Commentarama

Despicable Newt

2012-02-01T09:00:00.099-05:00

Romney’s win last night likely decided the Republican nomination. What I want to talk about today, however, is the damage being done to conservatism by the desperate and despicable creature that is Newt Gingrich. Specifically, he’s been smearing Romney and anyone he thinks supports Romney in ways which are causing long term harm to the cause of conservatism, and it’s time for conservatives to turn their backs on this troll.

Let’s start with Romney. Newt has been slandering Romney in ways that will make it very hard for Romney to beat Obama. Indeed, he’s engaged in a scorched earth policy premised on the idea that we better pick Newt or Newt will make sure Obama wins:

1. Newt has repeatedly called Romney a liar, dishonest and pathetic, when Newt’s actually the one who’s been lying. A reputation for dishonesty is nearly impossible for a politician to live down and harms everything they do because much in politics relies on trust.

2. Newt has made misleading attacks on Romney for investments made by the blind trust Romney is required to use to hold investments. These attacks are anti-capitalist, class warfare attacks and further suggest fraud or tax evasion on Romney’s part.

3. Newt promoted a ridiculous conspiracy theory involving Romney trying to unseat Allen West, suggesting that Romney seeks to destroy the Tea Party.

4. Newt has recycled Rick Perry’s vile “heartless” attack for Romney’s stance on deporting illegal immigrants, a stance shared by all conservatives.

5. And vilest of them all, Newt has tried to inflame religious bigotry while smearing Romney as anti-religion. Observe. Newt began this smear by suggesting that Romney hate religious freedom:
“I think Governor Romney is extraordinarily insensitive to religious freedom in America and the Obama administration is clearly engaged in a war on religion.”
He then told Fox News that Romney made a decision to cut Medicaid funding for health services which would benefit Jewish and Catholic facilities. This was an attempt to both claim Romney didn’t care about religion and to imply that Mormons could not be trusted to protect other religions. And if you think I’m overstating that, look at how he repeated this on CNN:
“You want a war on the Catholic Church by Obama? Guess what: Romney refused to allow Catholic hospitals to have conscience in their dealing with certain circumstances. . . . Romney cut off kosher food to elderly Jews on Medicare. Both of them [Romney and Obama] have the same lack of concern for religious liberty. . . I’m a little bit tired of being lectured about respecting every religion on the planet, I would like [Romney] to respect our religion.”
Note that Newt singles out a war on Catholics and Jews and then finishes with the suggestion that Romney is not a Christian and that he would protect other religions, but not Christianity. What Newt is doing here is playing on the religious bigotry of fundamentalists like Robert Jeffress who still view Mormonism as a non-Christian cult.

Gingrich then issued a truly despicable robocall claiming that Romney forced Holocaust survivors to eat non-kosher foods:
“As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney vetoed a bill paying for kosher food for our seniors in nursing homes. Holocaust survivors, who for the first time, were forced to eat non-kosher, because Romney thought $5 was too much to pay for our grandparents to eat kosher. Where is Mitt Romney’s compassion for our seniors? Tuesday you can end Mitt Romney’s hypocrisy on religious freedom, with a vote for Newt Gingrich. Paid for by Newt 2012.”
When confronted about this robocall, Newt denied having any knowledge of it and incredibly then said, “You might check and see whether the accusation is true.” Note the lack of condemnation of the call and, more interestingly, his adoption of the message.

This is all despicable and will not only dampen conservative support for Romney, but will hang around his neck in the general election and throughout his Presidency. These aren’t policy disputes, they are bigoted smears and slanders.

And it’s not just smears against Romney which are the problem. Indeed, Gingrich has been busy reinforcing generations of leftist attacks on the foundations of conservatism:

● His attacks on Romney’s wealth and investments and Wall Street bankers have been anti-capitalist.

● His attacks on Romney’s immigration policy play right into leftist claims that conservatives hate immigrants and are “heartless” on the issue.

● His attacks on Mormonism feed fundamentalists who oppose all but their own sects.

● His attacks on the Republican establishment, particularly his false description of them and the conspiratorial nature of his attempt to claim victimhood, widen the gap between Tea Partiers and the Republican party, again splitting natural allies.

● He undercut conservative attempts to reform Medicare and Social Security (the Chilean model), and on the flat tax.

Moreover, Newt’s surrogates are smearing anyone who disagrees. Ann Coulter, Jonah Goldberg, and George Will, all solid conservatives, have been labeled RINOs. Elliot Abrams, who pointed out that Newt is lying about supporting Reagan in the 1980s and produced copies of Newt’s attacks on Reagan from the Congressional Record, where Newt did things like call the Reagan Administration “a failed presidency,” was smeared by a Newt surrogate who suggested with no proof that Abrams was lying because he had been offered a job in the Romney administration. Another Newt surrogate smeared Matt Drudge, who does more to help conservatives than a million Newts combined, for “bias” and “being in the tank for Romney.” Etc.

In a world where liberals already smear conservatives in this manner, and thereby try to rob them of their credibility, conservatives should never give aid and comfort to liberal smears. Yet that is what Newt is doing. He is systematically burning key conservatives and conservative principles to the ground and insanely destroying the foundations of conservatism all in the name of his own aggrandizement.

Further, Newt told us last night exactly what kind of administration he would run if elected. He demanded that the Republicans in Congress give him things that cannot be delivered, i.e. a repeal of ObamaCare on the first day, and he made it clear he would lump Republicans and Democrats into the same group and fight them all if he didn’t get his way.

This troll must be stopped.

Finally, let me say a word about Herman Cain. Cain endorse Newt this week. I find this extremely disappointing. When Cain left the race, it was clear he would endorse Newt because he and Newt are friends. But Cain didn’t do that. Instead, he created this rather corny, but oddly genuine political theater of endorsing the people. This rekindled the Tea Party’s love for him and was enough that they picked him to give the Tea Party response to the State of the Union.

Implicit in all of this was that he would represent the views of the Tea Party. As such, he should have worked to make sure each of the candidates acknowledged the Tea Party and agreed to address its concerns. Endorsing Newt (or anyone) was a violation of trust. This was like being appointed commissioner of a sports league and then cheering for one team. Cain should not have done it and should apologize for it now. You’re better than that Herm.

T-Rav's Sockpuppet Votatorium Presents: Primarily Florida

2012-01-31T16:00:00.027-05:00

It's a big night in Florida, it's seniors eat free night at Golden Corral! And beside that, there's voting afoot. Tonight could actually decide the race and it looks like the Gingrich dirigible has caught fire. So join us as we watch the humanity unfold... or not. (Results released at 8 PM EST.)

And while we wait, riddle me this: in hindsight, do you think the debate process has been good or bad for sorting through the candidates?

Don't forget: It's Star Trek Tuesday at the film site! Today is about the Wrath of Khan!

Obamacare Bureaucracy vs. Religious Belief

2012-01-31T09:00:00.006-05:00

I recently introduced our readers to a small victory for religious freedom over bureaucratic absolutism (Score One for the Christians). In that case, the Supreme Court told the National Labor Relations Board that a religious organization has sole power to determine its own rules regarding hiring and firing based on religious belief. But Leviathan never sleeps, and the Obama administration is at it again.

This time, the issue is much larger than that in the employment case. It is a bold attack on religious freedom, and the attack is grounded on the idea that the mission of a religious institution can be entirely separated from its non-religious functions. The bureaucracy this time is Health and Human Services, its commander is Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, and the law from which the conflict stems is nothing less than Obamacare.

Simply put, the Catholic Church and some Orthodox Jewish organizations are religiously opposed to contraception. Obamacare requires that all employers, including those groups, must provide health insurance which includes coverage for contraception, certain abortifacients and sterilization at no additional charge to the employee. Contraceptive services are controversial among those groups, but it is the mandate to provide coverage for abortifacients and sterilization that has brought the issue to a rolling boil.

Obamacare does allow for some exemptions, but they are narrowly-written and are being interpreted by a bureaucracy that demands universal health care coverage whether you like it or not. In describing which employees the "religious employer" may exempt from contraception, abortifacient and sterilization coverage, Sebelius and her people rely on the preliminary regulations (which will undoubtedly remain unchanged in the final version) that require four concurrent things to be true:

1. The inculcation of religious values is its purpose.
2. It primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets.
3. It primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets.
4. It is a non-profit organization under sections of the code that refer to churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations, as well as to the exclusively religious activities of any religious order.

Paying careful obeisance to and obfuscation of the ruling in the NLRB employment case, HHS has issued a statement that specifically says: "The Departments seek to provide for a religious accommodation that respects the unique relationship between a house of worship and its employees in ministerial positions." By pretending to honor the unanimous decision in the NLRB case, HHS is actually carving out a rule that defeats religious belief outside the confines of the "ministry."

One student of the Department's position lays it out rather well. "The group insurance covering nuns in a Catholic religious order would probably not have to cover contraception. But insurance provided by the same order's elementary school probably would. The latter would also be true of a hospital established by the nuns."

The NLRB case was based on religious freedom ("the ministry"). This issue revolves more around religious worship and what information a religious organization must provide to non-members. So even in those cases where the Department may find the exemption applies, it will still require the organization to pass out information about "preventive" services which it does not provide under the exemption. Essentially, this means that the exempt religious organization must tell its employees where and how to obtain those services which are anathema to the organization and church teaching.

Sebelius's official statement explains how the new rule should be applied: "We intend to require employers that do not offer coverage of contraceptive and sterilization services to provide notice to employees, which will also state that contraceptive services are available at sites such as community health centers, public clinics, and hospitals with income-based support." At its most basic it means that Father Flanagan will meet with his employee and tell her that the Church utterly opposes artificial contraception, abortifacients, and sterilization, but since the Church's medical insurance doesn't cover it, here's a list of all the places that will provide the services we find abhorrent and contrary to scripture.

So as it stands, Catholic employees at non-Catholic institutions must pay for insurance for preventive services as part of their insurance package, but cannot be charged anything additional for them. Likewise, Catholic and non-Catholic employees of a Catholic institution may be required to purchase contraception and sterilization insurance through their employers depending on how the Department classifies the religious employer. In the latter case, both the religious institution and its employees are bound by entirely secular rules determining the religious status of the employer and employee.

Church charities, hospitals, universities and other non-church activities are affected. Current organizations preparing to challenge the HHS ruling are Catholic Charities USA, Notre Dame University and the Catholic hospital network. Regardless of the outcome, or even a later softening of its position for political gain, this is another example of how the Obama administration and its leftist supporters are innately hostile to religion. It also demonstrates how a bureaucracy can hide its anti-religious agenda in gentle-sounding legalese.

You're Not The Boss Of Me

2012-01-30T16:00:00.003-05:00

In some ways, I guess I’ve enjoyed the spectacle of a pseudo-intellectual, gussied-up, pretentious Chicago politician trying to pass himself off as a sophisticated man for all seasons. The man is flawless, incapable of making a mistake. He has even managed to convince a large segment of the American public that he is unflappable and tolerant of criticism. He proved otherwise this past Wednesday in Arizona.

On that day, the sweet-tempered, the ever-smiling president landed in Arizona and exposed himself for the ill-tempered and thin-skinned creature he really is. He was greeted by the Governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer, who is not known as being a fan of The One. In fact, the confrontation turned into an Obama review of Brewer’s book Scorpions for Breakfast: My Fight Against Special Interests, Liberal Media, and Cynical Politicos to Secure America’s Borders. The governor was there in her official capacity as state greeter, but she was also there to plead with the president for more border security.

Unfortunately for Brewer, Obama knew that she had written some unkind words about He Who Cannot Be Criticized. The conversation, largely out of earshot of the public and press and beneath the wings of Air Force One, was obviously heated, complete with some very visible finger-wagging on both sides. After a short exchange, the president turned his back on the governor and stormed off like a child who lost a playground match and grabbed his marbles and left.

Before he was able to get to a refreshed TelePrompter, Obama let it be known that the governor had not “treated him cordially.” Well, you have to admit, she forgot to kiss his ring as they approached each other. It was obvious that he knows that he is King of America and she is merely a provincial governor. One does not lecture the king of kings, nor write a memoir that does not sing his praises.

The governor says that before she could start a conversation, Obama stated that he was disturbed about her book. She never got to make the case for more border security. She asked him if he had read the book, but after responding that he had read “an excerpt” and stating categorically that she had committed lese majeste, he walked away from her while she was still in mid-sentence attempting to respond.

So what did the mainstream media pick up on? Pictures of Brewer’s “disrespectful finger-pointing.” The best they could say is that if she didn’t respect the man, she should at least respect the office. Well, the man has sullied the office, so I think she can be at least partially forgiven if she didn’t do proper obeisance. She is an independently-elected leader of a sovereign state, equally deserving respect which he did not grant her. Governors are servants of the people of their states, not subordinates of the emperor. If she had given him the finger instead of pointing one at him, he might have been justified in feeling he had not gotten due respect for his office.

Governors are heads of state as much as the president, and they are not in the military where his position as commander-in-chief might make the man/office mantra appropriate. The governor was there as head of her government to seek help in stopping the massive flow of illegal immigration, crime, and drug importing on the border between Mexico and Arizona. The president was there to campaign for re-election and to ignore his administration’s Mexico-US gun-running operation. Which deserves more respect?

This kind of regal displeasure treatment of his “inferiors” is getting to be a habit with Obama. After being greeted by Governor Rick Perry of Texas, Obama stormed off within less than half a minute when Perry raised the issue of border security. He fumed and fretted publicly after Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana dared to write the president a letter asking for some genuine work instead of talk during the Gulf oil spill disaster. He actually called Jindal a “whiner” for asking for emergency food programs while the residents of the gulf recovered.

Obama is completely incapable of understanding federalism. He sees the states as branches of the national government and governors as his lieutenants. Any word of disagreement by one of those lieutenants must be treated as disrespect for the glorious leader and rank insubordination. Well, this god has feet of clay and this emperor has no clothes (how’s that for mixing my metaphors?). Obama deserves the title of King of Cool about as much as Rosie O’Donnell deserved the title of Queen of Nice.

Update Well, I suppose this was inevitable. Now Al Sharpton, the NAACP, Joe Madison, MSNBC and a raft of left wing talk-show hosts have declared that Brewer's actions were not only disrespectful, but racist. One says that Brewer's actions were the natural fear that white women have of black men. The rest are absolutely convinced that Brewer would never had behaved this way if the president were white. One black contributor on Fox News says that she doesn't believe Brewer is a racist, but her actions are typical of white behavior toward blacks. "Typical white woman" anyone?

Chevy Volt: Obama’s Folly

2012-01-30T09:00:00.051-05:00

There is perhaps no greater example of the stupidity of the left than the Chevy Volt. It is the story of massive government subsidies going to solve a non-existent problem which result in a product no one wants and which doesn’t really work. This thing should become the new mascot of the Democratic party, forget the donkey, the donkey’s a vision of perfection by comparison.

Created by the bailed-out General Motors, the Chevy Volt has been an unmitigated disaster. The car was meant to be an environmentalist dream. It would combat global warming by reducing carbon emissions and would one day free us from our dependence on evil oil. But that’s not quite how it turned out.

To ensure the car could be called a “success,” GM stacked the deck by doing two things. First, they limited the release of the car in 2011 to big liberal cities: Washington, D.C., New York City, Austin, Texas, and California, with subsequent roll outs in other liberal states, and then all fifty-seven states by November 2011. This was meant to make sure that plenty of environmentalists would be on hand to buy the car, so GM could report brisk sales. Further, they limited the initial production run to 10,000 to ensure they would have more demand than supply and could report a sell out.

They even gave it all kinds of incentives. For example, while the car has a suggested retail price of $40,280, buyers get: (1) a $7,500 federal tax credit under the TARP bailout, (2) a $1,500 “state” rebate through the state’s Clean Vehicle Rebate Project (more federal money), (3) a federal tax credit for the purchase and installation of the charging unit, which is listed at costing $490 plus installation, but which Consumer Reports says costs around $2,000. That’s $11,000 in subsidies to buyers.

And that’s on top of the $2.4 billion in direct subsidies given to GM by the federal government, i.e. you, to develop the Volt, not to mention the $27 billion given to keep GM afloat so they could make wonderful cars like the Volt.

That’s a lot of federal help. So how did GM do? After thirteen months of sales, GM has sold only 7,997 cars. . . they couldn’t even sell the full 10,000 they made. To give you a comparison, the Toyota Prius sold 159,000 cars in the same period.

And that’s just the beginning of the morass.

See, it turns out the car ain’t as green as they made it out to be.

The Volt actually includes a gasoline engine. So in that sense, the car is not a true electric car, but is instead a hybrid. And if you calculate the “fuel economy rating” the same way it is calculate for other hybrids, the Volt only gets 48 miles per gallon, making it one of the worst hybrids. So GM objected and argued that it was unfair to treat this car as a hybrid and instead demanded that the car be tested using only the electric engine, i.e. that the EPA pretend the owners can use the gas engine. According to GM, that would result in a fuel economy rating of 230 miles per gallon.

Team Obama, the definition of more-ass, happily agreed to play along with GM’s fraud and tested the car in the new way. But even then it couldn’t come anywhere near GM’s claims of 230 miles per gallon. Instead, they found 93 miles per gallon in electric mode and 37 miles per gallon in gasoline mode, for an overall 60 miles per gallon. By comparison, the EPA rates the Prius at 51 mpg. Also, to get the 93 mpg, you need to drive it at low speeds on the highway.

It gets worse. The EPA also measured the tailpipe emissions and found 84 grams of carbon dioxide per mile using gasoline and “nearly zero” using electricity. But a study in the UK which calculated the emissions from the electricity used to charge the battery resulted in 199 grams per mile for the electric motor. Not only is that more pollution than several other cars, but that means you actually pollute less using the gasoline engine in the Volt than you do using the electric engine. Imagine that.

And then there’s the other problem: it’s a death trap.

See, it turns out that when the Volt gets in an accident, particularly from a side hit, the batteries can be damaged. This leads to a coolant leak which causes the car to catch fire. But it doesn’t happen right away. Instead, the fire can start minutes, hours, days or weeks later. In one instance, the car caught fire three weeks after the collision. GM claims to have fixed this by adding padding to the car, but has had to offer to buy back “a couple dozen” cars from people who are now too scared to own them. A couple dozen is around 5% of the total number sold.

And that’s not the only problem with the batteries. GM put an 8 year warranty on the batteries, but estimates right now are that the battery will need to be replaced every six to eight years. The cost of that replacement? $10,000. In other words, every six to eight years, you need to put in $10,000 to keep this turkey running. Given that the resale value is expected to fall 51% in three years, that means the car is effectively disposable. . . talk about a pollution nightmare!

It’s no wonder no one wants this car.

This is what happens whenever the government gets involved in the subsidy business. No rational business would ever try to make this car. It’s too expensive (GM apparently isn’t even making money on the current prices), it pollutes more than the evil polluting cars it’s meant to replace, it costs too much to own and it’s dangerous.

Moreover, it’s fixing a problem that apparently even Global Warming enthusiasts are starting to admit doesn’t exist – according to data released by the same enthusiasts who brought you climate gate and who have repeatedly said every single year for over two decades “this year was the hottest year on record,” the world stopped warming in 1997 and has been cooling ever since!

In an age when Obama’s folly can be seen in “green tech” companies going down in flames like bankruptcy dominoes after being handed mongo Federal cash, the Volt still stands out at the zenith of stupidity.... and you’ve paid $2.5 billion dollars so far to support that stupidity. Makes you proud, doesn’t it?

Occupy Oakland Fails To Occupy

2012-01-29T16:00:00.003-05:00

While some of the other Occupy movements seem to be losing steam, the same cannot be said of the Occupy Oakland stalwarts. If anything, the numbers and strength of the Occupiers are growing. Taking time out from the usual random acts of violence which are daily events in the town that is San Francisco's poor relation, the crypto-anarchists have found common cause.

Contrary to the mainstream media's portrayal of the Occupy movement as "spontaneous," these demonstrations are carefully planned and widely publicized. In fact, as shown in the accompanying illustration, they've now become so orchestrated that the planners send out formal invitations. Behind the nebulous term "occupy" in Oakland is the serious intention to forcibly take over and occupy public and private property. Yesterday (Saturday), the movement moved. After a big rally near city hall, the Occupiers moved on to their intended target of occupation--the unused Henry J. Kaiser Convention Center near Lake Merritt in the heart of the city.

Making sure not to get shot by mistake by gang-bangers, a large number of the marchers covered their faces with black bandannas rather than the more dangerous red or blue. The crowd was estimated to exceed 1000, ranging from the homeless with nothing better to do to young mothers wheeling baby strollers who should know better. Rioting in Oakland is about as rare as cockroaches in San Francisco or rats in New York City. But this is something unseen in Oakland since the antiwar demonstrations of the 60s. Know-nothings gathering together to support a cause they don't know anything about.

The police had been tipped off that the demonstrators intended to take over a building somewhere near Lake Merritt, but the organizers had kept the actual location secret until the last minute. But it still raises the question about why the demonstrators have become so bold in this particular town. And that's easy. Mayor Jean Quan has praised the goals of the Occupy movement since the beginning, and any serious public criticism she has offered has always involved the "overreactions" of the police, never the criminal actions of the Occupiers.

Some of the demonstrators seemed mystified that the police actually prevented them from occupying the Kaiser Center. They had every reason to believe the police would threaten, the Mayor would cluck-cluck, and the Occupiers would be in like Flynn. By afternoon, the ever-honest San Francisco Chronicle had headlined stories of innocent Occupy bystanders being manhandled by fascist police. The DailyKos used the lede: "Updated: With Police Attack Video-Occupy Oakland." The blog also said: "Smoke bombs, tear gas, flash bangs, rubber bullets, and bean bag rounds were used on protesters that never got within 50-100 feet of police lines." Q.E.D.

What young Kos is not telling you is that those things happened only after police had earlier been physically attacked, including tossed chunks of concrete. The police very sensibly withdrew to a reasonable distance and re-formed, "50-100 feet" from the crowd before launching crowd control measures. They had first frequently announced over bullhorns that this was an unlawful assembly, and gave the crowd plenty of time to disperse peacefully. The demonstrators chose not to leave, and began to advance on the police lines.

One of the organizers and fomentors of this unlawful assembly egged the crowd on. She is Roxanne Dunbar Ortiz, a former professor at California State University, East Bay. Her words were designed to encourage a riot, promote an occupation of private property, and dispel any mistaken public perception that these marchers are peaceful. "Passionate, organized hatred is the element missing in all that we do to try to change the world. Now is the time to spread hate, hatred for the rich." Not exactly the "love children" of the 60s, huh?

The police were successful in preventing the occupation, but they failed to disperse many of the demonstrators who continue to hang around, waiting for the opportunity to slip past the police lines and occupy the intended target or another alternate building. I'm quite sure the police would have loved to push the demonstrators entirely out of the area and arrest anyone who refused to leave. But then they would have to face the Mayor's wrath for using "excessive force" to remove "peaceful demonstrators."

Sunday Update: After this post was written, a large cadre of demonstrators, frustrated by their lack of success in occupying the Kaiser Center, broke off from the main group and headed to City Hall. The government center was vandalized, rocks, bottles and flares were thrown at the police, and three policemen were injured. Naturally, the San Francisco Chronicle barely mentioned the destruction and vandalism, and headlined: "Oakland police use tear gas, flash grenades and rubber bullets to break up demonstration."

The Great (film) Debates vol. 23

2012-01-29T09:00:00.006-05:00

If someone who litigates is a litigator, then why isn’t someone who detects a detector? I don’t know, but for $25 a day plus expenses, I’ll look into that for you.

Who is your favorite detective on film?

Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms

Question: Is Atheism a Religion?

2012-01-28T16:00:00.073-05:00

It is no secret that I spend a fair amount of time at the Huffington Post website deep in discussion with those with whom I politely describe as believing "differently". One of the topics that keeps coming up over and over is the First Amendment battle being wages between Christianity and Atheism. The premise is always that Christians (those who believe in superstitions and "creation myths") or "Believers" are always trying to force their beliefs on the Atheists (those who do not believe in superstitions or "creation myths") or "Non-Believers".

Lately the discussions have revolved around a Rhode Island high schooler, the Atheist in this story, who was distraught at being force to have gaze upon a banner containing a prayer that was hanging in the cafeteria of her public high school**. It upset her so much that she had to sue the school system to have it removed. Of course, we all know that this case is based on the First Amendment argument of separation of church and state. But, as is becoming more common today, the argument is being distorted to include a much broader interpretation of separation of all perceived religious beliefs or religious references from any state-funded institution.

These kinds of cases always baffle me, because I see this young woman imposing her religious belief on others too. So I need your help in defining exactly what "religion" is exactly:

Discussion: Using the same broad interpretation, if one defines "religion" as a system of strongly-held beliefs, should Atheism be considered a religion too?

**FYI - Did I mention that this banner has been hanging in the cafeteria of her high school without incident since 1963?

Open Thread--Vox Populi

2012-01-28T09:00:00.000-05:00

In every battle there comes a time when both sides consider themselves beaten, then he who continues the attack wins.

Ulysses S. Grant

Film Friday: Battle: Los Angeles (2011)

2012-01-27T16:00:00.005-05:00

Battle: Los Angeles looked like a big blockbuster film designed to attract an audience for two weeks and then be forgotten. Imagine my surprise to find a truly inspired film. And do you know what makes this film stand out? An utter lack of cynicism and a strong sense of patriotism. This IS a conservative film!

Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms

Bye Bye, Western Civilization

2012-01-27T09:00:00.003-05:00

I’ve mentioned the decline of the liberal arts in our universities on these pages in the past. Lately, I have noticed that articles from The American Scholar to The New Republic to the blogosphere have been focusing on the same subject. Each year, more universities dump entirely the lower division undergraduate requirement of the core study most often called “Western Civilization.”

Stanford dumped it years ago. UC Berkeley makes it one part of many in the history department. The Ivies, and now most mid-level public and private universities are following suit. Hanging their hats on multiculturalism and the “melting pot” of today’s America, the schools have followed the course set by radical leftists, sociologists, race-baiters and one-worlders. In doing so, the universities have made it nearly impossible for students to comprehend or embrace the concept of American exceptionalism. Barack Obama, the leader of America and the West, is a product of that type of ignorance.

Back in 1987, Rev. Jesse Jackson led protestors at Stanford University demanding the end of “ethnocentric” Western Civilization instruction to be replaced with that god of the divisive left—diversity. No accommodation or modification was going to be allowed. Jackson led the chants of “hey, hey, ho, ho, Western Culture’s got to go.” The Stanford administration complied without complaint. That’s the same administration which had earlier dropped the appellation for the school’s sports teams, the Stanford Indians, and changed it to the meaningless Stanford Cardinal (it refers to the color, not the bird).

It seems that proudly naming your teams after the iconic Native Americans is mysteriously racist and insensitive. That same year, Esquire Magazine ran a cover with a picture of the aged Indian who had served as the school’s emblem sitting in the stands at Stanford Field. He was the only one in the stands, wearing full warrior headdress, with a barely visible tear falling from one eye. In the article, he asked “what did I do wrong?” He didn’t realize he had done nothing wrong, it was those oppressive white administrators who were exploiting him who were doing wrong.

The National Association of Scholars recently released a formal paper entitled The Vanishing West: 1964 to 2010.” The paper lays out the rapid disappearance of the Western Civilization curriculum from nearly every major higher education institution. And the scholars aren’t happy about it. The Black Power movement of the 60s had obtained its own Black Studies curriculum (starting with San Francisco State University), and it quickly became time for every other racial and ethnic movement to have its own department. Suddenly, the study of obscure tribes in Africa or Asia became as important as the study of the Greek scholars, or the writers of the Renaissance, or the Humanists, or St. Thomas Aquinas, or (particularly) America’s Enlightenment Founders.

What pieces of the Western Civilization core curriculum remained were taken over by flower children and former members of the Weather Underground, resulting in a rump Western Civ discipline which became “grim and gloomy” as reported by the Wall Street Journal. Lynne Cheney of the National Endowment for the Humanities has a long record of damning the whole misplaced emphasis on everything except the successes (and failures) of Western culture. Said Cheney in 1994: “Imagine an outline for teaching American history [within today’s academic parameters] in which George Washington makes only a fleeting appearance and is never described as our first President. Or in which the founding of the Sierra Club and the National Organization for Women are considered noteworthy events, but the first gathering of the US Congress is not.”

The problem is that you don’t have to imagine it anymore. Take a look at the current nonsense that has replaced Western Civilization in higher learning. Most of the courses replace traditional Western Civ courses previously required at major universities and old-fashioned liberal arts colleges. The operative word is “replace” rather than “augment.” I won’t even try to list the silliness. Just grab the catalog from your favorite university and check out the wealth of non-Western Civilization courses being offered in place of traditional studies of Greece, Rome, Great Britain, France, and of course, the United States. The Civil War must now compete with the Cultural Phenomenon of Lady Gaga, the Zen of Keanu Reeves, and urban/hip hop culture, and the Civil War is losing.

No wonder ignorant “Occupiers” think that the Constitution is an obsolete document written by old white men impeding social progress. Without a basic understanding of the workings of Western culture and its evolution into modernity, they can’t possibly comprehend the exquisite balancing act done by the Founding Fathers in creating a unique form of government with checks and balances, a voice for the people, and the protection of ordered liberty.

Without that study of the Western development of democratic institutions, self-government, art, science and universal education, the “Occupiers” can’t possibly understand the reasons behind the American Revolution. Most of them claim to understand, but in fact just get everything wrong. Instead of a Revolution for freedom and self-government, they judge the appropriate reason to oppose the powers-that-be in terms of what Abbie Hoffman called “revolution for the hell of it.”

Comment Glitch

2012-01-26T22:04:00.001-05:00

By the way, there is a glitch with the comments. When we get above 200 comments, you either have to click on the title to the article or post a comment to see anything beyond 200. Don't click on the word "comments."

T-Rav's Sockpuppet Theater Presents: Jackasses in Jacksonville

2012-01-26T16:00:00.035-05:00

Once more unto the breach dear sockpuppets! And don't forget the chips. Tonight, CNN, 8 PM EST.

And tonight's pre-debate question: what question would you ask each candidate if you were the moderator?

By the way, there is a glitch with the comments. When we get above 200 comments, you either have to click on the title to the article or post a comment to see anything beyond 200.

Should All Nominees Be Supported?

2012-01-26T09:00:00.071-05:00

Should a political party’s nominee always be supported? Generally, the answer is yes. A political party is a collection of people whose views overlap enough to give them a common interest in getting each other elected. To that end, they form a party with the implicit agreement that they will compete with each other to represent the party and then will support the nominee regardless of the outcome of the competition. Thus, the nominee should be supported. But there is an exception.

This exception arises when (1) the nominee’s views are well outside the range of common interests which hold the party together, and (2) there is a legitimate belief that supporting this nominee will harm the long term goals of the party.

On the first point, Reagan famously said that he could support anyone with whom he agreed on 80% of the issues. Reagan was making the point that it is foolish and counterproductive to require 100% agreement with a nominee before you can support them. Indeed, 100% agreement is probably impossible. Hence, this is the reason moderates should support conservatives and conservatives should support moderates and libertarians should support social conservatives and vice versa.

But Reagan’s point also contains the implicit understanding that at some point (possibly below 80% using Reagan’s formula) there is no obligation to support the nominee. Why would this be? For that, we need to look at the question of harm.

Companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars each year to ensure their products remain consistent. They want to make sure you find the exact same amount in each cereal box, that every batch of Mac and Cheese tastes the same, that every sock has the same number of stitches, and that every Acura uses only Acura parts. Why? Because having a consistent level of quality affects how people perceive their brands. People want to know exactly what they are getting when they make a purchase and branding achieves that -- whereas failing to maintain that consistency damages the brand because people will no longer know what to expect from their purchase.

Whether we like the idea or not, a political party is nothing more than a company, and its product or brand is an ideological range. Choosing a nominee from outside that range blurs the identity of the party and damages its brand.

How? For one thing, this will alienate supporters. Supporters expect nominees to be within the ideological range. When they aren’t, the party has violated the contract under which it claims a right to the individual’s support. It is the equivalent of McDonalds selling you a Big Mac container but including a ham sandwich rather than a burger. This is a violation of trust.

Moreover, this confuses voters. When a person represents a party or ideology, their views become associated with that party or ideology and their successes/failures taint the ideology. In other words, the nominee redefines how the public views conservatism or liberalism, and their meanings change. Hence, conservatism and Republicanism came to be associated with Nixon’s views in 1968, Reagan’s views in 1980, and Bush Jr.’s views in 2000 -- I exclude Bush Sr. because he claimed to be a moderate. Liberalism, by comparison, came to be associated with FDR, LBJ, Carter, and now Obama. Clinton called himself a moderate.

Prior to LBJ, the majority political view of the nation was FDR-liberalism. This could have continued indefinitely, except LBJ disgraced liberalism. His errors in Vietnam and his monstrous Great Society wiped out the Democratic party in the South and set the stage for a conservative resurgence. Jimmy Carter finished liberalism off by proving that Democrats are reckless spenders, incompetent managers of the economy, and militarily inept and cowardly. This set the stage for Reagan.

Reagan’s success revived conservatism while also redefining it back to its roots -- away from the big-government conservatism of the Nixon years. By the time Reagan left office, conservatism had become the natural ideology of the country and 60% of the public believed it.

This could have lasted for generations, except along came George Bush Jr. He wrapped himself in the conservative label and set about running a big government, civil-liberties-crushing, crony-capitalism, foreign-adventuring administration which so thoroughly discredited conservatism that in 2008, the voters were more radically liberal and more willing to accept liberalism than they had been at any time since LBJ. The ONLY THING THAT SAVED CONSERVATISM was the election of Barack Obama. If Obama hadn’t proven to be such a disaster, conservatism would be dead today. But Obama was a disaster and he caused a massive backlash which took the form of the Tea Party.

The lesson here is simple.

Ideologies get defined by their leaders and they get punished for the sins of their leaders. If a nominee calls himself conservative but acts like a liberal, the public doesn’t blame liberalism for his crimes and failures, it blames conservatism even if that person never once acted like a true conservative. Thus, Bush and Nixon, neither of whom could be called conservatives, discredited conservatism. LBJ/Carter/Obama, each of who were progressives and not liberals, discredited liberalism. And in each case, the only thing to save conservatism/liberalism was pure luck that someone worse came along to discredit the other side. If Moderate Joe Democrat had come along after George Bush Jr., we could well be looking at an America that views liberalism as the natural order of things and sees conservatism as meaning reckless spending, bad economic management, and cronyism.

Moreover, the nominee need not even be as disastrous as a Bush/Obama to harm the ideology. The goal of politics is to effect long term change in the country. That is simply not possible when the person representing your ideology holds views that are inconsistent with the ideology. This muddies the ideological waters and confuses the differences between the parties. In other words, when the Republicans and the Democrats both push the same solutions to the same issues, voters will come to believe there is no difference, and they will either stop voting or they will pick the party that promises them the most loot -- advantage Democrats.

This is what happens when you pick someone who is far outside the acceptable ideological range for the party or who happens to be insane. I’ll leave it up to you to decide if Newt or Santorum or Romney or Paul are so far outside the bounds that you should not support them, but ask yourself: “how bad would it be for the party, for my beliefs, and for the country if conservatism came to be defined in the way ____ sees it?”

Winning elections is important, but you don’t want to sacrifice the future to win a single election.

By the way, there's an interesting poll out which shows that 33% of Republicans want a new candidate to jump into the race. This is down from 68% only two months ago. I think the field is set.

Scott's Links January 2012

2012-01-25T16:00:00.008-05:00

For those who don't know, Scott roams the internet far and wide. Because of this, he supplies interesting links to Big Hollywood every day. I've asked Scott to give us a list of the best links he finds each month and a quick synopsis of what's behind each one. Check these out. . . share your thoughts!

Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms

Lost In The Shuffle Of Saving The Middle Class

2012-01-25T09:00:00.004-05:00

Barack Obama has delivered his State of the Union address (aka, "free campaign speech") in which he laid out (sort of) his plans to save the middle class and restore the economy. At the same time, he made it clear that we must not act hastily on creating jobs if it would mean damaging the environment.

Another lame excuse for protecting his enviroweenie base, and at the cost of stalling the Keystone XL Pipeline. I'll leave it to others (here, if you choose) to vet the State of the Union baloney. I want to concentrate on one facet of that baloney. Job creation. Obama cites General Motors (aka Government Motors) as an example of his success. Well, billions of taxpayers dollars bailed GM out while the government destroyed the shares of genuine investors and turned over major company ownership to the unions which largely created the problem in the first place.

Obama spoke of "creating jobs for the future" while sidestepping the 20,000 jobs which would have been created almost instantly without the need for government assistance or government interference. Lack of control and minimal interference with success is not part of the Obama plan. So even after being given the opportunity to approve the Keystone XL pipeline after having rejected it earlier, Obama stopped the project in its tracks, again. For once, he actually did something ahead of schedule. Somehow his agenda gets priority treatment while the people's business can wait.

Obama says "tear down those regulations which block the creation of new businesses" after having used the EPA's regulations and the State Department's ignorance to block the XL Pipeline. He brags about all the energy sources that he has opened up, but somehow doesn't see blocking a "shovel-ready" project as a direct contravention of those words. Pie-in-the-sky future energy developments, subsidized by the government, are somehow preferable to tried and true and fully-vetted projects like Keystone XL.

Obama has done some insider Democrat calculus and decided that he needs the enviroweenies to save his presidency, and that the union jobs lost by squelching the Keystone Pipeline will not deter the unions from coming home to Daddy in November. Obama says the Pipeline hasn't been studied sufficiently so maybe it could, possibly, go forward at some future date. No "let's get it done right away" for the Pipeline. That is added to the fact that the Pipeline got more in-depth study over a period of years than Solyndra got "right away."

Unlike Solyndra, the Pipeline stands on its own. The people behind the Keystone project complied with every demand of local, state and federal regulators, and accommodated the concerns of local environmentalists, changing the route from that originally planned.

Obama spoke of all sorts of energy schemes, even including oil and avoiding support for Middle East tyrannies. But when it came to this one "shovel-ready" job, originating in a friendly nation on our own borders, no dice. The enviroweenies got what they wanted and the State Department deeply offended a firm ally. And unlike Solyndra, no investment of American taxpayer funds is required for the Pipeline, and both the materials and technology are already proven and in place. All that was left to do was a simple approval.

Obama has once again promised many things he either can't deliver or has no intention of delivering. He can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but, well, you know the rest (Obama is not the only one who can quote Lincoln). There is simply no honest and realistic way to explain away his killing of jobs on or related to the Keystone XL Pipeline. And in keeping with that, Obama made no mention of the Pipeline whatsoever, dodging the issue while rambling on about energy and job creation. In the Republican response offered by Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, he referred to the lost jobs produced by Obama's thumbs-down on the project.

Finally, there is more than just the ecoweenie vote to consider. Green energy is big business, even if it can't come close to employing the same number of workers or providing an equivalent amount of energy as a Keystone XL type of operation. Millions, perhaps billions, are being earmarked for green projects that are part of Obama's crony socialism program. In return for government largess and favoritism, the heads of these futuristic schemes are thrilled to pour big bucks into the Obama coffers.

They even get special deals which appear to violate federal law. The founder and CEO of Solyndra was granted a contract which included subordinating the taxpayers' interest in the corporation to his own in the event of bankruptcy. In reasonable and ethical times, the government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers. Yet this administration seems to be very efficient at picking and funding the losers.

Note: Yesterday (Tuesday), Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) introduced a bill to force the approval of the Keystone Pipeline. It is called the Keystone for a Secure Tomorrow Act (K-FAST). I don't have sufficient information yet to be able to make any further comment on the proposal.

T-Rav's Sockpuppets v. Obama's STFUSOTU

2012-01-24T16:00:00.016-05:00

The only thing worse that another debate (like the one tomorrow night) is a SOTU. Good God! Why? The union is in a lousy state. Obama is the problem. The solution is obvious. Why do we need to waste two hours listening to our incompetent president try to explain his failure? Well, here goes:

And while we're waiting lets predict some of what Obama might say tonight and what he should say instead.

I'll start. . . He'll say: "It's all Bush's fault!" He should say: "Whoops."

Manatee Madness Debate Wrap Up

2012-01-24T09:00:00.039-05:00

There was another debate last night. It stank. Yeah, even by the standards of recent debates, this was a turkey. Here’s what happened.

● Winner: Brian Williams. Williams manipulated the candidates like a chess master last night. He got them fighting each other. He tossed mud and they re-tossed it. He had them buying into leftist assumptions all night and pledging fealty to leftist ideals. He also did his best to prolong the horserace and thereby help Obama by making Romney and Gingrich look bad while making Santorum and Paul look good.

● Loser: Newt. Here’s why Newt should have lost. Newt lied through his teeth and proved repeatedly that he’s a slimeball. Here are some samples:

● Romney very accurately went through Newt’s baggage. Newt attacked him for telling “at least four lies.” What were these supposed lies? Newt sidestepped: “I’m not going to waste time going through them.” That’s because they weren’t lies and Newt knew it. But in making this kind of defense, Newt dodged his entire record and called Romney a liar, even though Newt was actually the one lying. This is a schoolyard bully tactic.

● Newt was sent packing by the House Republicans in disgrace. Last night, Newt actually tried to claim HE asked the Republicans to vote to censure him because he was becoming “a distraction to the cause.” How noble. Of course, this is a stunning lie and Ron Paul called him on it later. Newt also claimed he wasn’t fined, despite the $300,000 fine that’s on the record. Apparently, Newt is betting you’re too stupid to look it up.

● Newt claimed in prior debates that he created Ronald Reagan and Reaganomics. Anyone with a brain knows this is a lie, and last time, Romney countered that Newt is only mentioned once in Reagan’s Diary. Nevertheless, Newt repeated the claim last night and added a suggestion that he created Barry Goldwater too. This is Megalomania.

● Newt tries to pilfer supporters by talking about how much he agrees with certain candidates without ever actually saying how he agrees with them. Last night it was Santorum’s turn. He also pandered again to the Ron Paul people on the Fed and on gold by claiming views Newt has never held.

● Slimeball Newt keeps making smears while claiming he has no intention of smearing his target. For example, he said he wouldn't make an issue of the tax rate Romney paid. . . right before smearing Romney for not paying enough in taxes because he’s rich. This is the politics of envy and anti-capitalism.

● Newt lied big time and smeared Romney about lobbying. Freddie Mac’s lobbying office paid Newt $25,000 a month to act as a consultant, which apparently involved visiting Congressmen on its behalf. That’s called “lobbying.” Yet, Newt used a false technicality to claim he was never a lobbyist: he claims he was a “consultant” and not a “lobbyist.” Except lobbyists always call themselves consultants, and what really matters in determining whether someone is a lobbyist is what they do, not what their job titles are. Newt was a lobbyist and he knows it and he’s lying to hide it.

He also tried to turn a million dollar lobbying income into $30,000 by claiming he only got a small portion of the amount he was paid because the rest went to a business, which is wholly owned by. . . Newt.

Then he doubled down on gall by accusing Romney of being a lobbyist because Romney also worked as a consultant. Only, “consultant” is a generic title for anyone who performs special tasks under contract rather than as an employee. No evidence has been produced suggesting Romney ever lobbied or worked in the lobbying industry. Newt’s suggestion to the contrary is a lie.

He then also tried to claim that all of Bain Capital’s income was actually Romney’s income, even though the claim is ridiculous.

● Newt said he opposes the DREAM Act, but he again promptly said he supports its parts. Then he mis-described the act to make it sound palatable: Newt argued that it provides a path to citizenship for those who serve in the military. But that’s already the law. The DREAM Act gives citizenship for college attendance and uses taxpayer funds to pay for the tuition.

But conservatives are proving they aren’t smart enough to distinguish between substance and the Big Shiny, so that’s not why Newt lost. Newt lost last night because he didn’t deliver the Big Shiny. His attacks on the media fell flat, the audience didn’t whoop, he landed no blows, and he never looked commanding. And without the Big Shiny, he’s just an ass.

● Perfect Attendance: Romney. Romney gave a great defense of capitalism, refused to apologize for being successful, gave a great defense of English only (it’s the key to success to “speak the language of America” and teaching students in foreign languages leaves them unprepared for school -- when they changed the law in Massachusetts to require English immersion their schools shot up the charts), and he landed a few solid blows on Gingrich. But I don’t think conservatives were listening. They’re too busy proving the media’s meme about conservatives having crushes on whoever is hot at the moment.

● Winner: Santorum. Santorum is a noxious socialist and a liar. But Brian Williams helped package him as a “genuine conservative” by repeatedly touting his conservatism as a fact, by never asking him about controversial issues, by posing the questions as softballs, and by never following up on the answers no matter how ridiculous. For example, he didn’t even follow up when Santorum said there was good capitalism and “destructive capitalism.” He also let Santorum get away with implying he was opposed to illegal immigration because “they broke the law when they came here and every day when they work illegally” even though Santorum has actually worked to make it impossible to stop illegals from working.

● Winner: Paul. As with Santorum, Williams did his best to hide Paul’s crazy. He tossed out softballs and avoided anything truly controversial.

All in all, last night felt like a wash. There was no decisive win, no decisive moment, and I doubt any candidate helped themselves much. The one guy who was probably most hurt was Newt who failed to deliver the Big Shiny, but we’ll have to see how that affects his supporters. At this point, Florida will come down to a few factors: (1) Will more moderates or more conservatives turn out on the 31st? Florida always seems to shift toward the center from what the polls predict. (2) Will enough people who know Newt come out and explain why they aren’t supporting him. (3) Can Newt get a Big Shiny in Thursday’s debate and will people remember it when they vote? Apparently, 1/3 of Florida has already voted. And (4) who will Democrats vote for to cause the most problems?

Finally, let me ask this. The complaint about Romney is that he flipped from moderate to conservative. That’s a legitimate complaint. But how does it make sense for conservatives to prefer candidates who not only held the same moderate views Romney did, but have never made the flip to conservatism?

Don't Forget: There's a new Politics of Trek today at the film site.

T-Rav's Sockpuppet Theater Presents: Floriduh!

2012-01-23T16:00:00.027-05:00

It's time for the first Sunshine State Debate of the week and that's somehow fitting, given the proximity of Disney World and the fact that we would be better off turning the country over to toons. Tell us which Disney characters remind you of each of the candidates and why.

DOJ Discovers The Constitution

2012-01-23T09:00:00.003-05:00

The United States Department of Justice under Attorney General Eric Holder considers the Constitution to be an infinitely malleable document, subject to the whim of temporary majorities, Congress and the Chief Executive. But as of last week, it found one constitutional provision it considers cast in concrete. That would be the Fifth Amendment.

US Attorney Patrick J. Cunningham, deeply-involved in the Fast and Furious scandal, is invoking his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The Committee is looking into who is responsible for the gun-running operation which has ended up with thousands of weapons in the hands of Mexican criminal cartels and which has resulted in an unimaginable number of deaths in Mexico and that of a Border Agent inside America's borders.

Sooner or later, high-ranking members of criminal organizations such as the Mafia and the Department of Justice learn that lying only trips them up, while silence protected by the Constitution only makes them look guilty but can’t be used as proof of guilt. That certainly fits Cunningham, who is the chief of the Criminal Division of the US Attorney’s Field Office in Arizona. When you get caught flouting the law and end-running the Constitution, become a devotee of that selfsame Constitution.

Then, when your arse is showing as you get caught with your pants down, hire a savvy lawyer to blame the victims and the system. Use the Al Gore defense when El Rotundo was caught taking money from the cash box of Buddhist nuns: “I didn’t do it, and I’ll never do it again.” Cunningham’s lawyer says: “Department of Justice officials have reported to the Committee that my client relayed inaccurate information to the Department upon which it relied in preparing its initial response to Congress [on Operation Fast and Furious]. If, as you claim, Department officials have blamed my client, they have blamed him unfairly.” Deny the claim, then call the informants liars.

The lawyer even uses classic mob jargon. “The Department of Justice in Washington is making him the fall guy, claiming he failed to accurately provide the Oversight Committee with information on the execution of Fast and Furious.” Cunningham doesn’t even have the honor to fall on his sword and take the heat for the actions of his Capo, Eric Holder. So he attacks the Justice Department before it has even accused him of anything. Right now, the only ones pointing the finger of blame at him are Congressional investigators, some Committee members, and a lineup of witnesses. But not the Department itself.

Now Cunningham may find himself directly in line with that pointed finger from DOJ. He is soon going to find out how much honor Holder, Obama and the whole Democratic machine have. You won’t take a small hit for us? Then we will utterly destroy you, your family, and your reputation. You have fouled up our gun-grabbing, gun-running plan, and you will pay the price for trying to dirty our skirts!

House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa says “The assertion of the Fifth Amendment by a senior Justice official is a significant indictment of the Department’s integrity in Operation Fast and Furious. The former head of the ATF has previously told the committee that the Justice Department is managing its response to Operation Fast and Furious in a manner designed to protect its political appointees. This is the first time anyone has asserted their Fifth Amendment right in this investigation and heightens concerns that the Justice Department’s motivation for refusing to hand over subpoenaed materials is a desire to shield responsible officials from criminal charges and other embarrassment.”

As tough as that statement is, it’s probably mild compared to what Cunningham has been threatened with by those same DOJ political appointees (including Holder himself) if he caves in somewhere along the line and refuses to take the fall for the unethical and vicious behavior of the out-of-control Justice Department.

At first, the Obama administration, with Holder as its front-man, claimed they were completely unaware of the “gunwalking” plot and had no knowledge of any of its details. Over the months since, huge piles of evidence and testimony have piled up that show those original statements to be outright lies. In order to protect their political skins, it became necessary to find someone in the Justice Department who could be blamed for keeping Holder and Obama in the dark about Fast and Furious. It’s a lame tactic, but it could become the focus on one individual that takes the spotlight off Holder and Obama long enough to get through the next election cycle. It looks like the designated sacrifice is Cunningham.

The “rogue agents” and “rogue Justice Department field office heads” theory simply reeks of unethical and perhaps criminal manipulation of facts and what Bill Clinton called the politics of personal destruction. Holder and Obama are pedaling like mad to distance themselves from this deadly scandal. Poor Cunningham is going to have to make a choice somewhere along the line. Face the possibility of serious legal sanctions against him and ‘fess up now, or wait, and risk the possibility of that plus the wrath of the Holder Justice Department. Oh, what a tangled web we weave, etc.

Harvard Professor Plays Populist

2012-01-22T16:00:00.006-05:00

While we've all been concentrating on the South Carolina primary results, another interesting battle is being joined way up north. It's the entrance of Harvard Professor Elizabeth Warren into the Massachusetts Democratic Senate primary, planning to run as the "common man" against incumbent Republican Scott Brown, who also ran as the candidate of the common man.

Warren wishes to regain the Democratic "Kennedy" Senate seat they lost two years ago when Republican Brown managed to re-dub it "the people's seat." Early indications are that this will turn out to be the battle of the populists. With Brown, there's unlikely to be anything new. He will likely tour the state in his pickup truck, wearing his simple outdoor jacket and telling his stories of being just plain folks.

For Warren, this is going to be a foray into fantasy. Turning the Henry Gottlieb Professor of Law at Harvard into an average Josephine is not going to be easy. However, Warren has already chosen her starting point. Since America is being run by the 1% super-rich, she has staked out her field of play as one of the 99% of oppressed powerless Americans. Early on, Warren grabbed every possible opportunity to support the Occupy Wall Street movement, and has continued to support the movement as it has metastasized nationwide.

Professor Warren is a self-styled "Okie." Well, she was born in Oklahoma City, so it's not entirely a lie. In one broadcast she said "I'm going for the hick vote here. I just want you to know. Maybe we could start wearing stickers that say 'Hicks for Elizabeth.' Could we do that?" There's a fine line between identifying with a group and mocking it, but Elizabeth Warren is counting on Massachusetts to see it as the former rather than the latter.

There also seems to be in Massachusetts a willingness to ignore a possible carpetbagger issue even though Warren has spent most of her life elsewhere. After Oklahoma, she has lived and taught in New Jersey, Texas and Pennsylvania. And then there's that little detail that until 1995, she was a registered Republican (of the RINO wing, of course).

One has to wonder if she will soon start campaigning in a pickup truck older than Brown's, being sure to carry at least one bail of hay in the truck bed. Warren lives in a $1.7 million dollar home, and tends to speak with the sounds of the Harvard Yard. It's a little early to see if she'll start broadening her "I"s to "ahs" and saying y'all, a la Hillary Clinton, but if she does she's likely to sound equally ridiculous. It's also hard to figure whom she is trying to identify with since Massachusetts has few farms left, and even fewer blue-collar factories. The biggest majority of the Bay State's "industry" is comprised of biotechnology, finance, insurance, and other clearly white-collar pursuits. Oh, and I almost forgot, academia.

Well, there's populism and then there's populism. Warren has chosen to identify with the blue collar worker and the rural farmer in a state that suffers from a paucity of both. That runs counter to the unfolding Obama plan to include suburban white collar workers, teachers, artists, lawyers, social workers, and psychologists in his definition of the 99% who comprise "the people." Maybe they're both counting on the voters to be mesmerized by their self-contradictory academia-babble and ignore their palpable elitism.

The "hick" candidate is a longtime academic theorizer and left wing Democratic operative. Interestingly, her legal career is also mostly academic, but her specialty is bankruptcy. She has long advocated for an agency which would tell businesses how to conduct their affairs, and was ultimately a major player in passage of the Dodd-Frank bill. After the Democratic sweep in 2008, she was appointed by Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid to the five member Congressional Oversight Panel to implement the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act.

Warren was thought to be in line for the appointment as head of the Consumer Protection Financial Bureau created by Dodd-Frank, but was considered by the President's inner circle as a better choice for a state office. Obama selected Richard Cordray instead, and sent Warren back to Massachusetts and Harvard. Warren will not run against the Obama administration's policies, but has instead chosen a different populist path for her personal campaign. It will be interesting to see which version of populism works, if either.

The Great (film) Debates vol. 22

2012-01-22T09:00:00.006-05:00

Where are my flying cars!! Science fiction may be visionary, but sometimes it’s annoyingly wrong too.

What do you think was the silliest guess about the future made in a science fiction film?

Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms

T-Rav's Sockpuppet Votatorium Presents: Primarily South Carolina

2012-01-21T18:00:00.000-05:00

Today is the big day in South Carolina. They're finally opening the new WalMart! Oh, and they're having a primary election. It's Romney v. Newt for the Palmetto state, winner take (proportionally) all!

Fox has already started their coverage. CNN starts at 7:00 PM EST. Join us!

In the meantime, riddle me this: if you could make any other country into a state, which country would it be and what would you call the state?

Weekend Newsdrop

2012-01-21T16:00:00.107-05:00

These Friday afternoon news drops are getting to be the "new normal". You know what I mean. This is when the current Administration wants to appear "transparent", so they drop news on Friday afternoon while everyone is out enjoying their date night. It may not always be on Friday, but with the cooperation of the MSM, they can place the news at the perfect time where no one will pay too much attention and they can control the fallout. It is not unique to this Administration, but they have raised it to an art form. Here are two examples from this week:

The Bane of Bain Capital: Obama and his cohorts (with the help of Rick Santorum), have made this huge deal about how awful it is that Mitt (Milton) Romney worked for Bain Capital. I won't bore with what Bain Capital is because you know. Well, guess what? As bad as Obama and his cohorts want us to believe Romney is the great scourge of 99%'ers everywhere, they've done gone and hired themselves a former Bain guy of their very own! Well to be more accurate they have promoted one. The White House proudly, yet quietly, announced this week that Jeffrey Zeints former Deputy of the Office of Management and Budget has been promoted to Director following the promotion of the former Director as Chief of Staff. Obama included the following statement with the announcement:

“I’m pleased to designate Jeff Zients to lead the Office of Management and Budget. Since day one, Jeff has demonstrated superb judgment and has provided sound advice on a whole host of issues,”

They were careful to stress that Zients has “twenty years as a CEO, management consultant, and entrepreneur", however they failed to mention that he worked quite extensively with Bain Capital as far back as 1988. Romney worked at Bain from 1977-1984 and from 1991-1992, so their paths must have crossed. One would think by all the brouhaha, that Romney worked there right before his campaign started and right after he shaved off his large, waxed handlebar mustache that he used to twirl while throwing little old ladies out on the streets! But then again, Zientz probably worked for Bain Capital in the those years where they were the good guys.

GM Volt Update: I reported last week that GM and the National Highway Transportation Safety Adminsitration (NHTSA) had come to an understanding that GM had to fix the exploding batteries in the GM Volt. They both agreed with a plan and then let everyone know there was a problem. Well, because of this unprecedented cooperation between industry and government, the NHTSA has decided that no further action is needed and they have closed the investigation on this matter. According to Sec't of Transportation Ray LaHood, there nothing to see here, move along.

Fortunately, Congress thinks otherwise. Rep. Darrell Issa (R/CA) Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, says "Not so fast". He has called all the parties to appear before his committee on Wednesday to explain who knew what when. GM CEO Dan Ackerson and NHTSA Administrator David Strickland are scheduled to explain why they knew about the fires in June of 2011, but failed to announce it to the taxpayer/stockholders until November 2011. Oh, and why the Obama Administration may have known in September.

Well, that's two. Do you know of any others? We need to keep the pressure on.

Film Friday: The Adjustment Bureau (2011)

2012-01-20T16:00:00.009-05:00

I see where The Adjustment Bureau looked like a brilliant concept. Random chance brings a man and woman together. They fall in love. But God’s plan for the world requires they be apart. Angels separate them, but the man fights against God’s plan to be with his true love. That’s an incredible amount of fascinating conflict. Sadly, Bureau mishandles every aspect of this and muddles all the conflict, which makes it feel as tired and indifferent as the last few weeks of a canceled television show.

Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms

California Doesn't Need Dead Voters

2012-01-20T09:00:00.002-05:00

While Eric Holder is blocking voter ID requirements in South Carolina, Rahm Emmanuel is registering dead people in Chicago, and ACORN's successors are registering people randomly selected from the phone book or the Baseball Hall of Fame, California Democrats are guaranteeing their success the old-fashioned way. Redistricting.

While Holder in the DOJ is protecting “minority and poor” voters in South Carolina from the onerous burden of having to obtain a [free] state photo ID, he is perfectly fine with photo ID being required to get on an airplane, to buy cigarettes and booze, some OTC medications and to obtain a “get your food free” electronic debit card. Meanwhile, the Chicago mayor is working furiously to protect the additional right to vote guaranteed in the Constitution to the deceased. In St. Louis, Indianapolis and other places, persons with the same name as famous sports figures and cartoon characters must be protected from the racists who want them to prove who they are before voting. It makes me wonder if in Chicago dead sports figures or Mickey Mouse get two votes.

California, being the most creative of all the states in guaranteeing Democratic victories, has avoided such common methods of adding extra votes. In fact, given their current plan, they don’t even need to add phony votes. And why, you ask? Because the state has been so carefully gerrymandered that it makes strong Democratic majorities almost inevitable.

That’s nothing new, you say. Well, I mentioned that California is übercreative. Unlike other states where the majority political machine draws electoral districts, Democratic Gov. Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown and the entire Democratic Party are the beneficiaries of a “people’s initiative” which took the power to redistrict away from the legislature and placed it in the hands of a “non-partisan” commission comprised of five Democrats, five Republicans, and four independents.

The result is a redistricting map for Congressional and state elections which favors Democrats even more than the previous Democratic legislature’s gerrymander. The public was sold on the non-partisan nature of the commission, and Republicans cooperated because all indications were that they would pick up a few seats in the conservative Central Valley if the lines were drawn fairly. The road to electoral disaster is paved with good intentions.

Unknown to the public, various left wing and Democratic (redundancy?) organizations were preparing well in advance to skew the results of the commission hearings. ProPublica is the whistleblower that is now bringing the matter to the public’s attention and participating in a new initiative drive to abolish the commission and put redistricting into the hands of the courts. You might think that this is just sour grapes from the Republicans. But ResPublica is a non-profit investigative journalism group formed by liberal Democrats, even getting funding from George Soros surrogates. The only person in the watchdog journalism group who is not a Democrat or Independent is former Wall Street Journal editor Paul Steiger. They obviously took their duty to be more important than their funding.

The commission held hearings throughout the state, not realizing that facts and opinions thought to be from “average citizens” were actually heavily-infiltrated by Democratic operatives. Each witness was, for obvious reasons, supposed to be a member of the local community where each successive hearing was held. ProPublica found a secret memo outlining the results of an earlier meeting of prominent California Democrats mapping out a strategy for misinforming the commission.

Part of the plan was to get Democratic and leftist allies to show up to testify in swing and weakly-Republican districts, purporting to be local citizens. The enabling legislation which pretended to put the voter initiative into operation fairly was written by the Democrat-controlled legislature. Oddly (?) it contained no requirements that those testifying before the commission prove that they were residents of the locale in which the hearing was being held. I wonder how that happened. Maybe they should have required valid state-issued photo ID.

The most egregious of the scams uncovered by ProPublica was a female witness who claimed to be a lifelong member of the Asian community in the San Gabriel Valley. In fact, ProPublica investigated and found that she is a paid Democratic lobbyist who spent most of her life in rural Idaho and at the time of the hearings lived (and still lives) in Sacramento.

As you can see, California is exceptionally creative. Why register dead people, convicted felons, names drawn from the telephone book, and sports figures when you can obtain electoral victories by meddling with an independent commission and producing what appears to be a nonpartisan, fairly-drawn electoral map? The result of the commission’s redistricting, even if drawn in good faith, was weighted far more heavily toward preserving or creating Democratic districts and breaking up Republican-leaning districts, all with a cover of non-partisanship and fairness. And it was based largely on false input from the “public.”

T-Rav's Sockpuppet Theater Presents: A Gaggle Of Idiots

2012-01-19T16:00:00.010-05:00

And then there were four: the Teletubbies got Rick Perry! Oh my! Anyway, North Carolina is first in flight, which makes South Carolina first in complaining about airport noise. . . and tonight we're going to hear a LOT of noise. Get ready for another Republican Smackdown!

While we wait for the debate on CNN at 8:00 PM, tell us your state's motto (or make one up if you don't know yours) and tell us how you would improve it or with what you would replace it!

Smoke Gets In Your Eyes

2012-01-19T09:00:00.001-05:00

The Occupy DC mob hadn't even gotten the official notice that His Royal Oneness would be making his re-coronation speech at the Bank of America Stadium in Charlotte, North Carolina stadium when one of the occupiers lobbed a smoke bomb over the White House fence. If the Tea Party had thrown a shaken-up can of Coke over that same fence, we would have been facing a full-fledged national emergency. Martial law, perhaps.

Had the mainstream media covered the "event," they would have had to admit that the "tens of thousands" of demonstrators were actually more like the low hundreds. So the few outlets that actually reported the incident at all simply shrugged their editorial shoulders and minimized the danger. Any 99%er who would toss a smoke bomb at the White House must be an aberration, we know they're peaceful, and the bomb was harmless, after all.

The day began with the Occupiers forming up at the wrong end of Pennsylvania Avenue, in contravention of their permit. The incident was an offshoot of the Occupy Congress demonstration planned for the day. That demonstration was supposed to have been comprised of at least 10,000 protestors, but there weren't even close to that many people. So maybe the smoke bomb was originally intended for the halls of Congress. Who knows? The police made no arrests nor is there any apparent investigation into who actually tossed the bomb. And the Obamas weren't at home anyway.

The crowd at the White House was easy to disperse--not a lot of demonstrators and plenty of police and Secret Service to move them down the street. The threat was minor, though if the bomb had gone off in the hands of a law enforcement officer trying to pick it up, there could have been some serious injury. But here's what occurs to me. No arrests. What if it had been one wild Tea Partier who had gone off the rails and tossed the smoke bomb? There would have been hundreds of arrests. First, the bomb-thrower. Then, the Tea Partiers who climbed over the fence to clean up after the bomb-thrower.

"A Night To Remember" -- The Titanic In Film Since 1953

2012-01-18T16:00:00.003-05:00

By Tennessee Jed

Few, if any, events in modern times have captured public imagination as has the Titanic disaster. That assertion is bolstered by the fact four feature length films, not to mention two made for television movies, have chronicled its demise. Numerous other productions, some dating as far back as 1912, feature either Titanic or a thinly veiled substitute.

Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms

The All-Rat News Roundup

2012-01-18T09:00:00.023-05:00

It’s time to get you caught up on the news. Today’s roundup has a special theme: rats. They’re everywhere and now they have rights.

● King Rat: Lord Obama has decided he will formally accept the Democratic nomination at the 74,000 seat Bank of America stadium in Charlotte, North Carolina. A couple thoughts:

1. It’s stunning hubris for an incumbent president to accept the nomination of his party at a 74,000 seat stadium when he is unopposed.

2. Given Obama’s recent inability to even fill pool halls when he speaks, should we wonder how many people will show up to this shindig?

3. How ironic that Obama picks a stadium named after a TARP bank!

4. Do you think the rich will descend from their stadium luxury boxes to mix with the peons?

5. This will be hurricane season, let’s hope God gets his smite on.

● Rat Relocators: Washington, D.C., which leads the country in homicides, corruption and abject stupidity, has passed the idiotic law to end all idiotic laws: the Wildlife Protection Act of 2010. This thing is so crazy you couldn’t make it up. It provides that exterminators may no longer kill rats and other vermin. Instead, they must be captured. . . in families. . . and then relocated to Virginia or Maryland. A few questions:

1. Do they have to do DNA tests to determine if they’re all from the same family? And how do they know they caught them all?

2. What, no counseling?

3. Can they incarcerate their captives until they have the whole family or do they need to get them all at once?

● Rat Hunter: In 2008, Romney was lampooned when he said he hunts “small varmints” when people demanded to know if he hunts. Apparently, you must hunt BIG GAME to show you support the Second Amendment. This time around, Romney got confused between moose (meese?) hunting and elk hunting. So naturally, idiots like David Asselrod jumped on this by joking that Romney was “on the horns of a dilemma.” (fyi, they’re called antlers David. . . if you’re going to poke fun at someone, don’t be a bigger idiot).

The issue of hunting came up in the debate as well. And this raises a question which has been bother me: when did the Second Amendment become about hunting? The Second Amendment isn’t there to protect hunting. It has NOTHING to do with that. The Second Amendment is a right to be armed to defend yourself against an overbearing government or whatever else may come your way, i.e. criminals, meese, foreign invaders, E.T. To require a candidate to prove they’ve killed some animal just to demonstrate their fealty to the Second Amendment is as ridiculous as requiring them to curse in public to show they support the First Amendment.

● Dirty Rats: Why are Republicans demanding that Romney release his taxes? What are they expecting to find? “Oh look, he took the ‘sponsor a pedophile’ deduction!” All this can do is harm the nominee by playing into class warfare arguments where rich journalists decry the amount of money Republicans make while ignoring the much richer Democrats. But more importantly, in America, it’s nobody’s business what you make. And Republicans need to stop playing this game.

● Sinking Ship Rats: Today is the day of the SOPA boycott when many websites (e.g. the Wikipedia) will shut themselves down to protest SOPA and PIPA. The bills are starting to fail. Not only will neither bill apparently be brought to a vote, but as the rats in Congress and the Senate have come to realize just how angry the public is at this, they’ve started to flee the sinking ship. Scott Brown and a group of Senate Republicans are the latest to declare their opposition. Even one of PIPA’s sponsors, Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md), now opposes the bill. Apparently, Obama objecting the bill has scared the Democrats and reality has woken up many of the Republicans.

No doubt Republicans Lamar Smith and Marsha Blackburn are confused how the country could suddenly be so overrun with communists. Perhaps they should call for an exterminator relocator?

Debate Wrap: Romney By A Length

2012-01-17T16:00:00.005-05:00

. . . and the debates keep coming. Last night was the first of two debates this week from South Carolina. It was an interesting night and it will be interesting to see if this changes the race. Romney continues to roll and Perry helped himself a lot. Newt did well, sort of. The rest, not so much. Let’s discuss.

● Loser: Juan Williams. Juan was the biggest loser because he proved he’s a race baiter extraordinaire. All he talked about was racism: cutting taxes is racist, being white is racist, not offering money to poor blacks is racist, telling blacks they need jobs is racist, the word “poor” is code word for “black” and is racist, repeating Obama’s words is racist, and criticizing Obama is racist. Juan even suggested that Romney betrayed his own race (he’s part Mexican) because he’s opposed to illegal immigration and won’t pander to Hispanics on that issue. Juan needs therapy.

● Winner: Mitt Romney. Romney won the debate, hands down. Not only did he handle the other’s attacks on him well, but he continues to come across as increasingly more conservative (and thoughtfully conservative). For example:

When they attacked his Bain Capital record, Romney pointed out that Bain bought over 100 different businesses and turned most of them around (22 ended up in bankruptcy). The steel mill he shut down in South Carolina only closed after seven years of Bain trying to turn it around, it failed because of Chinese dumping of steel, and Bain later managed to open a newer mill in Indiana. This, he pointed out, gave him solid knowledge of how the economy really works and of the threat posed by China. He also mentioned that Bain’s companies created more than 120,000 jobs.

He then mentioned that his success as Bain led to him being asked to rescue the Olympics, which he did. And during his time as Governor of Massachusetts, the state had a 4.7% unemployment rate, a balanced budget, they reduced taxes nineteen times, and filled a “rainy day” fund with $2 billion. In effect, he went from success to success to success and proved he could succeed in the real economy, succeed at fixing bureaucratic messes, and succeed in running a state dominated by Democrats. That’s a solid sales pitch which easily defused the attacks on Bain.

In addition to defending his record, Romney continues to take solid conservative positions on taxes, regulations, deficits, foreign policy, military strength and even social issues. Moreover, he keeps making excellent conservative promises in each debate. This time he promised to (1) halt ALL “Obama era regulations,” effectively reversing Obama’s term, (2) push for voluntary self-directed retirement accounts, and (3) get rid of all campaign finance laws. It was another strong night for him.

● Winner: Rick Perry. Apparently, Rick Perry has a retarded twin named Goober Perry. For some strange reason, they let Goober handle the debates up to this point. Last night, Rick stepped in and the difference was remarkable. It’s not that Rick said anything substantive, he didn’t, but for once he sounded like he knew what he was talking about. Indeed, he made it clear that he favors lower taxes and less regulation. He attacked the regulatory abuses of the EPA, Obama’s Labor Board’s attacks on Boeing, and the Justice Department’s interference in state voting issues. He attacked something he called Obama’s war against organized religion. He said Obama’s claim that the border with Mexico is secure is ludicrous and that traffic only slowed because this is the worst economy in 40 years. He defended the soldiers who urinated on the Taliban corpses by contrasting this with the Taliban killing and desecrating Americans. And most interestingly, he made the point that it’s not the government’s responsibility to fix housing and said (roughly): “the best way to get the economy going is not to think about how much we can push the government into the economy, but instead to think of ways to get it out of the economy.”

If this Rick Perry had showed up early on, he would be cruising to an easy win. But he didn’t. So now the question is, does this help Perry or not? Can he steal back voters who have fled to megalomaniac Gingrich or socialist Rick Santorum? It’s not clear, but Rick probably bought his campaign more life after the debacles of Iowa and New Hampshire.

● Sort of Loser: Newt Gingrich. Gingrich is a frustrating candidate and last night really displayed why. He is capable of excellence in debating, especially at flipping sucker punches back onto hapless fools like Juan Williams and really taking them down. BUT there’s never any substance to his answers. Instead, he just makes a lot of noise attacking the questioner, mentions Ronald Reagan a dozen times, and then leaves an impression that he would do something different than Obama or the questioner. . . but he never actually tells you what he would do. Example:

Q. “Newt, should the government sell strawberry ice cream?”
A. “I find it insulting that you would ask such a blatantly biased question at a time when few Americans can afford ice cream of any type, and I certainly am not like Obama who doesn’t even realize that strawberry ice cream exists.”
Q. “But should the government sell it?”
A. “Look, I worked with Ronald Reagan and I’m not like Obama.”

Newt’s performance reeks of bread and circuses, but the clown act serves him well with a public that long ago lost the ability to spot substance. He was quite entertaining last night, but as you’ll see below, he lost because of Perry’s surge.

● Loser: Ricky Santorum. Ricky again exposed himself as a socialist and a liar. He spent the night denying his own votes and pretending he actually led the charge against the things he voted for. In one particularly galling moment, he tried to deny his vote to force states to let felons vote by (1) attacking Romney for being a governor of a state that lets felons vote (something Romney did not support or sign into law), (2) somehow wrapping himself in the Tenth Amendment and declaring this a state issue, and (3) suggesting it was racist not to let felons vote. In effect, he denied his own vote, accused Romney of doing what only Rick himself had done, accused Romney of not being a conservative because he lived in a state which did what Rick tried to force upon every state, and then flipped it around and accused Romney (and conservatism) of racism for not doing what Rick now denies that he himself did. . . by hey, it’s a state issue. This happened all night on issue after issue and I’ve come to believe Rick is a pathological liar with no sense of shame.

Rick was also rude, as usual, and debates like an angry child. He also has a habit of flip-flopping in the middle of answers. And even beyond that, Rick’s a socialist. He does not trust you to invest in your own retirement, he wants the government to do it for you. He wants to micromanage the economy and stated very clearly that he believes certain companies should be given tax breaks and others not depending on which competitive forces he thinks are at play. But don’t worry, he assured us, he is all for capitalism once he and the government have fixed the economy.

Worse yet, Rick will latch onto any liberal attack and run with it. Last night, he played the race card twice, first when he attacked Romney for wanting to keep felons from voting, which Rick suggested was racist against blacks, and when he played along with Juan Williams’ equation that “poor equals black” and thus not giving money to the poor equals racism. Rick also suggested very strongly that he supports affirmative action.

There is some speculation that Rick is playing for the VP slot, but only a fool would pick the toxic Santorum as a running mate, especially with Allen West saying yesterday that he’s open to being on the ticket.

● Loser: Ron Paul. Paul is insane and last night was just too much. Once again he suggested our problems in the Middle East were because we started it by bombing these countries. Then he played the race card by suggesting that the war on drugs is racist and that our criminal justice system is racist. So not only is Paul’s foreign and military policy suicidal, and his economic policy little more than extreme platitudes, but now he’s playing right into liberal smears on conservatism.

Conclusion

Last night helped Romney once again. Not only did he continue to seem presidential, but the anybody-but-Romney camp will remain split and in disarray. With Paul draining away 15% of the vote and Romney earning a consistent 40%, the only hope of the anybody-but-Romney forces is for one of the other three to emerge as the ABR champion. But Gingrich, Santorum and Perry are all horrid candidates, which is preventing any of them from becoming the natural challenger to Romney. Moreover, with Perry showing actual competence last night, he will likely steal back lost supporters from Santorum and Gingrich and thereby stop either of them from pulling ahead.

And in truth, I must say Romney really is earning the nomination. With each passing debate he becomes a better debater and sounds more conservative. He has slowly but surely raised my comfort level with him.

Thoughts? (fyi, there’s another debate Thursday night. . . ugh.)

Have We Apologized Enough Yet?

2012-01-17T09:00:00.004-05:00

The more I think about the Obama administration’s magical mystery apology tour, the harder it is for me to let go and behave rationally. OK, a small group of young warriors are alleged to have urinated on some dead Taliban. Big deal. Slap ‘em on the wrist and let’s get on with the real world. But for God’s (and America’s) sake, stop the apologies for everything America does that doesn’t comport with “world opinion.”

Even AA tells its members to make amends unless to do so would harm oneself or others. Since the first day of the Obama administration, they have been apologizing for America’s every misstep, including the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden. The apologies for the actions of the Marines peeing on dead lowlifes has turned into a pathetic Greek chorus. As Christians in Egypt are being murdered en masse, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reserves her "dismay" for dead Taliban and her angry criticism for our own Marines.

To add insult to injury, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta practically fell over his own feet rushing to the phone to call the vile Taliban-friendly Afghan President Hamid Karzai to apologize for the Marines’ barbaric behavior. You can see from the accompanying picture how the Taliban treat prisoners, dead or alive. I don’t know about Panetta, but I’d rather be peed on dead than hanged alive. Panetta told Karzai that the Marines’ actions were “deplorable.” That to a leader of a nation that treats civilians as if they were armed combatants, tortures and brutalizes opponents, and hangs prisoners of war from public overhangs without even the pretense of legal process.

Karzai’s reply said that the Marines’ behavior was “inhuman and condemnable in the strongest possible terms.” I can understand how the leader of such a peace-loving people would think that. The Afghans and the Taliban rarely torture and murder prisoners before first having attended to the important business of stoning adulteresses to death, neutering homosexuals, and beheading apostates. The Taliban themselves were even clearer in their call for an American apology: “These were the inhuman acts of wild American soldiers in contradiction with all human and ethical norms.” They ought to know inhuman acts when they see them.

This pattern of apology is not something new with the Obama administration. It’s just that they’ve elevated apologizing for their country to high art. George Bush admonished us not to make judgments about the religion of peace: “Islam’s teachings are good and peaceful and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah.” Yes, George, and those who have never read the Koran should keep their big mouths shut. His Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, called Islam the religion of love and peace.

During Bill Clinton’s presidency, Hillary said that Islam’s “deepest yearning of all is to live in peace.” His Secretary of State, Madeline Albright said that “Islam is a faith that honors consultation, cherishes peace, and has as one of its fundamental principles the inherent equality of all who embrace it.” And the inequality of all those who deserve a violent death for not embracing it.

The alleged and real incidents for which America must apologize are too many to list in a short article. But one thing is sure. The administrations and the mainstream media have treated each incident as earth-shattering events requiring massive apologies to the jihadists (a word now not to be used in polite company). There are no minor infractions or simple mistakes in judgment. Only great disruption of the peace of the world and shocks administered to the conscience of man. Abu-Ghraib and the sophomoric hi jinx of youngsters who should have known better was raised to the level of Auschwitz. APOLOGY. Military personnel at Guantanamo performed the impossible task of flushing a Koran down a toilet. APOLOGY. The innocent prisoners at Guantanamo were being abused and tortured. APOLOGY.

Two themes, both wrong, have emerged from these hysterical mea culpas. One is that we must apologize because the reason Islamists hate us is that we’re so mean to them. The other is that by prostrating ourselves before these primitives we can achieve peace. At the cost of American honor, American strength, and reality. Worst of all, the Islamists don’t even pretend to think that the apologies are in good faith. They merely laugh at our weakness and servility, and plot their next real atrocity. To date, all our apologies aren’t worth a bucket of warm spit, and have accomplished the exact opposite of their seeming purpose (you know—the thing that the road to Hell is paved with).

For all the apologies, all the hand-wringing and soul-searching of the clueless do-gooders, there have been over 18,000 Islamic terrorist attacks or attempts just since 9-11. Obama himself has apologized, on foreign soil, for America's arrogance and racist history. Obama, Clinton, Panetta and all the other usual suspects think the only thing wrong with their apologies is that they’re not numerous enough, self-flagellating enough, or quick enough. To them I have only one thing to say: ”P#@s on you."

End of rant.

T-Rav's Sockpuppet Theater Presents: Sassafracas

2012-01-16T16:00:00.003-05:00

And then there were five. . . Apparently, Jon Huntsman's "ticket to ride" didn't get him all the way to South Carolina. And while he and his campaign were begging for bus fare in Newark, they got robbed of the will to continue. So he's packing up his bags and heading back to China, leaving the rest of us to struggle on without his smugness. You will be missed Jon. . . by someone.

While we wait for the debate to begin, riddle me this: what movie character would you most/least want to see as President?

Obama Offers Republicans Key To The Future!

2012-01-16T09:00:00.007-05:00

By now you may have heard that Obama is proposing to “eliminate,” “shrink” or “trim” some agencies. Well, no. In reality, this is just an attempt to look like someone who is concerned about making the government smaller. Nevertheless, the Republicans have a key opportunity here and they should seize it. Here’s the dealio:

● The What: Obama proposes to consolidate agencies that focus on trade and commerce. Basically, Obama wants to merge the Department of Commerce’s core business-related functions with five smaller agencies: the Small Business Administration, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the Export-Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation and the Trade and Development Agency.

However, what he’s really proposing is that Congress give him broad power to reshape the federal government. This power was initially granted to FDR during the Great Depression and was something every President had until the Democrats let it expire in 1984 to stop Reagan from using it. That is what Obama is asking Congress to give him, with the idea being he will use it to perform the consolidation mentioned above.

● The Why: Obama’s stated reason for doing this is that consolidation saves money:

“No business or nonprofit leader would allow this kind of duplication or unnecessary complexity in their operations. So why is it okay in our government? It’s not. It has to change.”

It’s too bad Obama doesn’t really believe that. In any event, to give you a sense of how laughable his proposal is, by Obama’s own count, this would result in the elimination of only 1,000 jobs along with a supposed savings of only $3 billion over the next decade. That works out to $300 million per year, or 0.008% of the federal budget, about 8 cents out of every thousand dollars spent. Aim high my Kenyan Overlord! Of course, this comes at a time when his A-holiness is asking for an increase in the debt ceiling of $1.2 trillion and an additional $447 billion jobs bill.

His real reason for doing this, of course, is political. He knows the public is outraged at the government binge on his watch and he needs to show he can actually cut the government. But at the same time, he has to do it without offending any of the leaches who live off the government, i.e. his supporters. By shuffling the chairs around at Club Fed, he can tell the gullible part of the public that he’s so conservative he did something Reagan couldn’t -- he cut an agency. But at the same time, his backers can laugh at the rest of us because nothing will actually change.

Of course, giving him broad power to reshape the federal government could allow him to do more, but that seems unlikely because he can’t ADD to the government using the reorganization power. Thus, I wouldn’t expect him to do much.

● The Why Not: Believe it or not, some people are upset about this. Specifically, Big Business is concerned that their favorite vending machines would be moved to more responsible agencies. They are particularly concerned about the loss of prestige/influence of having their favorite programs jammed into other agencies rather than remaining standing alone as separate agencies. The Chamber of Commerce has expressed this concern, as have their spokesmen Max Baucus (D-Mont) and Dave Camp (R-Mich), who claim this will hamper the government’s ability “to aggressively open new markets to American-made goods and services and create US jobs.”

Yeah, sure.

● The Reason We Should Do This: The Republicans absolutely should support this proposal and give Obama broad powers to reshape the federal government and to trim/eliminate programs. Here’s why:

1. Obama won’t be President in 2013. A Republican will. And the Democrats will never give this power to a Republican. But they will give it to Obama. Thus, the Republicans should pass this now, while they can, so President GenericRepublican can use it to slash the federal government in 2013.

For those concerned that Obama might misuse this power, consider this. First, Obama can’t “grow” the government using this power, he can only shrink it. Secondly, by the time it passes, there will only be maybe eight months left in his administration. That’s not enough time to do anything in Fed-land. That means whatever he does can be undone by President GenericRepublican before it ever takes effect.

2. Republicans claim to be reformers, but that claim sounds hollow if they won’t create the tools that will allow reform.

3. This is the sort of thing Republicans can do to show moderates that they aren’t just opposed to Obama. Being seen as positive reformers could be worth 1-2% in the general election and could mean a couple critical seats.

4. The Republicans need to show they are willing to make changes which upset corporate welfare types. If they keep protecting everything Big Business wants, even when the only complaint is a loss of prestige, then the Republicans might as well quit pretending they represent anyone who isn’t incorporated.

5. Finally, the Republicans should pass this with some additional reforms attached. In other words, they should call Obama’s bluff. Give him what he wants, but cut deeper: eliminate programs, consolidate administrative staff, and genuinely wipe out redundancies. If Obama wants to pretend to be a real reformer, then offer him real cuts and put him on the spot with his own people. Challenge him to put up or shut up.

This is one of those bill that could be a game changer in the future if the Republicans have the vision to see it.

* * *

Update: For those who recall the SOPA issue from last week, Obama has signaled that he’s opposed to this Stalinist bill. Amazingly, Obama is on the right side for once. Naturally, the usual suspects are now freaking out, including Hollywood, the Record Companies, the Chamber of Commerce, etc. Also, Lamar Smith is beside himself at the public’s outrage and can’t understand how the country is suddenly full of dirty communists. Up yours, Lamar!

P.S. There’s a debate tonight, so join us and tell us how much you miss Jon Huntsman!

Score One For The Christians

2012-01-15T16:00:00.004-05:00

I figured that Sunday was a good day to celebrate one small but significant victory for Christianity (and all religions) in the ongoing government war against faith. And maybe the victory wasn't so small. In a 9-0 decision, the US Supreme Court upheld the right of religious institutions to determine whether a minister's services should be terminated without being trumped by employment discrimination law.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had used the Americans with Disabilities Act to require Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church to re-hire a former church school teacher. When originally filed with the lower court (during the Bush administration), the court held that it had no jurisdiction over such religious matters, and dismissed the case. The EEOC appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The lower court decision was reversed, and the EEOC demanded the employee be re-hired. The church appealed to the Supreme Court. The Holder Department of Justice enthusiastically pursued the interests of the EEOC.

I'll keep the facts as simple as possible. The employee, Cheryl Perich, was hired as a "called" church school teacher. Most Christian denominations have the same or a similar designation for teachers who have completed training in church doctrine and have agreed to teach according to those principles. They are distinguished from "lay" teachers who are free to teach their subjects but are not required to insert church doctrine into the class curriculum. A very long line of court cases below the Supreme Court level, in nearly every federal appellate district, has included "called" teachers under the "ministerial exception" exempting religious trainers from general employment law.

Perich had developed a debilitating case of narcolepsy. Her doctors advised the school that she would be ready to come back to work after therapy and medications some time in late 2005. The school advised Perich that she should go on disability leave for the 2004-2005 school year, they would pay her medical insurance premiums, and when she was well enough to return for the 2005-2006 school year, she would have her job back.

But Perich decided on her own that she was well enough to return for the 2004-2005 term, and showed up for work. The school refused to replace the lay teacher who had taken over her duties on the grounds that Perich had not been properly medically released and that she could not at that time perform her proper "called" (religious) teacher's duties.

Perich then filed a complaint with the EEOC, after threatening the school with a lawsuit. The school responded by terminating her "ministry" because the church determined that her threats and the EEOC complaint were inconsistent with church doctrine and policy. They further noted that if she had been a lay teacher, they might still have refused to allow her to return for the 2004-2005 school year, but would not necessarily have felt it their religious duty to terminate her services for the following school year.

Many fair-minded people might think that the EEOC and Perich should have won. After all, that's what the ADA was designed to protect against, and the termination does seem a bit unfair and perhaps even retaliatory. But that's not the issue, and the Supreme Court got it exactly right. The question that had to be answered was "does the Constitution's First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion override statutory labor and discrimination law?" The high court answered "yes." And it did so unanimously.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty took the case originally, recognizing that this was one small employment issue at one small Michigan church which contained huge implications for religious freedom nationwide. It was a David vs. Goliath battle between one congregation and the secular federal bureaucracy. And David won. The principle established is that if a religious institution makes a decision based on a religious belief that it has the right to control its own ministry, then civil anti-discrimination law cannot interfere unless there is an even stronger fundamental constitutional right which clearly conflicts with the First Amendment. The Supreme Court found no such conflicting right.

Had Perich been a janitor or a lay teacher, the result would likely have gone the other way. But God love the Supremes. They found that even if the termination violated secular statutes, the religious element outweighed the civil interest. And so said they all.

Douglas Laycock, a law professor, argued the case for the church and the Becket Fund. He summed up the Supreme Court decision this way: "This is a huge win for religious liberty. The Court has unanimously confirmed the right of churches to select their own ministers and religious leaders." This is a landmark decision that the average layman may not be aware of in the future, and its announcement was made right in the middle of the returns from the New Hampshire primary, thereby producing zero mainstream media coverage.

This may all sound a little obscure, with no implications for future litigation. But is it really? The Supreme Court may very well have fired a shot across the secularist bow with this decision which will be reflected later in a much more public and contentious issue working its way to the high court. If the Supreme Court were to decide that gay marriage is a valid exercise in government power and that state or federal government cannot forbid it, this present decision would go a long way toward allaying the fears of those who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds (myself included).

Despite promises to the contrary, the states supporting gay marriage will be very likely to attempt to impose anti-discrimination statutes on religious organizations which preach against gay marriage and/or refuse to perform them. Even if they don't, the ACLU will surely find some gay couple that wishes to challenge the churches on gay marriage using existing anti-discrimination law. This case holds that religious institutions have a near-absolute right to determine their own doctrine and how it is to be implemented.

So when Pastor John preaches that homosexuality is a sin, Father James condemns sexual relationships outside traditional one man-one woman marriage, and Rabbi Joe refuses to perform a gay marriage, they cannot be persecuted a la Canada. No labor or anti-discrimination statute can force a conservative religious institution to ignore its own doctrines or force it to hire clerics who oppose the church's religious beliefs. They are now also free to fire any holder of the pulpit who has some sort of secular epiphany and decides he or she is in favor of gay marriage after all.

That's how the legal mind works. And it's how a small employment case in Michigan could conceivably affect a hotly-contested national issue despite the case's seeming dissimilarities with that national issue. This case will undoubtedly be cited as precedent the very first time some state or federal authority attempts to punish a church or synagogue for violating anti-discrimination law by refusing to perform or condone gay marriage. And any lawyer worth his salt will point out that the Supreme Court decision was unanimous, including the concurring opinions of four very liberal Justices.

The Great (film) Debates vol. 21

2012-01-15T09:00:00.001-05:00

Worst. . . sequel. . . ever. . .?

Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms

Lost in Translation

2012-01-14T16:00:00.204-05:00

It is funny how meanings of words can get lost in translation. There were two articles on the ‘net in the last couple of weeks that are great examples of how statements can be innocently mistranslated, or even intentionally used to mislead.

The first example is from an article posted on a Polish news website about purported statements made by Rick Santorum during his campaign in New Hampshire. I would not have known about the Polish article if a Polish friend had not pointed it out. So here’s how it went:

[Scene: Lunch room in typical American white-collar workplace. Polish friend runs in and plops down in front of me]

Me: Hello, Polish friend, what’s up?

Polish friend: So, who is this Santorum guy?

Me: He is running for the Republican Presidential nomination. Umm, why do you ask? [hoping to direct PF to Commentarama for a more in-depth discussion without breaking any politically correct workplace rules]

PF: I just heard from a friend of mine in Poland who said that it was reported by a Norwegian journalist that Rick Santorum said in New Hampshire that the greatest threats to the world right now are Iran, Islamic terrorists, and Poland!

Me: Poland?? Are you sure he said Poland? I can’t imagine anyone would think that Poland was a threat to anyone? I will do some research and get back to you.

End scene.

I went back to my desk to do a quick search. I figured that if Santorum had actual said that Poland was one of the greatest threats to the world that someone in the US press corps would pick it up and exploit it. (Yes, Huffington Post, I mean you!). Instead, I found nothing. I went back to my PF and asked her to show me the article. It was a 5-line article from a Polish language website which she kindly translated for me. Since I have no reason to doubt my friend's translation, I was surprised that a sitting Senator could make such a stupid blunder. But then I remembered that the then-Senator Obama stated during his 2008 campaign that there were at least 57 US states, so it could be true. But I still could not find any evidence in English.

Well, it took about 24 hours, but, to my surprise, I finally found an article on the New York Times blog reporting on Santorum's statement. Not a translation of the original statement as reported by the Norwegian journalist, but a clarification from Santorum. When asked by an unknown reporter if he really said that Poland was a threat, Santorum stated:

“I said the Obama administration stuck it to Poland by not putting a missile defense system there...I listed a bunch of countries that the Obama administration has messed up.

So, it was nothing against Poland?” the reporter asked.

Oh, I love Poland,” Mr. Santorum assured him. “Are you kidding me? It’s one of my favorite countries in the world.”

As my friend and I discussed, it is possible that someone heard "threat" and "Poland" in the same sentence and jumped to a mistranslated conclusion. Who knows, but it is safe to say that between my friend and I, we just save the world from of an international "whisper-down-the lane" game that went from English to Norwegian to Polish to possible war!

Now, I said there were two examples. The second was an article titled “GM to call back 8,000 Chevy Volts” published last week. You remember the Chevy Volt. It’s the General Motors electric car touted by the Obama Administration as the green solution to the American auto industry’s financial problems.

It was reported that The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration informed GM that, following extensive crash tests, they discovered that up to three weeks after a crash, the batteries in the Volt would catch fire. The following is a short performance art piece of how I perceive this conversation went:

[Scene: Telephone rings. Someone picks up receiver]

NHTSA: Hello, GM? Yeah, umm...did you know that up to three weeks after a crash, the Volt battery tends to catch on fire and explode?

GM: Umm, well, ummm...errr...yes, we did. Oops, did we forget to tell everyone that the Volt’s batteries needed to be drained after a crash? Sorry, my bad.

NHTSA: Not a problem. Just fix it and all will be forgotten...er forgiven.

GM: Do we need to issue a recall?

NHTSA: Heavens NO! Let's just say that you are "calling them back" and leave it at that. No reason to needlessly embarrass ourselves and you-know-who. You are going to voluntarily fix it anyway, right?

GM: Oh, yeah, riiiight.

End scene.

So GM issued a "call back" of their vehicle and as the article stresses, “GM’s move is considered a step below a recall, which would have been]issued by a car company and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration". It further reports that GM agreed to voluntarily fix the problem voluntarily. This is unlike, say, when Toyota was publicly pilloried and whose management was dragged before Congress to explain after their 2010 Prius "recall" which they had already agreed to voluntarily fix voluntarily too.

So in conclusion, to my Polish friends - beware of Norwegian reporters. From the bottom of my heart, both Santorum and I think that you are not a threat and, hopefully, you will never be a threat to the good people of Earth.

And to the taxpayers-slash-shareholders of the United States of America - beware the Obama Administration and a sympathetic press corps who will continue to mislead us about any of this Administration’s investments gone sour. They are mounting up, aren't they?

Addendum: I hereby revise my statement about the Polish after my "friend" made disparaging remarks about people over 40 being "that old?". They may be a real threat after all.

Film Friday: Tron: Legacy (2010)

2012-01-13T16:00:00.001-05:00

Was Tron: Legacy the worst movie ever? Nope. I liked the soundtrack a lot, the effects were excellent and the actors read their words competently. It didn’t offend me either or bore me too much. So if that’s what you want, then this movie certainly delivers. Thumbs up! But if you’re one of those picky people who want more than a placebo for a film, then this one isn’t for you.

Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms

Dunderhead Bags A Hammerhead

2012-01-13T09:00:00.001-05:00

Rosie O'Donnell is a true outdoorsman. She doesn't believe in hunting with a gun, but when it comes to hooking large fish, she's a real mensch. In fact, just before a new Florida law went into effect on January 1 prohibiting the killing of endangered shark species, O'Donnell and her "children" killed at least four sharks off the Florida coast. The most recent was a twelve foot hammerhead.

I tried very hard not to think of headlines such as "Whale Hooks Shark," but I failed. There does seem to be some sort of cosmic justice in the growing outcry against her from such former allies as PETA and Shark Savers.. Rosie hugs trees and jihadists, but she doesn't hug fish. In fact, she hangs 'em from the highest yardarm, and poses for photos. Now I'm not a member of Lawyers for Equal Treatment for Sharks (LETS), but something just doesn't feel right about Rosie's catch.

Rosie and the family do their fishing with semi-famous Mark "The Shark" Quartiano. Quartiano, like Rosie, loves sharks to death. Ya gotta kill 'em to save 'em, or something like that. Quartiano posted the photo on his website in his spotlight "This Month's Celebrity Angler." Quartiano says "Rosie is a great angler. She's very conservation-minded. We've caught a lot of fish and released a lot of fish. We've also caught fish for eating." Eating fish? What next, eating cows? Nobody asked the shark its opinion of Rosie's conservation-mindedness.

Quartiano was quick to point out that "these conservation guys are hitting the wrong target." They should be going after all those commercial fishermen who collaterally catch hammerheads in their fishing nets. After all, killing sharks by accident is certainly far worse than hunting them down and killing them with a crazed gleam in your eye.

Even the opposition made it clear that O'Donnell hadn't done anything illegal. Well, that's a relief. Her supporters say she is a celebrity known for her philanthropic work, particularly for children, but she should have been aware of the conservation implications of her actions. Rosie loves bioethicists, but she probably missed the position of Yale Professor Peter Singer who believes that severely disabled infants have fewer rights than healthy hammerheads.

Erik Bush is a marine conservationist who started a Twitter and Facebook attack on our dear Rosie. He says: "Right now, sharks are the most endangered animals around. This is basically an endorsement [of sharkicide]. It sends the message that it's an OK activity. And this is not an activity that we want celebrities endorsing." Neil Hammerschlag at the University of Miami's School of Marine and Atmospheric Science chided Rose with: "She wouldn't go out hunting tigers. I don't see her pictured in front of some tiger strung up. Yet these are the tigers of the ocean, they're a top predator and they're in serious decline. Yet we kill them for sport."

I don't have a shark in this hunt, so I'm just doing my best to remain neutral. But in Rosie's defense, there is a shortage in Asia of shark fins for shark fin soup. Hammerheads are considered to have the tastiest fins of all. Without Rosie and celebrities like her, who is going to fill that vital Asian need? Look at that hammerhead's fins, and tell me she's wrong.

One wag has pointed out another benefit of Rosie's skills. It would allow for an all-new regular feature on the Animal Planet Channel--Lesbian Shark Hunters. I thought of Adequate White Whale vs. Great White Shark, but it's probably too wordy.

The EPA Is All Wet

2012-01-12T16:00:00.003-05:00

What you're looking at is what the Environmental Protection Agency arbitrarily declared a "wetland." Do you see any water? Do you see any water fowl? Do you see anything that would indicate to you that this land should be left untouched in order to protect the ecosystem? No? Well, either did the Sackett family when they bought the property to build their dream home in Priest Lake, Idaho.

But the EPA saw an environmental disaster in the making, and stopped the Sacketts cold. The couple had graded away those piles of dirt you see in the picture, and had started to lay the foundation for the house after obtaining all the necessary permits. And just as they were putting up the first wooden support beams, the Environazis arrived with a restraining order, informing the Sacketts that they were building on protected wetlands.

Since this is a followup article, you can read all the pertinent facts here: EPA Brings The House Down--Literally. As of that writing, the Sacketts had lost their battle with the EPA at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (the most-reversed court in America). In June of last year, the Pacific Legal Foundation, on behalf of the Sacketts, petitioned the US Supreme Court for a Writ of Certiorari (an acknowledgment from the high court that it would be willing to hear the case). In August, the Supreme Court granted the petition and will hear the case this year.

Since that writing, the Sacketts have continued to refuse to "restore the property to its original condition" as demanded by the EPA, and the daily potential fines have risen to $37,500 per day. They only paid $23,000 total for the property in the first place. These are people of ordinary means who had a dream, not millionaire envirowackos who have nothing better to do than prevent others from fulfilling their lifelong desire. The Sacketts have merely experienced what hundreds, perhaps thousands of others have experienced. But unlike most, the Sacketts refused to cave in and go away, and instead stood on their constitutional and God-given right to build their dream home on their own property.

An EPA "compliance order" such as the one affecting the Sacketts is a highly-arbitrary and tyrannical exercise of government power without decent notice. The Sacketts wrote to the EPA requesting the grounds for the order, and after seven months received a reply that admitted that it couldn't even find the Sackett's property in its EPA online wetland inventory. Then the Sacketts (who had already been through the entire permit process, including a local environmental impact report) hired a civil engineer to inspect the property for non-compliance with EPA wetland standards. He wrote a report and signed an affidavit stating that the property was not only not a wetland, but was nowhere near any other designated wetland. "So what?" said the EPA.

And here's where the Catch 22 Ninth Circuit Court decision comes in. The court held that the Sacketts could not seek judicial review of the EPA's wetland designation until after they had restored the land to its original state and had applied for and been denied a wetland permit. As you will see from my original article, that process would take a very long time, and would cost the Sacketts somewhere between $200,000 and $300,00. And the only way for them to "win" judicial review is for the EPA to deny the application. So even if the EPA did grant the permit, the Sacketts would already be out-of-pocket for about a quarter of a million dollars.

This is a classic example of how a federal bureaucracy with nearly unlimited funds can destroy the lives of American citizens who simply can't afford to be right. If the Sacketts even had the ability to spend a quarter-million dollars and more, then more huge sums of money to pursue the suit if the agency denies the permit, the EPA would already have won by warning future protestors of the cost of attempting to thwart the ecoweenie agenda. Fortunately, the Pacific Legal Foundation took the case for the Sacketts on principle. And if the EPA loses, the bureaucrats can just shrug their shoulders and say "oops."

So how does a compliance order work? When the EPA believes that a landowner is engaged in a violation of environmental laws, it may issue an administrative compliance order requiring the landowner to take certain actions and then seek judicial enforcement of the order if the landowner does not comply (in this case, the Sacketts' refusal to "restore the land to its original condition"). The issue the Supreme Court will address is the validity of such arbitrary and crippling orders. Can the landowner challenge the administrative compliance order in court before the EPA seeks judicial enforcement (here, the daily $37,500 daily fines).

The Ninth Circuit upheld the EPA's right to commit off-highway robbery without any resort to the courts. Even given the Supreme Court's awful decision in Kelo v City of New London (substituting the Constitution's words "public use" with "public purpose"), there's a good chance that the Supreme Court will slap down the growing tendency of delegating legislative and executive powers to bureaucracies. The EPA may have gone one alleged wetland too far.

Crony Capitalism Targets The Internet

2012-01-12T09:00:00.001-05:00

The internet has shattered monopolies everywhere. Journalists have discovered to their horror that the public can now find information without them, and doesn’t need their “analysis.” Self-publishing is killing publishers and is about to hit record companies. Retailers are horrified that you can buy anything from anywhere in the world without going through them. Hollywood is horrified that because people have greater choices, their attendance is crashing. Oh my! What to do?! Answer: call the government!

The issue in question is called the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). Its Senate fellow-traveler is called the Protect IP Act (PIPA). Ostensibly these bills are aimed at stopping “online piracy” by “rogue foreign websites.” But in reality, they’re aimed at controlling the web. And it’s no surprise they’re backed by a bevy of Big Business monopolies: Hollywood, record companies, media companies, drug companies, unions and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Sadly Republicans are in this up to their necks. Rep. Lamar Smith wrote SOPA because it’s a “good policy that protects American consumers from dangerous counterfeit goods and American business from having their products and profits stolen from foreign thieves.” Conservative (read: “idiot”) Marsha Blackburn actually claims this bill is conservative and that: “The same radical left-wing special interests groups that advocated for Obama’s so-called net neutrality regulations are trying to hijack conservative principles and mislead the public about SOPA.”

By the way, radical left winger Patrick Leahy wrote the Senate version, which should tell you all you need to know this... and Marsha’s judgment.

In any event, here’s why the bill is bad and anything but conservative.

This bill allows the US government and corporations to require internet service providers to block access to websites which they allege infringe on intellectual property rights. It also allows the government and these corporations to force companies like PayPal to block payments to websites which they claim infringe. And it allows copyright holders to sue these websites AND to sue sites like Google which link to them and sites like Facebook which host them if they don’t do enough (whatever that means) to block access to copyright-protected content. That’s like being able to sue the phone company because it gave a phone number to someone who stolen your film idea.

How does “conservative” Marsha Blackburn respond? “The fact is SOPA only applies to dedicated foreign rogue sites that are harming American consumers and creators.”

Except, that’s not how it works. The practical effect of this bill will be that search engines like Google will be forced to monitor the content of the sites to which they link. If the content could potentially violate a copyright, then Google must exclude it from the search. Think about that. That’s asking the phone company to make sure you aren’t doing anything illegal so long as they supply you with a phone number.

But hey, who needs Google? You can still get there if you know the name of the website, right? Nope. Your service provider can be sued if it doesn’t stop you from going there. In fact, the bill originally required your ISP to redirect you to a warning page if you tried to visit one of these sites. That language has been taken out and a “voluntary” provision has been put in its place. Of course, “voluntary” is just another way of saying “mandatory” when people can sue you to enforce it.

But wait, this only apply to foreign websites, right? Hardly. The law does say foreign websites, but how does Google know what’s foreign and what’s not when people can post on proxy servers? And if Google develops the skills to exclude copyright violating material in foreign websites, do you really think US courts won’t hold them liable for not doing the same for US websites? Don’t forget, the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act is still out there. It provided a safe harbor for ISPs and search engines on the basis that so long as it wasn’t possible to filter these things out, then they didn’t need to do it. Once they show they can do it on foreign websites, that safe harbor goes away for domestic sites.

It’s no surprise that Google, Amazon, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, AOL, LinkedIn, Microsoft, Mozilla, PayPal and many, many more object to this. Even Wikipedia founder Jay Walsh says this will threaten the way the Wikipedia works. Flikr will apparently be shut down. I would suspect Blogger will too because Google (owner of Blogger) could be sued if, for example, we uploaded illegal content here.

What’s more, while retard Marsha Blackburn thinks this bill is conservative, ask yourself if ANY conservative would ever set up a legal system where you are guilty until you prove your innocence in court. That’s what SOPA does. Once an allegation is made that a site contains copyrighted material, the Big Business complainer goes to court and gets an order shutting you down. Once the order is entered, they send a copy to your ISP, to search engines and to money-processing companies like PayPal. They are then required to shut you out or they face liability themselves. That’s when you finally get involved in the process. Now that you’ve been found guilty, and you are suddenly kicked off the net, you have the right to go to court and prove that you were wrongly black-listed. A year or two later (and minus mucho legal fees), you’ll probably be back on line. That’s a great way to take out a competitor at a crucial time.

I guess Marsha Blackburn learned conservatism at the knee of Joseph Stalin. And for the record, this puts our government in the same company as China, Iran, Libya and Tunisia.

Lest you think I’m blowing this out of proportion, BOTH leftist and conservative bloggers have gone to war against the idiots who are sponsoring this assault on the internet and freedom on behalf of Hollywood, the music industry and drug companies. They are particularly outraged that this could destroy political blogging because it is so easily abused. Erick Erickson of RedState is actually leading the charge. He’s promising to fight to unseat any of the Stalinists who support this thing:

“I love Marsha Blackburn. She is a delightful lady and a solidly conservative member of Congress. And I am pledging right now that I will do everything in my power to defeat her in her 2012 reelection bid due to her co-sponsorship for SOPA. . . . If members of Congress do not pull their name from co-sponsorship of SOPA, the left and right should pledge to defeat each and every one of them.”

Fortunately, much of the corporate backing for this bill is starting to collapse. GoDaddy just found out how stupid it was to support this when people began boycotting GoDaddy en mass. They’ve since withdrawn their support, as have other large corporations and scores of law firms.

Paul Ryan ran into this issue when he gave a noncommittal response when asked if he supports it and found himself blasted. He now firmly opposes it. Naturally, Ricky Santorum, champion of the (non-gay) common man supports it. Newt apparently does too. Romney doesn’t, which makes him the only conservative on this issue.

Sadly, too many Republicans are little more than whores who do the bidding of Big Business. The list of companies who favor this reads like a who’s who of monopolists who have failed to innovate, failed to embrace technology, and simply don’t want to spend time or effort rectifying their past failures. Thus, they have called their minions in Congress and asked the government to cover up their mistakes.

It’s time Republicans stop this crap! CONSERVATISM DOES NOT SUPPORT GOVERNMENT REGULATION TO PROTECT LARGE COMPANIES! And since Marsha Blackburn and Lamar Smith apparently don’t understand that, they need to be voted out.

Movie Rewind: Where Were You in ’82?

2012-01-11T16:00:00.004-05:00

By ScottDS

Along with 1939, 1982 is considered a banner year for Hollywood. Many films we now consider classics thirty years later (and a few we consider “guilty pleasures”) made their big screen premieres this year. Some struck box-office gold while others needed some time to be appreciated. Let’s take a look at a few members of the Class of 1982.

Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms

Republican Candidates Fall For Smear, Again

2012-01-11T09:00:00.001-05:00

Some people never learn. These people are called failing Republican candidates. This time the media smeared Mitt Romney and like a pack of jackasses these candidates bought into it hook, line and sinker and promptly set about blasting Romney. . . and capitalism. Ug.

Here’s the set up. The Washington Post and other liberal outlets reported the other day that Mitt Romney said he likes to fire people. In fact, as presented by the leftist Post, the quote reads: “I like being able to fire people who provide services to me.”

That sounds kind of Grinchy. But it’s not actually what Romney said. Here’s what Romney said:

“I want individuals to have their own insurance. That means the insurance company will have an incentive to keep you healthy. It also means if you don’t like what they do, you can fire them. I like being able to fire people who provide services to me. You know, if someone doesn’t give me a good service that I need, I want to say I’m going to go get someone else to provide that service to me.”

This is not what the Post described it as. Romney is not saying he likes firing people. He is saying he likes having choices as a consumer. He likes having the ability to change companies when he doesn’t like the service being provided and he wants Americans to have that power when it comes to health insurance companies. This is how all Americans think.

Of course, this didn’t stop the idiots from jumping on the liberal smear-version.

Rick Perry, who really is proving to be a total dipsh*t, turned the “I like to fire people” portion of the quote into a ringtone that people could download. Then he channeled Karl Marx and said this about Romney’s time at Bain:

“Allowing these companies to come in and loot the, loot people’s jobs, loot their pensions, loot their ability to take care of their families and I will suggest they’re just vultures. They’re vultures that sitting out there on the tree limb waiting for the company to get sick and then they swoop in, they eat the carcass. They leave with that and they leave the skeleton. I don’t think they want someone who has killed jobs in South Carolina on the altar of making more money for themselves and their company.”

It doesn’t even make sense what Rick is saying, how could Romney make money buying companies and letting them fail? This is Oliver Stone “I know nothing about finance but I hate it” thinking. But even worse, this is Marxism. Rick is criticizing the very idea of capitalism here. He is saying that somehow it’s wrong (1) to buy another company, (2) to fire employees, and (3) to seek profit.

Gingrich piled on, saying: “If somebody comes in, takes all the money out of your company and then leaves you bankrupt while they go off with millions, that’s not traditional capitalism.” This is, of course, nonsense as well because no one gives a company away for nothing so someone else can suck millions of dollars out of it. Huntsman jumped on this too just as stupidly.

The Club for Growth, the driving force behind much of modern economic conservatism, blasted these attacks:

“[The] attacks on Mitt Romney’s record at Bain Capital are disgusting. Because of the efforts of Bain Capital, major companies like Staples, Domino’s Pizza, and the Sports Authority now employ thousands of people and have created billions in wealth in the private economy. Attacking Governor Romney for participating in free-market capitalism is just beyond the pale for any purported ‘Reagan Conservative.’”

Ron Paul also has properly defended Romney.

“I think they’re wrong. I think they’re totally misunderstanding the way the market works. They are either just demagoguing or they don’t have the vaguest idea how the market works. . . You save companies, you save jobs when you reorganize companies that are going to go bankrupt. And they don’t understand that.”

Gingrich, by the way, finally backed away from attacking the “I like to fire people” quote claiming that he didn’t know it had been taken out of context, but he has yet to repudiate his sudden embrace of Marxism.

This is frustrating. Once again, these candidates fall for an MSM smear without ever bothering to ask whether there is any truth to the smear. What’s worse, they knee-jerk attack Romney by blasting capitalism. All this does is reinforce liberal propaganda -- capitalism is evil and heartless and profit is bad. This is shameful and it hurts conservatism.

It’s no wonder 58% of Republicans want more choices.

Romney, by the way, had a devastating response to Gingrich and Perry:

“It is no surprise that, having spent nearly half a century in government between them, Speaker Gingrich and Governor Perry have resorted to desperate attacks on a subject they don’t understand. We expect attacks on free enterprise from President Obama and his allies on the left — not from so-called ‘fiscal conservatives. Speaker Gingrich and Governor Perry seem to think that running against the private sector is the way to revive their floundering campaigns.”

Yep.

T-Rav's Sockpuppet Votatorium Presents: Primarily New Hampshire

2012-01-10T16:00:00.005-05:00

Tonight only, live from New Hampshire, it's the New Hampshire Republican primary and monster truck rally! Join us. . . join us. . . join us.

In case you haven't heard, the town of Dixville Notch, New Hampshire has already voted. Romney and Huntsman are tied with 2 votes each. The rest can pound sand apparently. Oh wait, there appear to be more results still to come!

While we wait for the rest of the results (network coverage starts around 7:00 PM EST), let's play a game... no, not like Saw, but a constructive game: tell us some policies you'd like to see made into law if you were President!

The Real Rick Santorum

2012-01-10T09:00:00.008-05:00

With the implosion of everyone else, Rick Santorum is now being given his turn to run as the anti-Romney. And many conservatives are jumping on Ricky’s bandwagon with the idea that he’s more conservative than Romney. Don’t believe it. Let’s talk about Ricky.

● “Conservative” Rick: Rick claims to be an all-around, genuine, dyed-in-the-wool conservative. But would a conservative do this?

● Rick voted to create the Medicare prescription drug benefit entitlement.
● Rick opposes even the voluntary use of eVerify, which would keep illegal aliens from getting jobs.
● Rick voted for Ted Kennedy’s No Child Left Behind.
● Rick voted to force states to let convicted felons vote.
● Rick voted to give $1 billion to bailout the steel industry.
● Rick voted for the ban on “assault weapons.”
● Rick voted to make it illegal to sell guns without a secure storage or safety device.
● Rick voted to fund anti-gun education programs in schools.
● Rick voted against the National Right To Work Act, which allows non-union shops.
● Rick twice voted against repealing the Davis-Bacon Act, which is how the federal government supports union labor through government contracts.
● Rick twice voted to make it easier for unions to unionize FedEx. This bill was created by UPS and the Teamsters, and is essentially what Obama has done to Boeing, except it was done at the behest of a competitor.
● Rick voted to fund the legal services corporation, which pursues left-wing litigation around the country, e.g. suing cities to increase benefits or suing landlords to stop evictions.
● Rick voted to make fuel price gouging a federal crime.
● Rick opposed creating an independent Board of Governors to investigate IRS abuses.
● Rick voted to require a union representative be placed on the IRS oversight board, and then voted to exempt the IRS union representative from criminal ethics laws.
● Rick opposed cutting funding for the National Endowment for the Arts.
● Rick supported a large number of liberal nominees including Sonia Sotomayor to the Circuit Court, Richard Holbrooke to be UN Ambassador, and Alexis Herman to be Secretary of Labor.
● In 2004, Rick endorsed Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey and cut an ad telling voters “Specter is with us on the votes that matter.”
● In 2006, Rick ran campaign ads playing up his bipartisan work with Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer: “Because it makes more sense to wrestle with America’s problems than with each other.”

● “Fiscal Conservative” Rick: Rick claims to be a fiscal conservative. Yet. . .

● Rick supported every budget during the Bush years, despite their then-record spending and then-record deficits.
● Rick now claims he opposes earmarks, but he previously said: “The idea that earmarks are the problem in Washington, D.C., is just ridiculous.” He also sought more than a billion dollars in earmarks, including such ridiculous things as $300,000 for a bilingual health care study, $250,000 for an “African-American cultural center” in Pittsburgh, $96 million to build a light rail system into Pittsburgh, $2 million to renovate the Vulcan Monument in Alabama, funding of museums in Nebraska and Seattle, the Stand Up for Animals Project in Rhode Island, etc.
● Rick voted for the Bridge to Nowhere.
● Rick voted for mandatory federal child care funding.
● Rick voted to increase funding for the Department of Education by $3.1 billion.
● Rick voted to provide $2 billion in home heating subsidies.
● Rick voted to increase social services block grants from $1 billion to $2 billion.
● Rick voted to give taxpayers $100 rebates on gas prices.
● Rick voted to create a $140 billion asbestos compensation fund, and voted against requiring uniform medical requirements to ensure claims were legitimate. Think “Pigford.”
● Rick voted to give $18 billion to the IMF.
● Rick opposed food stamp reform.
● Rick opposed Medicaid reform.
● Rick voted to divert gas taxes to pay for Amtrak.
● Rick voted to increase Amtrak funding by $550 million.
● Rick voted to increase spending on social programs by $7 billion.
● Rick voted to increase community development programs by $2 billion.

● Rick opposed the flat tax.
● Rick voted twice for internet taxes.
● Rick voted four times to raise tobacco taxes to fund Medicare prescription drugs, to pay $8 billion in child health insurance, to increase NIH funding, and to provide health insurance subsidies to small business.
● Rick voted to raise taxes by $9.4 billion to increase student loans.
● Rick opposed repealing Clinton’s gas tax increase.

● Super Hawk Rick: Rick claims everyone else is weak on defense and he specifically attacks Obama for not doing enough about terrorist states like Iran and Syria. So why did Rick do this?

● Rick voted for the Chemical Weapons Convention and then voted against forcing the President to certify that Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, North Korea and China have joined before the CWC would become effective.
● Rick voted to allow the sale of supercomputers to China.
● Rick voted to give North Korea $25 million in foreign aid.
● Rick voted to ban landmines.
● Rick voted for the START II Treaty.
● Rick voted against requiring President Clinton to get Congress’s authorization for military action in Bosnia.

● Ricky the Lobbyist: While Rick claims to be an outsider, he served 16 years in the House and Senate. What’s more he is deeply immersed in lobbying culture and has traded influence:

● In 2006, Rick received the most contributions from lobbyists of any Senator.
● After Rick lost to Bob Casey in 2006, he became a lobbyist for multiple groups. One group was United Health Services. Rick sponsored two Medicare-reform bills while he was in the Senate which would have aided UHS. Rick also joined the board of directors of American Continental Group, a lobbying company. As a Senator, Rick got earmarks for many of ACG’s clients.
● Rick voted to require broadcasters to provide discounted broadcast rates to politicians.

Rick is not a fiscal conservative, not even close. In fact, he’s closer to Obama than Bush and Bush was anything but a fiscal conservative. Rick’s also no foreign policy conservative. Nor is he averse to influence peddling.

And when it comes to social policy, he’s either a moron or a cynic. He will often contradict himself on issues like gay marriage where he speaks in circles about states’ rights, and he’ll make vague pronouncements like his belief in “marriage,” which he treats as a policy but provides no details. Moreover, the things he does propose, like passing constitutional amendments, are non-starters because they simply can’t be passed. So what is he actually promising? It sounds like he’s more concerned with pandering than he is in achieving anything.

Moreover, his stridency about his social conservatism is a disaster waiting to happen. Of all the candidates left, Santorum is the only one who is guaranteed to attract 0.0% of the moderate vote. He will even turn off many conservatives as well because, to borrow a line from Ghostbusters II, “he scares the straights.”

Think twice before you decide this man is the conservative alternative to Romney.

** Don’t forget it’s Star Trek Tuesday at CommentaramaFilms!**

Commentarama Endorses!

2012-01-09T16:00:00.004-05:00

We officially maintain a “no endorsement” policy during the primaries (which doesn’t mean we won’t tell you when your guy is a fool). But these are desperate times and unity is important, so it’s time we made an official endorsement in New Hampshire. For the Republican nomination, Commentarama hereby endorses:

Vermin Supreme

No, that’s not a West Virginia pizza, that’s an actual candidate for the Presidency of our country. Apparently, in New Hampshire all it takes to get on the ballot is $1,000, and Santa brought Vermin and 43 others $1,000 and told them to go forth and inspire the country.

Why did we choose Vermin? Because his platform resonates! He’s wants to legislate mandatory tooth brushing, is concerned about zombie preparedness, and wants federal research dollars spent on time travel so he can “kill Hitler with my bare hands.” But none of that swayed us. What finally swayed us was his promise that if elected, he would give free ponies to all Americans! Never before has any candidate better expressed the principles upon which this country was founded!

So vote for Vermin and get your pony. . . . of course, no matter who you vote for, odds are they will be vermin.

Speaking of the vermin, Romney seems to have overcome his 25% hurdle. In the past, he couldn’t get above 25% in the polls, but two polls now have him at 35% in New Hampshire and (surprisingly) 37% in South Carolina. The next runner up in New Hampshire is Ron Paul, who has been doubling up on crazy pills again. In the last debate he accused the country of filling the military with minority kids (something which has been repeatedly debunked), and he accused the criminal justice system of racism for locking up black criminals. Gingrich and Santorum both slipped below 8% each. Perry remains at 1%, and his promise to re-invade Iraq probably won’t help him. . . maybe he should promise ponies? In South Carolina, Rick Santorum is second with 20%. . . somehow.

Finally, while we were watching the football game debate, we realized this whole process would be better if each of the candidates had a theme song that could play whenever it was their turn to speak. Here are my suggestions, add yours below:

● Mitt Romney: More Than This -- Roxy Music
● Ron Paul: Miracles -- Jefferson Airplane
● Newt Gingrich: Shock The Monkey -- Peter Gabriel
● Jon Huntsman: China Girl -- David Bowie
● Rick Perry: Friends in Low Places -- Garth Brooks
● Barack Obama: You’re So Vain -- Carly Simon

P.S. Anybody else think it’s weird Tebow threw for 316 years yesterday?

More Crony Socialism From The DOJ

2012-01-09T09:00:00.003-05:00

Eric Holder and the US Department of Justice (Civil Rights Division) have been handed another pot of gold to distribute to his racist friends. This past month, as a Christmas gift to Holder and Barack Obama, the US District Court for the Central District of California (Los Angeles and environs) issued its ruling in the case of The United States v Countrywide Financial Corporation.

A $335 million award was granted to blacks and Hispanics who took out loans with Countrywide during the period from 2004 to 2008. Now if this judgment had been entered after an extended court battle, including hard evidence and believable testimony, it might not be so bad. But Countrywide Financial is not in a position to defend itself, since it no longer exists. Its toxic assets were purchased in 2008 by Bank of America, and Bank of America seemed uninterested in pursuing the matter further. That might have something to do with simple financial risk calculation. I find it more likely that B of A, a recipient of largess from the federal government in the form of bailouts, was being very timid about offending its benefactors in the Obama administration.

So there was what is called a “consent decree.” The plaintiff (DOJ) and defendant (Countrywide/B of A) enter into an agreement on money damages, how they were determined, and how the agreement will be presented to the public in the form of a formal judgment. Here’s the money quote from the decision: “The money damages awarded are intended to compensate allegedly aggrieved persons for monetary and other damages they may have suffered.”

The court rubberstamped the DOJ contention that blacks and Hispanics were charged higher interest rates than whites based solely on their race or ethnicity rather than their creditworthiness. There were approximately 200,000 aggrieved borrowers, but it will be up to Holder and the DOJ to determine who gets what, and how much. Any money not distributed within two years of the decree will go to persons and causes to be determined by the DOJ. And you can bet there will be plenty of undistributed money left over to be used by Holder to reward his political cronies.

Holder and his boss are of course expecting to be back in office in 2012 with the full power of the DOJ to enrich their pet causes and supporters. And even before the election, Holder can play accountant-in-chief for how the money damages will be distributed and to whom. That is very likely to include those who would benefit most from Barack Obama’s reelection. Among the potential recipients mentioned in the decree are nonprofit community organizations that “provide education, counseling and other assistance to low-income and minority borrowers.” Isn’t that what got us into this mortgage mess in the first place?

There is honor among thieves, so Holder will make sure there is plenty of money “undistributed” and he will make promises to supporters of Obama’s reelection that they will be recipients of that money after Obama’s reelection and the passage of the two-year distribution period. I have no doubt that he will keep his word. There is no provision whatsoever in the decree for oversight of the distribution by any person or entity other than Holder and the DOJ themselves.

Holder’s history of favoritism and race-baiting pretty much guarantees that “leftover” money will be distributed to persons and interest groups which have no connection at all to the original lawsuit. The first one that comes to my mind is The New Black Panther Poll-Watching Consortium. Ok, I made that up. But is it really that far-fetched? Need I say that this is just another chapter in the history of what Michelle Malkin calls “the culture of corruption?”

The Three Great Lies

2012-01-08T16:00:00.004-05:00

“I’m from the government, and I’m here to help you.” “The check is in the mail.” “The President really looks forward to working with Congress.” The third of the three great lies was mouthed by Jay Carney, President Obama’s press secretary and full-time sockpuppet. It's hard to see how The One plans to work with Congress since his executive/bureaucratic administration has largely ignored Congress (or at least about half of Congress).

Carney spoke the words at the weekly press conference, the day after Obama made four highly-questionable recess appointments—three to the National Labor Relations Board and one to the newly-created Dodd-Frank Consumer Financial Protection Board. Those appointments may or may not be valid, but they are clearly an exercise in derogation of Congressional privilege.

After saying “the fact is, the President firmly believes he has the constitutional authority to do so,” Carney offered a diametrically opposite theory of why the President proceeded with the appointments. “It’s not about whether Congress is in session. What it’s really about is the absolute urgency to install Richard Cordray as our consumer watchdog so that he can get to work today protecting the middle class.” This isn’t only about Republicans. The Senate that soundly rejected Cordray (and one of the three NLRB appointees) is still controlled by Democrats.

Well, in this instance, it is all about whether the Senate is in session. The President “firmly believes” a lot of things which are completely wrong—historically, constitutionally, legally, economically, factually, and politically. But in this case, Carney should have stuck to defense number one. There are respected authorities who argue that Congress is not in session, and the appointments are valid. I’m not one of them, but the problem here is that Carney has announced the President’s desire “to work with Congress” while at the same time challenging Congress on its own rules. That doesn’t sound like cooperation to me. Forget the anger and acrimony over the appointments for a moment, and consider how much Obama has any intention of cooperating.

For Obama, “working with” is a synonym for “taking potshots at.” As of this writing, only one Democratic Senator has formally announced that he believes the appointments are valid and that the Senate is in recess. All other Democrats who talked about the issue at all merely praised the appointments and scrupulously avoided discussing the issue of the Senate being in pro forma session. Senate Republicans had sent a formal letter to the President in December, signed by forty-seven of the Senators, requesting that the appointments not be made during a recess. Obama ignored them, and as a result the Senate did not consent to a recess, and the House went on vacation without the required consent of the Senate (Article I, Section 5 of the US Constitution).

But to make sure, the Senate avoided the three-day (or five-day) recess rule (depending on which expert you listen to) by staying in pro forma session. In his last exhibition of cooperation prior to his announcement of further cooperation (yeah, I know), the President spat in the face of the Senate. Right or wrong, the majority or near-majority of Senators believed that the pro forma session was sufficient to fend off recess appointments. Even if the President was right, which may have to be determined by the Supreme Court, the appointment of four highly-partisan and generally unpopular bureaucrats is anything but a demonstration of cooperation with Congress.

All tyrants and wannabe tyrants are in a hurry because they believe that they alone know what’s best for their nations, and waiting for any other branch of government to act is simply not acceptable. Some, like Hitler, simply declared the basic law null and void and ruled by fiat. Others, like Middle East potentates and clerics either write the basic law to suit themselves, or exercise a stranglehold on the legislatures which are charged with writing the nation’s laws. Obama hasn’t reached that point, but he’s on the path.

This President has chosen a course that is questionably constitutional, bootstrapping on the incremental power-grabs known as executive orders and recess appointments. He is not the first, but an alarming number of his executive orders seem to be aimed directly at seizing power from Congress. If Obama succeeds with these four appointments, he will have added a new chapter to executive power by establishing that Congress is not the branch which exercises power over its own rules and procedures.

Previous Presidents have acted by executive order, as well as weakening Congressional legislation with “signing statements.” Previous Presidents have made recess appointments. Then-Senator Obama somehow has changed his views on the subject since becoming President because he had opposed George W. Bush’s recess appointment of John Bolton as UN ambassador on the ground that presidents shouldn’t recess-appoint “unpopular” people whom the Senate had already rejected.

So back to the original theme. Big battles inside and between the various branches of government are not unusual and can be annoying or uplifting, depending on the subject matter of the quarrel. Even power-grabs can be politically-expedient if the president chooses to defy Congress by ignoring its own self-imposed rules. But don’t call it cooperation. Man up. Tell the truth. Don’t hide behind your questionable interpretation of the Constitution. If Obama truly “looks forward to working with Congress, these odd recess appointments are a strange way of showing it.

"Congress should do this, right away" is quickly becoming "Congress will do this right away, or else."

The Great (film) Debates vol. 20

2012-01-08T09:00:00.001-05:00

People’s tastes change over time, which is good or we’d all be wearing bell bottoms and listening to grunge. And sometimes, this means our taste in films changes too.

What movie did you like a lot at one point, but no longer like. . . and why?

Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms

T-Rav's Sockpuppet Theater Presents: The Bad Timing Debate

2012-01-07T16:00:00.008-05:00

The Republicans seem to have stupidly decided to stage a debate tonight (9:00 EST), starting just after the NFL playoff game between the Saint and Lions begins. Good luck with that.

Film Friday: Apollo 18 (2011)

2012-01-06T16:00:00.006-05:00

I’m of two minds about Apollo 18. On the one hand, I’m glad I saw it. But on the other, I cannot recommend it and I never want to see it again. Why? Well, it has a solid story, ruined by its presentation. It had excellent effects, squandered by its presentation. It was simultaneously too long and too short, both because of its presentation. Put simply, this was a potentially excellent film ruined by a misused gimmick.

Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms

SPQR (Latin For "The Senate Is Irrelevant")

2012-01-06T09:00:00.007-05:00

The Divine Caesar Obama Invictus has decided he can't wait any longer for the processes of the Living Constitution to rubber stamp his appointments to the various boards of proconsuls. It was time to get on with the business of fundamentally transforming America, at least in the proconsulships of Labor and Consumer Protection. Caesar (also spelled Czar) is delegating his authority to proconsuls of like mind. (Third time is the charm? If this post disappears, I'm going to give up and hope tomorrow's a better day)

In addition, he has instituted rule by fiat, ignoring the Constitution, Senate rules, precedent, and the res publica. The rules and precedent, growing from the musty old Constitution, allow for recess appointments. But it took this Caesar to take the decision of when the Senate is in recess away from the Senate in order to place that decision in his own imperial hands. You see, previous Caesars also made recess appointments, but they left it in the hands of the Senate itself to determine when they were actually in recess.

On occasion, in order to avoid Caesar placing some of his more dangerous personal pets in high positions during a recess, the Senate would remain in session by the device of "pro forma" sessions. A few Senators would hang around, making official (but largely meaningless) speeches and comments. The Constitution says that if the Senators are entirely absent for more than three days, it is in recess. A formal recess ruling is helpful, but not necessary. So the Senators appear on the floor briefly at least every third day to make their presence known and official. Which is exactly what was happening when Caesar announced the appointments.

Recess appointments have been done by Caesars of both the Plebeian and Patrician Parties. But in those cases, the Senate itself had determined that it was in recess. This seems to be the first time (at least as far as Senate records indicate) that Senators were performing their pro forma duties, only to be blindsided by Caesar making recess appointments anyway. It is unlikely that Caesar is unaware of this difference because he was at one time a professor of constitutional law at the Imperial Academy of Law at the University of Chicago. Though imperial historians Pliny and Tacitus did not mention this in their histories, it is common knowledge that Caesar knows the Constitution better than anyone else. It's alive! It's alive!

The pro forma Senators were there because forty-six Patrician Senators had earlier petitioned Caesar not to make the current appointments after having already rejected one of the nominees, only to be entirely ignored by the imperial personage. Prior to his elevation to the imperial throne, this Caesar (then merely a Senator from the Province of Illinois) had decried the recess appointment of John Bolton as imperial minister to the empire of the United Nations as being an insult to the prerogatives of the Senate. The previous Caesar, Bush Secundus, made that appointment when the Senate was, by its own rules, in formal recess.

Caesar says that the Senate refused to accept his nominee for proconsul of Consumer Protection because they don't like the underlying legislation passed by a previous Senate (with the concurrence of the Plebes). Caesar's alternate imperial title is Caesar Obvious. Instead of multiple agencies making decisions about consumer protection with Senate oversight, Caesar has now appointed a proconsul who will have control over the minutiae of every financial transaction conducted in America. The appointee, Richard Cordray, has sworn allegiance to every jot and tittle of Caesar's financial agenda. The dismantling of the private right to contract is in his sights.

Over at the Labor Department, Caesar has recess appointed three proconsuls, all at once. Two are members of the Plebeian Party and will be regulating the lives of owners and wage slaves with a strong preference for the slaves. The third is a member of the Patrician Party, but has strong ties to one of the current Plebeian proconsuls.

Caesar is clearly on a progressive course. When his empire is threatened, he must act, with or without the advice and consent of those doddering old Senators. The people must be protected from themselves and the recalcitrant Senate. Only a great Ceasar can do that. Ave Caesar.

The Strange Case of Ron Paul

2012-01-05T16:00:00.004-05:00

By: T-Rav

Ron Paul has suddenly become the darling of a large section of the Republican Party, even after clearly and repeatedly disqualifying himself from serious consideration by anyone not a member of the John Birch Society. In the past couple weeks, popular and long-time conservative pundits such as Ann Coulter have gone on record as saying they will vote for Paul rather than an establishment figure such as Newt Gingrich. Well, I won’t.

I have made my disgust and fury at Mitt Romney, for example, and his RINO-ism very clear on this site, to the point of being obsessive; but I will vote for Romney in a heartbeat rather than cast a ballot for the good doctor.

Paul’s current popularity is the result of some deep dissatisfaction with the field of candidates, which I can understand. And he does have some legit credentials as a small-government fiscal conservative. He wants to keep the government from exceeding a strict interpretation of its Constitutional authority; he wants an end to pork-barrel spending (although this hasn’t kept him from requesting and receiving his fair share of earmark money), etc. The chances of any of these proposals becoming law are about those of a snowball in the nether regions, but they’re nice to think about, and Paul deserves some credit for advancing the debate on fiscal and economic issues.

That being said, when you consider the whole man, Paul is such a disaster I am at something of a loss to comprehend how he became popular at all.

Let’s look at his record. For all the adulation showered on him as the leading voice of fiscal responsibility in Congress and “the godfather of the Tea Party movement” (seriously?), Paul hasn’t really done that much as a legislator. He’s authored/sponsored a number of bills, certainly; but most of them have been of a very simplistic nature, making demands such as “End the Fed!” or “Repeal the income tax!” without outlining a responsible alternative plan for monetary or tax policy. This suggests to me a man who either can’t or won’t think about these issues beyond superficial clichés—or who perhaps has no intention of waging a sustained campaign on their behalf and is therefore just throwing out slogans to get attention. Either way, he has not displayed the comprehensive, long-term thinking that Paul Ryan, Pat Toomey, or even Eric Cantor and others have. In fact, in his two decades, on and off, as a member of Congress, Paul saw only one of his bills be passed and signed into law—a bill authorizing the sale of a Galveston customhouse. Eh, I guess it’s because the establishment was out to get him or something.

But hey, he has done plenty outside of Congress, informing Americans through his newsletters about the dangers of big government and leftist policies, hasn’t he? Well. How about those newsletters?

During the 1980s and ‘90s, Paul published several newsletters, among others The Ron Paul Investment Letter and The Ron Paul Political Report. These would presumably focus on economic stuff, but they repeatedly included some very obscene racism. In June 1991, for example, a story on black violence in the nation’s capital was headlined “Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo.” The following year, one issue described how “blacks poured into the streets of Chicago in celebration {of a basketball game}. How to celebrate? How else? They broke the windows of stores to loot. . . Jury verdicts, basketball games, and even music are enough to set off black rage, it seems.” Another newsletter also discussed a “destruction of civilization” that was “the most tragic {to} ever occur on that continent, at least below the Sahara.” This would be the ending of apartheid in South Africa. Other issues claimed that Martin Luther King Jr. was a pedophile, a “world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours” and “seduced underage girls and boys,” and expressed support for former Louisiana senatorial candidate and former KKK Imperial Wizard David Duke, who had “scared the blazes out of the Establishment.”

Paul claims he didn’t write these articles, which is plausible as they were unsigned; what is not plausible is the idea that they were written and published without his full knowledge and consent, in a newsletter he profited from and in which he employed members of his own family. His supporters, for their part, are attempting to call this a case of fallacious guilt-by-association, or saying that this was all nearly 20 years ago, so it doesn’t really matter. Fine. But how is this any different from Obama’s longtime association with Jeremiah Wright (I refuse to honor him with the title “Reverend”) and other radical nutjobs? It seemed there was enough of an association then to call Obama a radical; why then, with similar associations here, is it not okay to call Paul a fringe radical with a serious race problem? More to the point, does anyone think for a moment that the same media which swept Obama’s skeletons under the rug would ignore Paul’s if he were to become the nominee?

I suppose it’s possible to argue, as his supporters have done, that this is either a big misunderstanding or an ugly smear campaign. That doesn’t help my evaluation of him, though, because I find those policies of his which are being championed equally dangerous. Simply put, the Congressman is proof of something I keep noticing among self-styled “libertarians”: a tendency to go to extremes with one’s ideology. His foreign policy positions are perhaps the most vivid example of this.

It’s one thing to say that the war in Iraq was a mistake, that the U.S. is too involved in the affairs of other nations, and that we need to get out of Afghanistan. These are positions I don’t entirely agree with, but one can rationally arrive at these positions and make a compelling case for them, and Paul was on more or less safe ground when he brought all this up in the debates. But then he kept going off the deep end. Even early on, he showed a total lack of understanding of the threat Iran poses when he insisted that, to paraphrase, “if we leave Iran alone, they’ll leave us alone.” For much of Bush’s term, this was a position no one to the right of Dennis Kucinich would consider taking. And let’s not forget, he essentially said that the U.S. brought 9/11 on itself. Even if one can agree that radical Islamists were reacting against certain policies of ours, let’s be clear about this—a man who wants to be our Commander-in-Chief is implicitly absolving our enemies of all responsibility for their deeds. Does that remind you of anyone? And that last debate….oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. First there was his claim that Israel’s neighbors posed no threat, and that our military was just looking for an excuse to go to war with Iran. Then Bachmann started pressing him, and he started crying that the U.S. would “declare war on 1.2 billion Muslims.” Um, no.

Worse, it’s getting harder and harder to claim that Paul just got flustered and misspoke, or that his words got twisted around, or whatever his excuse is this week. Not only do we have to consider his recent remarks that Israel is responsible for the formation of Hamas, we must take into account his past positions on foreign policy. According to one former staffer, who worked for Paul on and off for over a decade, the Congressman was personally opposed to any military response to 9/11.

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

On the eve of the vote, Ron Paul was still telling us staffers that he was planning to vote “No,” on the resolution, and to be prepared for a seriously negative reaction in the District. Jackie Gloor and I, along with quiet nods of agreement from the other staffers in the District, declared our intentions to Tom Lizardo, our Chief of Staff, and to each other, that if Ron voted No, we would immediately resign.

The staffer adds that in private conversations, Paul would dispute American involvement in World War II, arguing that it was a humanitarian exercise for “saving the Jews,” in which, short of actual German attacks on our soil, the U.S. should not have become involved. One wonders what would have become of the people of Middle Earth had this guy been the king of Rohan or some other Tolkien character.

Is Paul a racist or an anti-Semite, or neither? Ultimately, that’s between him and God, and anyway, it’s beside the point. The point is he has no problem affiliating with those who are. He is demonstrably anti-Israel. He seems to believe that the CIA may very well have been behind 9/11 and that there really are international secret societies trying to control us through our currency. This is Ron Paul’s reality, and this lies at the heart of my problem with him. It’s not that he’s not as socially conservative as I’d prefer (and he’s not), or that he’s not as pro-Israel or as hawkish on foreign policy as I’d prefer (and he’s not). It’s that the world he lives in is so different from ours—even more so, in some ways, than the world Obama lives in—that it renders him incapable of looking after the interests of the United States, especially as he refuses to acknowledge the real threats facing America. Defending the country against threats is apparently less important to him than avoiding a “neocon” policy. Paul’s mind seems closed to the concepts of trade-offs or practicality; he must follow his ideology to its logical outcomes, regardless of the consequences.

Whatever his merits on a few issues, this is a committed conspiracy theorist and a hard-core ideologue determined not to let facts shape his beliefs, but to make his beliefs shape the facts—in other words, the very opposite of a true conservative. He should not be allowed anywhere near the White House, and any further flirtation with him is extremely dangerous.

Whiz Kids Write Occupy Opera

2012-01-05T09:00:00.002-05:00

It used to be said that if you had an infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of typewriters, one of them would write the complete works of Shakespeare. The formula has changed a bit. In one school, it has been proven that if you have a limited number of eight year olds and a limited number of word processors, some of them will write a song about the Wall Street Occupiers.

Third-graders are getting smarter. They apparently read Marx, believe in class warfare, and compose songs about greedy rich people. “Fun With Dick And Jane” has become “Fun With Karl and Mao.” These little rabid egalitarians also have the musical talents of the young Mozart. Or maybe Rogers and Hammerstein. Could your eight year old hold a tune or remember the words to any song more complicated than Merrily We Roll Along, let alone write an entire screed set to music? Then you don’t live in Albermarle County, Virginia. The little geniuses there wrote the following song, entitled “Part of the 99:”

Some people have it all
But they still don’t think they have enough
They want more money
A faster ride
They’re not content
Never satisfied
Yes — they’re the 1 percent

I used to be one of the 1 percent
I worked all the time
Never saw my family
Couldn’t make life rhyme
Then the bubble burst
It really, really hurt
I lost my money
Lost my pride
Lost my home
Now I’m part of the 99

I used to be sad, now I’m satisfied
’Cause I really have enough
Though I lost my yacht and plane
Didn’t need that extra stuff
Could have been much worse
You don’t need to be first
’Cause I’ve got my friends
Here by my side
Don’t need it all
I’m so happy to be part of the 99.

A few grouchy parents and some local taxpayers have actually suggested that the song violates the school district policy forbidding political statements at school programs. Some others have even had the nerve to suggest that songs like that are not written by eight year olds. But the program at Woodbrook Elementary School went forward anyway. As school spokesman Phil Giaramita says: “We don’t really censor the topics that students come up with. This is the first time we’ve had the lyrics of one of these songs criticized.” As we say in the law, “I guess that’s dispositive.”

The school district, the school principal, and the teacher/advisors all tell us the same thing. The kids wrote it. It has no political message. And we don’t censor what the kids write. Now I can’t help wondering what they would say if the eight year old kids had composed a song entitled Jesus Was A Capitalist complete with music to rival George Gershwin.

Giaramita went on to say “Kids aren’t told what to write and you would be surprised or amazed at how creative and how thoughtful children even at that age are.” Ya got that right! I think “astonished and disbelieving” might be even more descriptive of my reaction. I have three kids and eight grandkids, all very bright and creative. Even if they had been brainwashed into thinking that rich people are evil, they still couldn’t have written this kind of propaganda at eight years of age. They were more likely to misremember the tune and words of If I Were A Rich Man from Fiddler On The Roof.

According to the school authorities, the song was actually written four months earlier when the Occupy movement was still getting good press and there hadn’t been any rapes, robberies or murders yet. I think that is somehow supposed to explain why the song is non-political and capable of being written by eight year olds. Color me doubtful. If the song celebrated the second coming of Christ, I would still wonder how it was written by third-graders.

The school does say that “the boys and girls worked with a facilitator to come up with a theme, tune and lyrics for a song.” That must be one hellacious facilitator. I’m picturing it right now. Facilitator: “Hi, kids! You’re going to write a song today about things that you think about every day. What would you like to do?” Kids: “We want to raise the consciousness of the community about the disparity between the lives of the robber barons and the desperation of the proletariat. We want to tell our community that we march in solidarity with the 99% of Americans who are forced to live like Neanderthals while the 1% live in their mansions and on their yachts on their dividends earned over the backs of poor women and minorities. We also want to make sure that the tune includes at least two semi-hemi-demi-quavers in order to emphasize the leitmotif of the non-political words.”

Once having thought that over, I see the school’s point. I’m sure you feel the same way. I just can’t wait to hear the song they’re writing about the glorious new Supreme Leader, Kim Jong- Un.

The Power of Clichés

2012-01-04T16:00:00.002-05:00

They say the eyes are the window of the soul. They also warn us there be monsters in a film. Monsters like the Cheese Burglar!

Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms

The Economist: Religious Jews Are The Real Evil

2012-01-04T09:00:00.000-05:00

Sometimes The Economist has to be read to be believed. In December, The Economist began worrying for the first time that things weren’t going right in Egypt because “inexplicably” some religious types were winning the elections. How bad are these religious types? Almost as bad as ultra-Orthodox Jews. . . the worst of the worst.

When the Arab Spring hit Egypt, there were plenty of reasons to hope the country would move in the right direction. Egypt had a history of religious tolerance before the modern era. The country is relatively modern. The country has a huge Christian population who would presumably be a moderating force. The Army was definitely a moderating force. And the Muslim Brotherhood has publicly forsworn violence and any intention of imposing strict Sharia law on the people. It seemed very possible Egypt could become a Turkish-style moderate-Islamic democracy.

But there were also plenty of reasons to believe things would go wrong. The Muslim Brotherhood’s political history is more radical than they admit. Islam would not see subjugating a Christian population as much of a moral dilemma, see e.g. anywhere in the Middle East, Sudan, Ethiopia, Nigeria, etc. And there is another group, the Salafists, who are openly pushing for a Taliban-like puritanical interpretation of Islam to become the law of the land.

People with brains saw the potential for good in this and the potential for bad, and they waited to see how the middle class and youth would respond. Idiots, i.e. liberals like The Economist, saw only the good parts.

With the first round of the elections in the books, the bad appears to be winning. The Muslim Brotherhood have become the big winners with 46%. Even worse, the Salafists got 24%. The question now is whether the Brotherhood will team with the Salafists, which they originally promised they wouldn’t. That will decide Egypt’s future.

And now that things appear to be going wrong, liberals are shocked to discover there was ever a potential for bad. Who knew there were Muslims who really meant it when they said they want to stop women from driving, going to school, and fondling vegetables, when they said they want to murder Christians who won’t convert, and when they said they want to go to war with Israel? Who could have known this, whined The Economist when it confessed to being misled by all the Egyptian Facebook pages that seemed so hopeful and so liberal.

Anyway, The Economist is now trying to save face by equating the Salafists with ultra-orthodox Jews. Indeed, according to The Economist religious Jews are just like the Muslim Brotherhood and the ultra-orthodox are just like the Salafists. Let’s compare:

● Religious Jews are “carving out no-go areas for the authorities with their own legal and morality police.”
Yep, that’s just completely evil. It’s kind of like how it’s a death sentence for non-Muslims to be in places like Mecca and Medina and how Jews aren’t allowed in Saudi Arabia and how the Muslims in places like Sudan and Ethiopia slaughtered their Jewish and Christian neighbors. Yeah, those imaginary no-go areas are about as bad as it can get.
● Religious Jews are “using their power as parliamentary kingmakers [and] religious Jews are the state.”
Oh, so they’ve imposed Torah law and Rabbis select political leaders now? Oh wait, no, that still only happens in Muslim countries.
● “The hotter-headed religious soldiers boycott military pageants at which women perform,” . . . “Municipalities cancel concerts with female artists or insist that they fully cover their bodies and remove advertising of even modestly-clad women from streets and buses.” . . . and “Hillary Clinton recently said she was worried that women’s rights in Israel were being eroded.”
Wow, if Hillary says it, then it must true. Of course, boycotting parades and demanding that scantily-clad women be covered up isn’t quite the same as requiring women to wear veils head to toe, sentencing women to be stoned for having sexy eyes, attacking male doctors who try to help women, sentencing women to death for adultery or sorcery or being raped, allowing instant divorce by husbands, not letting women vote, hold office, drive, work, go to the same churches, go to school, etc. etc. But yeah, I TOTALLY see how you could equate these things.
● “In ultra-Orthodox suburbs of Tel Aviv, women, like their Saudi counterparts, do not drive.”
Of course, in Israel, it’s a choice. In Saudi Arabia, it’s a law and women drivers get a death sentence. Also, it’s not just Saudi Arabia. It’s all over the Gulf and spreading.
● “Religious Jews tend to be more dismissive of Arabs than their secular compatriots.”
Yep, that’s bad. There’s nothing worse than being dismissive. . . like how the left is dismissive of Christians. Of course, Muslims aren’t really dismissive of Jews so much as “murderous of.” Tomato... tomato I guess.
● “Polls suggest that a high percentage of religious Jews would deny non-Jews the vote.”
But they can vote. Show me a Muslim country where non-Muslims can vote? In fact, in several Muslim countries (e.g. Pakistan) being a Jew or Christian gets you a death sentence.

Oh, those evil Jews! Won’t someone rid us of their terror?!

This is shameful, but it’s also par for the course these days among liberal journalists for whom anti-Semitism and stupidity are tools of the trade. They casually mix anti-Semitism with their bizarre language of equivalency to come up with stunning comparisons like this, where a blood thirsty murderer can be equated to someone shushing you at a theater. Nice work Economist.

The Case For Romney

2012-01-03T16:00:00.008-05:00

Romney’s not a conservative. He’s hardly exciting or inspirational. He’s flopped around so much it’s just not possible to say what he really believes. But strangely, the more I think about it, he is the Republican candidate who would probably make the best President. Here’s my take on the strange case for Romney (since I can't have Cain.)

Let me start by pointing out that other conservatives are now making a case for Romney.

● Charles Krauthammer invokes the William Buckley rule: vote for the most conservative candidate who can win. He says that’s Romney.

● Ann Coulter argues Romney is the only candidate we can trust to both repeal ObamaCare and stop illegal immigration. Her point about ObamaCare is an “electability” argument, but her point on illegal immigration is solid. Only Romney and Bachmann actually oppose amnesty. The others claim to oppose amnesty, but really support it in hidden form. Some go even further. Perry wants to give illegals more rights than Americans. Newt wants to grant illegals all the rights of citizens without the name “citizen” and thereby hand the Democrats a double victory -- new voters through amnesty plus a political charge that Republicans want Hispanics to be second class citizens. Santorum actually opposes voluntary use of the e-Verify system because his Big Business friends want the system gone so they can hire cheap illegal labor.

My take is different. Not only do I believe Romney is most electable -- in fact, he may be the only electable candidate -- but I think Romney may turn out to be an excellent President, something I cannot say about the rest. Here’s why:

Most Electable

The electability case is simple. This election will be an referendum on Obama. And as such, Obama is doomed. No President has been so low in the polls so consistently for so long. This tells us the public has reached its verdict and will not change its mind. In 2010, we saw the result of this when the public punished Obama’s party with an historic thrashing. Even now, Democrats see the writing on the wall so clearly that people like Barney Frank and Ben Nelson are quitting before they get tossed out. The Democrats know they’re doomed.

The only thing that can save Obama would be if we pick a Republican who makes the race about themselves rather than a referendum on Obama. Egomaniacal loose-cannon Newt Gingrich, gay-baiting Rick Santorum or Michelle Bachmann, corrupt Bush-clone Perry, or the terrifying Ron Paul, would all make the race about themselves and the public would need to decide if it can trust these Republicans before it ever looks at Obama. That’s the only kind of race Obama can win because it distracts from his record. But Romney is mild, bland, and inoffensive. His background is competent and shows the right kind of experience. He isn’t someone the public will worry about. That leaves the election as a referendum on Obama’s record, and in that election, Obama goes down in an historic landslide. Thus, not only is Romney the most electable, he may be the only electable candidate on the Republican side.

The Best Potential President In The Bunch

But electability only goes you so far. The real question is, what kind of President would Romney make. In that regard, I’ve come to believe that for a very strange reason, Romney may end up being a really good President. Here’s the thing. Our two best Presidents in recent memory were Reagan and Clinton (after his disastrous start). What they had in common was a form of conservatism that just isn’t on display in any of the other candidates or in any of the recent Presidents. I think Romney has that.

The best way to explain what I mean is to first point out the problem with the other candidates: they all think they have magic bullets to fix the country. Santorum and Bachmann think they can fix America by ridding it of gays. Santorum now adds a new-found populism which mixes socialist ideas like favoring manufacturing with the middle-class-destroying policies of Big Business. Rick Perry thinks he can fix America by handing it over to his corporate donors. Huntsman thinks he can fix America by taking the partisanship out of politics. Newt thinks he’s God and can fix America by issuing grandiose ideas. And Paul thinks he can fix America by turning the clock back to an idealized 1776 that never was.

This is all destined to fail because it misunderstands why America and conservatism work. Genuine conservatism does not try to run an economy by fiat. It does not pick winners and losers and it does not look for magic policies to kickstart the country. Genuine conservatism recognizes that the government cannot fix America, only Americans can fix America. And Americans can only fix America if the government stops trying to organize the economy and lets people do their own things.

Reagan understood this. His goal in office was not to find some clever policy to spur something specific. His goal was to eliminate regulations and lower taxes and unleash the public to make their own choices. None of the candidates except Paul (who fails for other reasons) understand this because they aren’t genuine conservatives. . . they think they can tinker America to greatness by making its choices for it.

Unlike the others, I suspect Romney understands this. For one thing, Romney’s background as the hamstrung governor of a liberal state tells us that Romney knows the limitations of political power. Secondly, his business experience is critical. Since he didn’t just run a company, but was instead involved in buying failing companies and turning them around, he is familiar with the vagaries and uncertainties of the business world and the degree of latitude business needs to function. Those are exactly the kinds of lessons that underlie Reagan’s beliefs.

But even if Romney doesn’t get this, there’s another reason to suspect he would make an excellent President, and believe it or not, it’s his lack of principles. Clinton was an awful President when he first arrived. His people were far-left radicals who planned to remake America. The backlash against their hubris gave us the first Republican Congress in forever. That’s when an interesting thing happened. Clinton, who apparently had no values of his own, decided the best way to govern would be to stick his finger in the wind and do whatever the public wanted. Since the public was leaning right, Clinton ended up moving right and became one of the better Presidents in history because the public pushed him in the same direction Ronald Reagan had gone -- toward getting the government out of the way.

One of the concerns people have with Romney is that he lacks principle. This is true in a specific sense as he has been both liberal and conservative on almost every issues. But there is one overriding principle Romney does follow: he does what the public wants. Right now, the public is sending highly conservative, Reaganesque signals. Romney has adopted these and presents a platform that is easily the most conservative of any of the candidates. And there is good reason to believe he means it, because he thinks this is what the public wants and, thus, that is what he intends to deliver.

In other words, as strange as it may sound, Romney’s lack of principles may be what make him the most trustworthy candidate because he will do his best to please us, the public. And since the public is conservative in a Ronald Reagan sort of way, there is significant reason to believe Romney will adopt Reagan's principles. I don’t see that in any of the other candidates, each of whom seems more interested in legislating their own pet peeves.

That’s why I think Romney deserves support. Not only is he the most likely to beat Obama, who simply must be beaten for the sake of the country, but he also has the potential to become an excellent President. I understand the fear that a man without principles is unpredictable and that RINOs have too often lied about their views to sneak through the elections, but I think Romney is a different case because Romney isn’t a principled RINO who has adopted a conservative cloak, he’s a principle-less mirror who adopts whatever the public currently wants. And with the public channeling Reagan and Romney signaling that he understands that, I think he could well become a President in the conservative mold of a Reagan or the good-Bill Clinton years.

That’s my take on it. I guess we’ll see what Iowa thinks tonight?

Merry Mayhem From Santa

2012-01-03T09:00:00.002-05:00

Most of us got gifts and hugs and stockings filled with little treats for Christmas. A few got stockings filled with coal (Santa sometimes does carry out his threats about knowing when you've been naughty). One family got a really big surprise. Santa appeared at the door instead of coming down the chimney and murdered mom and her daughter.

Incidentally, four other relatives of various degrees were also murdered by Santa because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Collateral damage, if you will. Celebrate Christmas, open your gifts, get murdered in cold blood. ABC, NBC, CBS, Yahoo News, and most of the mainstream media reported the tragedy in Grapevine, Texas, describing Santa as "the estranged husband." Just another tragic domestic dispute. Most were careful to mention that the couple had split up, and they were having serious money problems.

But looking at the story behind the story, it quickly becomes apparent that this was yet another attempt by the politically-correct press to cover up what is becoming a common occurrence in America. Any lawyer practicing family law will tell you that domestic disputes are among the ugliest of events. But marital problems were the effect, not the cause of this mass murder. Those who read MSM reports or listen to TV talking heads were probably immediately suspicious when the real name of Santa was revealed--Aziz Yazdanpanah. But that's because we're all Islamophobic bigots, don't you know.

Yes, Christians, Jews, Buddhists and others have committed horrible family atrocities as well. But their religions don't mainstream murder, and when the name of the religion is invoked as the reason behind the killing, it's tolerated only among a fringe group of lunatics. Not so with a considerable portion of those who practice fundamentalist Islam. But to get that information from the MSM, you have to work very hard to find the obvious.

Islam in general and fundamentalist Islam in particular have a whole list of "crimes" which bring dishonor on the man's family sufficient to result in a "righteous execution." In this case, mom was a little too friendly with her non-Muslim neighbors, celebrated "pagan" festivals such as Christmas (but not Easter), and disagreed with the pater familias frequently and openly. As if this was not bad enough, the nineteen year old daughter was seriously dating a non-Muslim in direct violation of dad's orders.

Yazdanpanah is an Iranian immigrant, who believes not only in honor killing but also the apocalyptic "hidden imam" theology of his former countryman Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But you wouldn't know that from the vast majority of the MSM reports. They immediately and almost simultaneously dubbed him the "Santa Killer." It almost seemed as if they blamed Christmas itself for the murders. We've all heard the common and mistaken statement that more suicides take place during the Christmas season than any other time of year. Add a little financial hardship and love turned to hate, and you have another typical Christmas tragedy.

What you really have is the growth of a uniquely fundamentalist Islamic trend--honor killing in America. This one was only a slight change in form with no change in substance. Who wouldn't open the door for Santa on Christmas Day? This was just a way for the follower of strict sharia law to get past the civil restrictions which restrained him from getting anywhere near the rest of the family. Those MSM reports which even bothered to mention honor killings tangentially immediately stated (incorrectly) that this was a very rare event that has nothing to do with traditional Islamic belief.

But then these are the same reporters who couldn't connect the shouting of "Allahu akbar" and the mass murder of thirteen servicemen at Fort Hood with the religion of peace. Yet these same people will immediately identify the alleged religion of any other murderer, even if the killer does not practice that religion or claim a religious purpose in performing the murder(s). Remember that the MSM immediately identified Timothy McVeigh and the Norway mass murderer Anders Brevik as Christians, though in both cases the murderers had rejected Christianity.

My New Year's Revolution

2012-01-02T16:00:00.006-05:00

Campaign year 2012 is now officially upon us. As a conservative who deeply wants to send Barack Obama back to his job as a Chicago South Side community organizer, I have to look at the current Republican field with more than a little trepidation. By tomorrow, the Iowa vote will be in, and I'll know if I have even more reason to worry.

I haven’t been this excited about anything since my mom decided to give me a dose of cod liver oil. The “excitement factor” will play a big part in defeating the snake-oil salesman currently occupying the White House. I don’t subscribe to the idea that any Republican nominated can automatically beat him. I’m not even convinced that any of the current front-runners in the Republican Party can beat him. I’m just one person. But if someone as determined as I am to beat The One can’t get enthusiastic about the chances of the current field, I suspect there are millions more like me.

Now don’t get me wrong. I haven’t missed a vote since I came of age (which was 21 at that time). I have voted in every presidential election since 1968, sometimes twice, back when I was a Democrat (the statute of limitations has long since run out on that confession). But not everyone is a political junkie like me. And not everyone who feels as unenthusiastic as I do has that same track record of voting. Many vote simply because they are habitual party voters. A great many others vote because they see a clear and viable alternative to the incumbent. And a huge number of voters do so solely because there is a candidate they can actually get enthused about, thus overcoming the lethargy factor.

John Huntsman—cold oatmeal. Rick Perry—master malapropist. Ron Paul—crypto-anarchist. Newt Gingrich—idea-a-minuteman, a few of which might actually work. Michelle Bachmann—likeable opponent of “forced vaccination.” Herman Cain—gone with the wind. Gary Johnson—gone to the Libertarians (if they’ll have him). Rick Santorum—running for moralist-in-chief. Mitt Romney—here-we-go-again.

So here’s my New Year’s Revolution. Time for those who could actually generate excitement, beat Obama in debates, and appeal to thinking independents to get into the race. Aw, to hell with promises not to run. Part of the fun of being a politician is you can break promises that get in the way of the public good. At PajamasMedia, Zombie has even gone so far as to print up an Absolution Coupon—Good for One Broken Promise. It’s awfully late in the process for the excitement candidates to get into the race. But it’s not too late.

We'll probably have a good idea of what's going to happen in Iowa by the time this article posts. New Hampshire looks like a Romney victory. That only leaves forty-eight states (though many of those at this point would require a write-in candidate, if the state law even allows it). My list of top revolutionaries would include Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Allen West, Paul Ryan, and Chris Christie. Of these, I only have serious reservations about Christie, and I would still find him to be a candidate I could get behind with more enthusiasm than I could with any of the current candidates.

Clinton should have been an easy victory for Republicans in the reelection campaign, but it was Robert Dole’s turn, so we lost. Empty-suit Obama should have been an easy victory for us, but it was John McCain’s turn, so we lost. Socialist Obama should be an easy victory for us, but it looks like it’s Mitt Romney’s turn. God help us all. As I said earlier, I’ve never missed a vote. And I wouldn’t miss this one. I’d vote for Romney since voting for Obama would be a rejection of everything I’ve come to believe, and voting for a third-party candidate is a waste of a vote.

I’m not as worried about Republicans staying home on election day as I am about independents staying home. Independents are a major force these days, and without a party commitment and/or a strong Republican candidate to get enthused over, they might just sit this one out. In which case, Obama wins. If Romney had a strong, anti-statist platform and could generate excitement with his political record (and get past the Evangelical anti-Mormon sentiment), our chances would be a great deal better. He has the smarts, and he seems to be improving daily. Let's hope he has the will and the guts to do what needs to be done.

What I see with Romney versus Obama is a strong similarity to the Nixon-Kennedy election. Unlike most of my “revolutionaries,” Romney has as many similarities to Obama as he has differences. Big government doesn’t seem to bother him much. He doesn’t see the graduated income tax as a serious problem in itself, and only wants to tinker around the edges. In a very dangerous world, roiling with Islamic extremism, he doesn’t seem to have the fire-in-the-belly necessary to put America back in charge of the defense of the West.

Romney doesn’t seem to comprehend the difference between strategy and tactics, which will be a major factor in the upcoming presidential election. Instead of returning regularly to the strategic theme of smaller government, fewer taxes, fairer taxes, and cutting wasteful government spending, he talks about the tactical details. It is absolutely necessary to have a command of those tactics, and Romney does seem to have that.

But touting the details instead of promoting the basic concepts tends to put voters to sleep. I want to hear you tell me you will cut government and get the bureaucracies off our backs, and I’ll leave it to you to figure out how. In other words, when I ask you what time it is, don’t tell me how to make a watch. Which is part of why I see the Kennedy-Nixon similarity. Kennedy had bold concepts. Nixon said “me too.” I don’t want to hear Romney saying the kinds of things Nixon said. “I agree with Mr. Kennedy (Obama) on those issues. I only disagree on how we should implement them.” Romney (or whoever the candidate is) must present a clear alternative view of government, not merely seeming to say that he will do the same job, only better.

What I (and millions of others) want to hear is: “This administration has been leading us down the road to a socialist disaster. I disagree deeply and completely with Mr. Obama’s entire philosophy of government. There is no way that this President can modify his views to fit into even the most basic of American beliefs. Any politician who does not believe in American exceptionalism should not be living in the White House.”

I can see my list of revolutionaries saying just that. So come on you guys. Break that promise. We’ll forgive you. Help! And that’s my New Year’s Revolution. Wait a minute. It’s supposed to be a New Year’s Resolution? Oops. Never mind.

Welcome Back Peeps! :)

2012-01-02T09:00:00.007-05:00

Welcome back! We’ve missed you! Hopefully everyone had a nice Christmas?! Anyhoo, here’s a quick update on what you missed followed by a brief discussion of negative campaigning. This will all be on the year-end test...

Wha’d I Miss?

● The big news is that Ben Nelson (D) of Nebraska announced his retirement. This is great news for several reasons. First, I suspect Nelson had a solid chance of getting re-elected. Nelson was down in the polls, but polls this far out are unreliable because they are little more than a means of registering a protest. And come election time, people rarely look at the past but instead focus on the future. That’s where things like seniority, client services, and comfort level with candidates all come into play and Nelson scored well in those. Secondly, if Nelson had won, then the MSM narrative would have been that ObamaCare obviously wasn’t a problem with voters. This cuts that off.

● Speaking of ObamaCare, the Supremes have agreed to hear the ObamaCare case, and they’re giving it an unprecedented three hours for oral argument. Except in rare instances, each side normally gets 30 minutes.

● Still speaking of ObamaCare, there are more problems arising. Remember how the plan calls for subsidizing everyone’s healthcare? Well, it turns out the bill was written poorly and this may not be possible. Even the Obama people admit it will require a Congressional fix to solve this problem. That ain’t happening. So even if the Supremes don’t strike it down, ObamaCare may collapse under Obama/Reid’s incompetent drafting.

● Gingrich, Bachmann, Santorum and Perry all failed to get their names on the Virginia ballot. This shows a lack of seriousness as candidates which should alarm their supporters. Gingrich then doubled-down on stupid by blaming one of the people he hired to get signatures. Apparently, this individual submitted 1,200 fake signatures. . . like ACORN. But this shows Gingrich’s stupidity. First, everyone knows you hire people to cross-check the names against voter rolls. What competent candidate could let someone get away with making up 1,200 fake names? Secondly, Gingrich played too fast and loose with the rules by only giving himself about an 11% margin of error. This is stupid. Romney and Paul gave themselves 50% margins. In any event, Gingrich sued and apparently will be let on the ballot if he agrees to stop crying.

● Rick Perry also sued Virginia for not protecting him from his own stupidity. Nice conservative values there, Rick: when you don’t follow the rules and things don’t work out. . . sue. Perhaps a homosexual/teletubby conspiracy slipped Rick litigious pills? In any event, recent reports have his whining working and he too will be let on the ballot.

● American Idol Kelly Clarkson endorsed Ron Paul. While I would have preferred she picked a different Republican, I am thrilled that a young, single female in the pop music world would endorse a non-leftist.

● A new video has emerged of Gingrich praising RomneyCare when it was passed and saying it would lead to great things.

Negative Campaigning

Negative campaigning is a tricky thing. Almost everyone professes to hate negative campaigning and it’s pretty clear that truly negative campaigns backfire on the candidates who wage them. But on the other hand, negative ads do work.

In fact, negative ads can be so effective, that some blame them for bringing about the current cynical state of our politics. I understand the logic in this -- if everyone attacks everyone else, then everyone is brought down in the public’s estimation and there’s nothing positive to latch onto -- but I don’t actually buy this argument. I think the cynical state of our current politics is a reaction to the lack of clear ideological choice, deep-seated corruption in both parties, and Democrats and Republicans blatantly lying about their intentions.

But what constitutes a negative ad? The Economist just wrote a stupid little piece in which they “worried” (read: hoped to promote the idea) that the Republican candidates were becoming so negative that no one would support them in November. Interestingly, the ad they discuss is a Ron Paul ad about Gingrich which shows:

● Gingrich sitting with Pelosi “warning of the dangers of climate change”;
● Gingrich bragging about receiving “speaking fees of $60,000 a pop”; and
● A voiceover pointing out that “Gingrich once supported the individual health mandate.”

This is hardly “going negative.” These are legitimate policy questions. Does Gingrich or does he not support global warming legislation? He did before and he’s hazy on it now. That’s a pretty important issue. Gingrich claims to be an outsider, yet he’s bragging about his speaking fees at large corporate gatherings. Is it not valid to question who his supporters are? And how can Gingrich’s support for the central abuse of ObamaCare not be a policy issue? (Also, isn’t it funny that supporting a Democratic agenda is “going negative”?)

The reality is none of this is negative. Negative is false statements, distortions of records, and baseless smears hinting that someone is a racist, a harasser, a philanderer or a bigot. Negative is repeating isolated, context-less quotes from decades ago and pretending they represent a lifetime record. Negative is smearing a candidate’s family or invading their bedroom. Negative is suggesting Barry Goldwater is unstable and will start a nuclear war, suggesting Ronald Reagan is old and senile or that he cut a deal with the Iranians, and publishing fake rumors about affairs that never happened, spreading lies about military records, and springing stories about a drunk driving arrest 40 years prior. Negative is NOT pointing out that your opponent supports political policies with which you disagree.

I am not a believer in negative campaigning. I think it cheapens your victory and destroys your mandate, and positive candidates will always be better leaders. But I also think we need to stop calling the pointing out of policy disagreements negative campaigning. And we really need to stop letting the MSM spin any criticism of another candidate as negative just so they can drive the narrative that Republicans are all negative.

(P.S. Don't forget, Star Trek Tuesdays start tomorrow morning at the film site.... 9:00 AM, be there.)

Happy New Year

2011-12-30T09:00:00.001-05:00

With New Years Day happening sometime in the next thirty hours (give or take a smidge) and with the Christmas thread entering moderation as it's now more than seven days old, it's time to open a new open thread and wish everyone a Happy New Year.

Here's a sad thought: between Sunday and April 12 of this year, every single penny you earn will go to Uncle Sam and his 50 wards! You generous slave you!

Then until mid-May, you're working to pay your non-tax taxes like Social Security and Medicare, which Uncle Sam steals from Algore's lock box in the dead of night.

But after that, it's clear sailing! :)

Post your New Year’s Resolutions! I resolve to stop paying taxes.

Merry Christmas And Happy Hanukkah

2011-12-23T09:00:00.001-05:00

We at Commentarama want to wish everyone a wonderful holiday season. We will be taking the next week off (barring major breaking events) to be with our loved ones. We hope that all of you will be able to do the same. We invite you to add your holiday wishes, and during the hiatus, feel free to post anything you find interesting whether it relates to the holidays or not. Happy New Year, and we'll be back with you on January 2. Like Santa, we'll be watching you, and we'll know if you've been naughty or nice.

Merry Christmas Everybody

2011-12-22T16:00:00.006-05:00

As we inch ever closer to Christmas, it’s time to reflect on this past year and the coming year. More importantly though, it’s time to cheer everybody up before we start the annual Commentarama Christmas vacation. Read on. . . and smiles everyone, smiles.

Politically, 2011 was a bit of a dud. With a record number of conservatives hitting Washington, there were big hopes for change. But alas the Democrats still controlled the White House and the Senate and they stopped anything real from happening. But don’t despair! Change is coming.

● The Supreme Court looks likely to strike down ObamaCare.

● The voters will give the Republicans a huge majority in the Senate, which means undoing the Obama years can begin soon.

● Obama looks finished as President and his crappy ideology is in disgrace.

● Climategage I and II (electric boogaloo) have disgraced the enviro-socialist movement.

● Crying “racism” no longer has much power (if any) with the public.

● The corrupt unions are finished outside the government and now people are targeting the government unions too.

● The next wave of Republican leaders (Ryan, Rubio, West) are genuine conservatives and fighters to boot.

● MSM journalism has reached an all time low in the public’s perception and no longer controls the debate or the flow of information.

● MSNBC is failing.

● And we can look forward to more liberal on liberal sniping like this:
Matt Damon: “I’ve talked to a lot of people who worked for Obama at the grassroots level. One of them said to me, ‘Never again. I will never be fooled again by a politician.’ You know, a one-term president with some balls who actually got stuff done would have been, in the long run of the country, much better.”

Obama responds: “I’ve even let down my key core constituency: movie stars. Just the other day, Matt Damon – I love Matt Damon, love the guy – Matt Damon said he was disappointed in my performance. Well, Matt, I just saw The Adjustment Bureau, so – right back at-cha, buddy.”

Life is good too. We live in a time when we complain about our wants rather than our needs. Every day brings something new and wonderful from new medicines to new-found planets to new ways to hang out. And speaking of the internet, it just keeps getting better and better. It lets us communicate with long lost friends and people we’d never have met, we can buy anything, find anything, and it even entertains the heck out of us. Moreover, we are on the cusp of a truly free age as the internet is finally starting to give people ways around the roadblocks set up to keep the system in place. . . publishers, record companies, movie companies, retailers, even journalists have all lost their monopolies.

Blogging has been fun too. It’s often hard to tell why some people blog. Some do it for publicity, some are just narcissists. Some. . . I have no idea. I do it because I love the community we’ve created. I love hearing your thoughts and insights and humor. And you all have made 2011 great! Hopefully, 2012 will be just as great. Also, next year. . .

● Bev will be joining the CommentaramaFilms Debate series on Sunday mornings, so make sure you join us for those.

● CommentaramaFilms will be adding a regular Tuesday morning article -- Star Trek Tuesdays. Some of these will be political (the Politics of Trek series) and others will be Scott and I debating everything Star Trek. Tell your nerd friends!

● The Conservative Guide To Films should be finished by the end of summer and will be both in real book form and e-book form. I’ve even got an illustrator working on some cool pictures you’ll like.

So all in all, that’s not bad. And while sometimes things may seem a little depressing, don’t get down because we have much to be thankful for and even more to look forward to. Unless the Mayans are right, 2012 should be a pretty darn good year.

So Merry Christmas to everyone and let’s make it a great New Year!

.... and tell us anything you’re looking forward to below.

We'll Never Forget Ol' What's-His-Name

2011-12-22T09:00:00.004-05:00

I was shocked to hear that former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson is leaving the Republican primaries. Almost as shocked as I was to find out that he had been in the Republican primaries in the first place. He was not so much a dark horse as an invisible horse. He will leave the GOP and run as a candidate for the Libertarian Party. I wonder if they know about it yet.

Johnson was regularly excluded from the Republican candidate debates because he couldn't get enough apparent support to justify adding yet another unexciting candidate to the already-full panel. So Johnson decided to pick up his marbles and leave. The GOP's loss is the Libertarians' loss, er, gain. Johnson is the most exciting candidate to come along since John Huntsman.

Maybe the Republicans should have taken a little better look at Johnson before excluding him from the debates. Republicans harp on the idea of future presidents having some business experience. Johnson built businesses from the ground up. In 1976, he founded Big J Enterprises (a construction firm), starting with one employee--himself. He built the business rapidly, and within a few years landed a lucrative $38 million contract with Intel to build its adjunct facilities in New Mexico. He sold the company in 1999, at which point the company employed over 1,000 workers.

In 1994, largely self-funded with $500,000, Johnson entered politics. He ran against a popular Republican in the gubernatorial primary, and eked out a narrow victory. That was his last narrow win. He won the Republican nomination for governor, and defeated the Democratic incumbent by ten percent. In the next gubernatorial election, he ran against a Latino Democrat in a state with one of the largest Hispanic populations (percentage-wise) in the nation (40 percent). Again, he won by over ten percent. In fact, he was so popular in his first term that the New Mexico term-limits legislation (one term only) was modified to allow him to run for a second term.

Republicans want candidates with executive experience. Johnson has that experience in both the private and public sectors. But what about fiscal responsibility? During his first term alone, he vetoed 200 out of 424 spending bills, and gutted many others using his line-item veto. He kept his promise to reduce the state's budget by 10%. He attempted to cut taxes deeply, and succeeded in many of his fights with the Democrats in the legislature. Yet he also managed to increase spending on core subject education while fighting the good fight for school vouchers. When test scores improved only marginally with the public school expenditures, he went full-bore for the voucher program.

Among his accomplishments in office were shifting state Medicaid to an efficient "managed care" system, fired over 1200 public employees, set a record for budget vetoes, balanced the state budget for 6 out of 8 years, and left New Mexico with a $1 billion surplus. He was less successful with his school voucher program, but he never stopped trying. He vetoed or line-item vetoed nearly 2000 bills during his eight years in office, and of those, only two were overridden by the legislature.

His Libertarian side also showed during his two terms. He attempted to decriminalize and legalize marijuana use and distribution. He pointed out that half of New Mexico's law enforcement resources were devoted to drug-related offenses, and said that the problem should move from the criminal arena to the medical/social arena. That is a Libertarian stand, but one that was also supported by such notable conservatives as William F. Buckley.

In the 2000 elections, the Libertarian Party attempted to recruit him to run for president, but he demurred, saying that he was a lifelong committed Republican. Nevetheless, in 2008, he endorsed Ron Paul for the presidency, seemingly setting up his own status as a Republican/Libertarian. That now seems to have come to full fruition with his abandonment of the run for the Republican nomination in order to court the Libertarians.

This could get interesting (or not). There have been strong rumblings of a Ron Paul third-party run at the presidency on the Libertarian ticket. How Paul would treat a rival who previously endorsed him is entirely unknown at this point. In any event, it certainly raises the specter of a "spoiler" election in 2012. How badly that might hurt Republicans remains to be seen. For the time being, Paul has said he will not run on a third-party ticket because it might hurt his son's political future in the Senate.

In a third-party scenario, absent Ron Paul as a candidate, Johnson's is one of three candidate names proferred with name identification between 1% and 10%. Public Policy Polling puts him at 9%, as opposed to New York City liberal mayor Michael Bloomberg at 8% and Independent/Socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont. In the same poll sampling, without Johnson, Republican Mitt Romney beats Obama by 47% to 45%. With Johnson in the race, Romney beats Obama 43% to 41%.

At this early stage, I have no idea what to make of that. It's certainly well within the margin of error in what promises to be a much closer general election than most people think. New Mexico's five electoral college votes could determine the outcome, either giving Obama a victory or throwing the election into the House of Representatives, thereby giving the Republican the victory.

To add to the confusion, New Mexico is one of nine states (along with Illinois, Hawaii, New Jersey, California, Washington, Massachusetts, Washington DC, Vermont, and Maryland) which may enter into the "national popular vote" compact which gives its electoral college votes to the candidate who wins the most votes nationally even if a different candidate wins the popular vote in New Mexico. The bill passed the New Mexico House, but has been hung up in the Senate. The other nine states have already passed the bill in both houses and it has been signed by the respective governors.

Johnson's entry into the race as a third-party candidate may have an effect that is more apparent than real. Still, this will be a general election in which almost anything could happen, and small shifts in voter preferences could make for some wild results.

Uncle Sam: The Gift That Keeps On Giving

2011-12-21T16:00:00.007-05:00

Every year Tom Coburn puts out a list of the 100 most egregious examples of wasteful government spending. This year, he listed $6.5 billion worth. Let’s look at some of those. Then I’ll show you why our economy has stalled.

While $6.5 billion may sound like a lot, it really isn’t to a government that spends $3 trillion a year. Nevertheless, Coburn’s list is important because it shows our government’s attitude toward our money. And make no mistake, this is our money. When you go to work tomorrow, every hour you work, Uncle Sam is reaching into your pocket to fund these kinds of programs. What kinds of programs? Observe:

● $484,000 for a hippie-themed pizza restaurant in Arlington, Texas. This is part of a national chain called the Mellow Mushroom. Why are we giving money to a private business? And where is Commentarama’s grant dammit?!

● $764,825 to study the mobile phone and social media habits of college freshmen. Huh? Why should anyone pay for this? For one thing, we already know about their habits. Who needs this much money to study something you can look up for free on the net?!! And why does this require federal money at all?

● $136,555 to let a group of English teachers retrace Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales in England. W.T.F?!! Why are we paying for some a-holes’ vacations?!

● $175,587 to study how cocaine use affects the mating habits of quail. Yeah, you read that right. Cocaine + bird sex.... brought to you by you the taxpayer!

● A down payment of $130,987 on a million dollar study to determine whether “a dragon-shaped robot can enhance toddlers’ learning skills.” At least they’re not using cocaine this time. And wasn’t that a movie -- The Toddler With The Dragon Shaped Robot?

This stuff is mind-numbing. I don’t know if I should laugh or cry or sign myself up? I want a dragon or a federal-government supported pizza restaurant. Why can’t I have one? Heck, I'd even take a freezer full of blow-fed quail.

And this is just the tip of the largess iceberg. There’s money for a video game preservation center, salaries paid to dead employees, another bridge to nowhere, money to study online dating, money to pack butter, a Hawaiian chocolate festival, to build a magic museum, iPads for kindergarteners, and hundreds of billions of dollars to government employees who do nothing but grind the country to a halt.

I want my tax money back.

And while we’re talking about grinding the country to a halt, check this out. You know how regulations stall an economy just like higher taxes? Sure you do, unless you’re Paul Krugman.

Well guess who’s been burying the economy in regulation? According to George Mason University, the number of “economically significant” regulations being issued has been souring. An “economically significant” regulation, according to the government, is a regulation that imposes at least $100 million in annual costs on the economy. Clinton issued an average of 56 per year. “Conservative” George W. Bush issued on average 62 per year. And now his downgrade-ness is issuing on average 84 per year. Here’s a handy chart:

What this means it that during Clinton’s eight years, he added $44.8 billion in regulations to the economy. Bush added $49.6 billion. And Obama’s already added $25.2 billion in his first three years Add that up and we’re over $100 billion in new regulations in the past couple decades. If you’re a Keynesian, that’s half a trillion in damage to the economy every year. Using Krugman’s stimulus math, that means a loss of around six million jobs!

And keep in mind, these regulations actually cost well more than $100 million, we just don't know how much because that data isn’t available. These could well have been three, four or five times as expensive.

Also this is only the biggest regulations, this doesn’t count the thousands of regulations scored to stay just below the $100 million level. It’s likely those add up to way more than the numbers above. But let’s assume for the sake of argument those smaller regulations total another $100 billion. That’s another six million lost jobs for a total of twelve million lost jobs.

Now this may be purely coincidental, but you might remember that our economy is currently “missing” 15 million jobs over the past decade. Gee, I wonder where they went?

The Boiler Room Elves’ Top 5 Santa Films

2011-12-21T09:00:00.003-05:00

As Boiler Room Elves, we’re usually pretty busy around Christmas time. There are cookies to bake and the boilers need extra attention in winter. But we don’t go in for that whole making presents for free thing. We may be unionized, but we’re not communists. So when Bossman Andrew asked us to write about Santa, we told him we didn’t have the time. Then he showed us our contract. Grr. So here are our five favorite portrayals of Santa.

Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms

Anybody But These Guys: Our Broken System

2011-12-20T16:00:00.008-05:00

Two weeks ago, Newt Gingrich was cruising toward the nomination. His poll numbers were soaring and his advantage over Romney was growing. He became the inevitable candidate, and that was depressing. But then people actually started listening to him. Now Newt’s lead has collapsed and he’s headed in the other direction. Of course, that doesn’t help with the depression because none of the others are any better. Something is wrong with our system and I blame the media.

First, let us dispatch Newt.

There have been lots of signs Newt was in trouble. For one thing, there was the baggage he never managed to unload. It followed him everywhere. Then, when he started making his positions known -- things like amnesty for illegals and regulating global warming -- his upward moment stopped dead. Soon the nastiness reappeared and the crazy talk, and people were wondering if the old Gingrich was back. In truth he never left.

And that’s been the problem with Newt. The more you know, the more you fear the guy. Newt as nominee shoots from the hip and says stupid, offensive things. He comes across as nasty and is unpalatable to the independents we will need to win the election -- not because he’s a conservative, but because he’s nasty. Newt as President is even scarier. Newt thinks government can be used to remake society so long as the right people are doing the remaking. This is wrong. And with Newt’s ego over principle approach, it’s too dangerous to let him anywhere near the presidency.

The polls are reflecting this. Indeed, the last Gallop poll shows this:
In twelve days, Newt has gone from a 15% lead over Romney to a statistical tie and falling. Some Newt people claim this is only the result of negative ads being run by Ron Paul and Mitt Romney, but those ads are only being shown in Iowa. The truth is, Newt is poison and conservatives know it.

But if Newt is poison, then Romney is white bread -- substance free and bland. He’s no conservative and even if he was, he wouldn’t have the fiber to act on those principles. The rest are even worse. . . idiots and clowns with no understanding of conservatism, no grasp of what America means, and no ability to lead.

How did we get to this point? There has never been a better moment in time to get a genuine conservative elected, and yet there isn’t one in the race. Instead, we have fools and weirdoes. . . conservative pretenders. Why?

I blame the MSM first and foremost. They have turned the election process into a game show designed to find the very people who should never be trusted with power. They seek to destroy, not reveal. They see the candidates as targets to be attacked with phony narratives and dirt dug up from lying sources and then critique their responses. They attack the candidates’ families and harass their friends and business partners. They have turned the primary system into a non-lethal version of The Running Man and no one but megalomaniac scum would subject themselves to that process.

And as if that weren’t enough, the MSM ensure that only those without integrity can win. Indeed, to prevail in this contest, you must be prepared to slander and liable all around you and absolutely must be willing to promise the unpromisable and declare soundbite solutions to the questions that have plagued mankind for millennia. In other words, only the liars and the fools can thrive in this environment.

What’s worse, conservatives are to blame for falling for this. They should know better, yet they go along with it. They lap up all the crap the MSM produces and some even gleefully join this witch-hunt process in the hopes of destroying the competition to help their preferred candidates. It’s like sports fan praying for penalties on the other team rather than excellence from their own.

Candidates should win this process, not be the last man standing!!!

It is despicable that burger companies wage their wars for customers with infinitely more integrity than our politicians handle the electoral process.

Ug.

Sadly, I have no answer on how to fix this except to keep making the point and to hope that people listen. And maybe it’s time to consider serious electoral reform? Maybe it’s time to have all the primaries on one day to stop the endless horse race and pandering? Maybe it’s also time to let politicians sue the media for their tactics. . . no more reporting unsubstantiated rumors, no more stalking politicians’ kids? Maybe it’s also time to end the debates and replace them with interviews? Heck, even infomercials might be better.

What do you think?

Obama's 21st Century Navy

2011-12-20T09:00:00.006-05:00

Ever-vigilant about America's military power and the ecology, President Obama has rolled out his plans for the new energy-efficient Navy. Pictured is the brilliant innovation for battle cruisers and destroyers. Instead of using ecology-destroying fossil fuels, the new Navy has found a way to harness the wind.

They haven't quite figured out how to configure the wind-utilizer engines (aka "sails") on aircraft carriers, but just give them time and a few hundred billion taxpayer dollars. And if you think those wind-driven warships are brilliant, wait until you see the solar-powered versions. But until those ships are built, we'll have to make do with our present surface Navy. Still, this administration is not letting any grass grow under its feet in the area of green technology.

This past August, Obama announced his biofuel initiative for the military. It is budgeted at about $510 million over the next three years. He calls it an investment in the future. Of course, that's what he called Solyndra and LightSquared too. But let's not kick a dead horse. Congress has not yet funded this "investment" (read: taxpayer dollars thrown down another rathole). It's unlikely that it ever will. But that won't stop Obama.

Obama recently compared himself to Teddy Roosevelt, a fellow progressive. In 1907, Congress refused to fund a world tour of America's Great White Fleet. TR announced that he would send the fleet anyway--he had enough in his presidential contingency fund to get the fleet halfway around the world, and it would be up to Congress to get it home. Obama now wants to conduct the Navy's 2012 summer war exercises using the "Great Green Fleet" carrier strike force. Following in TR's footsteps, he has already made a deal with the Navy using $12 million in Defense Department procurement authority to purchase 450,000 gallons of biofuel.

Unlike those impure and un-green traditional fossil fuels, this fuel costs about $15 per gallon. It is the largest biofuel purchase in history, so you can imagine where most of the proposed $510 million will go if that "investment" is ever funded by Congress. Now this is an important military development. So who better than Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to make the first big public statement? Combining green-energy (?) with Obama's hurry-up play on the economy, Vilsack said: "This is not work we can afford to put off for another day."

The administration's idea of supporting the military during belt-tightening time is to spend $15 per gallon for biofuel that is questionably "green" in order not to spend $4 per gallon for the current JP-5 fuel. If Obama truly intends for the military to cut $1 trillion from their budgets over the next ten years, this is not an auspicious start. Paying nearly four times as much for fuel which may ultimately prove to be inefficient and more damaging to the environment than the old fuel is bad strategy. On top of that, the high cost of that fuel, in the midst of cutbacks, means less money for genuine military upgrades.

Now that I think of it, that is probably exactly what Obama intends.

A Gift of Christmas Light

2011-12-19T16:00:00.006-05:00

Buried in the thousand or so pages of the much-debated and much-delayed compromise spending bill was a small Christmas gift for most of us. The House passed the bill last Thursday, while the Senate voted favorably on Saturday. As the bill currently stands, the upcoming ban on good old-fashioned incandescent lights was overturned. The President is expected to sign the bill after bellyaching about it for awhile.

It seems that the light bulb will not be one of the points of contention when the next last-minute "government shutdown" spending bill comes up. It also seems that even a lot of Democrats hate that ghastly pall cast by the compact fluorescent bulbs, and few of them want to call a hazmat team if somebody drops one of the ugly little buggers.

Some of the newer conservative House members objected that the bill only funds the government through the end of the fiscal year, thereby once again kicking the budget can down the road. But at least that's one unnecessary crisis averted until September 30 of 2012. The Republicans gave up many of their proposed restrictions on government regulation and policy, but wouldn't budge on the light bulbs.

Not only is the ban on incandescents little more than ill thought-out green weenie nonsense, but its deeper meaning is another bureaucratic nanny-state interference with the market and the personal choices of millions upon millions of Americans. Although the issue wasn't as big and obvious as cap 'n tax and other leftist bureaucratic schemes, the issue of what kind of light bulb the American consumer should buy became a freedom of choice issue that doesn't involve taking an innocent human life.

Pro-incandescent bulb advocate Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas) led the original charge to end the ban with specific legislation. But his bill was defeated when it went to the Senate through parliamentary stalling by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid D-La La Land). Burgess has vowed that he will hold his troops together to retain the provision in any future Congressional action.

In order to be added as a rider to the bill firming up the spending budget, the bulb provision does not actually amend the 2007 law banning incandescents which was scheduled to occur in increments starting with 100 watt bulbs and eventually extending to all incandescents. What it does is effectively the same thing, only with an additional slap at the eco-wackos. The new provision prohibits the administration from spending a single dime on enforcing or in any manner carrying out the idiotic standards. Your house can now remain free of lightbulb mercury poisoning a little longer.

It's a shame the Republicans had to use trickery to get a common sense bill past the ecofreaks in the Senate. And in this case, it happened largely because the administration was getting heat about the Democratic Senate failing to act on the year-end spending bill which had not so long ago seemed to be hopelessly deadlocked. The Republicans had also attempted to add riders to cut back the administration's nuclear waste policy, "family planning" policy and environmental policy, but for multiple reasons (most of them good and logical) decided to defer those actions for a later time.

AP Top 10: Politicized News

2011-12-19T09:00:00.006-05:00

The AP has put out their Top 10 news stories of 2011. As usual, they’ve politicized the list and they aren’t good at separating the pointless from the significant. Here’s their list followed by a sneak peek at the top stories of 2012.

No. 1. The killing of Osama Bin Laden. Yawn. Let’s be honest. Osama meant nothing by this point. He wasn’t giving orders and he inspired no one. Subsequent events have shown his death changed nothing in the war on terror. I’m glad he’s dead, but he doesn’t belong atop this list.

No. 2. Japanese Disaster. Earthquake, tsunami, nuclear meltdown, 20,000 people dead, $218 billion in damage, 100,000 homeless. This one deserves to be on the list. It’s too bad so many Hollywood types thought this was a good time to crack racist anti-Japanese jokes.

No. 3. The Arab Spring. This one probably deserves to be the top story. Even The Economist is now worried that the thing “no one could have possibly foreseen” is happening, i.e. radical Islam taking power. Expect this one to cause a lot of carnage in the coming years.

No. 4. EU Crisis. Eh. Reality doesn’t quit. When you create a currency that anyone can print and you have no way to keep people from running up the bills, it’s only a matter of time before it all blows up. The real story would be if the Europeans learn anything from this.

No. 5. US Economy. Huh? They actually identify this as our economy growing and “unemployment rate finally dipping below 9 percent.” Don’t make me laugh. This recession will get worse before it gets better. Seasonal Christmas hiring won’t change that.

No. 6. Penn State Sex Abuse Scandal. If you care about Penn State, sure. But shouldn’t the bigger story be the recent arrests of Hollywood pedophiles? Oh that’s right, only some pedophiles are bad.

No. 7. Gadhafi Toppled. Wasn’t this part of the Arab Spring? Also, riddle me this: so what? Seriously, how does this change the world?

No. 8. Fiscal Showdowns In Congress. Kabuki theater at best.

No. 9. OWS. Morons crapping in the streets. More theater.

No. 10. Gabrielle Giffords Shot. Yeah, because this changed everything. Some crazed leftist shoots Giffords and the left blames Sarah Palin. The left calls for a “change in tone” while famous leftists joke about killing Palin and her family. Been there, done that.

Notice how they put this list together. First, they went liberal. Most of these are meant to aggrandize Lord Obama’s policies: Obama’s triumph over villains bin Laden and Gadhafi, Obama finally taming the economy, and the masses showing support for Obama through OWS. Several of the rest are meant to explain away Obama’s failures: the evil Congress that can’t fix the budget, the Japanese disaster that blasted our economy, and the murderous right-wing opposition that tried to kill Giffords and is determined to stop Obama. Of course, NONE of that is true, but truth doesn’t matter to leftist. They only care that it can be spun to make Obama look good or explain his failures. This is Obama’s campaign resume brought to you by the AP.

But even beyond helping Obama, look at the ludicrousness of this list. This entire list is aspirational, not based in reality. They hoped killing bin Laden would change the world. They hoped the Arab Spring and killing Gadhafi would bring peace to the Middle East. They hoped the Giffords shooting would end America’s love of guns. They hope the economy has turned around. They hope OWS finally means something.

And isn’t it interesting they ignored the elimination of “don’t ask, don’t tell”? I guess that didn’t turn out to be so popular with the public. They ignored the tornadoes across the Midwest and Southeast. Why? Because Obama never bothered to help those people because they don’t vote for him. They ignored Solyndra and MF Global and Fast and Furious. They ignored the Pelosi financial scandals and the retirements of dozens of Democrats. They ignored the attempt to force a union on Boeing. They ignored the left’s failure to recall Wisconsin Republicans. They ignored Climategate 2 and a bevy of global warming scandals. They ignored the courts striking down ObamaCare. . . something we were assured only lunatics could think would happen.

Gee, I wonder why?

Anyway, here’s a sneak peek at the top stories of 2012:

1. Tebow wins Super Bowl
2. Obama loses in landslide
3. Republicans capture 58 seats in the Senate
4. First case of cannibalism at OWS occurs in NYC
5. Egypt invades Libya
6. Mysterious explosion at Iranian nuclear plant
7. Germany quits the Euro
8. ????

John Kerry's Strange Associates

2011-12-18T16:00:00.003-05:00

Over the years, Sen. John Kerry has gotten his ideas of how the world works from people ranging from the Viet Cong to Alinsky radicals to Yale professors. Having pretty much successfully worked with his fellow Democrats on making the United States a social democratic government-dependent nation, over the past few years he has turned his attentions to foreign affairs.

Kerry is the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Currently he is basking in the warmth of the Arab Spring. Like his counterparts in the executive branch, Barack Obama, Kerry seeks advice from those who can be trusted to tell the truth. Like Obama and his White House free-speech meeting with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, Kerry has chosen to get his information on political developments in Egypt from the Freedom and Justice Party. The FJP is an arm of the Muslim brotherhood, which now (along with the even-more fundamentalist Salafists) controls about 70% of Egypt's legislative seats as of the most recent round of elections.

Let's face it. It would have been almost impossible for a man like Kerry to resist getting his advice from men who represent a party that has both "freedom" and "justice" in its name. So Kerry invited three honchos from the FJP to come to his Senate office. It's not as posh as the White House, but not bad. The three are Essam El-Erian, vice chairman of the FJP, Mohamed Saad Katani, Secretary-General of the FJP, and the big falafel, Mohamed Morsi, chairman of the FJP.

These men represent the best of Egyptian secular democracy (irony intended). Day-dreaming a western-style democracy in Egypt (and the Middle East) is a Democratic habit. Despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, back in February the Obama administration announced without even twitching that the Muslim Brotherhood is "largely secular." And Kerry has the quotes to prove it.

As for secularism, Katani agrees with the Salafists (really militant Islamists) that "Nobody dares oppose the application of Sharia law." El-Katani and El-Erian previously issued a joint statement saying: "If you want to know what principles guide our party, let me tell you: the principles of the Islamic Sharia law."

But there's still the "freedom and justice part," right? Says peaceful chairman Morsi: "Israel is a Zionist usurper that has been created by international terrorism and injustice. Israel must be destroyed and any nation that supports it is perpetrating genocide against the Palestinians." Kerry seemed entirely unruffled by that remark, unlike his reaction to Newt Gingrich referring to the Palestinians (correctly) as an "invented people."

Kerry's friendliness toward the Brotherhood was bolstered by an earlier statement from US Special Coordinator for Transitions in the Middle East William Taylor who had said that the US would be satisfied with a Brotherhood victory. Kerry's domestic partner at the meeting was Anne Patterson, US ambassador to Egypt.

Prior to the latest Egyptian elections, the Muslim Brotherhood had at least feigned a moderate stance toward secularism, democracy, and Israel. Since those elections the facade has begun to crumble. Even the liberal and Islamo-friendly The New Republic sensed there was something rotten in the state of Egypt. Correspondent Eric Trager conducted a series of interviews with FJP and Muslim Brotherhood leaders. He concluded: "Far from being moderate, these future leaders share a commitment to theocratic rule, complete with a limited view of civil liberties and an unmistakable antipathy for the West."

Kerry mustn't read TNR these days, or watch TV news stories about new outbreaks of anti-Christian violence and the storming of the Israeli embassy in Cairo. The Islamist masses have been considerably emboldened since their electoral victories. The FJP plans to follow strict Sharia law including, but not limited to, banning interest-bearing banking, banning alcohol, requiring women to wear clothing that covers everything but their faces (covering them will come later), and banning any speech which is critical of Islam or promotes in any way another religion. It's not clear whether they intend to make apostasy a capital offense, but leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood have made it clear they would like to.

Given all this, you might think that the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee might be a little cagey about whom he invites to his office and how far he would go to encourage them. Silly you. After the meetings, Kerry announced that he had learned just how good the intentions of the FJP are. In fact, they're so good, he first praised the "transparency and integrity" of the elections, then pledged his support for Egypt's new government. He also promised that he would do everything he could to get the International Monetary Fund to support the fledgling Islamist government (paid for largely out of the pockets of the US taxpayer).

The Great (film) Debates vol. 19

2011-12-18T09:00:00.003-05:00

A couple weeks ago we talked about our favorite James Bonds. But who would Bond be without a cool villain?

Who is your favorite James Bond villain?

Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms

How Did We Ever Live Without...

2011-12-17T16:00:00.008-05:00

Smoke signals, messenger on foot or horseback, telegraph, telephone, telex, facsimile machines, internet, cellphone, wireless internet, and smartphones. Did I leave anything out? Since 1837, we humans have been on the fast track in developing newer and faster ways to communicate over long distances. For thousands of years, we communicated between villages, towns, and continents in a matter of months, sometimes years. Families would learn about births, deaths, marriages, and world events only when someone happened through a village or town entrusted with information that may or may not ever reach the recipient.

Most information was exchanged verbally because mostly people did not know how to read or write. As more and more people learned to read and write, faster and more organized ways of exchanging information over long distances developed. With the discovery of electricity, we were off to the races. Expansion of the railroad and the accompanying telegraph brought communication between towns from months or years to weeks or days.

Then came the telephone. Suddenly, we could communicate in a matter of hours or minutes. Within a matter of 50 years, we have graduated to the internet, email, cellphones, wireless/mobile internet and smartphones. With all of this we have gone from communicating in minutes to mere seconds.

With each successive upgrade, it is hard to remember how we ever lived with only smoke signals. But, are we better off? Now that we can carry handheld instant communication devices in which we can share all of the most intimate details of our daily lives as they are happening to anyone in the world, do we communicate better or just faster? What do you think?

It’s a Wonderful(ly Capitalist) Life(!)

2011-12-16T16:00:00.004-05:00

by tryanmax

It’s a Wonderful Life, the quintessential tale of selflessness, gratitude, and the blessings of friends and family—traditional values all—is for many as much a holiday tradition as trimming the tree and baking cookies. So it may seem odd that Frank Capra’s beloved tale should be considered by many to be strongly anti-capitalist. Indeed, back in the HCUA days the FBI fingered the film in a memo entitled “Communist Infiltration of the Motion Picture Industry.” And just last year, Glenn Beck got into a back and forth with a progressive blogger over the issue.

Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms

Barack Obama And The Free Speech Folks

2011-12-16T09:00:00.002-05:00

Pictured are three "Friends of Obama" enforcers of free speech on loan from the United Nations. Following the UN Durbin conference on destroying racist Zionism and keeping women barefoot and pregnant, President Barack Hussein Obama invited the Organization of Islamic Cooperation ("OIC") to the White House to discuss implementation of the UN's resolution condemning religious intolerance.

It was vitally important that he do so. With growing Islamophobia in America, including the cold-blooded murder of thousands of Muslims for their religious beliefs in Rhode Island and the mass deportation of Muslims from Iowa, it has become a priority item with the Obama administration. Obama is barely holding the fort against the forces of evil in America. He has pleaded with Americans to reject voter ID since it discriminates against blacks, the poor, the lame, the meek, the mentally-defective, the young, and, oh yes, Muslims.

So what could be wrong with the administration's invite to the OIC? To start with, the organization hardly represents the pinnacle of free speech and religious tolerance. It is certainly not the only world religious organization. Its fifty-seven members don't represent even a majority of the United Nations membership. He invited the group to his palace because there are so many hurt feelings in the Muslim world over intolerance toward Islam. No other religion has ever even been spoken ill of, while Islam suffers daily from the brickbats of bigots and those who question the religion of peace.

The second reason for inviting the OIC is that Islamic rights at the UN are slipping away. For years they have been able to get resolutions passed against defamation of Islam, then defamation of religions, and then vilification of religions. As you can see, a conspiracy of Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists has slowly but surely been chipping away at Islam's status as sole sufferer.

The OIC couldn't even get "defamation of religions" passed as it was blocked by those religious oppressors at the Sixteenth Session of the UN Human Rights Commission back in March. They fared no better at the current Durban Conference. That might seem like a victory for the other side, but it ain't over 'til it's over. The OIC has informed Obama that they intend to reintroduce a specific resolution against defamation of religions as soon as feasible.

For now, they've settled for a less specific freedom of speech resolution, though as recently as August the Islamic News Agency (an arm of the OIC) said that the meeting at the White House would be about implementing the religious aspects of Resolution 16-18. That resolution purports to criminalize incitement of "imminent violence based on religions or belief." That sounds very similar to our very own "clear and present danger" test. But then the wording gets muddier in 16-20, sounding more like the plethora of European-style "hate statutes" that are also being enacted in the U.S. "We hereby condemn any advocacy of religious hatred against individuals that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence."

"Any advocacy." That wouldn't survive a Constitutional test in the United States. The expression is "vague and overbroad." What is advocacy? With the wording of this part of the resolution, criticism is easily elevated to the level of incitement. "I don't like the violent portions of the Koran" becomes "I don't like Muslims," becomes "Let's go out and kill Muslims." Even advocacy of violence is protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution. It is a long-established precedent that even advocating the overthrow of the government by force and violence is protected speech unless the threat is real and has a reasonable chance of being carried out immediately. This is why we can't censor communist drivel.

16-20 was just too much even for the American negotiators. The government, led by Obama and Hillary Clinton signed onto the resolution, but added a reservation to any attempt to enforce the provision relating to "advocacy." In a written statement that sounds a lot like "but we're only fooling," the US government clarified its position for the White House gathering: "The US will work with the UN and OIC in urging states (nations) to take effective measures as set forth in Resolution 16, consistent with their obligations under international human rights law, to address and combat such incidents." In other words, every nation should quash any advocacy or harsh language as it relates to religion (read: Islam).

What the OIC and the UN are doing with the assistance of The One is to bring in through the back door what it couldn't bring through the front. In fact, Hillary Clinton's State Department says the administration's cooperation is based on the need to denounce and criminalize offensive speech. That's even broader than "defamation of religions." Her department also says it is dedicated to upholding the God-given right to free expression. I don't know what logic classes they have at Yale, but I don't see any way those two concepts can be reconciled.

Of all the religious and/or political organizations he could have chosen to invite to the White House, Obama invited the representatives of nations which call any criticism of Islam blasphemy, punishable by sanctions up to death by beheading. Nations which almost casually murder Christians and Jews while burning down churches and synagogues. Nations which consider apostasy a capital offense. Nations whose populations have massive rallies declaring "free speech is the enemy of Islam." Nations whose people declare "all infidels who defame Islam must die."

Somehow I don't think that group is going to come up with any good contributions to freedom of speech, religion, or expression. But since that's an American First Amendment issue, and since Obama has never read the Constitution, it's understandable why he would invite the OIC. As for Resolution 16, all that has been done is scramble and soften the words of prior resolutions without making any substantive changes. Same crap, different package.

T-Rav's Sockpuppet Theater Presents: Children of the Corn 2!

2011-12-15T16:00:00.001-05:00

Because the last one worked so well, they're doing it again tonight! Live from Iowa, it's Children of the Corn 2: Pandering Boogaloo! Join us, tonight on Fox at 9:00 PM EST, casual dress, overalls preferred, B.Y.O.B. Farm subsidies for the first twenty people through the door!

Come one, come all....
... will Newt insult us all?
... will Romney say something memorable?
... will Ron Paul praise our new Iranian overlords?
... will Rick Perry shake the Teletubby?
... will anyone finally realize Santorum offers us utopia?
... will Bachmann don black-face to attract Cain's supporters?
... will Huntsman finally become a 2%er?

All this and more, tonight! Leave your thoughts below.

Time’s Person of the Year: The Idiot!

2011-12-15T09:00:00.004-05:00

When I first heard Time had chosen “The Idiot” as its person of the year, I couldn’t help but scratch my head! Actually, I’m joking, but only a little. Time has chosen “the protester” as the person of the year. Which protester? The OWS protester, the whiny Greek protester, and the Arab Spring protester. Laughable.

The Person of the Year Award is supposed to be about people who actually influence the world. I can see picking the Arab Spring protesters because they really have changed the world. They’ve brought down corrupt repressive regimes and could, I suppose, usher the Middle East along toward becoming a responsible part of the world where you don’t have to worry about being executed for sorcery or store clerks molesting your vegetables. COULD is of course the operative word as they could just as well end up ushering in a new set of repressive veggie loving regimes. It will probably be the latter, but who really cares?

But the Greeks? The only reason they’re protesting is because they ran up their credit cards and now the bill’s showed up in the mail and they don’t want to bear the consequences of their own actions. They’re just whiny, overextended debtors. Why in the world would anyone honor them?

And choosing the OWS protesters is ridiculous. What have these dipships achieved? All they’ve done so far is rape each other, murder each other, sell each other drugs, endanger their own children and act out Animal Farm without any costumes. They have brought about 0.0% change in the universe. Not only have their demands not been met, they haven’t even been considered. Nor have they inspired sympathy in the general public. To the contrary, their single achievement has been to provide amusement to conservative bloggers and to annoy the liberal citizens of liberal towns who wasted tax money making sure these idiots didn’t rape anyone beyond their imaginary borders. These turds were so ineffective, even the Democrats won’t go near them anymore.

What would Time Man of the Year alums Adolf Hitler (1938), Joseph Stalin (1939, 1942) and the Ayatollah Khomeini (1979) say about these fools joining their elite club?

Even more ironically, there WAS a protest movement that actually did change the world a couple years ago. It was called the Tea Party. But Time didn’t honor them. Apparently Time didn’t think that millions of Americans rising up against a corrupt American government was all that interesting. Instead it honored Ben Bernanke who gave us the Great Recession.

You know, I’m starting to see a pattern here. Clearly, you have to be an idiot to win this award. Apparently, I was right the first time. So in that vein, let’s nominate some people who deserve it:

I nominate Obama for trying to let the morning after abortion pill be sold over the counter to teenage pranksters and creepy boyfriends everywhere. Here honey, drink this.

Alternatively, I nominate Fosdick Corporation, the inventor of the Snuggie.

My Problem with Judd Apatow

2011-12-14T15:30:00.000-05:00

By ScottDS

Whenever the media does a story on today’s “Hollywood comedy renaissance,” one name continues to crop up: writer/producer/director Judd Apatow. While I’m a huge fan of his earlier work in TV (The Larry Sanders Show, The Critic, Freaks and Geeks, and Undeclared), his cinematic offerings leave me wanting. I don’t believe The 40-Year Old Virgin, Knocked Up, and Funny People deserve half the praise they’ve been given.

Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms

Dems: “Obama Sucks and It’s Bush’s Fault”

2011-12-14T09:00:00.005-05:00

California Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D), a Blue Dog Democrat known primarily for replacing murder suspect Gary Condit (D) in the House, has come out with an interesting article in which he blasts Obama as arrogant and alienating. He also blames everything on Bush. Dennis is retiring in 2012, so it’s perhaps not surprising he would finally work up a little courage to speak his mind about Obama. And what a little mind it is:

Dennis says Team Obama suffers from “idea disease.”

. . . because thinking is not considered a good thing in Democratic circles.

More specifically, Dennis thinks Obama “rolled out a new program for the country” almost every day, but then failed to prioritize or support these ideas. Thus, Obama could never develop a clear message because he kept stepping on his message each day.

. . . this is hard to believe since Obama really only rolled out five issues: Stimulus, ObamaCare, Cap’n Trade, Financial Reform, and gays in the military. Let’s see, divide 365 days by five programs. . . carry the one. . . yeah, not even close to “a new program almost every single day.”

Nevertheless, Dennis says this “tainted the president’s personal appeal.”

. . . right, because having ideas makes you unpopular.

It also made the Democrats feel like they were “drinking out of a firehose.”

. . . if five issues constitutes a firehose-like “blast” of water, then it’s no surprise that liberal cities like Chicago and San Francisco burned to the ground because their definition of “firehose” and mine are apparently very different.

This in turn made it easy for Republicans to block the agenda. Which they “did with relish!”

. . . it always comes back to the evil Republicans, doesn’t it? Oddly, the Republicans I remember were so far away from a majority in the House they couldn’t even introduce bills. And the Senate had a Democratic Supermajority that could do anything it wanted. Can Dennis really claim those powerless Republicans stopped the Democrats? Clearly, Dennis is at high-risk of being mugged by toddlers.

Oh, and the real problem for the Democrats was trying to fix the failures of the Bush administration.

. . . Dennis forgets the Democrats already controlled the House and Senate by 2006, so these were Democratic messes. Maybe he took too many hits off the firehose to remember?

Now we start making progress. Early in Obama’s presidency “Professor Obama” proved to be somewhat arrogant. “Obama projected an ‘I’m right, you’re wrong’ demeanor that alienated many potential allies.” How so? “He would admonish staff, members of the Congress and the public, in speeches and in private about what they could learn from him.”

. . . yep, that’s narcissism for ya. I have no doubt Dennis is right that Obama is an assh*le, but how should that alienate allies? Would allies really give up their goals just because Obama is an ass to them? And if the O-ssiah was such an ass, why the continued hero worship until 2010? This sounds like after-the-fact whining to me. There must be more to this?

“The president concentrated power within the White House, leaving Cabinet members with no other option but to dutifully carry out policies with which they had limited input in crafting and might very well disagree.”

. . . that’s it! Obama’s a dictator. I almost forgot. And Dennis doesn’t like having a dictator in the White House. Strange though, Democrats usually love dictators. . . FDR, LBJ, Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Saddam Hussein. But no love for the O? Must be racism because he is the only black guy on that list.

Dennis continues, “these areas have also been responsible for much of the president’s harshest critiques.”

. . . really? Who could have guessed that ideas forced on the public by a small cabal of arrogant narcissists would be the things the public likes the least? Perhaps the Democrats should rethink their platform, because that seems to be their governing philosophy.

“One former administration official told me directly that the people in the White House ‘NEVER TALK TO REAL PEOPLE.’”

. . . obnoxious use of all caps. Anyhoo, three points. First, that’s how narcissist roll, Dennis: they don’t care what other people think. Secondly, if they weren’t talking to real people, were they talking to imitations? Is this something I should be worried about? Third, of course they weren’t talking to normal people because normal people tend to object to abject stupidity. If you want to do something truly stupid no matter how many people will object, then you purposely keep normal people out of the loop until after you’ve intercoursed the canine.

One Obama staffer “confided” in Dennis that Obama doesn’t mind giving speeches, but he just doesn’t like people: he “avoided personal contact with members of Congress and folks outside the Beltway” and he “avoids individual contact.”

. . . hey, who doesn’t? This is not news, Dennis. Anyone who wasn’t drinking Obama’s urine (yeah, that’s where the Kool-Aid came from) knew this guy was an unlikable bastard who hated people. And besides, he thinks he’s royalty, and royalty don’t mingle with us peasants. . . we stink on ice. Did you really not see this, Dennis?!

A TOP housing official (one of those guys who knows where the Ark of the Covenant is stored) told Dennis that despite the fact Obama “was responsible for crafting policies to stem the foreclosure crisis, he had personally never met with a homeowner who had been foreclosed on.”

. . . hmm. I’m of two minds on this one. First, this is pathetic logic. How can meeting a homeowner help? Policies require input on a statistically significant scale. Meeting one homeowner or two or even a 100 just isn’t relevant. This complaint is like saying “Obama tried to explain football without ever having met a football player.” That’s nonsense. Secondly, I don’t believe for a minute that Obama came up with any policy. The guy can barely read and there’s no way he could come up with a coherent polic. . . ah. Never mind, I stand corrected.

Finally, Obama is a horrible campaigner. He went to some must-win state and only told the local Senator about it the day before, causing this outburst: “He was totally off-message for what my people wanted to hear. Doesn’t the White House get it? I don’t need him, he needs ME!”

. . . well, no, they don’t get it. Obama thinks he’s king of the world and you idiots who can’t handle five bills a year are weighing him down. Also, I hate to break this to you, but telling people what they want to hear is what got you into this problem in the first place. Just sayin’.

Dennis thinks Obama still has time to improve his performance before November. But what are the odds Obama even can improve his performance? Pretty low. Yesterday David Axelrod spoke about Newt’s monkey-butt. Debbie Whatshername-Schultz denied reality. Obama fundraiser Jon Corzine perjured himself before Congress. And Obama spent the weekend whining that he “sure done wished he knew how bad the economy was before he took over.” Yeah, that’ll help.

Kagan Sets Up The Sucker Punch

2011-12-13T16:00:00.005-05:00

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan has recused herself from the upcoming appeal of the State of Arizona challenging the ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which struck down the major enforcement provisions of Arizona's tough immigration enforcement law. She has done the right and ethical thing.

Simply put, Arizona's law included among other things a provision that during the course of a lawful stop or arrest, the police officer could inquire into the individual's immigration status if he had a reasonable suspicion that the person was in the country illegally. The police could then hold the suspect pending determination of his immigration status. If the person turned out to be in the United States illegally, the Arizona authorities would then turn the suspect over to the federal immigration authorities. The Obama administration successfully took Arizona to court, claiming that this was unconstitutional interference with the federal government's sole authority over immigration.

Arizona argued unsuccessfully that it had a compelling state interest in protecting its lawful citizens, and that the new law merely provided a means by which the federal authorities could be made aware of an illegal immigrant by use of ordinary and established state and local police procedures. The law did seem to grant power to the state to establish its own rules on immigration, and did provide for certain non-investigatory detention beyond the initial inquiry into the person's immigration status. The law did not allow or require the state to take any further action against the detainee such as deporting him from the United States, but there were some criminal sanctions for being present in Arizona illegally. Arizona argued that its law merely reported illegal immigration, while the Obama administration argued that it regulated immigration, a solely federal prerogative.

The law does make it a crime for an undocumented worker to be present in the state. And the law makes it a crime to fail to register with the federal government or attempt to take work or hold a job without government authorization. Unlike the "reasonable suspicion" provision, these provisions do seem to skate very close to the edge of federal supremacy. In any event, all the provisions mentioned were stricken by the federal judge, and his ruling was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. It will be up to the Supreme Court to sort these provisions out.

A federal judge and ultimately the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found against Arizona. Arizona appealed, and the US Supreme Court has now granted certiorari (agreed to hear the case). Justice Kagan immediately recused herself and made a public statement as to why she was doing so. As a senior attorney at the Justice Department (Solicitor General), she had played a major role in the early litigation against the Arizona law. Good for her. She did the right thing. Why she did the right thing may yet turn out not to be quite so honorable.

Caution: What follows is comprised largely of my opinions about anyone or anything having to do with the Obama administration, combined with a healthy dollop of paranoia and suspicion. I'm not stating anything except the jurisdictional matters as fact, and if this turns out to be a debate over Kagan's intentions versus my wariness, that would be a good thing.

I'm sure that every one of you is sophisticated enough to know that the state challenges to Obamacare will be wending their way to the Supreme Court. Different appellate districts have made diametrically opposite decisions, and it's up to the Supreme Court to resolve them. Mounting evidence shows that Justice Kagan was deeply involved in the preparation and final versions of Obamacare while she was Obama's Solicitor General. In fact, within just a few days before the passage of Obamacare, Kagan wrote to the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel that a lawsuit was being prepared to block the House from "deeming" the measure passed by a quirky procedural rule if it didn't get enough votes. She not only alerted them, but made suggestions as to how to defend against the lawsuit.

She even went so far as to alert the Office of Legal Counsel of all the arguments which were being prepared against the procedural trick (by a former Tenth Circuit US Appeals Court judge who is now Director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford University). During her confirmation proceedings, Kagan was asked for a written response to the following question posed by the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee:

"Have you ever been asked about your opinion or offered any view or comments on the underlying or constitutional issues related to any proposed health care legislation, including, but not limited to Pub. L No. 111-148 PPACA (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) or the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to potential litigation resulting from such legislation?" Kagan answered "no."

Kagan's early opinions of the efficacy of socialized medicine offered as a professor of law at Harvard (pictured) would not automatically require her to recuse herself from considering the Obamacare cases at the Supreme Court. Every professor of law (except possibly Barack Obama) has legal opinions. They'd be pretty dumb if they didn't. Most prominent law professors have written law review articles (again, except Barack Obama, editor of the Harvard Law Review). Those articles frequently go against current prevailing law. But those opinions are largely political abstract law in nature until they start coming down from the bench. So her early legal career was important to the process, but not necessarily to her ultimate confirmation.

So where am I going with this? From everything I've seen and read, Kagan's involvement in Obamacare was at least as deep as her involvement in the Arizona statute controversy and litigation. Her self-recusal from the Arizona case leads me to think that doing the right thing in that case was a red herring, designed to draw attention away from Kagan's personal views and actual involvement in the preparation of the Obamacare legislation.

She, her liberal Democratic friends and their errand boys in the mainstream media can now point out how upright, honest and ethical she is about not hearing cases in which she has been personally and professionally involved. When she refuses to recuse herself from the Obamacare decision, as I expect she will, they can all say "why look, she recused herself in the Arizona case, so if she doesn't recuse herself here, it's because her hands are clean and she is justified in hearing the matter."

Along with her "recusal credentials" she is likely to claim that if she has to recuse herself, the same should be required of Justice Clarence Thomas. Well, hooey. Thomas had no personal or professional involvement in passing or litigating Obamacare. His wife is an ardent anti-socialized medicine advocate. So what? She's not sitting on the bench, he is. And unlike Obama, Thomas does not allow his wife to make his decisions for him. Double red herring.

Maybe I'm just getting old and cynical. But I suspect Kagan's self-recusal in the Arizona case is even more cynical. Sorry, folks, I just don't trust their phony good intentions. So, what do you think?