Here’s a simple way to make a delicious sandwich large enough to feed six people using a George Foreman grill.

Ingredients:

• ciabatta bread — any wide, flat loaf of bread will do. If you’re only making a small sandwich, just use the bread you like.
• bruschetta sauce — fresh or in a jar. I prefer fresh. You could also substitute salsa for a spicier result.
• sharp cheese
• mild cheese
• goat cheese (important)
• some kind of meat. I use grilled chicken or sliced turkey.
• roasted red peppers. If you can find piquillo peppers, get them.
• fresh basil leaves
• whatever else suits your mood

Slice your loaf in half. Then scoop enough bruschetta sauce to cover the whole surface of the bottom half, making sure to include the oily liquid. Then press the top half down so that the juices are absorbed on top.

Next lay down your chicken, turkey or meat layer. Keep it thin.

The idea behind this sandwich is to have each bite taste different. You do that by grating the cheeses and distributing them unevenly across the bread. Add dollops of goat cheese here and there–this is the accent that makes the sandwich sing.

Then put whatever else you want: peppers, onions, basil etc. I use what is on hand. No two sandwiches are the same.

Then, with your Foreman grill set to hot, put your sandwich in place and gently squeeze down on the handle to flatten the sandwich, panini style. As the bread warms, you can press it farther.  Leave it in until you’ve melted the cheese and toasted the bread, about five minutes.

When it’s done, slide it onto a cutting board, let it set a couple minutes, then slice into long strips and serve. (The photo shows about four servings prior to being sliced.)

Finally, make someone else clean up the dishes.

Gerard Vanderleun with another fine piece of writing:

I’m a man who doesn’t like cats. I don’t understand why women and certain men don’t get the simple axiom: “Dogs? Cool. Cats? Not.” It is one of the universal truths that no sane man can deny. And yet the chicks and chestless men persist in promoting this most useless of animals which steadfastly resists domestication, becoming an agreeable amusement, and is next to useless if not downright nauseating when sauteed or roasted, grilled or boiled, or even deep-fried.

There was one cat, however, that I did come to admire; Fatso.

Fatso arrived in my life like most cats arrive in the lives of men — attached to a woman. Indeed, Fatso was one of three cats attached to this woman, and he was the least promising at the outset. The other two cats were: 1) “Spotty” — an utterly coal black cat whose only “spot” was directly under his tail, and 2) “Oswald LeWinter” — a cat who was so utterly gay that he could have been the reincarnation of Liberace. And then there was…. “Fatso” — a cat so utterly beaten down and scabrous that on him a sucking chest wound would have looked good. When this particular woman arrived in my life the cats were all firmly established in hers so it was a done deal if I wanted her to stick around which, at the time, I did…

HT: Susan Gertson

by Burt Prelutsky

If you’re anything like me, please accept my condolences. God knows it’s not easy being us. For one thing, you can’t stop seeking logical reasons for everything that happens even though you know that the search will, far more often than not, end fruitlessly. Our tombstones could read: “Finally, a logical conclusion.”

For instance, when I’m mailing out one of my books, unless it’s “Liberals: America’s Termites,” I have to make a trip to the Post Office. That’s because only “Termites,” at 11 ounces, is light enough to deposit in a mail box. In case it’s escaped your notice, you are not allowed to mail a stamped package weighing in excess of 13 ounces. I always assumed this rule came about because of Ted Kaczynski, a Harvard grad who came to be known as the Unabomber when, between 1978 and 1995, he mailed out 16 bombs that killed three people and maimed 23 others. But inasmuch as he was arrested in 1996 and the Post Office didn’t lower the limit from 16 ounces until 2007, it either means my assumption was incorrect or, more likely, that it took a federal agency all that time to cut through the red tape.

I recently suggested that wealthy conservatives, instead of bankrolling occasional elections, would have far more influence if they started buying up newspapers, magazines and TV stations. It has since occurred to me that Glenn Beck could have done more good if he had bought an existing Texas daily instead of creating The Blaze. The fact is The Blaze will not convert anyone to our side. Only those already committed to conservatism will even be aware it exists. Is it any wonder that the Left controls the mass media and pop culture, and therefore the message, when the Right is seemingly content to play defense?

Speaking of conversion, quite often, but especially during the Christmas season, I receive messages from readers who urge me to become a Christian. It never bothers me. Although I haven’t the slightest intention of converting, I find that I appreciate their concern. Why would I resent people who only know me from my articles worrying about my eternal soul? I take it as a compliment, even if that’s not always the way they intend it. In fact, if I could choose, I’d take their email over the stuff that includes videos, links and those endless invitations to stroll down memory lane. For me, at least, nostalgia isn’t what it used to be.

When I hear Obama insisting to the Republicans in Congress that when it comes to taxes and spending, it’s his way or the highway, I understand what people mean when they refer to sore winners. Perhaps it’s because in his entire Affirmative Action-coddled life, he has never been forced to accept the inevitable losses that lead to maturity, he remains, even in his 50s, as blissfully unaware of his numerous shortcomings as your typical spoiled teenager.

My friend, Don Melquist, otherwise known as the Pride of Green Valley, Arizona, recently pointed out to me what a huge role bossy black women have played in Obama’s life. The ladies include Oprah Winfrey, Susan Rice, Whoopi Goldberg, Valerie Jarrett and Michelle Obama. But, it occurred to me that he has also surrounded himself with bossy Jewish men, such as Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod and George Soros, and assorted bossy ne’er-do-wells, such as Bill Ayers, Frank Marshall Davis and Jeremiah Wright. Whoever it was who first observed that when you lie down with dogs, you’re very likely to get up with fleas, must have had someone very much like Obama in mind.

A couple of weeks ago, I heard a guy being interviewed on the radio. It seems he had been in a coma. When he finally emerged, he was convinced of reincarnation. Nothing he said really indicated why. But because he had had what is referred to as a near-death experience, his words are supposed to be taken more seriously than anyone else’s. Oddly enough, that rule doesn’t seem to apply to those of us who have sat through entire Jim Carrey and Adam Sandler movies, although I could swear that several times my life flashed before my eyes before arriving at the closing credits.

It’s not merely my usual skepticism that causes me to doubt reincarnation. It’s that the concept makes no sense at all. As I understand it, we are placed on earth to learn from our mistakes. The ultimate goal is, I assume, perfect character. So perhaps in one life, a person was a thief. When he dies, he’s going to return and learn why it is wrong to steal. For me, the problem is that he doesn’t come back as himself. In fact, he comes back with no memory of a past existence, so he is really starting over again. It makes more sense to send the guy to jail in the first place and hope that he sees the error of his ways. At least he knows why he’s there.

Another reason it strikes me as nonsense is because the system suggests that we keep getting nicer and more civilized over the course of centuries. I mean, how can it be otherwise if we keep getting better, even incrementally? But is there anyone who actually believes the human race is showing even the slightest signs of improving? Any sane person, that is.

That automatically excludes the Ivy League faculty members who divided their political donations, 96% for Obama, 4% for Romney; the Democrats who believe their cause is well-served by having Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi fronting for their Party; and everyone on Madison Avenue who seems convinced that Sarah Jessica Parker was born to appear in fashion and perfume ads when normal people know that anyone carting around that face belongs in a stakes race.

An Austrian professor suggests that critics of man-made global warming science — aka “deniers” should be put to death.

Seriously.

Such is the intolerance of progressives.

UPDATE:

A semi-retired newspaper crank from Des Moines, writes:

During my 50-year career, every time some demented soul would take a semiautomatic gun and clean out a post office, a school or a picnic, I’d get up on my soap box and let loose with a withering diatribe about guns, the National Rifle Association and weak-kneed politicians. Did it about 75 times, give or take.

And in every case the main effect was a spike in gun sales.

Still, I thought I’d give it one more shot … er, chance.

Obama’s speech was fine as far as it went, but it didn’t go very far. Neither have any of the other responses I’ve heard.

California Sen. Dianne Feinstein said she was going to introduce a bill to ban the sale and importation of assault weapons. Great, but the bill wouldn’t apply to weapons already out there, and in defining illegal weapons, it listed more than 900 exceptions.

Nine hundred!

The thing missing from the debate so far is anger — anger that we live in a society where something like the Sandy Hook Elementary massacre can happen and our main concern is not offending the NRA’s sensibilities.

That’s obscene. Here, then, is my “madder-than-hell-and-I’m-not-going-to-take-it-anymore” program for ending gun violence in America:

• Repeal the Second Amendment, the part about guns anyway. It’s badly written, confusing and more trouble than it’s worth. It offers an absolute right to gun ownership, but it puts it in the context of the need for a “well-regulated militia.” We don’t make our militia bring their own guns to battles. And surely the Founders couldn’t have envisioned weapons like those used in the Newtown shooting when they guaranteed gun rights. Owning a gun should be a privilege, not a right.

• Declare the NRA a terrorist organization and make membership illegal. Hey! We did it to the Communist Party, and the NRA has led to the deaths of more of us than American Commies ever did. (I would also raze the organization’s headquarters, clear the rubble and salt the earth, but that’s optional.) Make ownership of unlicensed assault rifles a felony. If some people refused to give up their guns, that “prying the guns from their cold, dead hands” thing works for me.

• Then I would tie Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, our esteemed Republican leaders, to the back of a Chevy pickup truck and drag them around a parking lot until they saw the light on gun control.

And if that didn’t work, I’d adopt radical measures. None of that is going to happen, of course. But I’ll bet gun sales will rise.

“I have fired guns only once in my life, on a stag party to the Czech capital Prague a few years ago when part of the itinerary included a trip to an indoor shooting range. For three hours, our group were let loose on everything from Magnum 45 handguns and Glock pistols, to high-powered ‘sniper’ rifles and pump-action shotguns.

It was controlled, legal, safe and undeniably exciting. But it also showed me, quite demonstrably, that guns are killing machines.”

Imagine that.

And TV shows are for being rude, pompous and obnoxious.

At Slate, Andy Freeberg’s images of Russian guards at the art museum. Check out the full gallery here.

I’ll classify this as humor in the assumption no one was seriously hurt.

Gun control in Chicago:

Chicago has been a shining city on a hill for gun-grabbers for decades. In fact, so extreme is the gun control in the Windy City that prior to the 2010 Supreme Court decision in McDonald v. Chicago, you couldn’t even have a gun in your own house with which to defend yourself or your family.

In other words, a Chicago home owner was like a public school teacher — he had to sit defenseless with his fingers crossed and simply hope the criminals didn’t target his house on a given day or night.

Even now, after the McDonald decision, you have jump through myriad hoops to get a gun. And, although they are working on it, concealed carry has yet to be legalized.

So in a gun-control-utopia such as this, you’d expect school-age children to be safe from all harm, if you buy into the theories of Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY).

Yet the truth is more than 440 school-age children have been shot in Chicago in 2012. This is not to say that 440 school-age children died, simply that more than 440 school-age children were at least wounded. The number of school-age children killed is reported at approximately 60.

by Burt Prelutsky

It’s liberals who are always accusing conservatives of sticking their noses into places where they don’t belong. Being liberals, those places nearly always involve s-e-x.

For instance, when left-wingers push for same-sex marriages, abortions on demand for teenagers and tax-funded birth control pills, and conservatives push back, the Left condemns the Right for meddling in personal matters, ignoring the fact that they’re the ones who insist on putting these things into their party’s platform.

In the meantime, it’s liberals who insist on controlling everything from soda pop consumption to Christmas. Consider that Michael Bloomberg, the dwarf nanny of New York City, has come out in favor of a mosque at Ground Zero, but has waged a holy war against sugar, salt and large containers of Coke. Rahm Emanuel, who confuses his job as mayor of the murder capital of America with being a nutritionist, spends his time making sure that Chicago’s vending machines not offer anything people might actually want to eat. Barack Obama lives up to his name by discouraging any references to Islamic terrorism, even going so far as to dismiss Major Hasan’s jihadist-inspired killing spree at Fort Hood as workplace violence, and making sure that the guy responsible for producing the video mocking Mohammad was tossed in the clink.

And, of course, any soldier caught trashing a Koran or talking trash to any of the Muslim terrorists stashed at Gitmo can expect to be court-martialed.

In the aftermath of the election, a number of so-called conservatives blasted Mitt Romney for telling the truth, or at least a big part of the truth regarding the reason he lost the election. It’s no secret that politicians always run a terrible risk when they stop mincing their words, but you don’t expect them to be bushwhacked by members of their own party. But no sooner had Romney explained that he couldn’t overcome all the bribes in the form of welfare, cell phones and food stamps, doled out by Obama’s administration, than he found himself being mugged by the likes of Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal and George Will. Aside from the fact that these are the last three guys who would have been chosen by either captain of a junior high school sports team, have they no idea how silly they sound with their self-righteous blather?

Among voters earning less than $30,000-a-year, Obama received seven million more votes than Romney. Do Christie, Jindal and Will, really think they voted for Obama because they approved of same-sex marriage, his foreign policy or Michelle’s crusade against cookies?

That reminds me that Republicans who think that if their candidates reach out to Hispanic voters by letting them know that they are the party that cares about religion and family values and opposes abortion, the Latinos will flock to them in 2014, 2016 and forevermore, they’re merely displaying their ignorance. While it’s true that there’s a segment of that group, 29% in the recent election, who care about such things, the majority doesn’t. And they wouldn’t have changed their vote even if Marco Rubio had replaced Paul Ryan on the ticket. For one thing, Rubio is of Cuban heritage, a heritage that is quite different from that of Mexicans, Guatemalans and Puerto Ricans.

For another thing, the majority of Hispanics do not, like former waves of immigrants, come to America with the idea of assimilating. Also, unlike the immigrants who came here from Europe and Asia, they do not place a high premium on getting an education. And even if they did, thanks to the evil known as bi-lingual education, their kids are often left in the dust by the competition. It’s no wonder that the drop-out rate from high school for Hispanics is as high as it is. And if there weren’t a law against it, they would drop out of grammar school.

No other group of immigrants has resisted assimilation the way these people have. And instead of it being viewed as a national tragedy, the pinheads who promote cultural diversity regard it as a reason to celebrate. But, then, it’s not their kids who wind up having to flip burgers, mow lawns or peddle drugs.

As for the much-vaunted religiosity of Hispanics, old women may still attend church regularly. Young Hispanics, however, prefer spending their time in other ways, which has resulted in a 50% illegitimacy rate in their community. Still below that of blacks, but give them time; they’re pretty new at it when it comes to women raising kids on their own.

Of the three Republican thugs who fell on Romney, the worst, as you might expect, is the gargantuan Chris Christie, who was last seen strolling hand-in-hand with Barack Obama the week prior to the election. One could have gotten the idea that the two found each other as a result of filling out eHarmony questionnaires. After all, it seems they both like cheeseburgers and ice cream cones and moonlight walks through hurricane-ravaged communities.

Apparently, they also both have a soft spot in their hearts for questionable Islamics. Christie has appointed four schmucks to his Muslim Outreach Commission that should be reason enough to trigger an FBI investigation into his own connection to scumbags. The four include Imam Mohammad Qatanani, whose deportation is sought by the Department of Homeland Security for his failure to disclose on his green card application that he was arrested by the Israelis in 1993 for his ties to Hamas; along with Ahmed Shedeed, Mohammed Younes and Imam Abdul Basit, all of whom have direct links to Hamas and/or the Muslim Brotherhood.

In response to Romney stating that it was Obama’s gifts to minorities and young voters that cost him the election, honorable Imam Christie had the gall to bloviate: “You can’t expect to be a leader of all the people and be divisive. You have to talk about themes, policies that unite people, and play to their aspirations and their goals and their hopes for their family and their neighbors.”

It so happens Romney did exactly that.

The problem is that, for the majority of blacks, Hispanics and young white morons, what they aspired to was free stuff.

He’s not for everyone, but Tom Waits is a truly unique performer. It expires 1/19/2013

The full episode is here.

Watch Tom Waits on PBS. See more from Austin City Limits.

The British National Health Service is notorious for long waiting times, dirty hospital wards and bloated costs to the taxpayer. But it is “free.”

The NHS has done some outsourcing to become more efficient. WSJ

Richard Branson built a fortune stamping his irreverent Virgin brand on everything from airplanes to rock ‘n’ roll records. But the billionaire entrepreneur is taking heat for putting the Virgin label on one thing many Britons don’t want branded: their taxpayer-funded health-care system.

The Virgin Care unit of Mr. Branson’s Virgin Group has spent the past 2½ years supplying health-care services like podiatry and dermatology to the National Health Service, which is increasingly turning to private-sector contractors in a bid to save money and improve service.

So: outsourcing saves money and delivers better service. Win-win, right?

Oh, no………

Many doctors, patients and members of the public object to the outsourcing trend, saying they don’t like the idea of private-sector companies squeezing a profit out of the already cash-strapped NHS.

Virgin, as one of the biggest and most recognized names in the business, has become a lightning rod for such criticism.

The company says its contracts require it to save the NHS certain sums of money before taking a profit for itself.

Progressives would rather punch themselves in the face than allow someone to earn a profit, those filthy capitalists.

Sigh.

A blogger who retaliated against a New York newspaper that came under fire for identifying people with gun licenses in its circulation area explained on Thursday why he published the names and home addresses of the paper’s employees.

“Well, I just thought they were being hypocrites,” said Christopher Fountain on CNN’s “Early Start.” “In the aftermath of Newtown, it was obviously one tragedy, but somehow they were conflating legal gun owners with some crazed tormented devil up in Newtown and putting the two together. And I was offended by that and I wondered how they would like it if their addresses were published.”

by Burt Prelutsky

A lot of conservatives were delighted when Michigan decided to become a right-to-work state. I was one of them, but I wasn’t quite as ecstatic as some. The problem is that by now everyone who isn’t a union boss or one of the dumber members of a private sector union could see the writing on the wall. The unions have been going the way of the dodo for some time now.

It’s not just that private sector unions have been losing members and influence, but that they’ve gone out of favor with the public. We’ve seen their thug-like behavior in Wisconsin and now in Michigan. We’ve seen teachers carrying placards that insist they’re demonstrating on behalf of the kids who are using phony medical excuses to play hooky so that they can make an embarrassing spectacle of themselves in public. It’s worth noting that only 31 % of Michigan’s eighth graders are proficient in math and a mere 28% are up to snuff when it comes to reading.

Perhaps the next time that public school teachers in Michigan or anywhere else decide to do something for the kids, they might try teaching them something besides how to walk in circles while chanting inane slogans..

It’s no secret that right-to-work states have lower unemployment rates than those that allow unions to have a monopoly when it comes to jobs. In their defense, the unions point out that union employees get paid more than other workers. What they neglect to mention is that people don’t rush to build factories or start businesses in those states for that very reason.

These days, thanks to global markets, manufacturers located in, say, New York aren’t just competing with companies in South Carolina or Oklahoma, but with those in China, India and the Philippines. And when you factor in not only salaries, but pensions and health insurance, it’s a wonder that companies located in union states can compete with anyone.

Most of us have gotten fed up with unions using their clout in order to keep teacher/perverts on salary for years, long after they’ve been accused of molesting their young charges. Just recently, the UAW forced Chrysler to re-hire 13 workers who had been captured on video boozing and smoking pot on their lunch breaks. And let us not forget that when southern non-union volunteers came north to help restore electricity for victims of Hurricane Sandy, the union thugs in New Jersey made them turn around and go home.

One of the reasons that Broadway tickets are so pricey is because for decades, New York unions have forced producers of non-musicals to place high-paid musicians on their payrolls.

So the fact that private sector unions are finally getting their teeth kicked in is welcome news in most quarters. The problem is that it does nothing to rein in the public sector unions. Whereas private sector unions have been losing members for years, the federal government has been hiring, on average, 101 new employees every day since Obama took office. That comes to roughly 145,000 new deadheads. Their average salary is $84,000-a-year, which is $32,000 more than the average salary of those paying the freight.. So even if you forget the pensions looming in the future, that’s in excess of $12 billion a year and doesn’t include all the federal employees who were on the job prior to January 20, 2009.

Is there anyone anywhere who thinks those bureaucrats are worth their weight in tax dollars? Well, of course there are. I refer to the folks over at the DNC who know that 99% of these people will vote for Democrats in every election.

But at some point, you would think that even liberals would, if only for the sake of variety, face reality. Reality is that when Social Security checks first started going out, there were about 30 workers whose payroll taxes went to pay one recipient. Now the number is something like two-and-a-half to one. That is the reason that Social Security has to be altered in some meaningful way before it crashes and burns.

The same reality reveals that there are 66 million Americans collecting Medicaid and food stamps, with another 21 million people on the federal payroll, compared to 129 million suckers employed in the private sector. Just how long does anyone believe 129 million tax payers can go on supporting those 87 million people? The only question is which comes first: bankruptcy or revolution.

That is why all the talk about going over the financial cliff strikes me as sheer balderdash. Obama and the Democrats, with their outrageous spending and their refusal to even pass a budget, took us over the edge a long time ago. Just because we haven’t quite reached the rocks below doesn’t mean we’re not going to go splat in the near future.

We’re exactly in the same position that Wile E. Coyote is in every time he runs off the cliff’s edge and for a second or two seems to have vanquished gravity as he hovers in mid-air. But no matter how quickly he kicks his feet, the ground is his destiny.

But whereas Wile can immediately jump up, dust himself off, and – at least so long as the Acme Company continues sending him crates of dynamite on credit — begin plotting his revenge on the Road Runner, we poor saps are stuck with our deadly nemesis for another four years.

“Beep-beep!” indeed.

Emily Yoffe at Slate busts Obama for his self-centered eulogy of Sen. Daniel Inouye.

The Nazi party strives to take Christ out of Christmas.

1937 ‘Neo-Pagans’ Target Carols

BERLIN — De-Christianization of famous German Christmas hymns, such as “Silent Night, Holy Night,” is the outstanding contribution to the current holiday season of the rapidly spreading German faith movement or “religion” of National Socialism.

In the new versions of the old songs reference to Nazi tenets of race, blood and soil replace familiar words concerning Christ, Child and the like. The accepted English translation of Mohr’s “Silent Night,” stanza three lines two and three is: “The Son of God loves pure light, radiant beams from thy Holy faith.” Equivalent lines in the Nazified version are “German blood, O how laugh the lips of thy children, blessed with joy.”

The actors from A Christmas Story. Read about them at the link.

…as depicted by the children of St Paul’s Church, Auckland, New Zealand.

HT: Susan Gertson

by Burt Prelutsky

I never thought I’d live to see the day that Christmas would become a dirty word. You think it hasn’t? Then why is it that people are being prevented from saying it in polite society for fear that it will offend? Why, after 60 years, is the city of Santa Monica, California, no longer allowed to erect its traditional crèche in the palisades overlooking the Pacific Ocean and why is the governor of Rhode Island insisting on calling the state’s Christmas tree a holiday tree?

Schools are being forced to replace “Christmas vacation” with “winter break” in their printed schedules. At some major retail chains, the word is verboten, replaced as a matter of policy by the generic Happy Holidays. Carols, even instrumental versions, are verboten in certain locales. All across the country, grammar schools are banning Christmas pageants How is it, one well might ask, that in a Christian nation this is happening? And in case you find that designation objectionable, would you deny that India is a Hindu country, that Turkey is Muslim, that Poland is Catholic? That doesn’t mean those nations are theocracies. But when the overwhelming majority of a country’s population believe Jesus to be their savior, only a darn fool would deny the obvious.

Although it seems a long time ago, it really wasn’t, that people who came here from other places made every attempt to fit in. Assimilation wasn’t a threat to anyone; it was what the Statue of Liberty represented. E pluribus unum, one out of many, was our motto. The world’s melting pot was our nickname. It didn’t mean that any group of people had to check their customs, culture or cuisine, at the door. It did mean that they, and especially their children, learned English, and that they learned to live and let live.

That has changed, as you may have noticed. And I lay a great deal of the blame at the feet of my fellow Jews. When it comes to pushing the multicultural, anti-Christian, agenda, you find Jewish judges, Jewish journalists, and the largely Jewish funded ACLU, at the forefront. What makes them even more obnoxious is that, by and large, the Jews who are leading the crusade against what is, we should never forget, a national holiday, are secular. So it’s not even a question of their religion being shortchanged; they hate their own, as well. They’re the pinheads who pretend that “separation of church and state” appears in the Constitution. I should confess that because my family was Jewish, Christmas was never celebrated while I was growing up. But what was there not to like about the holiday? To begin with, it provided a welcome two week break from school. The decorated trees were pretty, the lights were beautiful, “It’s a Wonderful Life” was a great movie, and some of the best Christmas songs were even written by Jews.

But the dirty little secret in America is that in spite of the occasional over-publicized rants by the likes of Mel Gibson and Michael Richards, anti-Semitism is no longer a problem in society; it’s been replaced by a rampant anti-Christianity. For example, much of the hatred spewed towards George W. Bush had far less to do with his policies than it did with his religion. As you may have noticed, they haven’t called Barack Obama any bad names even though he’s kept Gitmo open, extended the Patriot Act and even used drones to kill American citizens. Could it be because they understand that he only attended church in order to get his political career off the ground?These Jewish bigots voiced no concern when Bill Clinton or John Kerry made a big production out of showing up at black Baptist churches or posing with Rev. Jesse Jackson because, again, they understand that’s just politics. They only object to politicians attending church for religious reasons.

My fellow Jews, who often have the survival of Israel heading the list of their concerns when it comes to electing a president, only gave 26% of their vote to Bush and roughly 30% to Mitt Romney, even though they were clearly far friendlier towards Israel than John Kerry or Barack Obama. What’s more, unlike Clinton, who had Yasser Arafat sleeping in the Lincoln Bedroom so often even Monica Lewinsky got jealous, Bush saw to it that the Palestinian butcher was persona non grata at the White House. But if you mention George Bush to most secular Jews, their reaction is to spit first and ask questions later.

It is the ACLU, which is largely funded by Jews and has a legal department that is almost exclusively Jewish, that is leading the attack against Christianity in America. It is they who have conned far too many people into believing that when the 1st Amendment states that Congress is prohibited from establishing a state religion, what it really means is that a Christmas wreath can’t be placed on City Hall. They also cynically ignore the part that prohibits Congress from “abridging the free exercise” of religion.

You may have noticed, though, that the ACLU is highly selective when it comes to religious intolerance. The same group of self-righteous shysters who, at the drop of a “Merry Christmas” will slap you with an injunction, will fight for the right of an American Indian to ingest peyote and a devout Islamic woman to appear veiled on her driver’s license.

I happen to despise bullies and bigots. I hate them when they represent the majority, but no less when, like too many Jews in America, they represent an infinitesimal minority.

I am getting the idea that these self-righteous secular Jews won’t be happy until they pull off their own version of the Spanish Inquisition, forcing Christians to either deny their faith and convert to agnosticism or suffer the consequences. I should point out that many of these people abhor Judaism every bit as much as they do Christianity. They’re the ones who behave as if atheism were a calling. They’re the nutcakes who go berserk if anyone even says, “In God we trust” or mentions that the Declaration of Independence refers to a Creator with a capital “C.” By this time, I’m only surprised that they haven’t begun a campaign to do away with Sunday as a day of rest. After all, it’s only for religious reasons — Christian reasons — that Sunday, and not Tuesday or Wednesday, is so designated.

This is a Christian nation, my friends. And all of us are fortunate it is one, and that so many millions of Americans have seen fit to live up to the highest precepts of their religion. It should never be forgotten that, in the main, it was Christian soldiers who fought and died to defeat Nazi Germany and who liberated the concentration camps. Speaking as a member of a minority group — and one of the smaller ones at that — I say it behooves those of us who don’t accept Jesus Christ as our savior to show some gratitude to those who do, and to start respecting the values and traditions of the overwhelming majority of our fellow citizens, just as we keep insisting that they respect ours.

Merry Christmas, my friends.

Well, banana slicer humor. There are more than 900 user reviews on Amazon’s product page for the 571B Banana Slicer. Almost every one is brilliant comedy by average folks.

Sample 1

For decades I have been trying to come up with an ideal way to slice a banana. “Use a knife!” they say. Well…my parole officer won’t allow me to be around knives. “Shoot it with a gun!” Background check…HELLO! I had to resort to carefully attempt to slice those bananas with my bare hands. 99.9% of the time, I would get so frustrated that I just ended up squishing the fruit in my hands and throwing it against the wall in anger. Then, after a fit of banana-induced rage, my parole officer introduced me to this kitchen marvel and my life was changed. No longer consumed by seething anger and animosity towards thick-skinned yellow fruit, I was able to concentrate on my love of theatre and am writing a musical play about two lovers from rival gangs that just try to make it in the world. I think I’ll call it South Side Story.

Sample 2

I tried the banana slicer and found it unacceptable. As shown in the picture, the slices is curved from left to right. All of my bananas are bent the other way.

There are 92 screens of such comments.

We Californians pay good money for our government, providing fat salaries and fat benefits to our fat state government.

You’d think we’d get some value for our money. Think again. Three stories in today’s LA Times:

Flawed data stall California’s 911 upgrades

A three-year effort by California to improve 911 emergency service has been stymied by flawed data and aging computers at local fire departments and rescue agencies across the state, a Times investigation has found.

Since 2009, the state Emergency Medical Services Authority has been seeking to centralize reports on millions of emergency medical responses, a project that officials see as critical to improving life-saving practices…

But that’s a trifle compared to these:

Overhaul of California government payroll system at risk of collapse

One of the state’s biggest technology endeavors, a $371-million overhaul of the government payroll system, is beset with problems and “in danger of collapsing,” according to the state controller’s office.

The company hired for the project is in over its head and may be unable to deliver on its promise to update a payroll system so old that even simple salary adjustments can tie it in knots, the controller’s chief administrative officer said in a letter.

The state has spent at least $254 million so far on contractors, staff salaries, software and more for the system upgrade, which is five years overdue and has nearly tripled in cost since lawmakers authorized it in 2005.

Finally, the state threatened to close public parks in order to deal with its deficit. People held bake sales to raise funds to keep their local parks going.

Then, whoops!, the parks department found $54 sitting in two bank accounts. But it’s worse.

Parks department audit finds two decades of accounting discrepancies

The California parks department had accounting problems for longer than previously revealed, according to an audit from Gov. Jerry Brown’s Department of Finance.

The audit report found that department officials were inaccurately reporting the balances held in two accounts since 1993. That’s about a decade longer than finance officials identified this summer, when it was revealed that parks had a hidden surplus of $54 million in two accounts.

The controller’s office, which signs the state’s checks, was getting correct information, but the Department of Finance, which puts together the state budget, was not. Finance officials were not comparing the two sets of data until this year.

Parks officials were “intentionally under-reporting fund balances to Finance for development of the governor’s budget,” the audit said. The audit did not place blame for the discrepancy or explain why the funds were being inaccurately reported.

Lest anyone still believe this was dirty politics (the Dem Cong cleverly convinced people that “Swiftboating” was lying) concocted in 2004, watch this episode of the Dick Cavett show. John O’Neill and Kerry had been debating for decades. The election simply brought it to the fore.

Ah, but that’s ancient history, right? How about his ability to size up world leaders?

“President Barack Obama’s administration considers Syria a key player in Washington’s efforts to revive the stalled Middle East peace process, US Senator John Kerry said in Damascus on Thursday. ‘Syria is an essential player in bringing peace and stability to the region,’ Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a speech after meeting President Bashar al-Assad. ‘Both the United States and Syria have a very deep interest… in having a very frank exchange on any differences (and) agreements that we have about the possibilities of peace in this region,’ he said in the statement.”

We know that Assad has murdered far more than 20 children.

One of the most interesting actors to watch, Gosling knows how to pick good parts for himself. Here was at age 12, already comfortable on camera.

Matt Ridley in the WSJ

Forget the Doha climate jamboree that ended earlier this month. The theological discussions in Qatar of the arcana of climate treaties are irrelevant. By far the most important debate about climate change is taking place among scientists, on the issue of climate sensitivity: How much warming will a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide actually produce? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has to pronounce its answer to this question in its Fifth Assessment Report next year.

The general public is not privy to the IPCC debate. But I have been speaking to somebody who understands the issues: Nic Lewis. A semiretired successful financier from Bath, England, with a strong mathematics and physics background, Mr. Lewis has made significant contributions to the subject of climate change.

He first collaborated with others to expose major statistical errors in a 2009 study of Antarctic temperatures. In 2011 he discovered that the IPCC had, by an unjustified statistical manipulation, altered the results of a key 2006 paper by Piers Forster of Reading University and Jonathan Gregory of the Met Office (the United Kingdom’s national weather service), to vastly increase the small risk that the paper showed of climate sensitivity being high. Mr. Lewis also found that the IPCC had misreported the results of another study, leading to the IPCC issuing an Erratum in 2011.

Mr. Lewis tells me that the latest observational estimates of the effect of aerosols (such as sulfurous particles from coal smoke) find that they have much less cooling effect than thought when the last IPCC report was written. The rate at which the ocean is absorbing greenhouse-gas-induced warming is also now known to be fairly modest. In other words, the two excuses used to explain away the slow, mild warming we have actually experienced—culminating in a standstill in which global temperatures are no higher than they were 16 years ago—no longer work.

In short: We can now estimate, based on observations, how sensitive the temperature is to carbon dioxide. We do not need to rely heavily on unproven models. Comparing the trend in global temperature over the past 100-150 years with the change in “radiative forcing” (heating or cooling power) from carbon dioxide, aerosols and other sources, minus ocean heat uptake, can now give a good estimate of climate sensitivity.

The conclusion—taking the best observational estimates of the change in decadal-average global temperature between 1871-80 and 2002-11, and of the corresponding changes in forcing and ocean heat uptake—is this: A doubling of CO2 will lead to a warming of 1.6°-1.7°C (2.9°-3.1°F).

This is much lower than the IPCC’s current best estimate, 3°C (5.4°F).

Mr. Lewis is an expert reviewer of the recently leaked draft of the IPCC’s WG1 Scientific Report. The IPCC forbids him to quote from it, but he is privy to all the observational best estimates and uncertainty ranges the draft report gives. What he has told me is dynamite.

Given what we know now, there is almost no way that the feared large temperature rise is going to happen. Mr. Lewis comments: “Taking the IPCC scenario that assumes a doubling of CO2, plus the equivalent of another 30% rise from other greenhouse gases by 2100, we are likely to experience a further rise of no more than 1°C.”

A cumulative change of less than 2°C by the end of this century will do no net harm. It will actually do net good—that much the IPCC scientists have already agreed upon in the last IPCC report. Rainfall will increase slightly, growing seasons will lengthen, Greenland’s ice cap will melt only very slowly, and so on.

Some of the best recent observationally based research also points to climate sensitivity being about 1.6°C for a doubling of CO2. An impressive study published this year by Magne Aldrin of the Norwegian Computing Center and colleagues gives a most-likely estimate of 1.6°C. Michael Ring and Michael Schlesinger of the University of Illinois, using the most trustworthy temperature record, also estimate 1.6°C.

The big question is this: Will the lead authors of the relevant chapter of the forthcoming IPCC scientific report acknowledge that the best observational evidence no longer supports the IPCC’s existing 2°-4.5°C “likely” range for climate sensitivity? Unfortunately, this seems unlikely—given the organization’s record of replacing evidence-based policy-making with policy-based evidence-making, as well as the reluctance of academic scientists to accept that what they have been maintaining for many years is wrong.

***

How can there be such disagreement about climate sensitivity if the greenhouse properties of CO2 are well established? Most people assume that the theory of dangerous global warming is built entirely on carbon dioxide. It is not.

There is little dispute among scientists about how much warming CO2 alone can produce, all (more…)

NYT:

The harshest judges of those in news media are often others in the news media, and, with the benefit of Twitter, that intrajournalistic watchdog role can be performed simultaneously with the journalism being criticized.

Case in point was the White House news conference on Wednesday afternoon, when President Obama made a forceful announcement in response to the massacre of children last week in Newtown, Conn. He said he was directing Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. to lead an effort “to come up with a set of concrete proposals” about dealing with gun violence that he would submit to Congress no later than January.

Great, put a nitwit in charge of rushing through some legislation.

“We are going to need to work on making access to mental health care as easy as access to a gun,” Mr. Obama said. “We’re going to need to look more closely at a culture that all too often glorifies guns and violence.”

Oh, you mean Hollywood? Your financial backers?

His words, after five days of extensive news coverage and national debate, were intensely focused on gun violence. He addressed no other topics. Yet judging by the questions that followed his address, most of the members of the Washington press corps had other things on their minds.

The reporters blew off the gun subject and asked about the fiscal cliff, and that annoyed other media members who thought the press corps should stick to guns, guns, guns.

Hey, Obama is running $1 trillion annual deficits. No big deal. Medicare will go broke unless its finances get fixed. No big deal.

First we have to rush through some gun control legislation that will not work, just we can feel better.

by Burt Prelutsky

People in the West used to make fun of India because of their sacred cows. But now it’s India’s turn to laugh because we have become a nation overrun with privileged bovines. The major difference is that ours have only two legs.

We’re all well aware that you can’t speak honestly about blacks and Latinos without some self-righteous left-wing clod accusing you of racism. We are supposed to simply grant them a special status, pretending that it’s only white bigotry that prevents them from taking their rightful place among society’s elite. In order to do that, of course, we have to ignore the fact that the illegitimacy rate among blacks is over 70% and among Hispanics, 50%. We also have to pretend that although 79% of Asians and 76% of whites stick around long enough to get their high school diplomas, whereas only 60% of blacks and 58% of Latinos do so, it plays no role in explaining why these two groups make up such a large percentage of the perpetual underclass.

There is in fact no surer way of guaranteeing that people will never reach middleclass status than by raising kids without fathers, who will then drop out of school the first chance they get. But we are all supposed to pretend that they are the innocent victims of a racist society because to do otherwise smacks of bigotry.

Another group of people that is beyond criticism are those categorized as the homeless. Although there is no getting around the fact that in this economy, nobody except for millionaires and billionaires — you know, the folks who were in a position to plunk down $35,000 in order to break bread with the populist candidate Obama — is assured of a roof over his head, the fact remains that most of the folks who are on the streets, mooching for loose change and polluting the atmosphere, are those addicted to drugs or booze, and those psychotics who, in earlier times, would have been institutionalized for their own safety and the safety of others.

Speaking of psychotics, what is one to make of atheists? I can understand agnostics. If you’re not born into a religious family, I see nothing wrong with skepticism when it comes to a deity. In fact, it strikes me as perfectly reasonable to question religious authority when one takes a good look at a lot of those hypocritical creeps who claim to be direct pipelines to God Almighty.

But there is something within me that cringes whenever I hear or see an atheist announcing that he has it on good authority that God doesn’t exist. And on whose authority would that be? Why, his own, of course.

He will invariably declare that science provides no proof of God’s existence, and thus wrapping himself in the blanket of pure logic, he will profess that he is smarter than all those lunkheads who disagree with him. The fact that a great many of those lunkheads happen to be actual scientists doesn’t raise a doubt in the minds of these self-aggrandizing nincompoops. Like Joe E. Brown, when he cheerfully announces, at the conclusion of “Some Like it Hot,” after Jack Lemmon confesses that he’s not a real blonde, that he can’t have children and, finally, that he’s not even a woman, they, too, would say, “Nobody’s perfect.”

Although I confess I don’t know if God exists, I do know that science has been proven wrong too many times for anyone to use it as either a shield or a weapon.

The fact that people can’t prove that God exists doesn’t mean it proves He doesn’t. I happen to believe that those who take such obvious pleasure in denying His existence believe it makes them seem godlike. Frankly, although they pretend that they have logic on their side, I believe they are governed by their emotions, not their intellect.

I could be wrong, but I suspect that all those odd creatures who surface every December in order to intimidate communities into compliance with their opposition to crèches, carols and even referencing “Christmas” in stores and schools, are still rebelling against their parents and other authority figures. It’s as if some fairy tale crone cursed them in their cradles, dooming them to be perennial teenagers.

They claim that nobody has proven God exists, at least not to their satisfaction. But it is also true that nobody has explained the mystery of consciousness or why flowers have an aroma since that plays no part in attracting pollinating bees or how bees, who are an aerodynamic disaster, manage to fly; or how, for that matter, with an 8% unemployment rate, a $16 trillion debt and a disastrous foreign policy, Barack Obama could possibly be re-elected.

People don’t work. Instead they live off the government (that is, everyone else).

First, Great Britain. I heard Mark Steyn say that 40% of British children grow up in households where no one works, thus infusing future generations of deadbeats. Polish immigrants are coming to do the work.

From the British Spectator

…Britain’s employment figures are strong but most of the rise in employment so far under this government is accounted for by foreign-born workers (as was 99pc of the rise in employment under Labour). The recession has not diminished employers’ appetite for immigrant workers and today’s Sunday Times magazine has a long piece asking whether there is a “fundamental difference in our attitudes to work”. It’s still one of the most important questions in Britain today: what’s the use of economic growth if it doesn’t shorten British dole queues? And should we blame these industrious immigrants; aren’t the Brits just lazy?

I’d urge Coffee Housers to read the whole thing, but one passage jumps out at me. A Polish recruitment agent, Iwona Dilinskas, is quoted.

In Poland, she says, child benefit is £10 a month for three children. There is no working tax credit or child tax credit. If she were British, she says “I’d probably not want to work more than 16 hours a week. What for? If I work 16 hours or less, they pay 80pc of my rent [as housing benefit]. And all my council tax. I get working tax credit, child tax credit, child benefit. So, to be honest – why work?”

The quality of the British debate is so poor that we almost never look at this from the point of view of the low-wage worker. Every budget, the IFS will dutifully work out if it has been “fair” – ie, gives the most to the poorest. The LibDems will judge a budget by this metric. That’s a nice, easy, simple graph.

But what about destroying the work incentive? Each budget and each change to tax should be judged on how many people are then ensnared in the welfare trap. I adapted the below (nasty, complex) graphs from an internal government presentation, which still make the case powerfully.

The bottom axis is money earned from employer and the side axis is income retained. The graphs are complex but worth studying, if only to get a feel for the horrific system confronting millions of the lowest-paid in Britain today…

And we’re heading that way in the United States. Daniel Halper in the Weekly Standard:

The amount of money spent on welfare programs equals, when converted to cash payments, about “$168 per day for every household in poverty,” the minority side of the Senate Budget Committee finds. Here’s a chart detailing the committee’s findings:

According to the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee, welfare spending per day per household in poverty is $168, which is higher than the $137 median income per day. When broken down per hour, welfare spending per hour per household in poverty is $30.60, which is higher than the $25.03 median income per hour.

“Based on data from the Congressional Research Service, cumulative spending on means-tested federal welfare programs, if converted into cash, would equal $167.65 per day per household living below the poverty level,” writes the minority side of the Senate Budget Committee. “By comparison, the median household income in 2011 of $50,054 equals $137.13 per day. Additionally, spending on federal welfare benefits, if converted into cash payments, equals enough to provide $30.60 per hour, 40 hours per week, to each household living below poverty. The median household hourly wage is $25.03. After accounting for federal taxes, the median hourly wage drops to between $21.50 and $23.45, depending on a household’s deductions and filing status. State and local taxes further reduce the median household’s hourly earnings. By contrast, welfare benefits are not taxed.”

One wonders, doesn’t the USA have enough pompous fools to host TV shows without importing them? Send Morgan back to jolly ole England and put some recent communications major in his place.

BTW, the murders committed with firearms was 8,775, not 12,000.

A French psychiatrist whose patient hacked an elderly man to death was found guilty of manslaughter on Tuesday in a groundbreaking case that could affect the way patients are treated.

A court in Marseilles said Daniele Canarelli, 58, had committed a “grave error” by failing to recognize the public danger posed by Joel Gaillard, her patient of four years.

Gaillard hacked to death 80-year-old Germain Trabuc with an axe in March 2004 in Gap, in the Alps region of southeastern France, 20 days after fleeing a consultation with Canarelli at Marseilles’s Edouard Toulouse hospital.

Canarelli was handed a one-year prison sentence and ordered to pay 8,500 euros to the victim’s children, in the first case of its kind in France. Defense lawyers said the ruling would have serious repercussions for treatment of the mentally ill.

“If a psychiatrist lives in fear of being sentenced, it will have very real consequences and probably lead to harsher treatment of patients,” said Canarelli’s lawyer, Sylvain Pontier.

Ya think?