Friday, November 21, 2014

Teens Are Sharing Gross Pictures Of Their School Lunches With The Hashtag #ThanksMichelleObama

Thanks Michelle! And remind me again why the party that thinks Washington has to pick your lunch is the cool party?

Obama's wrong way to do the right thing: Our view

USA Today Editorial: "Obama was well aware of the issues raised by such sweeping unilateral action. More than a dozen times earlier in his presidency, he told those pushing for such an order that he couldn't responsibly sign one. "Believe me," he said in 2011, "the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you. Not just on immigration reform. But that's not how our system works. That's not how our democracy functions. That's not how our Constitution is written.""

Someone should ask him what other things he has felt tempted to do and what, if anything, stops him from doing them now? Of course, that would require a press core composed of vertebrates.

The editorial draws a good parallel with the possibility of a future Republican president suspending enforcement of Obama-care tax mandates. 

News Distribution Network, Inc.

Report via instapundit that the Tennessee DA has restricted the use of civil forfeiture. But it should not just be curtailed, it should be eliminated in any situation where the actual property owner is actionable. Republicans should oppose this on the same grounds that they oppose the corporate income tax and support freedom of speech, because you can't prosecute or curtail the rights of a piece of property any more than you can do so to a corporation, because corporations are people.



When you do something to a corporation you are not doing it to the corporation, you are doing it to the people that own the corporation and possibly the people that work for the corporation. In the same way, when a prosecutor steals property under the color of law he is not doing something to the property, he is doing something to the owner of the property.

Thursday, November 20, 2014

The Pinnacle of Hypocrisy

Full text: Obama's immigration speech: "It has shaped our character as a people with limitless possibilities — people not trapped by our past, but able to remake ourselves as we choose."



As we choose? Apparently not. Apparently it is as anyone who strolls across the border chooses. We have assumed among the powers of the rights of a sovereign nation--except we are not allowed to decide who joins our nation. Our deciding who joins our nation is, uniquely among the nations of the Earth, not simply being a sovereign nation, but being racist.

We are told that these people just want to work. Well, I have no doubt that they do. But there are a lot of Americans that want to work to and have given up on finding work. The question is who do we owe? Who comes first? Permit me to say that it is Americans to whom we owe our first obligation.

It is compassionate to the illegal aliens? Perhaps, but only to the extent that we are willing to be less compassionate to the Americans that do not get jobs or have their wages lowered by the surfeit of illegals who are quite rationally from willing to take jobs at lower wages.

What about all the people killed by illegal aliens? We cannot talk about that because all of the crimes committed by illegal aliens are committed by citizens, too, and so singling out illegal aliens is racist. But then we turn around and talk about their willingness to work as if it were some sort of unique human achievement that is beyond the capability of typical Americans.


Monday, November 10, 2014

Excuse me, did I say lie? I meant 'lack of transparency'

Obamacare Architect Admits Deceiving Americans to Pass Law



My favorite part, "call it the stupidity of the American voter..." meaning the voter's inability to see through their lies--oh, there's that word again. I meant 'lack of transparency'.



Remember this the next time we are told, "trust us, we are experts and have your best interests at heart."  They wouldn't be boring on about how expert they were if what they were saying made sense on its own. For example, the reason that the CDC and supporters of Obama's resistance to a tourist visa ban on the countries experiencing an ebola outbreak feel compelled to mention their credentials and the supposed scientific consensus that motivates their actions is because their policy is so at odds with the common sense of most people.



And their certainty that they are doing what they are doing for the good of others is what should make you suspicious of them. People are never so unconstrained by conscience as when they are convinced they are doing something for the good of others and not themselves.

The first thing a man will do for his ideals is lie for them

Jim Stingl - Duped by Innocence Project, Milwaukee man now free


Sunday, November 09, 2014

"He fits the suit."

Putting the O in Johnny Bravo | National Review Online: Jonah Goldberg explains the entire Obama phenomenon with an episode of the Brady Bunch. Its as good as anything I have seen from political scientists.

Rising Star?

Stone Brain Rises | National Review Online



The rise of the Maine governor points up two things wrong with the conventional wisdom: you have to be bipartisan and compromising to win and that the Republican victories last Tuesday had nothing to do with the substance of policy.



The re-election of Maine's LaPage and the rise of figures like Walker who were brash and took on entrench shibboleths of the Left were the victors in the election, the milquetoast moderates are the ones that did poorly on both sides.



The idea that the election had nothing to do with policy substance is belied by the sweeping and if anything more impressive victories of the Republic party at the state level. The governors and state legislatures that went to the Republicans and, especially, where Republicans were re-elected, were moved not by mere dislike or dissatisfaction with the president but that the Republicans had delivered. It is funny how the Republicans do well when they are responsible for both the legislature and executive or where they pass major and controversial reforms that the electorate gets to pass judgement on at a remove of some years. Moreover, when the Republicans control the state governments, where the government does not have practically unlimited power to print or to borrow money, they deliver results that the voters approve.



That is certainly something.

Rising Star?

Stone Brain Rises | National Review Online



The rise of the Maine governor points up two things wrong with the conventional wisdom: you have to be bipartisan and compromising to win and that the Republican victories last Tuesday had nothing to do with the substance of policy.



The re-election of Maine's LaPage and the rise of figures like Walker who were brash and took on entrench shibboleths of the Left were the victors in the election, the milquetoast moderates are the ones that did poorly on both sides.



The idea that the election had nothing to do with policy substance is belied by the sweeping and if anything more impressive victories of the Republic party at the state level. The governors and state legislatures that went to the Republicans and, especially, where Republicans were re-elected, were moved not by mere dislike or dissatisfaction with the president but that the Republicans had delivered. It is funny how the Republicans do well when they are responsible for both the legislature and executive or where they pass major and controversial reforms that the electorate gets to pass judgement on at a remove of some years. Moreover, when the Republicans control the state governments, where the government does not have practically unlimited power to print or to borrow money, they deliver results that the voters approve.



That is certainly something.

One thing we can thank Harry Reid for

No to the Judicial Filibuster | National Review Online

Maybe they are not real Indians?

More Non-White Voters for the GOP | National Review Online: "Native Americans, who make up 1 percent of the national electorate, favored Republicans by 52 to 43 percent."



But I am sure that Jon Stewart would find a way to dismiss them as not being real Native Americans based on more scientific criteria like hair style or cool 'nativey' looking jewelry.

Make them say no

GOP, Show That You Can Govern | National Review Online. Krauthammer shows the way ahead.



It has driven me crazy how the media has portrayed the refusal of the two parties to agree as Republican intransigence. How does that work? The President proposes something and the Republicans vote it down, therefore, the Republicans are the ones that want to do nothing. Leave aside the fact that the Republicans in the House pass hundreds of bills that the Senate never even takes a vote on, these are never reported on, so in the press it is the Republicans that are the party of no.



Now at least the story line can be changed. The Congress can no pass bills that have to go to the President's desk and the he is the one that has to take an overt action, he has to sign it or veto it. He has to say no. At the very least he has to admit that he is the one that would prefer inaction to an action that he disagrees with. Democrats in the House and the Senate will often find themselves having to vote against their president or against their constituents. And, in some cases, there may even be enough votes for an override. Now wouldn't that be fun (though I thin that repudiating Obama might at some point in the future mark the turning point in the Democratic party's fortunes).

Death of Micro-Pandering?

Politics in the Age of Big Data | National Review Online: Jonah Goldberg says that the most recent election marks the end of targeted scare-mongering guided by fine-grained data-mining, but I am not so sure.

It wasn't just inefficient. It was evil.

On Berlin Wall Anniversary, Somber Notes Amid Revelry - NYTimes.com

Thursday, November 06, 2014

The Economist's Take

America's mid-terms: Republicans on a roll | The Economist:
America is a country with two electorates. One, a national electorate which appears once every four years when a president is on the ballot, leans slightly Democratic. The other, made up of those Americans who reliably turn out in mid-term and state elections, is markedly older, whiter and more conservative. 
Of course, President Obama has generously declared his intention to listen to the electorate, whether they voted or not!

There is a line in Kafka about the government being dissatisfied with the people and deciding to create a new one that would fit in nicely here, I think...


The Daily Beast described Obama as conciliatory...

A reporter pressed him to describe in a word the impact of Tuesday night’s results. In 2010, when Democrats lost the House, Obama called it a “shellacking.” This time he decline to offer an adjective, said he would leave it to others to go through the tea leaves of the election.

Well, he is willing to read the minds of people that don't bother to vote but can't figure out what it means when the voters that actually, you know, vote, decide to turn out his party at most every chance. Curiously, last week there was to be no mistake about the fact that it was his 'policies are on the ballot.'