black House candidates this year, an unusually high number for a party that doesn’t currently have any black members in its congressional ranks. “There’s been a perception that the black community is a monolithic thinking, looking and voting community, and when people see the average black person, they assume that we all voted for Obama,” said Timothy Johnson, chairman of the conservative Frederick Douglass Foundation.

That headline isn't too snarky now is it? How about this headline:

Female Hispanic Republican Gubernatorial hopefuls could boost nation's ranks - to one.

(Susana Martinez for Governor of New Mexico)
or how about

Child of Sihk Immigrants could boost nation's ranks - to one.

(Nikki Haley is running for Governor of South Carolina)

or

Vietnamese GOP hopefuls could boost nation's ranks - to one.

(Van Tran is running for Congress in California)

Nice, objective headline guys.

Susana Martinez and Nikki Haley are Historic Firsts

2010-09-28T09:21:00.000-04:00

Following up on the Nikki Haley post, Susana Martinez will most likely become the first Hispanic woman ever elected governor in the U.S. She already is the first Hispanic woman ever nominated for Governor by a major party. What do you think: "If Nikki Haley and Susana Martinez were Democrats do you think their "historic" races would have been promoted in the MSM?"

I'm not into the quotas and "firsts" but we need to get past race in this country and one of the best ways to do that is to break the perception that Republicans are racists. As long as that mentality exists Democratic opportunists can manipulate people and continue this myth by saying "see look how many Republicans there are -- this is a racist country."

Having Martinez, a woman with Mexican ancestry, elected as Governor of New Mexico, on the Republican line is a big deal; along with Nikki Haley, and Black Republican Representatives such as Allen West, Florida (a big favorite of mine), Bill Randall, North Carolina, and Ryan Frazier, Colorado, as elected officals will go a long way in changing the narrative.

United Nations - One World Order

2010-09-27T13:50:00.000-04:00

I'm not into conspiracy theories, black helicopters and the like, but I do have a visceral dislike of centralized power. One the reasons I so like the intent behind the US Constitution is that our representatives are selected by geographical areas and that the government is more local: where the states are responsible for all local issues and the federal government is concerned primarily with foreign affairs and inter-state issues.

Needless to say we have gotten very far afield from this ideal, so when I once again read that UN officials desire further extra-national power I was again appalled that such an organization exists. Personnally I would reduce the UN to one task, and one task only: a place to mediate inter-state conflicts; civil wars and genocide. Nothin' more.

Joseph Deiss, a Swiss politician speaking at the UN, stated that it was time for the United Nations to "comprehensively fulfill its global governance role." Apparantly this is not considered news the MSM. Thankfully this appalling statement was countered by the Czech President Vaclav Klaus who said: [quoting from a Reuter's article]

The solution to dealing with the global economic crisis, Klaus told the U.N. General Assembly, did not lie in "creating new governmental and supranational agencies, or in aiming at global governance of the world economy."

"On the contrary, this is the time for international organizations, including the United Nations, to reduce their expenditures, make their administrations thinner, and leave the solutions to the governments of member states," he said.

Klaus said that was a "mistaken assumption" and it was impossible to prevent future crises through regulatory interventions and similar actions by governments.

That will only "destroy the markets and together with them the chances for economic growth and prosperity in both developed and developing countries," he said.

Bravo Mr. Klaus, especially the statement that it was impossible to prevent crises by regulatory interventions. I can't wait for the US Congress to drastically reduce US funding of the United Nations and for a President who starts to limit US involvement.

Questioning the Competency of the Main Stream Media

2010-09-26T15:33:00.001-04:00

I was looking up information on Ryan Frazier, a Black Republican looking to knock off incumbent Rep. Earl Perlmutter in CO-7, and found an article written by Rick Klein.

Rick Klein is the Senior Washington Editor for ABC News' for "World News with Diane Sawyer." He appears on "World News Political Insights," contributes political stories to all ABC News broadcasts and platforms and wrote The Note (from 2007-2010), a daily political blog and tip sheet that The New Yorker magazine "the most influential morning tip sheet in Washington."

Reading his bio you would think that he would know what he was talking about; that he would, at least, get the basic facts of the article correct. In the article about Ryan Frazier the first few sentences show that he hasn't proofed his work, and that he is making assumptions rather than presenting researched facts.

House candidate Ryan Frazier – one of several black Republicans who are running for seats in Congress this year – said today that the GOP can win support in African-American communities if candidates begin by simply asking for votes.

“Show up. Engage. We know where to find folks,” Frazier, who is running against Rep. Earl Perlmutter, D-Colo., in a traditionally conservative seat in Colorado.

The first thing is that Ryan Frazier's opponent's name is ED Perlmutter, not EARL Perlmutter. OK, that's an uncaught typo. It happens. It's not major. What is a important is the following clause that Frazier and Perlmutter are running "in a traditionally conservative seat in Colorado."

Not so. This seat was drawn up by a judge and designed to be as Party neutral as possible. Redistricting issues were all over the papers a few years ago. In 2003, for instance, the Democratic members of the Texas state House publicly left and went to Oklahoma to protest the way Texas was being redistricted. Rick Klein, the political expert for ABC News should have known this.

Regarding CO-7, the district in question, a quick search in the NYTimes resulted in this:

Leveled Colorado District Creates an Election Lab
New York Times
Aug. 2, 2006 — The remarkable thing about Colorado’s Seventh Congressional District, where Republicans hold a seat that Democrats are desperate to win this year, is that the fix isn’t in.

Unlike the vast majority of House districts around the country, this one, encompassing a thriving collection of Denver suburbs, was not gerrymandered to guarantee victory to one party. Quite the opposite. It is a freak of modern political nature, purposefully drawn to be balanced between the parties and provide a genuine test of the ideals and abilities of the opposing candidates.

Here's another quote, this time from Real Clear Politics:

The Denver suburbs stretch out across miles of flatland east of the city. In 2002, a Democratic judge selected the Democrats’ map after the legislature deadlocked. This map placed the newly-created 7th District in the Denver inner suburbs, and drew it to slightly favor Democrats. But Republican Bob Beauprez nevertheless narrowly won the district over a flawed Democratic candidate. Republicans tried to redraw the lines when they took control of the legislature in 2002, but the state Supreme Court found the new lines unconstitutional.

CO-7 is not, by any stretch of the imagination "a traditionally conservative seat." The first election in this newly created Congressional District went to Republican Beauprez who won a squeaker (47-47). In 2004 Beauprez won again 55-43 and in 2006 and 2008 Democrat Ed Permutter won by ever expanding margins 55-42 and 63-37.

I leave you with this question? How accurate is what you read in the MSM? Why do independent bloggers catch the professionals in such blatant mistakes? Do amateur boxers have a chance in hell against quality professionals? Hell no? How about in baseball, or basketball?

Bill Randall (NC-13)

2010-09-26T01:36:00.000-04:00

Growing up in New Orleans’ (LA) lower 9th ward taught him the important connection between government integrity, personal industriousness and the achievement of a better life. He believes that politicians that ignore and devastate their voters’ dreams do not deserve a place in our government - they fail one of our Republic and Founding Fathers’ main beliefs - putting the people’s rights and needs first.

Bill Randall knows first-hand about the devastating impact caused by government programs and politicians, who advance themselves with empty lies and false hopes. He saw how this frustrated and pushed people down, forced a reliance on government food stamp and family assistance programs, and did not improve quality of life, pride, morale and genuine jobs.

Rather than succumb to this negative environment, Bill Randall emerged with a keen appreciation for a loving family, sincerity, true promises, a free market economy, military service and ownership of decisions impacting life, family, career and advancement by personal initiatives.

Randall For Congress

I wonder, is the Congressional Black Caucus and the NAACP rooting for Bill Randall over Brad Miller,his white opponent? No, I didn't think so. I hate group-identity politics with a passion but I hate the hypocrisy and the slimy, bigoted practice of smearing opponents with the "R" word. Yeah it works, but it's pathetic and when it doesn't work anymore all the edifices built upon this sh*+ will come tumbling down.

The Socialist Mindset

2010-09-25T08:01:00.000-04:00

Anti-development forces are always raising their head: demanding “affordable housing” before allowing a new development to go through.

Oh, you may say: “this is not socialism.” That may be true, but how would you classify this mentality? How do you describe the mindset that holds up the production of something valuable – housing – in order to make certain that “all” can afford a particular item the moment it becomes available; that something shouldn’t be created for the “rich” without also being available for the poor. That’s the socialist ideal. We hear it in housing, we hear it in the healthcare debate, we hear it everywhere.

Is this mindset “socialism?” No, it can’t properly be classified as such, it is something different. It is one of those states of mind that both results from a philosophical position and creates it: there is a chicken and egg aspect to it.

By not defeating this state of mind we are allowing the revival of socialism under another name. The results, of course, would be the same regardless of the name.

It is this state of mind that hinders and hurts our economy, our schools, our society. I know that many are “trying to do the right thing,” but in trying to do good less units are built; more time is spent in bringing them to market; and in that individuals and “society” is being hurt. As the saying goes: “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

Society – for those who think in such a manner -- is hurt because we need more housing, not less; we need more housing by transit hubs, not less; we need more construction jobs, more tax revenue (from the sale of the apartments and profit from renting) not less. In the name of giving low income people homes we’ve hurt everyone and disproportionately affected the low and working class.

Daugher of Sikh immigrants becomes Governor of South Carolina (I hope)

2010-09-24T14:20:00.000-04:00

Why isn’t the media promoting Nikki Haley (nee Nimrata Nikki Randhawa)? Why aren’t we hearing that there is a series of historic firsts in this year’s election? The first female governor of South Carolina; the first governor, male or female person of color; the first governor whose family is from South Asia. Wouldn’t this be a tremendous story for the media: South Carolina goes from being the first state to secede from the Union to electing the daughter of Indian Sikh immigrants as Governor of their state.

Why, because it’s not consistent with the narrative that the media wants to promote.

Joe Biden Predicts Victory in November

2010-09-24T12:39:00.000-04:00

At a fundraiser for Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) Joe Biden declared: “I guarantee you we’re going to have a majority in the House and a majority in the Senate. I absolutely believe that.”

I understand cheerleading and having to put up a brave front in the face of defeat but when you "guarantee" something and it doesn't pan out you end up belittling yourself.

From Kennedy to Obama

2010-09-24T08:09:00.000-04:00

The Democrats have gone from:

"we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address
January 20, 1961.

to:

“It can’t happen without you, without a new spirit of service, a new spirit of sacrifice.”

President-Elect Barack Obama
November 4, 2008

Of course, it's the Republicans, the Libertarians, the Tea Party people and the sundry of other limited, constitutional government folks who are mean and divisive and repugnant trolls.

Loretta Sanchez: "Vietnamese and Republicans are trying to take away this seat"

2010-09-23T09:42:00.000-04:00

The Vietnamese and the Republicans are, with an intensity, trying to take away this seat, this seat that we have done so much for our community take away this seat from us and give it to this Van Tran, who's very anti-immigrant and very anti-Latino.

We always hear that the Republicans are divisive and fear-mongering. What do you think the media response would have been if a sitting Republican Congressman had uttered the phrase the "Hispanics and Democrats are trying to take away this seat." I think the "divisive" spin would be on 24-7.

I wonder how long it will be before the MSM plays this clip again and again while calling Loretta Sanchez "divisive."

In case it matters Van Thai Tran was born in Saigon in 1964 and came to the US a week before the fall of Saigon. Yeah, he's anti-immigrant.