Ecuador Family Wins Favors After Donations to Democrats
The Obama administration overturned a ban preventing a wealthy, politically connected Ecuadorean woman from entering the United States after her family gave tens of thousands of dollars to Democratic campaigns, according to finance records and government officials.
The woman, Estefanía Isaías, had been barred from coming to the United States after being caught fraudulently obtaining visas for her maids. But the ban was lifted at the request of the State Department under former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton so that Ms. Isaías could work for an Obama fund-raiser with close ties to the administration.
An NFL quarterback who congratulates the defense for hitting him?
Andrew Luck’s legend is growing.
Sure, there’s buzz about how he has thrown for more yards in his first three seasons than anyone in NFL history. Or the fact he’s led the Indianapolis Colts to the playoffs in each of his NFL seasons, after clinching a spot this year with Sunday’s win. But among NFL players, the gossip around Luck concerns a peculiar brand of on-field chatter so confusing and brilliant that no one knows quite what to make of it.
“In all the years I’ve played football I have never heard anything like it,” said Washington Redskins linebacker Ryan Kerrigan. “Nothing even close.”
Luck has become famous for congratulating—sincerely and enthusiastically—any player to hit him hard. Any sack is met with a hearty congratulations, such as ”great job” or “what a hit!” He yells it after hard hits that don’t result in sacks, too. It is, players say, just about the weirdest thing any quarterback does in the NFL.
When New England pass rusher Rob Ninkovich pulverized Luck last month in a Patriots’ 42-20 win, he got the customary congratulations. As Ninkovich tells it, he found himself paralyzed with confusion by the well-wishes, so he blurted out “Thanks for…uh…accepting that hit?” before running back to the huddle.
Defensive back Nolan Carroll, who has hit Luck three times and with two teams, remembers the first time it happened while he was with the Miami Dolphins last year. Carroll, now with the Philadelphia Eagles, was blitzing off the edge and got to Luck, knocking him down just after he released the ball. Carroll was walking back to the huddle when he heard “Great job, Nolan!” He turned around, searching for the person who said it—maybe it was a teammate, he thought. “Then I realized it was Luck who said it. I’m like ‘what’s going on? Aren’t you supposed to be mad?’” Carroll said. “So then I’m the one who gets ticked off because an upbeat attitude isn’t something you see.”
This, players say, is Luck’s brilliance, even if it is unintentional. According to Baltimore Ravens pass rusher Pernell McPhee, who sacked Luck in October, quarterbacks generally do two things when they are sacked: They complain to the referee, looking for a roughing the passer penalty, or they do nothing and absorb their pain in silence. A handful will get angry if the sack was particularly fierce (don’t get McPhee started on Chargers quarterback Philip Rivers). But Luck is so dramatically different that those who knock him down have no clue what to do. “You love it but at the same time, you really, really hate it,” said Eagles linebacker Connor Barwin.
Sir Nicholas Winton is a humanitarian who organized a rescue operation that saved the lives of 669 Jewish Czechoslovakia children from Nazi death camps, and brought them to the safety of Great Britain between the years 1938-1939.
After the war, his efforts remained unknown. But in 1988, Winton’s wife Grete found the scrapbook from 1939 with the complete list of children’s names and photos. This is a clip of a video where Sir Nicholas Winton is sitting in an audience of Jewish Czechoslovakian people whom he saved 50 years before.
The courageous ex-Muslim human rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali recently recounted that at a speech in Washington not long ago, she met Vice President Joe Biden. Biden seized the opportunity to tell her that “ISIS had nothing to do with Islam.” Hirsi Ali politely disagreed, whereupon Biden began a lesson in the teachings of the Religion of Peace: “Let me tell you one or two things about Islam.”
Unfortunately, Hirsi Ali didn’t hear much of Imam Joe’s Islamic wisdom: “I politely left the conversation at that. I wasn’t used to arguing with vice presidents.”
This wasn’t just Joe being Joe, saying another foolish thing that, if he were a conservative Republican, would have ended his political career in an avalanche of ridicule long ago. For in confronting Hirsi Ali and assuming he knew more about Islam than she does, Biden was reflecting what virtually every policymaker in Washington believes – on both sides of the aisle.
Even though Ayaan Hirsi Ali was raised a Muslim in a Muslim country, and educated in Islam from an extremely early age, and despite the fact that Joe Biden has almost certainly never opened a Qur’an, Biden was sure that what she said about Islam must be wrong – it just had to be. Why? Because her opinion of the religion was negative, and the possibility that such a view could have any merit whatsoever is inconceivable in Washington circles. Those who hold it must be ignorant.
It’s almost certain that Biden would never have confronted Karen Armstrong in a similar way. If Biden is familiar with what Armstrong says about Islam, such as her world-historically ridiculous claim that “Muhammad eventually abjured violence and pursued a daring, inspired policy of non-violence that was worthy of Gandhi,” he would no doubt warmly approve and even applaud. This would not be because Armstrong has done more formal study of Islam than has Hirsi Ali – she hasn’t. Nor would it be because Imam Joe himself made a careful and judicious examination of Islamic texts and teachings, and came to the reasoned conclusion that Armstrong’s representation of Islam was more accurate and true to the ding an sich than Hirsi Ali’s.
What a holiday message: be mean to someone’s who’s different until they become useful. You know who I mean– Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer.
…But do you recall
The most famous reindeer of all?
If he’s the most famous, why wouldn’t I? But I didn’t know the story was created by a Montgomery Ward copywriter:
…The story stretches back to 1939, when an advertising copywriter named Robert L. May wrote the story of Rudolph for Montgomery Ward for its annual Christmas giveaway book. It was so popular, the department store chain gave out 2.5 million copies.
Because of wartime paper shortages, Rudolph did not return until 1946, when Montgomery Ward reprinted the book and gave out 3.5 million more.
Despite the popularity, Ward was done with Rudolph and handed the copyright for the story back to May. The Rudolph story had some success as a children’s book and a spoken-word record, but the elevation of the ninth reindeer to mythical status would require May’s brother-in-law and a certain singing cowboy.
May’s sister Margaret happened to be married to songwriter Johnny Marks, who in 1948 came up with a song based on the Rudolph story. Bing Crosby and Dinah Shore, among others, passed.
In 1949, though, singer, film star and eventual Angels owner Gene Autry recorded “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer,” and an instant hit was born. The song rocketed to No. 1 and soon would be recorded by hundreds of other artists and become the second-biggest-selling Christmas song of all time, behind “White Christmas.”
There the Rudolph story stayed until 1962, when Arthur Rankin Jr. and Saul Bass, partners in a production company called Videocraft International, were approached by the General Electric Co. about doing a holiday special.
Monkey Wards? Catalogs? Geezer stuff.
We watched the fine movie, Philomena, over the weekend. It’s nicely done all around, except for one thing: it repeated the same story that President Reagan hated gays and thwarted efforts to nip the epidemic in the bud, thus condemning millions of gays to death.
(A similar tale is told of Reagan throwing thousands of homeless out onto the street, when in fact, the impetus for releasing non-dangerous, institutionalized mentally ill patients was a progressive project.)
Carl Cannon, a reporter for the San Jose Mercury News back in 1978, remembers that rising conservative star Reagan helped defeat a California ballot initiative that would have banned gays and lesbians from teaching in the public schools.
…Reagan’s political handlers advised him to steer clear, but gay Republicans privately asked him to get involved, as did some Democratic friends and some Hollywood pals. Briggs, who wrongly assumed Reagan was on his side, publicly goaded him, too.
Intensive politicking by the California’s liberal establishment had pared Proposition 6’s support from a whopping 75 percent to 55 percent, but that’s where the needle stayed—until Reagan spoke out. In September, he told reporters of his opposition, and followed up with an op-ed saying Proposition 6 would do “real mischief.” Support for it eroded, even in Briggs’ home county, and it lost handily.
One of those who’d urged Reagan to intervene was Los Angeles gay activist David Mixner, a friend of future president Bill Clinton. “Never have I been treated more graciously by a human being,” Mixner said of his meeting with Reagan. “He turned opinion around and saved that election for us. He just thought it was wrong and came out against it.”
This didn’t surprise those who knew Reagan. Like most movie actors, he had several gay friends. But even this is used against him by partisans. “Reagan did not even mention the word AIDS,” Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen wrote last week, “until the disease was impossible to ignore and his friend Rock Hudson had died from it.”
This is almost true. It was Hudson who wouldn’t discuss AIDS; Reagan actually mentioned the disease publicly for the first time two weeks before his friend passed away. But Cohen gets his information about Reagan and AIDS from Larry Kramer—his column was touting Kramer’s new HBO movie—and Kramer is not a reliable source on the 40th president.
…How is an artisanal attorney different from any other attorney? Like other artisans, I pay close attention to my ingredients and process; I am intimately involved in all stages of creation. Other attorneys print their documents on paper they buy in mass-produced boxes, tens of thousands of sheets at a time, using ink that mechanically jets onto the page. I make my own paper by hand, using the traditional methods of 14th-century book publishers, who printed their works on linen and vellum.
The flax for the linen grows along the sides of a nearby swimming hole, and the plants’ growth is influenced by the laughter of children in the summer, when I pick it by hand. The vellum comes from the grass-fed cows of an area farm; to give the cows more agency in the vellum-making process, I let them choose the pumice I will treat their hides with after slaughter. I also make my own ink, using the ink of squid I raise myself in a PETA-approved salt-water aquarium in my office. You can meet all my squid during our initial meeting and pick which one you want for the ink on your will or healthcare power of attorney…
(Mike Rogers, Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, Mike Morell, the Supreme Court, Glenn Beck)
To me the most shocking piece of recent news wasn’t Obama’s end run around Congress and the Constitution regarding immigration, but the way the House Intelligence Committee allegedly investigating Benghazi dumped its report late on a Friday afternoon. That is traditionally when Washington insiders get the word out when they don’t want the media to get the word out. In this case, it’s no wonder.
For one thing, the investigation seemed to be over before it even began. It generally takes a few years for Congress to decide what to name a new post office. For another, I never heard about the committee holding even a single hearing, and I’m a pretty devoted Fox viewer.
That is what led me to send the committee’s chairman, Mike Rogers, the following letter: “Dear Rep. Rogers: I can’t help being curious about your committee’s report, a report that apparently found nothing amiss in the attack on the Benghazi consulate, not in the run-up to the butchery committed on 9/11/12, not during the attack itself and not even in the shameful aftermath.
You found nothing amiss in the statements by Sec. Rice and President Obama, which even weeks after the bloody affair, blamed it all on an inane video? You found nothing questionable about Obama’s absence and silence during the evening of the attack? It didn’t strike you as peculiar that there wasn’t a military response during the seven hours the attack was taking place? You folks didn’t find anything even mildly suggestive about Sec. Clinton’s “What difference at this point does it make?” response during a congressional enquiry? You and your committee didn’t regard it as even slightly curious that the talking points from the intelligence community were edited and revised by members of the administration before Susan Rice went on all those Sunday news shows?
“Was Mrs. Clinton even questioned by your committee? Was Susan Rice? Was the President? What about the Navy Seals and those members of the consulate who survived the attack?
“It has even gotten around that you based most of your conclusions on the questionable testimony of former CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell, who after months of insisting he had nothing to do with editing the talking points was finally forced to admit he had almost everything to do with it.
“Just curious, but is it possible that one of your Democratic colleagues has been holding your dog for ransom? Best wishes, Burt Prelutsky”
Moving on to other matters, what gives with the Supreme Court? These people are paid a good deal of money ($244,400 for the eight regular justices, $255,500 for the chief justice, not to mention their book royalties and speaking fees) for a very short work year. They’re only in session from Oct.1st until late June. In addition, they have any number of clerks to help with the heavy lifting, which consists of looking up legal precedents, typing up decisions and bringing lunch to their lordships.
I would think that in exchange for all the money and glory, they could squeeze in a little time during which they can try to rein in a president who seems to be doing his best to act as if the Constitution isn’t worth the parchment it’s written on.
Why, for instance, can’t a president or a majority of the House get a constitutional question fast-tracked to the Supremes? Why does it have to go through a maze of lesser courts before it can finally be placed before the Court that counts? The gestation period of elephants doesn’t take as long. Even Congress manages to name post offices in half the time.
Finally, a friend sent me an op-ed piece from the Manitoba Herald, which proved that Canadians are aware of the absurdity of our border policy and take considerable comfort in the fact that the United States acts as a 2,000 mile buffer to the endless onslaught of illegal aliens who would otherwise be turning Toronto, Montreal and Quebec, into third world pueblos.
A few of the highlights include: “The flood of American liberals sneaking across the border into Canada has intensified in the past week, sparking calls for increased patrols to stop the illegal immigration. The recent actions of the Tea Party and the fact Republicans won the Senate are prompting an exodus among left-leaning citizens who fear they’ll soon be required to hunt, pray and to agree with Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck.
“Canadian border farmers say it’s not uncommon to see dozens of sociology professors, animal-rights activists and Unitarians crossing their fields at night. ‘I went out to milk the cows the other day, and there was a Hollywood producer huddled in the barn,’ said Southern Manitoba farmer Red Greenfield, whose acreage borders North Dakota. ‘The producer was cold, exhausted and hungry. He asked me if I could spare a latte and some free-range chicken. When I said I didn’t have any, he left before I even had a chance to show him my screenplay, eh?’”
After going on in this vein for a few more paragraphs, it concluded with “In an effort to ease tensions between the U.S. and Canada, Vice President Joe Biden met with the Canadian ambassador and pledged that the administration would take steps to reassure liberals. A source close to President Obama said, ‘We’re going to have some Paul McCartney and Peter, Paul & Mary concerts. And we might even put some endangered species on postage stamps. The President is determined to reach out,’ he concluded.”
Is there a red-blooded conservative in America who, in his heart of hearts, doesn’t wish to God this had been a legitimate news story?
Surely I can’t be the only one.
Be sure to catch Burt’s weekly hour-long webcast on Wednesdays, at noon, Pacific Coast Time. The show is accessed at K4HD.com. The call-in number is (818) 570-5443.
Jonah Goldberg on the groveling Jonathan Gruber, who denied (this week) being the “architect” of ObamaCare. He can be seen on video telling his MIT class that he co-wrote the bill.
…There’s another reason Gruber never corrected anybody when they described him as an architect of Obamacare: Because it’s true!
Which leads to another important point: Gruber’s a huge, monumental, Brobdingnagian liar.
To believe his testimony before Congress is to believe that on one occasion after another, he baldly lied over and over again to his peers, colleagues, students, and friends. Darrell Issa sort of gets at this here at the end of Gowdy’s interrogation when he asks Gruber, “Did anybody come up to you and tell you that what you were saying was inappropriate?”
That’s an interesting question and tells you a lot about the sovereign contempt the expert class has for the American people. But a better question would be, “Why didn’t anybody correct you on your factual claims? Or simply say ‘What you’re saying isn’t true’?” Gruber was on panels with other health-care experts. The audiences were full of people who were deeply informed about Obamacare and all its details. And yet no one said, “Hey, that’s not the way it happened.” Why? Because Gruber was telling the truth when he said they had to deceive the American people. And before you ask me what proof I have, I would like to direct you to the fact that Barack Obama deceived the American people over and over and over again when he said things like “You can keep your doctor” and “You can keep your insurance” etc. (and not one liberal journalist cheerleader for Obamacare ever felt compelled to push back on this obvious lie). Are we really so stunned that the same president might be willing to play accounting games with the CBO?
Sure maybe Gruber exaggerated his role or involvement. Maybe he embellished this or that. But you can’t exaggerate a lie; you can only exaggerate the truth. For years he told the truth to anyone who would listen, and now that it’s politically problematic he says it was all a lie.
So we’re forced to choose: Was he lying when talking to countless audiences full of peers, colleagues, and experts, or was he lying in front of Congress in order to save his team any further embarrassment and preserve a law he’s sincerely proud of (because he was an architect of it)? Personally, I think you’d have to be too stupid to beat Joe Biden at tic-tac-toe to think the “real” Gruber testified before Congress this week. But whichever side you come down on this question, one thing has been established: He’s a huge liar.
It’s also been established that he’s lying because Gruber is one of them. He’s a social planner from a class of social planners. His crime was being honest about it, and now he must atone by denying who he is and what he has done. His testimony was like wearing a DunceCap in the Cultural Revolution. Every now and then you’ve got to humiliate one of the eggheads to assure the rabble that the other eggheads are different and better. But you can be sure, after a period of penance, he will be invited back into the club…
The 2010 Dodd-Frank Act that created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau explicitly prohibited the agency from regulating auto dealers, which the agency would like to accuse of racism. Thus the agency has gone after wholesale finance providers instead. These bulk lenders quote dealers an interest rate that dealers, in negotiation with buyers, then “mark up” within fixed parameters.
Not that the government alleges actual bias against anyone (except in casual remarks to the press). It alleges only “disparate impact” due to neutral business practices by the wholesale lenders. The government doesn’t even know the race and gender of car buyers (dealers are prohibited from collecting this information). Instead it relies on something called the Bayesian Improved Surname Geocoding (BISG) method to classify individuals by ethnicity according to last name, census tract and zip code.
BISG is most often used by health-care groups to gauge broad differences in outcomes by ethnic group and gender, where it only has to be a little better than classifying people randomly to produce statistically useful results. Even so, a recent study in the journal Health Services Research found BISG most reliable for the over-65 cohort, “possibly suggesting that older individuals may live in less diverse communities and carry last names that are more suggestive of their race/ethnicity.”
Imagine the outrage if a corporation used this method to target customers based on race.
The CFPB itself admits its method overstates African-Americans in the car-buying population by 20%; a private study by Charles River Associates for an auto-finance trade group finds the overstatement closer to 40%. Yet this broken, gap-toothed rake supposedly is a fine enough comb to discover ethnic disparities of between 10 and 30 basis points on an auto loan, or a maximum of 0.3 percentage points.
Understand: Current car-loan rates range from 2.6% for prime borrowers to 12.7% for bottom-tier subprime. We’re talking about disparities that amount to less than 1% of total transaction cost when price, loan terms and options are considered.
Any peer review panel would surely recognize the CFPB’s strong bureaucratic and political incentives to find the desired discrimination, but the agency’s methods will never be subjected to peer review. Then again, maybe it doesn’t matter since its malpractice is so openly flaunted.
Randy Barnett explains in USA Today why the GOP needs to have an alternative to ObamaCare ready before the Supreme Court hears the latest challenge to the ACA.
…everyone needs to invest in devising a replacement for Obamacare. Even better, by developing such an alternative, Republicans can make a favorable ruling more likely.
As a rule, Supreme Court justices are reluctant to invalidate a law on which many relied. It will be far easier for the justices to enforce the law’s existing language if they know there is a viable alternative that can be enacted by both houses of Congress and signed by the president within a week of their ruling.
To devise such a replacement, the Senate and the House must use “regular order” and their committees to do actual legislating with input from the Democratic minority.
Because everyone will now know that their handiwork may very well become law, everyone has an incentive to take this project seriously.
The first line of any such bill should be the complete repeal of each and every word of the Affordable Care Act. This monstrosity must not be allowed to survive in any form. In its place, the new Congress should write a replacement bill that would:
Restore consumer choice to buy true private insurance limited to the terms they want to pay for, including policies insuring only against the catastrophic health care costs, and medical savings accounts.
Increase competition by allowing state-regulated insurance to be sold across state lines so consumers can keep their policies when moving from one state to another.
Increase equity by extending the tax benefits now available only to employer-based insurance to all health insurance. Like car insurance, you shouldn’t have to change health insurance policies when changing jobs.
With the Democrats now in the minority, such a bill is very likely to be bipartisan if it contains a “refundable” tax credit for health insurance for all Americans, regardless of income — essentially extending to everyone the very subsidies that the court will strike down.
By participating in the process, not only can they ensure that subsidies are included, they also can claim victory. Rightly or wrongly, Democrats can say that, without it, Republicans would never have supported reforming the previously dysfunctional health insurance system.
With or without bipartisanship, however, Republicans need to have a well-vetted replacement in the pipeline. To make a favorable ruling in King more likely, the legislative wheels must be visibly in motion by the time of oral arguments in March.
Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber claimed on Capitol Hill this week that he did not write whole parts of Obamacare. Nonsense.
Wyoming Rep. Cynthia Lummis grilled Gruber at Tuesday’s House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing. Lummis brought up past statements Gruber made identifying himself as a co-writer of Obamacare and saying that he wrote entire sections of it. Gruber denied his prime writing role and stonewalled on key questions about his participation in designing the law. (RELATED: Gruber Lawyers Up)
The Jonathan Gruber of the Oversight hearing was contrite, bumbling, and glibly apologetic — just a doddering little academic that got himself caught up in big, bad Washington politics.
But Jonathan Gruber was, indeed, the “brains” behind the key parts of Obamacare. He was the Aaron Sorkin to this legislative “Newsroom,” the Mario Puzo to this “Godfather Part III,” the Ringo Starr to this Ringo Starr solo album. Here’s how we know:
Read it all.
“To say that the CIA and the KGB engage in similar practices is the equivalent of saying that the man who pushes an old lady into the path of a hurtling bus is not to be distinguished from the man who pushes an old lady out of the path of a hurtling bus: on the grounds that, after all, in both cases someone is pushing old ladies around.”
William F. Buckley
NOTE: This post comes after last night’s vote to fund the government. The points made still remain salient.
As I sit here, it’s the 8th of December and I have no idea if the government will be shut down before the end of the month. For my purposes, it hardly matters because the threat of a shutdown is always lurking in Washington. That is especially true now that the two parties are hunkered down in their respective trenches as if reenacting the bloodiest days of World War I.
For a long time, as my wife just reminded me, I opposed such shutdowns. But I only opposed them because the media is always quick to blame it on the Republicans and because in one case, the 2013 shutdown did lead to the Clintons’ bagman, Terry McAuliffe, defeating Ken Cuccinelli in Virginia’s gubernatorial race. That was because northern Virginia is home to so many federal bureaucrats that they took the work stoppage personally.
My own inclination is to bring the federal government to a halt as often as possible, if simply to slow down the rate at which Obama and Congress are destroying the nation. One of the problems with a shutdown, however, is that it’s the president who gets to decide how the available money is spent. And Obama being Obama, he loves to shut down things like the World War II Memorial and the national parks, knowing how much normal Americans resent such closures.
At the risk of being labeled a flip-flopper, I have changed my mind. That’s because I finally came to the realization that it’s only the mass media that blames the GOP, and fewer and fewer people, including Democrats, are paying any attention to the NY Times and the major TV networks.
Furthermore, I came to see the upside of the two major shutdowns in the recent past. The first took place in 1995, the second in 2013. In both cases, the GOP got the lion’s share of the blame, but so what? In 1996, although Clinton won re-election, defeating the zombie-like Bob Dole, the GOP picked up two seats in the Senate and only dropped two seats in the House.
In 2014, less than a year after the second shutdown, the GOP picked up nine seats in the Senate and a dozen more in the House. So perhaps I’m not the only one who approves of politicians having less opportunity to stick their noses into our business.
Speaking of politicians, I would love to have reporters conduct the same sort of exit polls after those in the House and Senate cast their votes for majority and minority leaders that they do during normal elections. For instance, I’d love to know why the Democrats keep re-electing Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. I mean, why would anyone wish to have his party represented by Reid, a guy Hollywood would typecast as a mortician? As for Mrs. Pelosi, she speaks like a backward teenager and has had so many facelifts, my friend Steve Maikoski fears that the day will come when her face will snap in front of the TV cameras and roll up like a window shade.
The Republicans are no better. Mitch McConnell and John Boehner may be nice guys, but they are equally boring to listen to and have the personal magnetism of a pair of sheep. I know that my more conservative readers don’t like them because of their middle of the road politics and their unnatural desire to compromise with liberals. Still, politics aside, wouldn’t you think that with 54 members in the new Senate and 246 members in the new House, they would come up with a couple of people easier on the eyes and ears than two fellows who should be bottled and sold as surefire cures for insomnia?
I’m not a Washington insider, so I have no way of knowing, but is there an unwritten law which states that to be a Congressional leader, you have to be able to pass for an attraction at the waxworks?
In the aftermath of the demonstrations over the recent incidents in Ferguson and Staten Island, there were so many statements by politicians, so-called race leaders, demonstrators and commentators, to refute and despise, I hardly know where to begin.
But as I have already covered the first two groups in previous articles, it’s time to rat out the latter two. Not since the Occupy Wall Street movement was in full swing have I seen so many self-righteous creeps out in full regalia. Show me a group of chanters and I’ll show you a pack of morons. And what could be more moronic than chanting “Hands up, don’t shoot” when Michael Brown, as the grand jury witnesses testified, not only never raised his hands, but decided it would be a good idea to rush a cop who had stopped firing his gun?
Then we have the commentators who kept telling us that those marching on behalf of Eric Garner were peacefully demonstrating while the cameras showed us the lunkheads tying up traffic on streets and bridges and preventing Christmas shoppers from entering Macy’s Department Store. What is peaceful about doing everything you can to frustrate innocent bystanders trying to get to work or home to their families, raising the blood pressure of thousands of people who are already mentally and physically frazzled by the holiday season?
And of course even those disseminating the peaceful protest propaganda had to eat their words when the thugs in Berkeley began hurling rocks and Molotov cocktails at the cops.
Chris Rock, the black comedian, summed up the case for the aggrieved by quoting W.E.B. Dubois: “A system cannot fail those it was never meant to protect.”
For me, the question Rock raises is just how stupid do you have to be before you think the real problem facing blacks in America isn’t lack of education and a nonexistent work ethic or men refusing to marry the mothers of their children; and it isn’t a generational reliance on welfare and thousands of blacks murdering and raping their fellow blacks. Instead, Chris Rock and his like-minded enablers in show business and the media would have us believe the problem boils down to a couple of white cops killing a pair of black scofflaws.
These days, if you hold the victims even partially to blame, it makes you a bigot. But inasmuch as it only takes speaking out against Obama, Al Sharpton or Eric Holder, to be branded a racist these days, the term for some of us has inevitably become a badge of honor.
Be sure to catch Burt’s weekly hour-long webcast on Wednesdays, at noon, Pacific Coast Time. The show is accessed at K4HD.com. The call-in number is (818) 570-5443.
No one seriously believed that 20% of female students are sexually assaulted, probably not even the activists pushing for stiff rules and Kangaroo courts on colleges.
A new report on sexual assault released today by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) officially puts to bed the bogus statistic that one in five women on college campuses are victims of sexual assault. In fact, non-students are 25 percent more likely to be victims of sexual assault than students, according to the data. And the real number of assault victims is several orders of magnitude lower than one-in-five.
The full study, which was published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, a division within DOJ, found that rather than one in five female college students becoming victims of sexual assault, the actual rate is 6.1 per 1,000 students, or 0.61 percent (instead of 1-in-5, the real number is 0.03-in-5). For non-students, the rate of sexual assault is 7.6 per 1,000 people.
Daniel Hannan in the UK Telegraph with some uncomfortable history for progressives.
On 16 June 1941, as Hitler readied his forces for Operation Barbarossa, Josef Goebbels looked forward to the new order that the Nazis would impose on a conquered Russia. There would be no come-back, he wrote, for capitalists nor priests nor Tsars. Rather, in the place of debased, Jewish Bolshevism, the Wehrmacht would deliver “der echte Sozialismus”: real socialism.
Goebbels never doubted that he was a socialist. He understood Nazism to be a better and more plausible form of socialism than that propagated by Lenin. Instead of spreading itself across different nations, it would operate within the unit of the Volk.
So total is the cultural victory of the modern Left that the merely to recount this fact is jarring. But few at the time would have found it especially contentious. As George Watson put it in The Lost Literature of Socialism:
It is now clear beyond all reasonable doubt that Hitler and his associates believed they were socialists, and that others, including democratic socialists, thought so too.
The clue is in the name. Subsequent generations of Leftists have tried to explain away the awkward nomenclature of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party as either a cynical PR stunt or an embarrassing coincidence. In fact, the name meant what it said.
Hitler told Hermann Rauschning, a Prussian who briefly worked for the Nazis before rejecting them and fleeing the country, that he had admired much of the thinking of the revolutionaries he had known as a young man; but he felt that they had been talkers, not doers. “I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun,” he boasted, adding that “the whole of National Socialism” was “based on Marx”.
Marx’s error, Hitler believed, had been to foster class war instead of national unity – to set workers against industrialists instead of conscripting both groups into a corporatist order. His aim, he told his economic adviser, Otto Wagener, was to “convert the German Volk to socialism without simply killing off the old individualists” – by which he meant the bankers and factory owners who could, he thought, serve socialism better by generating revenue for the state. “What Marxism, Leninism and Stalinism failed to accomplish,” he told Wagener, “we shall be in a position to achieve.”
Leftist readers may by now be seething. Whenever I touch on this subject, it elicits an almost berserk reaction from people who think of themselves as progressives and see anti-fascism as part of their ideology. Well, chaps, maybe now you know how we conservatives feel when you loosely associate Nazism with “the Right”.
To be absolutely clear, I don’t believe that modern Leftists have subliminal Nazi leanings, or that their loathing of Hitler is in any way feigned. That’s not my argument. What I want to do, by holding up the mirror, is to take on the equally false idea that there is an ideological continuum between free-marketers and fascists…
Jim Geraghty at NRO
Gentlemen, start your lawyers.
In their first interviews about the events of that September 2012 night, the three friends separately told The Post that their recollections of the encounter diverge from how Rolling Stone portrayed the incident in a story about Jackie’s alleged gang rape at a U-Va. fraternity. The interviews also provide a richer account of Jackie’s interactions immediately after the alleged attack, and suggest that the friends are skeptical of her account.
“Diverge” is a gentle word, considering the circumstances:
They said there are mounting inconsistencies with the original narrative in the magazine. The students also expressed suspicions about Jackie’s allegations from that night. They said the name she provided as that of her date did not match anyone at the university, and U-Va. officials confirmed to The Post that no one by that name has attended the school.
Since Friday, the question on lots of minds has been whether the account of the victim in Rolling Stone was a gross exaggeration of a genuine but less dramatic traumatic event or a wholesale hoax.
Here’s where things get really problematic for our victim:
And photographs that were texted to one of the friends showing her date that night actually were pictures depicting one of Jackie’s high-school classmates in Northern Virginia. That man, now a junior at a university in another state, confirmed that the photographs are of him and said he barely knew Jackie and hasn’t been to Charlottesville for at least six years.
Here’s where things get really, really problematic for Rolling Stone:
The friends said they never were contacted or interviewed by the pop culture magazine’s reporters or editors. Though vilified in the article as coldly indifferent to Jackie’s ordeal, the students said they cared deeply about their friend’s well-being and safety. Randall said that they made every effort to help Jackie that night.
How in the name of Tawana Brawley can Rolling Stone quote people without contacting them?
Shattered Glass is a pretty good film depicting the real-life tale of The New Republic’s serial fabulist, Stephen Glass. Adam Penenberg, the reporter who ultimately exposed the lies, lays out the twists and turns of the investigation in a great personal essay here. There’s a moment during Penenberg’s first confrontation with Glass, in front of both men’s editors, where it becomes clear that Glass’s story cannot possibly be true. Penenberg whispers, “The guy is toast.”
We’re now in “the guy is toast” territory for Rolling Stone.
Here’s where Rolling Stone reporter Sabrina Rubin Erdely may be getting into Stephen Glass/Jayson Blair territory:
The Rolling Stone article also said that Randall declined to be interviewed, “citing his loyalty to his own frat.” He told The Post that he never was contacted by Rolling Stone and would have agreed to an interview. The article’s writer, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, did not respond to requests for comment this week.
We have now veered past shoddy journalism to writing things that didn’t happen. The only scenario in which Erdely isn’t putting words in people’s mouths is if the victim — do we refer to her as an alleged victim now? — sent e-mails on behalf of Randall and her friends, i.e., an elaborate hoax that involves impersonating other people.
Here’s the one piece of evidence contending the victim’s story is not made up out of whole cloth:
“She had very clearly just experienced a horrific trauma,” Randall said. “I had never seen anybody acting like she was on that night before and I really hope I never have to again. . . . If she was acting on the night of Sept. 28, 2012, then she deserves an Oscar.”
By the way, here’s the University President, Teresa Sullivan:
On Greek life, Sullivan said she is working “collaboratively” with fraternity leaders. “The students have brought forward some great ideas,” she said. But she said a suspension of social activities would remain in place until Jan. 9.
One extremely dubious allegation in a national magazine prompted the suspension of all Greek activities for the semester. They’re teaching those kids a lesson — unfortunately it’s a lesson about collective punishment and modern academia’s increasing lack of interest in the rights of the accused.
Like millions of other Americans, I have spent cautiously, paid bills on time and maintained a strict budget. That doesn’t make us heroes. But it does mean we have exercised common sense, which has been sorely lacking among the politicians in my home state of Illinois.
The Land of Lincoln has accrued a $111 billion unfunded liability for government workers’ pensions—up 75% from five years ago. There is an additional $56 billion of unfunded debt to cover health benefits for the state’s retirees. Illinois today is already spending more of its general fund on pensions than on K-12 education. One in four tax dollars pays for its retired workers’ benefits. Last year the state had to defer paying $7 billion owed to contractors. All this after Democrats in 2011 raised income taxes and corporate taxes by 67% and 30%, respectively.
It’s getting embarrassing to admit that I’m a citizen of such a deadbeat state.
The level of debt is staggering. According to a recent report by Statista Inc., Illinois residents owe $24,959 each as their share of the outstanding bonds, unfunded pension commitments and budget gaps the state has accumulated. Thank goodness this obligation doesn’t go on my credit report, or my credit rating would be in the tank along with the state’s A-minus bond rating, the worst of any state in the nation.
It is no wonder that 850,000 people have left Illinois for other states in the past 15 years, according to the Illinois Policy Institute.
Feinstein’s Senate committee was generating a report that could cost CIA lives and ruin relationships with foreign nations. So the spooks spied on her committee. Feinstein found out and now is getting her revenge via a partisan report.
Just in time for Grubergate, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California has decided to horn in on the show with the release of the Senate’s report on the “enhanced interrogation techniques” of the Bush administration. Those would be the same techniques that eventually led to the discovery and killing of Osama bin Laden, but never mind. Today of all days, the Ugly Truth must be told, in all its media-ready glory.
Still, stop and ask yourself why. Why now? Who cares? The vast majority of Americans will lose not one wink of sleep over the fates of the prisoners in Guantanamo or those stashed away in rendition prisons in various dark and savage corners of the world. They’re getting what’s coming to them. They asked for it.
Then think about Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals and its famous Rule No. 4: “Make the enemy live up to his own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.” To the Obama administration and most of the surviving Democrats in Congress, the “enemy,” of course, is conservatives and Republicans, not radical Islam. (Hillary Clinton recently said in a speech that, based on her crackerjack stint as secretary of state, the U.S. needs to “respect” and “empathize with” our “enemies,” by whom she meant our Islamic friends we just haven’t met yet. )
What the Democrats are doing is classic Alinskyism, posturing as the defenders of the American Way and hoping like hell that nobody remembers that rendition prisons began under the Clinton administration. But let the ACLU tell it:
Beginning in the early 1990s and continuing to this day, the Central Intelligence Agency, together with other U.S. government agencies, has utilized an intelligence-gathering program involving the transfer of foreign nationals suspected of involvement in terrorism to detention and interrogation in countries where — in the CIA’s view — federal and international legal safeguards do not apply. Suspects are detained and interrogated either by U.S. personnel at U.S.-run detention facilities outside U.S. sovereign territory or, alternatively, are handed over to the custody of foreign agents for interrogation. In both instances, interrogation methods are employed that do not comport with federal and internationally recognized standards.
“This program is commonly known as ‘extraordinary rendition,’” the ACLU added.
From today’s WSJ. Not the link to a website at the bottom of the story.
The Senate Intelligence Committee has released its majority report on Central Intelligence Agency detention and interrogation in the wake of 9/11. The following response is from former CIA Directors George J. Tenet, Porter J. Goss and Michael V. Hayden (a retired Air Force general), and former CIA Deputy Directors John E. McLaughlin, Albert M. Calland (a retired Navy vice admiral) and Stephen R. Kappes :
The Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on Central Intelligence Agency detention and interrogation of terrorists, prepared only by the Democratic majority staff, is a missed opportunity to deliver a serious and balanced study of an important public policy question. The committee has given us instead a one-sided study marred by errors of fact and interpretation—essentially a poorly done and partisan attack on the agency that has done the most to protect America after the 9/11 attacks.
Examining how the CIA handled these matters is an important subject of continuing relevance to a nation still at war. In no way would we claim that we did everything perfectly, especially in the emergency and often-chaotic circumstances we confronted in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. As in all wars, there were undoubtedly things in our program that should not have happened. When we learned of them, we reported such instances to the CIA inspector general or the Justice Department and sought to take corrective action.
The country and the CIA would have benefited from a more balanced study of these programs and a corresponding set of recommendations. The committee’s report is not that study. It offers not a single recommendation.
Our view on this is shared by the CIA and the Senate Intelligence Committee’s Republican minority, both of which are releasing rebuttals to the majority’s report. Both critiques are clear-eyed, fact-based assessments that challenge the majority’s contentions in a nonpartisan way.
What is wrong with the committee’s report?
First, its claim that the CIA’s interrogation program was ineffective in producing intelligence that helped us disrupt, capture, or kill terrorists is just not accurate. The program was invaluable in three critical ways:
• It led to the capture of senior al Qaeda operatives, thereby removing them from the battlefield.
• It led to the disruption of terrorist plots and prevented mass casualty attacks, saving American and Allied lives.
• It added enormously to what we knew about al Qaeda as an organization and therefore informed our approaches on how best to attack, thwart and degrade it.
A powerful example of the interrogation program’s importance is the information obtained from Abu Zubaydah, a senior al Qaeda operative, and from Khalid Sheikh Muhammed, known as KSM, the 9/11 mastermind. We are convinced that both would not have talked absent the interrogation program.
Information provided by Zubaydah through the interrogation program led to the capture in 2002 of KSM associate and post-9/11 plotter Ramzi Bin al-Shibh. Information from both Zubaydah and al-Shibh led us to KSM. KSM then led us to Riduan Isamuddin, aka Hambali, East Asia’s chief al Qaeda ally and the perpetrator of the 2002 Bali bombing in Indonesia—in which more than 200 people perished.
The removal of these senior al Qaeda operatives saved thousands of lives because it ended their plotting. KSM, alone, was working on multiple plots when he was captured.
Here’s an example of how the interrogation program actually worked to disrupt terrorist plotting. Without revealing to KSM that Hambali had been captured, we asked him who might take over in the event that Hambali was no longer around. KSM pointed to Hambali’s brother Rusman Gunawan. We then found Gunawan, and information from him resulted in the takedown of a 17-member Southeast Asian cell that Gunawan had recruited for a “second wave,” 9/11-style attack on the U.S. West Coast, in all likelihood using aircraft again to attack buildings. Had that attack occurred, the nightmare of 9/11 would have been repeated.
Once they had become compliant due to the interrogation program, both Abu Zubaydah and KSM turned out to be invaluable sources on the al Qaeda organization. We went back to them multiple times to gain insight into the group. More than one quarter of the nearly 1,700 footnotes in the highly regarded 9/11 Commission Report in 2004 and a significant share of the intelligence in the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on al Qaeda came from detainees in the program, in particular Zubaydah and KSM.
The majority on the Senate Intelligence Committee further claims that the takedown of bin Laden was not facilitated by information from the interrogation program. They are wrong. There is no doubt that information provided by the totality of detainees in CIA custody, those who were subjected to interrogation and those who were not, was essential to bringing bin Laden to justice. The CIA never would have focused on the individual who turned out to be bin Laden’s personal courier without the detention and interrogation program.
Specifically, information developed in the interrogation program piqued the CIA’s interest in the courier, placing him at the top of the list of leads to bin Laden. A detainee subjected to interrogation provided the most specific information on the courier. Additionally, KSM and Abu Faraj al-Libi—both subjected to interrogation—lied about the courier at a time when both were providing honest answers to a large number of other critical questions. Since other detainees had already linked the courier to KSM and Abu Faraj, their dissembling about him had great significance.
So the bottom line is this: The interrogation program formed an essential part of the foundation from which the CIA and the U.S. military mounted the bin Laden operation.
The second significant problem with the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report is its claim that the CIA routinely went beyond the interrogation techniques as authorized by the Justice Department. That claim is wrong.
President Obama ’s attorney general, Eric Holder , directed an experienced prosecutor, John Durham, to investigate the interrogation program in 2009. Mr. Durham examined whether any unauthorized techniques were used by CIA interrogators, and if so, whether such techniques could constitute violations of U.S. criminal statutes. In a press release, the attorney general said that Mr. Durham “examined any possible CIA involvement with the interrogation and detention of 101 detainees who were alleged to have been in U.S. custody” after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The investigation was concluded in August 2012. It was professional and exhaustive and it determined that no prosecutable offenses were committed.
Third, the report’s argument that the CIA misled the Justice Department, the White House, Congress, and the American people is also flat-out wrong. Much of the report’s reasoning for this claim rests on its argument that the interrogation program should not have been called effective, an argument that does not stand up to the facts.
Fourth, the majority left out something critical to understanding the program: context.
The detention and interrogation program was formulated in the aftermath of the murders of close to 3,000 people on 9/11. This was a time when:
• We had evidence that al Qaeda was planning a second wave of attacks on the U.S.
• We had certain knowledge that bin Laden had met with Pakistani nuclear scientists and wanted nuclear weapons.
• We had reports that nuclear weapons were being smuggled into New York City.
• We had hard evidence that al Qaeda was trying to manufacture anthrax.
It felt like the classic “ticking time bomb” scenario—every single day.
There is a very good reason why liberals rarely become cops or join the military. It’s because they could get hurt. They will lie and pretend that it’s because they’re so very smart and prefer careers that call for them to use their brains. But I’m Jewish, so I know a great many liberals first hand. In addition, I live in California where you can’t swing a cat without hitting a bunch of them, which explains why I carry a couple of cats every time I leave the house.
I first became aware of this during the Vietnam War when just about every guy I knew at UCLA suddenly became a devout pacifist. Some of them even preferred falsely identifying themselves as homosexuals — getting left-wing psychiatrists to confirm their lie – as an easy way out. Anything was better than having army sergeants shout at them or having the Vietcong shoot at them.
Part of the reason they’re cowards is because they are raised to never hit back even if a schoolyard bully is taking their lunch money or their lunch. They’ve never been spanked for misbehaving. Instead, they’ve been given time outs, which involve being sent to their room to meditate on their questionable behavior. Of course it’s not their fault that their rooms resemble a Toys-R-Us warehouse and that their meditations usually take a backseat to their video games.
When riots break out, liberal politicians won’t even allow the police to bash heads because they’re so terrified of being compared to such racists as George Wallace or Bull Connors. But it’s also because to them, all blacks are alike and, therefore, sacred. They are incapable of seeing the difference between blacks who are trying to attend school or eat at a lunch counter and those turning over cars or burning down businesses. Political correctness makes cowards of them all.
A friend of mine thinks that granting amnesty to millions of illegals will force America’s poor — blacks and Hispanics alike – to realize that the welfare system is about to be overwhelmed. But I think his concerns are groundless. When it comes to doubling the number of people receiving food stamps or forking over billions of dollars to those claiming fraudulent disabilities, all the feds do is alter the plates at the printing presses, changing the denomination on the bills being run off from fives and tens to twenties and fifties. Problem solved.
I think it’s a stretch to call the material that lurks within the skulls of liberals “brains.” It’s more of a mix of mush, straw and horse manure. How else to explain the way Al Gore managed to turn tens of millions into Chicken Littles running around the barnyard clucking, “The earth is heating up!”
Obama, the biggest chicken in the coop, pats himself on the back for getting China to promise to adopt the FEA’s loony limits on industry as their own. Now, really, how stupid does someone have to be to believe that China will do anything that would diminish itself economically or militarily? This is a country that is building warships and submarines at a record pace, and is testing the waters, so to speak, not only in Asia and Africa, but in the Caribbean. We can’t even find out how far along Iran’s nuclear program is or how many chemical weapons Assad is concealing, but Obama is convinced we can hold China to a climate agreement!
It may have escaped Obama’s attention, but China didn’t even cease its cyber-attacks on our government, our military and our industries, while he was prancing around in that silly Mandarin jacket. It’s really not so amazing that he places so much faith in our worst enemies because it has become increasingly clear over the past six years that Obama doesn’t view America’s enemies as his own.
In addition, he has surrounded himself with a great many who share his distaste for America and Americans. The worst of whom is Eric Holder, who would seem more at home smoldering the flames of racial division in Ferguson than he is at the Justice Department.
His likely successor, Loretta Lynch is cut of the same racist cloth and it’s no wonder that she was handpicked by Holder when you learn of her background. While attending Harvard, Ms. Lynch belonged to the Black Law Students Association, which every year she belonged (1981-1984) invited representatives of the Jew-hating, pro-terrorist, Palestinian Liberation Organization to spew anti-Semitic bile on campus.
Lest you think that should be written off as merely youthful folly, more recently Judge Lynch described Voter I.D. as a throwback to the days of Jim Crow.
We are told by those in the know that Ms. Lynch was the most reasonable person on Obama’s short list to replace the vile Eric Holder that conservatives could expect. What does that tell us about the schmuck whose last truthful statement was that he planned to radically transform America?
Finally, I find it all too telling that Joe Biden defended allowing thousands of Central American children to enter the U.S. illegally, claiming it allowed them to “escape the poverty and violence in Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador.”
That pretty much sums up this administration’s approach to foreign policy: Never allow poverty and violence to fester somewhere else when you can bring it along with all those future Democrats to America.
Be sure to catch Burt’s weekly hour-long webcast on Wednesdays, at noon, Pacific Coast Time. The show is accessed at K4HD.com. The call-in number is (818) 570-5443.
Bret Stephens on Hillary’s call for empathizing with our enemies. As he notes, it’s a good strategy to know your enemy and how he thinks. She’s just not very good at it.
…Understanding an enemy’s point of view does not mean taking their side. Respect is not solidarity. “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles,” Sun Tzu teaches in “The Art of War.” “If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”
It’s good advice. Mrs. Clinton isn’t wrong to adopt it. Her problem is that she appears to be a singularly lousy empathizer.
In April 2005 Vladimir Putin said the collapse of the Soviet Union was “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.” In 2006 a Russian dissident in London was poisoned by polonium—a nuclear attack in miniature—leading to a breakdown in relations between London and Moscow. In 2008 Russia invaded Georgia. That same year, educational manuals for Russian social-studies teachers took the view that Joseph Stalin was “the most successful Soviet leader ever.”
What about the Great Terror of the 1930s, in which millions of Soviet citizens were killed by Stalin’s henchmen? That, according to the manual, happened because Stalin “did not know who would deal the next blow, and for that reason he attacked every known group and movement.” Commenting on the Terror, Mr. Putin allowed that the killing was terrible “but in other countries worse things happened.”
Such was the man Mrs. Clinton had every reason to “understand” when she arrived at the State Department in 2009. What conclusions was she supposed to draw about someone whose core ambition was to restore the reputation, and the former borders, of the old Soviet Union? That the time had come to clink glasses and announce a reset?
Or take Iran. In her most recent memoir, Mrs. Clinton asks: “If Iran had a nuclear weapon tomorrow, would that create even one more job for a country where millions of young people are out of work? Would it send one more Iranian to college or rebuild the roads and ports still crumbling from the war with Iraq a generation ago? When Iranians look abroad, would they rather end up like North Korea or South Korea?”
These are the kinds of questions that often confound Americans who too easily assume that the things democratic politicians want for their people are the same things dictators want for themselves. South or North Korea? That’s easy: Tehran’s ties to Pyongyang run deep because both capitals see themselves resisting American imperialism. Nuclear weapons or a better economy? That’s easy, too, since the former allow you to bully your neighbors and dominate the region, while the latter merely create a growing middle class demanding greater civic and political freedoms.
If Mrs. Clinton made a serious effort to see things from the ayatollahs’ point of view, maybe she’d get this. If she had real respect for them, she wouldn’t suppose that they are merely too stupid, or blinded by prejudice, or stuck in the past, to understand their own values and self-interest. Why do liberals who celebrate diversity seem to think that, deep down, all people want the same things?
I’d say because liberals are too full of themselves.
Obama appearing on Comedy Central’s Colbert Report, talking about ObamaCare:
“Let’s face it, even if the Republicans did repeal it, they’d have to replace it with their own health care plan (“Fracking the elderly?”). And once they touch it, they own it. Then if anything goes wrong, suddenly everyone will be complaining about Mitch McConnell care (‘Walk-it-off.gov’).
Fracking the elderly? Is he using fracking as the expletive popularized in Battlestar Gallactica? Probably. Surely he knows that seniors are Medicare patients and that ObamaCare will do some serious damage to the program.
Doesn’t matter. Obama was on TV to be adored, so he got what he wanted.
Democrats have a huge stake in keeping black voters racially agitated. Without the solid support of blacks, Democrats would be a true minority party.
So it comes as no surprise that hte Ferguson and Staten Island events have been racialized by the leftists and their army of media supporters.
The fact that 93% of blacks are killed by other blacks goes unremarked. As does the fact that most of the social decay that leads to such wasted lives can be traced to boys with absent fathers, which can in turn be traced in part to liberal social welfare policies.
The white racist cop meme simply doesn’t fit the times. But so-called progressives, who are in fact regressive, would have you think we’re still in the days of Bull Connor.
Consider this: in 1995 in South Carolina white Susan Smith accused an anonymous black man of carjacking and kidnapping her two kids. Once upon a time in the “deep South,” local authorities might have found a black man that fit the description and concocted a case against him. But the white sheriff did not do that. He doubted her story and eventually saw her convicted of murdering her own kids by drowning them in a lake.
In 2006 a black female stripper/escort concocted a rape case against three members of the Duke University lacrosse team. Deep South again. The university senate condemned the three young men without hearing any evidence. The white DA, Mike Nifong brought a case against them despite plenty of evidence that pointed to their innocence. The lacrosse coach was fired, the young men’s education was interrupted, their reputations tarnished and their parents’ bank accounts drained by legal fees.
Every day police make mistakes, just the rest of us. Sometimes it ends in tragedy. Exploiting that for political advantage is sick and cynical.
Here are some great quotes collated by Tom Scott and posted at WattsUpwithThat?. Many more at the link.
Two quotes from H.L. Mencken:
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed — and hence clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” “The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it.”
And three more quotes on knowledge and politics:
“When the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power.” -Alston Chase
“The press should be not only a collective propagandist and a collective agitator, but also a collective organizer of the masses.” -Vladimir Lenin
“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule.” -Saul Alinsky
And a little something to motivate all climate “heretics”.
“First they tell you that you’re wrong, and they can prove it.
Then they tell you you’re right, but it’s not important.
Then they tell you it’s important, but they’ve known it for years.”
-CF Kettering, Time Magazine July 11, 1969, pg 54.
Now, lets look into the motivational background of a few typical players in the green climate movement.
On their love for the human race:
Paul Ehrlich, professor, Stanford University: “A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer.” John Holdren, now President Obama’s science czar made this statement before taking on that role: “There exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated…It has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”
Ted Turner, billionaire, founder of CNN and major UN donor: “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!: “My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”
David Brower, a founder of the Sierra Club: “Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”
Key and Peele, on Comedy Central, is one of the freshest, consistently funny sketch shows on TV. The two performers, Keegan Michael Key and Jordan Peele, are gifted writers and comic actors, transforming themselves in all kinds of characters.
Here is one bit we watched last night.