Wednesday, October 12, 2011

Yet Another Debate Wrap Up

Last night saw yet another fascinating Republican debate. Most of the attacks were on Cain or Romney. Perry attacked Romney as did Bachmann. Paul and Santorum attacked Cain. Huntsman focused on Perry. Gingrich focused on the Fed. Romney focused on Obama. Cain focused on his own plans. And the moderators attacked Romney, Cain and Perry. In the end, I think Cain was a huge winner, even though that may not be immediately apparent, and the race is now between Romney and Cain.

Cain: Cain needed to show he could take the pressure of being number two. He did. At no point did he fall flat on his face or lack for answers. His two worst moments came:
● When a moderator asked why he told the unemployed it was their own fault they didn't have jobs. This mischaracterized Cain’s comment, which was aimed at the idiots squatting on Wall Street, but it still sounded bad and his explanation wasn’t particularly strong.

● When Ron Paul attacked him for being on the Kansas City Fed, Cain gave an ok (not great) answer that the Fed didn’t act then like it does now. That won’t satisfy Fed-deniers.
Cain defended other attacks quite nicely, such as:
● When a moderator attacked Cain’s 9-9-9 plan for raising only $2 trillion in revenues instead of the $2.2 trillion claimed, Cain shot back with one of the best lines of the night: “The problem with that analysis is that it’s incorrect.”

● When a moderator attacked Cain’s 9-9-9 plan for being “regressive” and making “food and milk and beer” more expensive, Cain made the solid point that eliminating the payroll tax would more than offset that. I like that he didn't apologize for imposing a “regressive” tax.

● When Romney attacked Cain’s 9-9-9 plan for being too simple and claiming simple is not good, Cain turned this on Romney by asking him if he knows all 59 points in his own plan. Romney didn’t and instead came up with the “7 pillars” of his plan and thereby proved that simple is better.

● Several of the underlings jumped on the idea Cain’s 9-9-9 plan would give Congress a new source of revenue by creating a national sale tax, but this only emphasized how deeply entrenched in the system their mindsets are. Following their logic, we shouldn't try anything.
Cain had a brilliant line too: “The capital gains tax is a wall that stands between people with ideas and people with money.”

Cain didn’t blow anybody away, but he did show solid skills and he proved he won't trip himself up. He also did such a masterful job of selling his 9-9-9 plan that every other candidate talked about it constantly, as did the moderators, and it even came up in questions that didn’t involve him. He made his 9-9-9 plan THE take away from this debate and that will prove to be a huge win, even if it isn’t immediately obvious.

Romney: Romney just needed to be smooth and for the most part he succeeded. BUT the problem with Romney was on full display again last night. He would say something great and then he would keep talking until he backtracked out of it. He also imploded during the TARP question because he danced so long around whether he would do another Wall Street bailout that it became clear not only that he would do another bailout, but it was also clear he was trying to lie to us.

Newt also had a solid hit on Romney by pointing out that “on page 47” of his plan (a slap at Romney’s inability to describe his 59 point plan) Romney plays into Obama’s class warfare argument by promising capital gains tax cuts “to people who don’t have capital gains.” Romney missed Newt’s point and tried to defend this by saying he favors the middle class because the rich can take care of themselves. . . conceding Obama's case.

In the plus category, Perry took a shot at Romney over RomneyCare being like ObamaCare, but Romney’s defense was even better this time than last: (1) we didn’t raise taxes like Obama does, (2) we only insured poor people, we didn’t try to force everyone onto it, (3) this is a state issue, and (4) Massholes like the system 3-1. Whether those are true points or not, they remained un-refuted and made this a dead issue.

Romney also had a great shot at Perry, Bachmann and Huntsman when he said, “I would not be in this race if I had spent my whole life in government.” He then detailed some of the companies he founded.

Perry: Perry really needed to shine to stop his nosedive. He failed. He barely spoke last night and when he did it was all generic. In particular, he mishandled his pending economic plan. He didn’t seem to know what’s in it and he just kept promising that he would release it soon as if he didn’t want to spoil the surprise. When it was pointed out that he should be able to tell us what’s in it, he responded with a very bad answer, claiming he’d only had eight weeks to work on it, whereas Romney’s had six years. Frankly a candidate who understands what they believe can detail an economic plan off the top of their head.

The moderators also smacked Perry by saying that the way Texas develops business is similar to Solyndra. Perry’s response was basically “everybody’s doin’ it,” which will only add more fire to the cronyism charge.

Paul: Ron Paul had another bad debate. He had little to say as Newt stole his thunder. When he spoke, he made good points, but they weren’t memorable.

Gingrich: Newt was the most interesting last night. He repeatedly tried to win over Paul supporters with angry broadside attacks on Ben Bernanke and the Fed, and he tried to win over Palin supporters by defending her even though no one else had mentioned her. Neither group are traditionally Newt people, so he’s clearly trying to branch out. Paul seemed a little stunned by this.

Santorum: Santorum needs to go. He kept interrupting and he bizarrely continues to paint himself as an outsider. He also did things like blast everyone at the table as insiders and then (in the same sentence) attacked Cain for his lack of experience. Huh? Also, after blasting all the horrible insiders, he bragged how his years as an insider would let him pass his plan. . . whatever that plan actually is. Then he said he wanted to go to war with China, though I think he meant he wanted to fight a trade war, which isn’t much smarter. And his economic plan seems to be to make people get married.

Bachmann: Bachmann and Santorum came across as lifer politicians with bland platitudes and repeatedly using candidate speak, e.g. “I just spoke to a man who told me blah blah blah.” This is something annoying people do when they've been in politics too long. Bachmann also needs to stop telling us she has 5 biological kids and 24 foster kids and that she was an attorney for the I.R.S. It's become like Al Bundy talking about scoring 4 touchdowns in one game.

Bachmann's attack on Cain's plan also struck me as a negative. She said if you turn Cain’s 9-9-9 plan around, “the devil is in the details.” Ha ha ha. First, that's trite and she has no comedic timing. Secondly, how does that make sense? The beauty of Cain’s plan is the lack of hidden details, it’s the tinker-with-the-current-system advocates who are playing with details. Third, what does she know of details as her “plan” (a term I use loosely) has none -- it's pure platitude. She should join Santorum on the short bus back home.

Huntsman: Huntsman remains a sniveling jerk. He takes hypocritical cheap shots and radiates smugness, and he continues to adopt Democratic rhetoric to attack the candidates. Last night he said Cain’s 9-9-9 plan sounded like a pizza price, which is a standard attack you’ll find in the leftist blog world.

Speculation: Finally, there was more evidence for my theory that Cain and Romney have a deal. Cain inexplicable bailed Romney out on TARP and then while seemingly criticizing Romney in the direct question section actually gave Romney an open platform to discuss his economic plan. Romney then used his question against Bachmann, when tactically, he should have blasted Cain. My guess is Cain doesn’t think he’ll win, so he’s agreed he will eventually bow out and endorse Romney in exchange for becoming the VP.

Thanks to everyone who participated last night and thanks to T-Rav and his sockpuppets!

[+] Read More...

Tuesday, October 11, 2011

T-Rav's Sockpuppet Theater Presents: That's Debatable


It's time for the next Republican Debate. . . who you got?

If you don't have Bloomberg, you can see it here online: WashPo Republican Debate or here (Bloomberg) if you prefer.


(Brought to you by the Happy Bunny Munitions Company bringing you quality explosions since 1907. If it doesn't say Happy Bunny, it might not explode!)

[+] Read More...

Tuesday Night At The Debates!!

In case you haven’t heard, there’s another Republican debate tonight -- 7:00 pm EST, on BloombergTV. So watch for periodic interruptions from Hugo Chavez Bloomberg himself as he tries to declare himself President. Tonight’s debate will be in New Hamster and could be fairly interesting. This will be Cain’s first test as the field’s punching bag. Perry needs to prove he’s not finished. Romney needs to find Waldo. And the rest need to find graceful exit strategies. Join us here for a play by play. . . join us.. In the meantime, here’s an update on recent events and some bad boxing nicknames:

● Mitt "the Rambler" Romney: Romney has been mocking Obama for creating a “Where’s Waldo economy” in which “finding a good paying job in this economy is harder than finding Waldo in one of his books.” This is of course a horrible analogy made about a book that hasn’t been culturally relevant in 15 years. Nice work Romney. . . way to show us groovy cats that you’re the bees knees.

At the Citadel, he gave a foreign policy speech in which said: “This century must be an American Century.”.... which is a mutual fund. After that it got a little confusing. He has four principles that he claims he will follow in foreign policy, but these were extremely generic. He will use American power with clarity and resolve to support our friends and promote capitalism. He intends to be a leader in multinational organizations, and he wants a strong military. You tell me what that means.

● The Herminator: Cain continues to surge in the polls. Most national polls have him in second place and climbing, though a couple had him in first place. Two separate polls released this week have him moving into second place in liberal New Hampshire: Romney 38%, Cain 20%, Paul 13%, Perry 4%. This will make Cain the candidate all the other conservative will shoot at, just as they attacked Perry before him. How he handles the heat could well determined his future. A failure tonight would likely stop his momentum dead and kill his candidacy.

Meanwhile, in establishment land, The Washington Post is trying to mock him as the “flavor of the month” and scoffs that “conservatives will tire of him at some point and once again search for the next big thing.” Thus proving that the Post is indeed clueless about conservatives. We are looking for a good candidate, we don't have ADD like liberals do.

It also scoffs that Cain can't fool the Post about his lack of foreign policy experience and it notes that candidates who don’t know foreign policy always fail. . . assuming you ignore Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush II and Obama, each of whom had squat in the way of foreign policy experience when they took over.

● Texas Trainwreck Rick Perry: Most pundits are saying Perry needs to win big tonight or he’s finished. For his part, Perry is taking this debate very seriously. He has reportedly been practicing against a stand-in for Romney. . . who did indeed dress like Waldo. He also apparently intends to follow Commentarama’s advice and issue a “significant economic plan” next week. Personally, I’d release it right now, before the debate, but what do I know?

Perry went through a bit of an embarrassment last week when Perry supporter Evangelical leader Robert Jeffress decided to tell the world that Mormonism is a cult and thus, we should not vote for Romney. Perry’s campaign quickly issued a statement disavowing this comment: “The governor does not believe Mormonism is a cult,” and urged us to vote for Romney. Jeffress is now being compared to Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

● St. Ron Paul: In a bit of a shocker, Ron Paul won an informal straw poll at the Family Research Council’s Values Voter Summit. He won 37% of the vote. Cain came in second with 23%. Perry got fourth with 8% and Romney scored sixth with 4%. Paul isn’t exactly known for being a darling of the Religious Right, so how do we account for this? FRC leaders say Paul's support came from younger FRCVVS attendees. . . which doesn’t really answer the question, does it? Could Paul have more supporters than we think? Should we prepare for a Paul Presidency? Tune in November 2012 and find out!

● Jon Super-Butch Huntsman: Huntsman continues to pound his chest to prove to us that he’s not an effete liberal. He’s now promising to bomb Iran, and no, I’m not really kidding: “I cannot live with a nuclear-armed Iran. If you want an example of when I would use American force, it would be that.” To quote the late Al Davis, “just nuke ‘em baby!”

● Michelle Bachmann, Newt Gingrich and the other guys whose names I’ve forgotten, all continue to exist.

● The End Is Nigh: Finally, nothing you’ve just read matters. The Detroit Lions are 5-0, which means the world is ending. The Mayans were right. We’re screwed.

[+] Read More...

It Can't Happen Here

Or can it? The symbol you're seeing is that of the Union of Supreme Islamic Courts. Islamic law is slowly creeping into the jurisprudence of some western democracies. For now, treating Muslim criminal defendants differently from all others is the first step in full Islamization of the secular courts. This travesty occurred in Australia. Next stop--America.
LATE NOTE: If you wish to discuss the Holder announcement of a foiled terrorist plot, please feel free to do so in the comments section below

The parallel between Australia and America is the widespread belief that there actually is something called Islamophobia, and that it is violent and pandemic. This ridiculous belief has been spread by the left and the mainstream press. But its main source is the "moderate Muslim community" which is maneuvering for special treatment in the courts. It signals that Muslims, unlike Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, Christians and Jews are particularly vulnerable to unwarranted attacks and police brutality. That totally unsubstantiated propaganda is starting to work.

The Australian case involved a man accused, among other things, of attempting to murder a police officer. The defendant was found guilty of illegal weapons possession (multiple counts) and terrorism charges. But the judge refused to find him guilty of attempted murder. The reason? The Islamophobia defense. Even though the defendant possessed multiple handguns and assault rifles, along with explosives, and a record of violence, the judge still maintained that his deliberate pointing of one of those guns at the police officer and firing was justified by his realistic fear that a non-Muslim cop was out to assassinate him just because he was Muslim. In other words, self-defense. The corollary to that defense is that the action was based on good faith but mistaken belief.

England is already allowing special "no police entry" Islamic enclaves, with the residents therein being judged by sharia law. Australia has now accepted Islamophobia as a legitimate defense to attempted murder. As Vladimir Lenin (repeated by Josef Stalin) is reputed to have said of weak-kneed western capitalists: "They will sell us the rope to hang them with." In order to appease the wounded feelings of "endangered" Muslims, several states have caved in to CAIR's propaganda and allowed "cultural differences" to be used both at trial and sentencing. The Islamists are using our good will and sappy multiculturalism to hang us.

Passing laws which prohibit the use of sharia law in any court matter is a good thing. But it's important to note that what is occurring now has nothing to do with sharia law. It has to do with creating a special defense for people who are hallucinating about widespread hatred toward and attacks on Muslims. For every imagined wound sustained by an American Muslim, there are a hundred examples of actual attacks on Jews. Yet the last time I looked, there were no special defenses to attempted murder being set up for frightened Jews. Blacks attempting to use the "racist cop" defense have been largely convicted anyway. Where's their right to a special defense?

The Islamist propaganda designed to give Muslims special standing not granted to any other group in court is succeeding beyond even their own wildest dreams. If they continue to succeed in advancing their own special agenda, they won't even need to impose sharia law in American courts. We'll do it for them by ignoring the Constitution's mandate of equal justice for everyone, regardless of race, creed, color or national origin.

And if you don't think it can happen here, let me remind everyone that New Jersey Governor Chris Christie appointed a sharia-compliant lawyer to the Passaic bench solely for the stated reason that "there is a large Islamic community in Passaic, and they deserve to have a judge who understands their special needs." The Islamophobia defense is not even a very long leap in New Jersey.
[+] Read More...

Monday, October 10, 2011

Holder Searches For F&F Answers

This past Friday, Attorney General Eric Holder found himself on the hot seat before the House Oversight Committee questioning him about his involvement in the deadly Operation Fast and Furious. Finding no answers that would exonerate him in law or reality, Holder searched for exoneration wherever he could find it. His answers did little to alter his image as less an attorney than a Chicago politician.

Holder turned first to his speech and debate training, and instead of answering a direct question, attempted to use the tu quoque (thou also) argument. Pardon the metaphor, but that gun backfired. Hoping to deflect the spotlight from himself to the Bush administration, Holder brought out an old Bush-era operation which he claimed was just like Fast and Furious. The problem is that the operation (called Wide Receiver) was nothing like Fast and Furious.

Holder wanted to stymie the Committee by stunning them with an "everybody does it" non-responsive answer. According to Holder, Wide Receiver also "walked guns" to the Mexican cartels. Holder's "gotcha" moment quickly turned into a complete rout. The media attention he wanted to draw to the Bush administration and off his own won't happen because he got the facts wrong. In the alternative, he may have been given the wrong facts, or was attempting to spin the true facts, but the Committee members were prepared in advance for just such an attempt.

Wide Receiver was indeed an early attempt to track cartel members and the weapons they purchased in the United States. The operation didn't work, largely because just like Fast and Furious, the people who came up with the bright idea relied on high-tech and unproven methods to trace the purchases, and that technology was simply not available. Entirely unlike Fast and Furious, Wide Receiver was strictly a local ATF operation which never really got off the ground, and never even got close to being presented to the higher echelons of law enforcement or the Justice Department. Few weapons went to cartel members, nobody got killed, and the guns are largely accounted for.

So far, the Washington Post is the only major newspaper to accept Holder's claim of equivalence and "plenty of blame to go around" as an excuse for his own failed policy. Since the Post supports the Obama/Holder gun control agenda, it blindly missed the point that Wide Receiver was designed to prevent widespread cartel purchases of weapons while Fast and Furious was designed to get guns into the cartels' hands so that more rigid gun-control laws could be passed in the United States.

Holder should have known he set a trap for himself. Also on the Committee's agenda that day were the e-mails that strongly indicate that Holder's knowledge of Fast and Furious was a long way from incidental. Within those e-mails was a specific mention of Wide Receiver, and how it could be used to enhance Fast and Furious. The e-mail was sent to Holder's chief deputy AG Jason Weinstein. If Holder didn't know, he should have known.

Wide Receiver involved a botched local ATF operation. Fast and Furious involved the FBI, DEA, ATF, and possibly even Homeland Security. He might be excused for not knowing about a hare-brained local ATF scheme, but not knowing about Gunwalker and Fast and Furious, involving so many agencies directly or indirectly under his control, is either disingenuous or grossly incompetent. One also has the right to expect that a major operation fully-discussed with his chief deputy would reach the Attorney General himself before being given the green light.

If Holder didn't know of it, and/or didn't authorize or monitor it, then at best his department is out of control. Most recent evidence shows that Holder was personally informed of the death of Border Agent Brian Terry, who was murdered with a Fast and Furious gun. So even if Holder didn't know about the operation at an earlier date (which is highly doubtful), Terry's murder and its connection were known to Holder much earlier than he claimed he first heard about Fast and Furious. If he isn't lying, then his Alzheimer's has advanced too far for him to continue in office.

After stuttering and stammering his way around this self-created mess, Holder then fell back on his favorite dodge: "This matter is currently under investigation, and I therefore refer you to the office of the Inspector General." And why not? The Inspector General, Cynthia A. Schnedar, is an old crony of Holder's. While both were in lesser positions in the Justice Department, they worked together on somewhere between fifteen and twenty major cases. They have both filed briefs and written articles advocating strict gun control. That creates a clear conflict of interest when Holder refers matters to his buddy, the Inspector General.

What's a boy to do? Holder couldn't allow himself to be so easily and so clearly publicy humiliated. So right after the hearing, he went into high spin cycle. With the assistance of the compliant mainstream media, Holder put on his best righteous indignation mask and declared the hearing a political ambush. He puffed himself up to declare that he had to defend his honor. Yeah, right.

Knowing that he couldn't claim to be a strong law enforcement kind of guy (see: New Black Panthers), and not daring to attack the law enforcement officers who are most at risk in this dangerous venture, he instead attempted to deflect the issue away from himself. "I could not sit idly by as a Majority Member of the House Committee (Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Arizona) suggests, as happened this week, that law enforcement and government employees who dedicate their lives to protecting our citizens be considered 'accessories to murder.'" Gosar, of course, said nothing of the kind, and if Holder disagreed with what Gosar did say, a good government servant and top lawyer would have addressed that in his answers at the hearing.

And then, almost unbelievably, Holder concluded his remarks to the MSM by proving the point conservatives and Second Amendment supporters have been arguing all along: "Current [gun] laws are insufficient to stop weapons trafficking." If this all adds up correctly, the suspicions of Holder's opponents will be confirmed. For all its danger, and its deadly results, Holder apparently approved of Fast and Furious in order to undo the effects of two major decisions of the United States Supreme Court upholding the individual right of Americans to keep and bear arms.

If this can all be proven conclusively, Holder should resign, or face impeachment and removal. He should also prepare to defend himself against multiple criminal charges, including lying to Congress. Scooter Libby went to prison for far less.
[+] Read More...

Top 20 Horror Films You Should Know

Originally posted at Big Hollywood: LINK

October is upon us! Run for your lives! It’s horror movie month! Horror is consistently one of the most popular genres in film, with even middling movies guaranteed to make money. Why? Because audiences want to feel emotion from their entertainment, and no emotion is easier to evoke than fear.

Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms [+] Read More...

Sunday, October 9, 2011

Twitter Twits Tweet Anticapitalist Protest

But they're not exactly sure what it is they're protesting. It may be capitalism. Or profit. Or war. Or the environment. But aside from the professional agitators sent by MoveOn.org and George Soros to jump-start the roiling masses at Occupy Wall Street, most can't give a coherent argument concerning what they stand for or why.

Their messages have all the pithiness of a Twitter tweet. The protesters have a lot of hand-lettered signs, but there is also a suspiciously large number of expensive and professionally-produced signage to match. The signs read like a sloganeer's dream: "People Not Profits" and "Make Jobs, Not War." Aside from the fact that such bumper-sticker sloganeering makes zero logical sense, these are the silliest signs and silliest protesters I've seen since San Francisco protesters held up signs that said "Food, Not Bombs."

These people actually think that their predigested dichotomies somehow make sense. The signs are pure emotion, pure demagoguery, and no thinking. There at the events to stir up the mobs are the usual rich, capitalist hypocrites: Michael Moore, Janeane Garofalo, Susan Sarandon, Roseanne Barr, and a host of lesser lights.

These poor, starving victims of capitalism hate billionaires (I think). They tweeted, I-phoned, I-padded, laptopped, e-mailed, YouTubed and Facebooked using expensive devices invented and marketed by visionary people who started with nothing and became billionaires. Without those capitalists, the protesters would have had to get their message out by carrier pigeon. About the only billionaire they don't hate is George Soros, Nazi collaborator and currency manipulator. Soros is behind the wealthy hypocritical organizations which fomented the "spontaneous" protests. He has given them jobs all right. Con-jobs. The spontaneous protests were planned for months by Soros-funded Canadian anti-capitalist eco-wacko magazine Adbusters.

Like most unchecked cancers, the dearth of logical thinking cum lack of any solutions (other than burning down all the banks and investment firms) is spreading to other cities. But Wall Street is the world financial center, so it gives the know-nothings a great place to rally. Though their numbers are dwarfed by the mass movements of the 60s antiwar and civil rights demonstrations, these protesters share the same scruffy anti-capitalist, anti-soap, anti-logic of the outriders and disaffected "youth" of the 60s.

For good or ill, the protesters of the 60s had genuine causes and most had an articulate message to go with them. The vast majority of the Wall Street protesters are simply there to sloganeer, raise some hell, and hold up signs to protest things they clearly don't have a clue how to explain. "I'm against capitalism!" Why? "Because it's bad." It's also a lot of fun watching a babbling fool, smelling of body odor with a hint of urine, covered in piercings and gang-style tattoos trying to explain that it's Wall Street's fault that he can't get a job.

Hauling out 2008 Obamisms, the protesters hold up signs and chant: "The world is watching! This is how democracy looks! We are the ones we've been waiting for." The world is watching, and in the civilized world they are shaking their heads at the pure idiocy of the "movement." If that's what democracy looks like, it's no wonder the Founders wrote a republican Constitution to govern without the help of mobs. And they are the ones that Marx, Stalin and Mao were waiting for--useful idiots.

They even have the chutzpah to compare themselves to the Tea Partiers (the original and current ones). The original version of the Tea Party had a specific goal--stop taxing Americans without their consent and participation in government. These protesters are calling for more taxes to support their bohemian lifestyles and professional unemployment. The true patriots of the Boston Tea Party were balanced by patriots who believed the actions were too much like a mob, demanded that the partiers clean up after themselves and both George Washington and Benjamin Franklin demanded that the Tea Partiers reimburse the East India Company for its losses.

As for comparisons to the current Tea Party, there aren't any. Tea Partiers work for a living, they clean up after themselves, and their protests are peaceful with no need for police intervention. Most Tea Partiers can explain their political positions without resorting to tautologies. And all are against tax increases which are a burden on them and which are used in large part to support the government-dependent non-taxpayers currently mucking up Wall Street. Unlike the Occupy Wall Street people, when a Tea Partier speaks of the Founders, he is talking about brave men and women willing to sacrifice everything for freedom from oppressive government.

There are serious points to be made about Wall Street excesses, but these protesters can't articulate them. They blame the banks for the mortgage and housing crisis, but can't tell you anything about Barney Frank, Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae. They probably think those are the names of the Three Stooges. They babble about revolution without realizing that the only revolution which produced a peaceful, middle-class constitutional representative democracy was the American Revolution. They think revolution is about attacking "the establishment" and committing property destruction without understanding even the fundamentals of constitutional government or finance.

The difference between a revolt and a revolution is that a revolution is a successful revolt. This will not produce a revolution. But it will produce something they're not going to like. They are going to find out how civilized people riot. At the ballot box.

Barack Obama is also likely to find out the same thing. He hasn't exactly become the overt standard-bearer for Occupy Wall Street. And there's a good reason for that. The Wall Street Bankers that the protesters hate so much played a major role in getting him elected in the first place. Crony socialism has merely replaced crony capitalism. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
[+] Read More...

The Great (film) Debates vol. 10

Being a bad guy isn’t all squishin’ puppies. You’ve got to keep your lair maintained and licensed, your staff of power needs to be charged, and you gotta clean and wax the old suit. But cleaner’s aren’t always reliable. In fact, let’s assume Darth Vader’s suit got lost at the cleaners.

What actor should have played Darth Vader if he had to go without the mask?

Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms [+] Read More...

Saturday, October 8, 2011

Occupy Wall Street...sort of - Part II



"What do we want? WE DON'T KNOW!
"When do we want it? NOW!!


-from BevfromNYC



So they are now starting their fourth week of occupation and I am in my third week under seige. The unions joined the intrepid Occupiers this week and the fun really began (and the smell has gotten stronger...). Just in case you still can't figure out what these Occupiers of Wall Street really want, below is their official list of thirteen demands posted on the official Occupy Wall Street website (not to be confused with this site which is the astroturfin' version!):

  • Demand one: Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending "Freetrade" by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages. Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr.
  • Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors.
  • Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.
  • Demand four: Free college education.
  • Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.
  • Demand six: One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now.
  • Demand seven: One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America's nuclear power plants.
  • Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.
  • Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.
  • Demand ten: Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system.
  • Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the "Books." World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the "Books." And I don't mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.
  • Demand twelve: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.
  • Demand thirteen: Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union.

These demands will create so many jobs it will be completely impossible to fill them without an open borders policy.

- Occupywallst.org

I just don't know what to say. So let's discuss and see if any of these demands are doable.

P.S. Demand 11 is my personal favorite, but I hope they can wait in implementing this one until I can max out all of my credit cards and take out that mortgage on my dream penthouse on Park Avenue...
[+] Read More...

Letterman Fatwah Continues

Did any of you happen to catch David Letterman's show on July 5 (or the clips repeated on Fox)? Letterman is not exactly known for being conservative-friendly or anti-Islamic. But on that show, the headline was that Ilyas Kashmiri had been killed by the American military, and to emphasize the point, Letterman drew his finger across his throat to symbolize the cause of Kashmiri's demise.

AP and a few other news organizations have been reporting multiple death threats against Letterman nearly every week since the original broadcast. Kashmiri was an Islamofascist warrior, the head of Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami, and a senior Al Qaeda planner. He was a leading planner in the deadly Mumbai, India attacks and was indicted in the United States for terrorist conspiracy to duplicate the Mumbai attacks in Denmark to punish the Danes for publishing the Mohammed cartoons.

Letterman now knows what it means to say a discouraging word or make a graphic gesture about Jihadistan. The reaction in the wonderful world of Islam would have been bad enough had Letterman confined his contempt to a relatively unknown Islamist, but as part of his routine, he also insulted the beloved memory of Osama bin Laden. Duck, David! The reaction was as immediate as it was predictable. The website Shumukh al-Islam announced the verdict of the religion of peace. Letterman should be brutally murdered and his tongue cut out.

Leaving no hate stone unturned, the website also pointed out that Letterman is a Jew. Letterman is not a Jew, but he's now in almost as much trouble as if he were. Whether this was a mistake or intentional is unknown, but calling anyone a Jew is frosting on the murderous Islamic cake. (I know--too many metaphors) I am unusually impressed with what followed next for Letterman himself.

I fully expected to see the usual "I'm sorry if I offended all those moderate Muslims by stereotyping them along with those ultra-rare violent Muslims." By God (the real one), he didn't cave. I have to congratulate Letterman on his refusal to bow to Islamic threats and to CBS for not requiring him to do so. CBS quite logically increased security at the studio and around Letterman, but there were no anguished apologies or guest appearances by a representative from CAIR.

Letterman has talked about the routine a few times since, including remarking that he appreciated his audience: "You people are more than an audience tonight. You're more like a human shield." As recently as last Tuesday, he again made a reference to the routine, which I take to mean he is not only not going to apologize but wants to let the terrorists know that he has no intention of backing away from his routine or subsequent remarks.

What makes this incident and later reiterations so remarkable is that Letterman refused to self-censor for fear of offending mass murderers and that CBS has done nothing to diminish Letterman's accomplishment. Other networks have not shown the same gutsiness, even Comedy Central. Islamofascists are ready to spring on anyone who dares to launch even the mildest criticism of Islam as it is being practiced in the Middle East and Africa. Ironically, though they have zero sense of humor, the jihadists recognize that one of the most dangerous things that can happen to them is that the public starts laughing at them. For this, Letterman and a very few others deserve high praise.

This is the first time (and likely the last) that I will have much good to say about David Letterman, at least since about 1980.
[+] Read More...

Friday, October 7, 2011

Film Friday: No Way Out (1987)

You wouldn’t think I would like No Way Out. It relies on some huge coincidences and the characters all act in some pretty outlandish ways. But I love this film. This is probably the top political thriller I’ve seen on film. Here’s why.

Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms [+] Read More...

Thursday, October 6, 2011

Did Aliens Take All The Aliens?

Omigod! The entire Hispanic population of Albertville, Alabama has disappeared overnight. Streets in Hispanic neighborhoods all over the state are empty. What could have happened? In order to find out, I consulted the New York Times. I now know it wasn't space aliens who absconded with the earthly aliens after all. It was the Hispanic Rapture.

In the wake of a federal court decision upholding Alabama's tough new immigration arrest, detention and reporting statute, Times reporter Clay Waters rushed to Alabama to say good-bye to his Hispanic immigrant friends, only to discover that they had all disappeared before he could get there. Says Waters: "In certain neighborhoods the streets are uncommonly quiet, like the aftermath of some sort of rapture."

Waters reports that "the vanishing began on Wednesday night (after the court decision), the most frightened families packing up their their cars as they heard the news." And these were not insubstantial Hispanics who were vanishing. Waters goes on to say: "They left behind mobile homes, sold fully furnished for a thousand dollars or even less. Or they just closed up and, in a gesture of optimism, left the keys with a neighbor. Dogs were fed one last time; if no home could be found, they were simply unleashed."

(Give me a moment to stop sobbing over this tragedy, and then I will choke back the tears and continue writing)

It's a good thing God knew in advance what the court decision would be. That way, He could cause the Hispanics to vanish before the law enforcement agencies could arrive. Oh, the humanity! Where God has plopped them down, Waters can't say. "Two, five, ten years of living here, and then gone, to Tennessee, Illinois, Oregon, Florida, Arkansas, Mexico--who knows? Anywhere but Alabama." Now I'm not on personal speaking terms with God, but I did notice that overnight the Hispanic population of Los Angeles increased by several hundred thousand, so maybe He transported them to California.

In Albertville alone, 123 Hispanic students did not show up for school the next day. A local real estate agent reported that his Hispanic occupancy had suddenly dropped by twenty-five percent, and might drop further. Waters did not report that the number of Democratic voters throughout the state had declined in approximately the same numbers as the vanishing Hispanics. Coincidence?

Says Waters: "Near the plant that is the largest employer in town, in the Hispanic neighborhoods, it is hard to differentiate the silence of the workday, the silence of abandonment, or the silence of paralyzing fear." Waters is apparently unaware that it's also hard to differentiate between purple prose and plain bulls--t.

Perhaps Waters will do a followup article in which he breathlessly describes how he found Hispanics all over town who had mysteriously not been taken up in the rapture. Why were only some of the Hispanics taken, and the others left behind to go on with their lives as usual? Perhaps it will turn out that it has something to do with how the remaining Hispanics got here in the first place. Ya think?
[+] Read More...

Obama's Bad Week Enters 989th Day

Things just keep getting worse for our Kenyan overlord as he nears his 1,000th day in office. The economy hates him. The public hates him. And now the Democrats hate him. Indeed, his administration is suffering one embarrassment after another. What a crying shame. The latest is bad polling (as usual), a new vacation scandal, and a Democratic rebellion. Read on. . .
Polls: Look Out Below!
A new Washington Post/ABC News poll has found that Obama continues his free fall. But even worse for him, those who “strongly disapprove” of Obama have reached new highs at 40%. ABC is interpreting this as both an increase in opposition to Obama and evidence of “hardening opposition” to Obama, i.e. evidence he’s doomed. Said ABC: “He’s like Hitler, only not as well liked.”

In West Virginia, associating the Democratic candidate for governor with Obama closed a 30% gap down to 2%. . . in a state that almost doesn’t have a Republican Party.
Madame O Rides (Free) Again
Here we go again. In June, Lady Obama took another royal tour. This time she and her small staff of twenty-one (including a hairstylist and makeup artist) spent six days touring South Africa and Botswana. The stated purpose of the trip was to encourage young people living in those countries to “become involved in national affairs.” Huh? Who the hell is she to tell people in another country to get involved in their own national affairs?!

Anyway, as you might expect, this was just cover for another vacation. Her “staff” included her daughters, a niece, a nephew and her mother, who were actually listed as “senior staff.” Why? Probably so she could charge their room, board and airfare to the taxpayers. And where did she take her “staff”? They went to historical landmarks, museums, and a private safari at a South African game reserve, where Michelle brought down a Wildebeest with her bare hands. She also got to meet Nelson Mandela and no doubt somebody famous from Botswana. . . if there is such a person.

So what did this vacation cost us simple taxpaying folk? According to Judicial Watch, which had to sue the White House to get this information (which should have been freely released under the Freedom of Information Act), the Air Force plane alone cost us $424,142. No word on what it cost us for food, lodging, in-country ground transportation, and reparations to the family of the Wildebeest.

To put this in perspective, the plane alone absorbed all the taxes paid last year by 72 median-income families. Way to endear yourselves to the taxpayers!
We’re Mad As Hell and We’re Not Going to Take It Anymore!
House Democrats have filed for a divorce from Obama. The last straw came when they stood up to the Republicans on the stop-gap spending measure only to hear that Obama won’t veto it. Democrats also took to the floor of the House this week to whine about Obama’s plan to keep American troops in Iraq for another year. . . wait, I thought they were all home already. . . and to whine about his Afghanistan strategy. . . assuming he has one. Reid and Pelosi made sweet, sweet love while complaining about the free trade deals Obama just sent to Congress after months of complaining that no one had passed them. Reid also refused to schedule a vote on Obama’s “jobs bill” because he thinks it will wipe out the remaining Democrats in the Senate. House Democrats are rewriting the bill because they won’t pass Obama's bill.

And now we hear Ralph Nader will be running against Obama in the primary, with the support of 45 progressive leaders.
Anybody But Obama!
We also have a couple of notes of interest regarding the 2012 election. First, a Rasmussen poll released yesterday told us that any generic Republican now beats Obama 47% to 41%. Most of the named candidates do better.

Finally, for those who spent last night under a rock, Sarah Palin has now opted not to run. With her out and Christie bowing out on Monday, the GOP field is essentially set and conservatives should soon be gravitating toward their choice, which is also bad for Obama.

[+] Read More...

Wednesday, October 5, 2011

Guest Review: The Duellists (1977)

Guest Review by Tennessee Jed

Historical dramas can be meandering, tedious affairs, more often than not drawn from overly long epic novels. Award nominations, if any, tend to be for costumes, set design, or cinematography. Even when done well, these films may take two and a half hours or more, a real drawback in a world where attention spans can wane after only two. The Duellists, nearly 35 years old, doesn’t fall into this trap and is worthy of your attention.

Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms [+] Read More...

Me So Hungry Me Could Eat A Muppet

I like the Muppets. Sesame Street, not so much. Something about Sesame Street always struck me as preachy and off-kilter. Why is there a monster living in a garbage can? What’s with evil Bert anyway? And why does the show spout liberal nonsense? Well, they’re at it again.

For those who don’t know, Sesame Street is a bastion of political correctness. It was created with the idea of brainwashing. . . er, “educating” poor kids. The stated goal was to teach these kids self-esteem and “feelings of competency,” as compared to actual competency. It pushed diversity and “nonagressive ways of resolving conflicts.” It pandered to Hispanic groups in the 1970s, feminists in the 1980s, environmentalists in the 1990s, Bush hate in the 2000s and gay groups in the 10s. And the show has been awash in controveries:
● In 1969, Grover took lessons in civil disobedience from a hippe. . . Bill Ayers.

● Bert and Ernie’s “ambiguous sexuality” has been an issue for years. . . with ambiguous being a code word for “clearly gay.”

● Kami the muppet caught AIDS in 2002. . . from a toilet seat.

● Big Bird told us what happened in the afterlife in 1983. . . you get 72 virgins.

● Mahboub the muppet, an Arab muppet, was inserted into the Israeli version to “bridge the cultural gap” in 2006. . . he's moderate, he only advocates enslaving Israel, not eradicating it.

● The claim in 2004 that Sesame Street triggers attention deficit diso

● Continuous liberal bias, like when it mocked Fox News in 2009 with Oscar the Grouch calling “Pox News” a “trashy news show”... unlike MSNBC which is just trash.
Now PBS/Sesame Street has discovered a new liberal mission. . . phantom hunger.

That’s right, Sesame Street is introducing “Lily, whose family has an ongoing struggle with hunger” because Sesame Street wants to “teach” your kids that America is a land of starving poor people. Why? Because liberalism has come crashing down in flames and they need to rebuild an army of idiots who are ready to do their bidding. What better way than to tell kids that other kids are starving because evil rich people steal the very food from their mouths. Kids are suckers for “I’m trying to stop hunger,” but not “I’m trying to protect a racial spoils system” or “I’m trying to protect the union’s ability to keep child molesters in the classroom.”

Here’s what they’re basing this garbage on: according to the corrupt Dept. of Agriculture, 17 million kids are starving in the United States. Where does that number come from? It’s estimated based on the number of people who are counted as “living below the poverty line.” In other words, it’s theoretical. In other words, it’s a fraud.

For one thing, they keep raising the dollar threshold for poverty. You can actually be quite well off and still be considered poor. Indeed, study after study has shown that “poor” people in America own cars, appliances and spend their money on cable television and cell phones. Also, this is only an income test, not an asset test. So people living on social security, lotto winners, students, small business owners who earn their income sporadically or who find a lot of great deductions, people who earn their money overseas, and rich people living on tax-free investments. . . are all considered "poor."

I dare the liberal establishment to find me anyone who is legitimately hungry.

And if they can find such a person, then I want to know why this person can’t get on food stamps like the other 43 million Americans who have found their way onto the program and into my wallet? Also, did you know that you can earn up to $39,220 and still qualify for free or discounted school lunches? How can anyone not feed themselves on $39k?

Hunger also ain’t what it used to be. Even aside from being a completely made up statistic, they’ve redefined hunger as “food insecure,” which means at some point during the year your food intake was reduced and your normal eating pattern was disrupted because you lacked money for food. So now you can be hungry if you spent your money on booze or you forgot your wallet or Obama taxed the crap out of your paycheck.

This is all theoretical wishful thinking by liberals which bares no relationship to what is going on in reality. It is shameful propaganda aimed at making liberals feel like they have a reason to exist. But in the spirit of things, let me offer this first line of dialog:
Lily: Why am I so hungry?

Lily's Dad: Because liberals made us dependent on the government and then spent all the money on Obama's friends. Obama is why you're hungry.

[+] Read More...

Tuesday, October 4, 2011

DOJ: "Cartels Control Border Access"

In a stunning admission, the Department of Justice last Wednesday released the following announcement: "Mexican drug-trafficking organizations control access to the United State-Mexico border as well as the smuggling routes across the border, resulting in unprecedented levels of violence in Mexico."

Anyone who opens a newspaper or watches TV news already had a good idea that this was true, but the announcement of reality was a bit of a surprise. The statement goes on to say: "The organizations control, simultaneously use, or are competing for control of various smuggling corridors that they use to regulate drug flow across the border. The value they attach to controlling border access is demonstrated by the ferocity with which several rival transnational criminal organizations (TCOs) fight for control over control of key corridors, or 'plazas'."

And as a near-throwaway line, the statement reports that the Mexican drug cartels "dominate the supply and wholesale distribution of most illicit drugs in the United States." So much for what we may have thought about domestic gangs, the Mafia and those pesky Jamaicans. The next big drug-trafficking movie won't be called The French Connection. In fact, drug-trafficking back in that era seems almost quaint by comparison with today's border wars.

While controlling access for drug trafficking is the main purpose of cartel violence along the border, having complete control of access to entry points into the United States also enhances their ability to traffic in human bodies, both kidnap victims for ransom and women for forced prostitution. What we need to focus on is not just the violence, but the fact that the Mexican army and police have essentially ceded control of near-border access to the cartels. Having gotten control of the north, the cartels are now gaining control of main highways and travel routes throughout the entirety of Mexico.

Most frightening of all, having gained control of the access routes into the United States, the cartels are quickly gaining control of routes on our side of the border. We have an immense border with Mexico, and many of the access roads lead to sparsely-populated desert and rural areas, unfenced and unguarded. Where there are border guards, they are there in grossly insufficient numbers, inadequately armed, and subject to rules of engagement that make them targets for murderous thugs who play by no civilized rules.

Rather than tell us that Janet Napolitano at Homeland Security is nuts, and we're going to beef up the border patrol, use army units freshly back from Iraq or Afghanistan, arm them with state-of-the-art equipment and give them "shoot on sight" orders, the DOJ instead produces assessments which are largely self-fulfilling prophecies. "Collaboration between US gangs and Mexican-based TCOs will continue to increase, facilitating wholesale drug trafficking into and within the United States."

Before anyone starts thinking that I'm suggesting illegal or unconstitutional use of our armed forces on American soil, I need to point out that it is a perfectly legitimate use of the armed forces to repel an invasion. Make no mistake, this is an invasion, and the posse comitatus act simply doesn't apply. Our armies were used within America's borders during the War of 1812, and those weren't the local police who fought the Indian wars of the 1800s. The act was passed after Civil War Reconstruction to avoid having to use the army indefinitely to enforce law in the states formerly in rebellion.

The posse comitatus act was designed to prevent the army from having too much power within American borders, but more specifically it was designed to prevent the armed forces from acting in a law-enforcement capacity. And therein lies the problem with the liberals and the Obama administration. Not only is the administration overly-sympathetic with illegal immigrants, but in regard to the narco-wars the administration once again prefers the metaphorical "war on crime" model rather than the real war model which allows the military to repel armed invaders.

It should also be noted that the posse comitatus act applies solely to the Army and the Air Force. The Marines and the Navy are restricted by Department of Defense directives, not by the act. The Coast Guard is entirely exempted from the act, as is any entity under the aegis of or created by Homeland Security. And to further complicate matters, the restrictions of the act can be lifted by any new act of Congress which does not conflict with the Constitution. So citing the posse comitatus act as a barrier to fending off an armed invasion of American soil is naive at best and disingenuous at worst.

A side benefit of mounting an all-out attack against armed narco cartel invaders is that it would also tend to reduce the entry of non-violent but still illegal immigrants. The same routes that the drug cartels have gained control of are the ones being used by the "coyotes" bringing in illegal immigrants.

In the meantime, the DOJ is very concerned with covering its behind in the wake of the Fast and Furious/Gunrunner scandal in which narco-terrorists obtained thousands of deadly weapons with the full approval and assistance of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. It can't be bothered with protecting our southwestern border from an invasion. Those weapons are being used to kill Mexican citizens on their side of the border, but they have also spilled over into the United States resulting in both civilian and Border Patrol deaths.

Unlike the takeover of Chicago by Al Capone in the twenties, this is not a domestic crime syndicate, the local police are helpless to do anything, Eliot Ness is long dead, and the cartels are not amenable to being arrested, tried and imprisoned for tax evasion. What needs to be done is to increase the number of Border Patrol agents armed with the best equipment by a factor of ten or twenty, use the military if necessary, and fight this invasion as if the British are coming to burn the capital.

That will not happen as long as Barack Obama, Eric Holder and Janet Napolitano remain in charge. They are too afraid we might offend the hapless Mexican government or a large demographic of future Democratic voters already inside our borders.


[+] Read More...

MNF: Are You Ready For Some Bias??!!

Are you ready for some fooooootball?!! For twenty- three years, Hank Williams Jr. has opened Monday Night Football with his song about his rowdy friends coming together for Monday night. Not last night. Last night, ESPN, an affiliate of ABC Network, yanked the song because Hank dared to speak ill of Obama and offended the powers that be at ABC.

What did Hank say? If you read the headlines, Hank “compared Obama to Hitler.” The horror! And what was the basis of this forbidden comparison? Did he mention that Obama demonizes the rich like Hitler demonized the Jews? Nope. Did he complain how Obama tried to take away the basic human rights of Gitmo detainees so they would become unpeople? Did he mention Obama chumming around with dictators? How about his selling out democracies like Taiwan and Israel? His unprovoked invasion of Libya? Nope.

Here’s what he dared to say. He was asked whether John Boehner made a mistake from a political perspective being seen playing golf with Obama. And Hank said it was a mistake akin to “Hitler playing golf with Netanyahu.”

Uh. . . what’s the big deal?

For starters, that’s not really comparing Obama to Hitler as ABC claims. Yes, it's a “comparison” in a technical sense, but it’s not in a real sense. This is just an analogy to explain that Boehner playing golf with Obama was like one person playing golf with their sworn enemy. He could just as easily have said “the Pope playing with Satan” or “Tom playing with Jerry.” Williams did not say “Obama is like Hitler,” which would have been a real attempt at comparison. So attacking him for “comparing Obama to Hitler” is ridiculous.

Secondly, when has ABC ever punished a leftist for anything similar (or even anything worse). People like Sean Penn, Matt Damon and Janeane Garafolo routinely say much worse. They actually compared Bush to Hitler. They say vile things against Palin and now Herman Cain. Their reporters and anchors routinely slander everyone on the right. Rosanne Barr just spoke about putting rich people in camps. . . now who's being Hitlerian? Yet, ABC has never refused to show their films or canceled their shows. Why not?

Why is it that Williams gets punished for not even actually saying anything negative about Obama, yet these vile creatures can say whatever they want and ABC doesn’t care? Why is it leftists can call conservatives stupid, racists, Bushitler, bitches, and Uncle Toms, and can suggest conservatives should be put in camps, should be raped, should be killed and their kids should be killed. . . but conservatives can’t even offer something that is barely a suggestion of criticism?

I find this disgusting. And I honestly think it’s time conservatives fought back. It’s time for whoever wins the White House to take a long hard look at the networks through the Federal Election Commission and the FCC. It strikes me they’ve become partisans and should lose their licenses or be forced off the air during elections. And yes, I’m serious. If leftists want to run the networks as bastions of leftist propaganda, then it’s time we treated them as such.

In any event, Williams has now issued an explanation (fortunately not an apology) which says this:
"Some of us have strong opinions and are often misunderstood. My analogy was extreme — but it was to make a point. I was simply trying to explain how stupid it seemed to me - how ludicrous that pairing was. They're polar opposites and it made no sense. They don't see eye-to-eye and never will. I have always respected the office of the President."
The left is of course not satisfied. But that’s tough. Stick to your guns Hank. The only thing you did wrong was use the wrong dictator: Obama’s not really competent enough to be in Hitler's league, next time compare him to someone more Banana Republic-ish.

[+] Read More...

Monday, October 3, 2011

Herman Cain Gets Noticed

Herman Cain is all over the news now. He was on Leno. Dennis Miller endorsed him. Leftist comic D.L. Hugley is making racist comments about him. Janeane Garofalo and Bill Maher are babbling that Republicans only like him because they’re racist. Now the establishment is noticing Cain.

Michael Barone is a smart guy. He’s an election geek with a solid grasp of politics and a deep understanding of voting patterns. But he’s also an establishment conservative. And that means he's blind to things that aren’t considered viable by the establishment. That’s why his article this weekend is so interesting.

Barone first notes that Cain has none of the traditional experience required of Presidential candidates. In the eyes of the establishment, that disqualifies him. Barone then notes that Cain has been largely ignored by the media. Even after his solid performance in the Fox cave debate and after crushing Perry in the Florida straw poll, he was still ignored. But now there’s evidence the public is responding to Cain, so the establishment is grudgingly taking notice.

Indeed, a Fox News poll last week shows Cain surged from 5% support to 17% support. A SurveyUSA poll shows Cain trailing Romney 27% to 25%. And Rasmussen reports that Cain trails Obama by only 5% in a head to head contest. Sunday he won the National Federation of Republican Women straw poll with 49% compared to 14% for the next highest vote getter.

This finally forced the establishment to take note. Indeed, Barone notes that Cain must now be considered a genuine contender. The Wall Street Journal has reached the same conclusion. On September 29, Journal columnist Daniel Henninger wrote that: “Unlike the incumbent, Herman Cain has at least twice identified the causes of a large failing enterprise, designed goals, achieved them and by all accounts inspired the people he was supposed to lead.” And that, according to Henniger, makes him a "plausible candidate."

Here is what Barone thinks is drawing conservatives to Cain. See if you agree:
● His 9-9-9 tax plan and his generally conservative stand on issues.

● His youtube clip debating Bill Clinton on health care in 1994.

● His likability compared to Romney’s awkwardness and Perry’s “charm [being] lost on most non-Texans.”

● He being black. “In this, white conservatives resemble white liberals. . . white conservatives like to hear black candidates who articulate their views.”

● Cain’s claim that he can get 1/3 of black voters.
I don't buy it. I think these are side issues. Conservatives like candidates who share their views. And right now, Cain's the one guy really doing that. I also think what Cain has going for him is something the establishment is lacking entirely -- the ability to speak with us common folk in ways we understand, like and remember. Cain is not speaking wonk-speak and he's not talking at us. This is a lesson the Republicans must learn.

Of further interest, Cain took Christie down pretty hard this weekend. He said what we've been saying, Christie is "too liberal." Cain said this on Fox:
I believe that a lot of conservatives once they know his position on those things that you delineated, they’re going to not be able to support him. Most of the conservatives believe that we should enforce our borders. They do not believe people should be here without documentation. They do not believe global warming is a “crisis” or a “threat” — yes it might be a little bit out there but they don’t see it as a “crisis” or a “threat” and as you go right down the line, he’s going to turn off a lot of conservatives with those positions.
Then on ABC, Cain said that Christie does not pay enough attention to the very real threat of Islamic influence:
Some people would infuse sharia law in our court system if we allow it. I honestly believe that. So even if he calls me crazy, I am going to make sure that they don’t infuse it little by little by little. I’m sticking to it — American laws in American courts, period.
I'm glad somebody's finally saying it! FYI, at the same time Cain was making these policy-bases points, the left was attacking Christie over his weight. How substantive.

Cain's new-found higher profile has brought the Paul crowd out of the woodwork. They spent the weekend crawling the net reminding people that, as we told you before, Cain joined the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City in 1992, and became its chairman in 1995-1996. Clearly, Cain is a Trojan Fed horse. Make of that what you will. . . you'll be seeing it everywhere.

In the meantime, expect the attacks to intensify on Cain. How he handles it will tell us a lot about his chances.

[+] Read More...

An Ill Windbag

Al Gore has found his carbon-trading schemes to be unpopular with the American people, so he's taking his Magical Mystery Climate Change Tour on the road. Last week, he was the keynoter for a Scottish clan of global warming enthusiasts. Scotland--the land of the bagpipe. The bagpipe, like Gore, is an ill wind that nobody blows good.

Having abandoned the simple phrase "global warming" in favor of "climate change," Gore is still making the same tired arguments about global warming/climate change being the result of human activity. The attacks on global warming theory were numerous and telling, but who can deny that the earth is going through, and has always gone through, climate change? The trick is to blame it on anthropogenic global warming so the green weenies can get rich at the expense of the poor suckers who actually believe that man is the source of climate change.

The speech was before the Scottish government-supported Low Carbon Investment Conference in Edinburgh. You see, just like the Obama administration, the Scottish government believes it has the right to select winners and losers in the energy game. Given the name of the conference, I think it's easy to infer just exactly who is out to profit from this climate change scam. Apparently in Scotland, as in the United States currently, "investment" means taxpayer money being diverted to friends of the government, regardless of either the riskiness or foolishness of the "investment."

Gore goes off once again about consensus among scientists that the "climate crisis" and "extreme weather events" are man-made. There is no such consensus. What consensus there is exists among junk scientists who would have no jobs and no funding if their scam were completely discredited. It is the job of fat-cat hysterics such as Al Gore to make sure that doesn't happen. Like the myth of the melting glaciers and drowning polar bears, Gore perpetuates non-scientific anecdotes as evidence of his latest "scientific discoveries." "Flooding in Pakistan, China and elsewhere" are proof that extreme weather is the result of climate change.

Yes, that's true enough, but how does it go to prove that global warming or climate change is caused by human activity? Yep, climate change is pretty likely the cause of extreme weather. And the oceans are wet, largely because they are full of water. Stating the obvious doesn't answer the question. And Gore pulls out all the stops to keep people from noticing that he still can't prove that man is the cause of global warming or climate change. He merely drags out "consensus" again. "Every single national academy of science of every major country on earth agrees with the consensus. The need for urgent action is now indisputable."

Every scientist I know of agrees that the earth is sort of round. Does that consensus mean that the earth is round because of human activity? The "consensus" that climate change/extreme weather is the result of human activity does not exist, but you're not supposed to notice that detail amidst the apocalyptic hysteria. The real hope of the Goreists is that by changing the words of the debate from global warming to climate change to extreme weather, thinking people will be too stupid to realize that the underlying thesis of anthropogenic climate change is not even close to being a consensus.

Outside of the green "investment" hacks and the junk scientists who depend on taxpayers and other suckers to keep their jobs, the majority of scientists have concluded that man may play some very small part in climate change (more so in the 19th century than in the 20th), but the major factors are the sun and internal changes within the earth's core. The climate changes on earth are reflected on Mars, where there are no SUVs or fossil-fueled energy plants that I know of.

Gore took a shot at ignorant Americans who have elected representatives unwilling to support Gore's personal plan to increase his wealth with hare-brained carbon trading schemes. He is a rich man who would become immensely richer if America would only buy into his schemes. Yet he attacks both capitalism and the American government in one sentence in which he decried: "the effect of lobbying and money-raising on the U.S. Congress, and on carbon producers who employ four Washington lobbyists for every member of Congress." There are no green weenie lobbyists, of course. Just ask the execs at Solyndra.

Gore went on to extol the job-creation wonders of green technology and carbon trading. I doubt he will make the same speech in Spain, where the government committed itself to energy schemes nearly identical to Gore's, and ended up losing nine jobs for every four jobs created. He also called the reluctance of Congress to enrich him and his cronies while raising energy costs and reducing energy efficiency an unwarranted attack. "In the language of computer culture, our democracy has been hacked." Well, I guess he ought to know since he invented the internet.

Gore and his Tour will be moving on to China in the near future. I guess he plans to challenge China's massive increases in both production and CO2-based air pollution by raising the specter of Scotland as taking the lead in energy production. To a standing ovation in Edinburgh, Gore announced that "Scotland will lead the world in wind power." Now, about those bagpipes.
[+] Read More...

Sunday, October 2, 2011

Modern Day Christian Martyrdom

The barbarians of Central Jihadistan (or as Barack Hussein Obama calls it, the Islamic Republic of Iran) are in the final stages of deciding whether or not to hang a Christian pastor for his religious belief. The primitives are debating among themselves whether he is an apostate, a capital crime among Islamists who believe they commune directly with Mohammed the Prophet.

So far, they've largely decided it doesn't matter if he's actually a sharia-defined apostate. He's a Christian, and that's good enough. Evangelical Christian Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani accepted Christianity as his faith at age nineteen. He was not a convert, which would be clear apostasy under Islamic law. He says that he was never a practicing Muslim, and the Iranian authorities have never proved otherwise. But there's always that handy-dandy thing about being born into a family where mom or dad or both are practicing Muslims.

Apostasy, even in Muslim lands, has the definite meaning of having been a practicing member of the religion of peace, then consciously leaving that clan of cave-dwellers to become a member of one of the false religions which Allah condemns (through his prophet Mohammed and the Book of Mass Murder). The Koran actually is unclear on whether apostasy by proxy such as Pastor Nadarkhani's is a crime punishable by death. But what the heck, it could be, so the Iranian clerics have found ways to make sure their blood-lust is satisfied.

Under the form of sharia law embedded in Iran's political system, the punishment for apostasy is death, but the statute under which Pastor Nadarkhani was convicted uses the far more nebulous word "abandonment" of Islam. In order to protect his parents, Pastor Nadarkhani "abandoned" the family when he was baptized as a Christian. By Iranian logic, he abandoned a Muslim family, so he abandoned Islam, and he is therefore an apostate, even though he never professed Islam himself.

The statute was passed in September of 2008, and Pastor Nadarkhani was one of the early prominent Christians to be arrested under the statute in 2009. By then, the now thirty-two year old pastor had a wife and two small children. So far, the Iranian government hasn't managed to find a sharia rule that provides death for apostasy by association, so the pastor's wife and children are temporarily not being prepared for the gallows. Still, I have no doubt that the ghoulish mullahs and ayatollahs are searching mightily for a way to take their lives as well.

Iranian "law" provides that the accused apostate must be given three opportunities to renounce his apostasy and return to the gentle arms of the religion of peace. Those opportunities were presented to Pastor Nadarkhani, and on each occasion he said "I cannot reject Jesus Christ." The founder of my church, Martin Luther, said something similar at the Diet of Worms just short of five hundred years ago. One would be hard-pressed to find an American Lutheran today who would be willing to repeat the words echoed by Pastor Nadarkhani when facing death: "I cannot, I will not recant. Here I stand. God help me I can do no other."

After passage of the statute by Iran, the European Union sent the Iranian government a letter of protest (the Europeans are very good at protesting rather than acting). It said: "In the past, the death penalty has been handed down in apostasy cases [in Iran], but it has never before been set down in law." What exactly do they think Islamic law (sharia) is? They fail to understand that in throwback Islamic nations such as Iran, the law is a creature of the religion, not a thing apart from it. All Iran did was codify what the ayatollahs had already determined was what Mohammed and Allah want.

Pastor Nadarkani's plight is only one highly-publicized case of religious suppression and state-sanctioned murder in Iran and its barbarian fellow-travelers throughout the Middle East. Thousands of less high-profile religious martyrs are being held in Iranian prisons, with drastic sentences ranging from life in prison to hanging awaiting them. Christian organizations throughout the world have been attempting to get world-wide assistance in stopping the pending execution of Pastor Nadarkhani.

Barack Obama's mouthpiece Jay Carney read a statement from the President: "A decision to impose the death penalty would further demonstrate the Iranian authorities' utter disregard for religious freedom, and highlight Iran's continuing violation of the universal rights of its citizens. We call upon the Iranian authorities to release Pastor Nadarkhani and demonstrate a commitment to basic, universal human rights, including freedom of religion."

The statement of course is something less than a revelation to anyone except possibly Obama himself. Perhaps he should have used the words of his own former pastor to say "No, no, no. God damn Iran." At least I think that's what Rev. Jeremiah Wright said. The statement comes from the same president who did everything in his power and utilizing every bit of his lack of skill in foreign diplomacy to miss the opportunity to give strong and material support to the freedom movement in Iran. He lifted not a finger to help the pro-civilization movement as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's thugs beat and murdered them by the thousands. Does he think the primitives are going to listen to him now?

In the long run if the pastor's life is spared, which we should all be praying will be the ultimate result, it will be because citizens and governments from the West put enough pressure on Iran to make it worthwhile for them to call off the hanging. It won't be because a pathetically weak American president threatened not to hug Ahmadenijad at the next U.N. confab. In order to save face, the ayatollahs will suddenly have to find a passage in the murder manual which revisits the way the pastor became a Christian so that his act of conscience does not amount to apostasy. After all, Humpty Dumpty sharia law means exactly what they say it means, no more, no less.

Lest it sound like I am not exactly a devotee of Islamic law, let me point out that I'm aware that Islam treats women far more fairly than you have been led to believe. The penalty for male apostates in Iran is death by hanging. For women, it's merely life in prison without possibility of future release.
[+] Read More...

The Great (film) Debates vol. 9

Last week we proved that villains are indeed popular, but what about heroes? Can they get some love too?

Who is your favorite film hero?



Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms [+] Read More...

Saturday, October 1, 2011

Occupy Wall Street...sort of

Never to be outdone by California, we in NYC have had our own protesters. The "spontaneous" protest called "Occupy Wall Street" has been going on for a little over two weeks now. First of all, this group of activists aren't actually occupying Wall Street, but are decamping at Zuccotti Park three blocks north and as it just so happens, is across the street from the building where I work.

What exactly these Grandchildren of the '60's are protesting is not clear. Signs run the gamut of "F**k Wall Street" to "Four Day Work Week". They know that something is wrong, but they are not exactly clear on what. For the past two weeks, they have beaten drums, shouted indecipherable chants, and refused to go away.  To their great credit, they have managed to organized themselves like any good commune with a food distribution area, recycling area, first aid area, and a public P.R. Liaison area equipped with a gasoline-powered generator to keep protesters' laptops and smartphones powered up to post on Facebook and tweet each moment.   And it has been reported that people from all over the country are calling local area fast food joints to have pizzas delivered to the protesters as a show of support.

Visits from seasoned liberal protest icons such as Michael Moore and Susan Sarandon have shown up with their P.R. machines in tow as well. Ms. Sarandon showed up in her chauffeured-driven limousine to "educate herself" on her way to the airport to fly to Europe on her private jet for a vacation.  Here is what she had to say:



Though she didn't "personally lose any money", she is advocating what I interpret as a more physically forceful brand of protest because we shouldn't let "our Arab brothers and sisters" better us. Fortunately is was reported that many of these kids didn't have a clue as to who she was, but she did give them some sage advice - focus the protest on one topic, and register to vote. Actually she has a point - this protest lacks any real focus which is why they probably can't focus on any solutions either. They know something is wrong because someone is making lots of money and it's not them. But, as one protester responded when asked what his solution to "greed on Wall Street" might be by saying "I don't know? I'm only 23 years old, why are you asking ME that? What a stupid question." Let's hope he is not currently registered to vote.

As of now, this intrepid group of faux hippies plan to stay indefinitely. Probably until they actually understand why they are there, get bored, someone offers them jobs, or the snow starts to fall. To their great credit, they have been mostly respectful and peaceful. Only one reported incident of police brutality occurred during an unplanned march from the Wall Street area to Union Square at 14th Street. Several of the protesters did not take kindly at being forced to follow certain rules for which the cops responded with pepper spray. Sadly, in retaliation, the P.R. committee posted on Facebook the name and address of the cop who allegedly did the spraying putting his family at risk for a violent backlash. This caused them to lose the support of all the cops in the process. But a more disturbing devolpment threatens the peaceful and naive nature of this protest. Local and national union organizers have decided to join in to lend muscle and considerable financial support to this vague cause. Already the Transit Workers Union members have shown up with the SEIU and AFL-CIO to follow next week. Expect the numbers to grow and the violence to increase as a result.


Addendum: Yesterday the P.R. committee posted on Facebook that Radiohead had agreed to give a free concert at 4pm downtown to show their support.  The leaderless group that had swelled to a reported 2000 people on the promise of a free concert wandered around for an hour searching for the music.  Sadly it turned out to either be a miscommunication or just a plain  hoax.  Radiohead's management issued an official press release  insisting that they did not have any intention of showing up for a free concert.

[+] Read More...

Just Desserts

On Saturday mornings, I normally have an open thread. Today, I want to make up for my recent rants about my alma mater, and highlight the bravery of the UC Berkeley college Republicans. After threats from the Student Senate and the administration, the club decided making a statement about affirmative action was worth the risk. So instead of the open thread, I'm simply linking in its entirety the Zombie.com take on the Affirmative Action Bake Sale: Bake Sale.

The cover picture is the bake sale being held in Sproul Plaza (directly in front of the Sproul Hall administration building where I spent some of my finest years at Berkeley agitating for free speech). What we got was free speech for left-wing radicals--students and professors. Everyone else should just shut up. The building in the background is the U C Students Union. What is not shown is the Black Students Union building which was created a few decades after I left as "race neutrality" devolved into "racial preferences."

What spurred the Republicans into having the bake sale was the latest attempt by Governor Jerry Moonbeam Brown and the Democratic legislature to undo the will of the people of the State of California. California was in the forefront of passing initiatives prohibiting racial discrimination or preferences in public hiring and education. The current attack on racial equality will probably fail in the courts, since the California Civil Rights Initiative was ensconced in the California Constitution, and a simple legislative act cannot undo a constitutional amendment. But that won't stop the leftists and race-baiters from trying.

Enjoy the Zombie article, laugh and cry at the pictures, and be sure to watch the embedded videos. Then get back to me with your thoughts. Have fun!
[+] Read More...