Robert Stacy McCain nails it in this post about the current state of sexual education and, if recent events in the New York school system are any indication of what's coming nationally, soon your kids will be nailing it as well. And by "it" I'm not talking about the honor role.
And this is not high school students. This is 11-year-olds. This is New York-
New York City 11-year-olds will soon be learning sex education from workbooks that include instruction on “mutual masturbation, French kissing, oral and anal sex, and “intercourse using a condom and an oil-based lubricant.”
The shocking revelations were uncovered in “recommended” workbooks reviewed by The New York Post. . . .
One of the preferred resources for students is Columbia University’s website, “Go Ask Alice,” the Post reported. That site includes discussions on topics ranging from “doggie-style,” oral sex with braces, fetishes, and “sadomasochistic sex play.”
As for how this story applies nationally, here's the new rules from the Department of Education-
Starting in the spring, the DOE will require one semester of sex ed in sixth or seventh grades and one in ninth or 10th.
It says schools can pick any curriculum but recommends the widely used HealthSmart and Reducing the Risk programs and trains teachers to use them.
By the time most kids graduate, its up in the air whether they can read or write in comprehensive sentences or perform simple math. But at least they'll know how to perform every sex act known to man.
And besides, how in the hell can a young girl have any real kind of self-esteem if she can't suck a mean dick while she's wearing braces?
Monday, October 24, 2011
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Attention Please-That Rotten, Putrid Stench You Smell Is NOT Coming From The Kitchen
Here we have an Occupy Wall Street progressive fuckstick interrupting the meal of patrons of a restaurant owned by Danny Meyer, who sits on the board of Sotheby's. In fact, that's the reason for the disruption, which the thug promises will continue until Meyer, and Sotheby's, stops engaging in "union busting".
Frankly, I'd like to see somebody bust this little cocksuckers head open with a baseball bat.
Frankly, I'd like to see somebody bust this little cocksuckers head open with a baseball bat.
Saturday, October 22, 2011
New York Lawmakers Told "Time To Kill The Wealthy"
According to Politico that is the subject line in an e-mail sent to Republican New York State Senate leaders concerning a New York State surcharge on the wealthy which was passed in 2009 and is due to expire. The e-mail in question demanded the tax be renewed. The tax levies an extra one percent tax on anyone making over 200,000 dollars a year, and a extra 2.12 percent on those making over 500,000 dollars a year. One part of the e-mail states-
“It’s time to tax the millionaires!” reads the email, according to WTEN in Albany. “If you don’t, I’m going to pay a visit with my carbine to one of those tech companies you are so proud of and shoot every spoiled Ivy League [expletive] I can find.”
To be sure the message was clear, the sender got even more specific-
“How hard is it for us to stake out one of the obvious access roads to some tech company, tail an employee home and toss a liquor bottle full of flaming gasoline through their nice picture window into their cute house,” wrote the author of the email.
The message asserted that the "wealthiest 1 percent" were being assisted in the confiscation of the wealth of the bottom ninety-nine percent, as though the wealthiest Americans were thieves who stole their riches from the poor.
This is presumably an outgrowth of the recent Occupy Wall Street Movement, which has been recently promoted and supported by the media, 9/11 Truthers, Stormfront, the SEIU and other unions, and progressive activists, leftist celebrities, Mahmoud Ahmadinajahd and the Iranian regime, Democratic lawmakers, and, oh yeah, Barak Obama.
New York Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo is on record as joining the Republicans in the state legislature in opposing as extension of the surcharge on wealth. No word as yet as to whether he also received a copy of the e-mail in question.
But there can be no doubt that these people are dangerous, and need to be dealt with in a way that is direct and, let's just say, definitive.
“It’s time to tax the millionaires!” reads the email, according to WTEN in Albany. “If you don’t, I’m going to pay a visit with my carbine to one of those tech companies you are so proud of and shoot every spoiled Ivy League [expletive] I can find.”
To be sure the message was clear, the sender got even more specific-
“How hard is it for us to stake out one of the obvious access roads to some tech company, tail an employee home and toss a liquor bottle full of flaming gasoline through their nice picture window into their cute house,” wrote the author of the email.
The message asserted that the "wealthiest 1 percent" were being assisted in the confiscation of the wealth of the bottom ninety-nine percent, as though the wealthiest Americans were thieves who stole their riches from the poor.
This is presumably an outgrowth of the recent Occupy Wall Street Movement, which has been recently promoted and supported by the media, 9/11 Truthers, Stormfront, the SEIU and other unions, and progressive activists, leftist celebrities, Mahmoud Ahmadinajahd and the Iranian regime, Democratic lawmakers, and, oh yeah, Barak Obama.
New York Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo is on record as joining the Republicans in the state legislature in opposing as extension of the surcharge on wealth. No word as yet as to whether he also received a copy of the e-mail in question.
But there can be no doubt that these people are dangerous, and need to be dealt with in a way that is direct and, let's just say, definitive.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Huntsman Brings Out The Big Cannons
Jon Huntsman, the moderate GOP presidential candidate whom Democrats really want Republicans to nominate for 2012, has unveiled his super secret weapon. It seems to have slowly sunk in that he's not going to get the nomination based on his good looks, any more than he will as a former political appointee of Barak Obama, whom he once praised in the most sickeningly saccharine and effusive terms.
His new strategy? Their names are Liddy, Abby, and Mary Ann, and they are his daughters. What time they haven't been posting to their blog on the Huffington Post, they have been making campaign appearances both on the stump and on the cable news networks and talk shows.
And, in order to really get the message out, they have started their own Twitter account, Huntsman Daughters. They've already got their own fan club, but do they have what it takes to get their dad into the Oval Office?
Uhhhm, no, and I don't think they're seriously thinking they can. Since two of the three girls are single, I think they're husband hunting, or maybe just engaged in some other degree of self-promotion. Which is fine. I'm all in, and am now on record as asking the Hunstman Sons-In-Law if I can have sloppy seconds. So far, no answer to that, or to these tweets to the girls I made from my Twitter page. Their tweets follow the RT, my response follows the double slash marks.
@Jon2012girls RT Liddy just woke up to this nice man holding her hand on the plane//Sounds like Liddy woke up just in the nick to time.
@Jon2012girls RT @jon2012boys only wish they were the son-in-laws//Don't be arrogant, I for one would have to get to "know" you first.
@Jon2012girls the only girl married is Abby/Damn that's the one I want too. Figures.
@Jon2012girls RT check out our blog: tinyurl.com/3e77kyr /Really girls-HuffPo? You understand Jon's running for the GOP nomination, right?
@Jon2012girls RT Huntsman speaks in NH-fellow GOP candidates in NV unionleader.com/article/201110… /Clever move-Jon might get to 5% or 6 % in NH now
@Jon2012girls RT "Who's the best candidate to beat Obama?" HINT: He's not on stage in Nevada tonight// Buddy Roehmer?
All in fun of course, but I did feel it my duty to make the girls face the cold, hard facts. I don't know if they've ever read any of my tweets, of course, but if they have, I'm sure they don't take me seriously, any more than I do them or their father, who is probably a good man, but just not the right man for the job. Not this year, and probably not ever, as Jon Huntsman represents a style of Republican politics that is frankly on the endangered species list.
And I stand by that. Jon Huntsman is being used, possibly of his own volition, as a stalking horse to keep Romney from getting the nomination. The reason being that the people backing him on this foolish, ill-advised run have it in their heads that a successful Huntsman candidacy would result in a man who many conservatives would absolutely refuse to support, due to his past statements in support of the belief in Anthropogenic Global Climate Change and gay civil unions, in addition to his moderate approach to compromise with the Democrats,and also due to the fact he has worked for two Democrat Administrations, going so far as to express admiration for both Clinton and, especially, Barak Obama.
Democrats know that Hunstman would be the reincarnation of the Gerald Ford, Bob Dole, John McCain style of campaign that would limit if not outright refuse to engage in "negative campaigning" (which is how Democrats define telling the truth about their policies and candidates)and will treat Obama with deference and respect.
On the other hand, should Huntsman lose, the hope is it would nevertheless result in enough votes drained from Romney as to result in the nomination of someone who is seen as too far right-wing to get the votes of moderate independents and moderate or conservative Democrats who might be dismayed at the results of Obama policies.
From the perspective of the Democrats, the one candidate they fear most is Romney. Or this was the case when Huntsman first started his run. I think now they've started to realize they have no more to fear from Romney than they do Huntsman. For that reason, the Hunstman campaign just cannot and will not gain any traction with GOP voters, for the same reason Romney has never been able to break thirty percent in polling of Republican voters, including likely voters, despite being the only establishment candidate in the race with any support at all.
Most Republicans want to win, but not at the expense of compromising conservative principles. That is the implication of a Romney campaign, and the idea of a Hunstman candidacy is Romney times two.
The girls do make a good case. Just not for their dad. For themselves, as devoted daughters, yes. But if they do ever see my tweets to them, I hope this is the one they take the most seriously, though it might be the hardest one to take.
@Jon2012girls Sorry girls, Jon should concentrate on one day being God of his own planet. He'll damn sure never be President of the US.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
If You're A Conservative Republican Woman, Joe Biden Wants You To Get Raped
Hey, that's no lie, he said it and he meant it.
Also, if you're a conservative Republican business owner he wants you to get robbed.
And if you're a conservative Republican parent, he wants your children to be kidnapped and molested.
That way see you'd understand what it was like and you would stop opposing Obama's job plan that includes hiring more police (and other public sector union workers).
Of course Democrats could always drop their strident gun laws which make it difficult and/or prohibitively expensive for law-abiding citizens to own firearms, in which case crime would drop substantially among all categories and there would be no need to hire extra police.
But hey, we all know that's a crazy idea. We will always need as many public sector employees as possible, and since they are putting so many states in the red, the feds have an obligation to step up and foot the bill. Everybody wins, except the Democrats, the public sector unions, and, well, those other crooks and rapists.
Also, if you're a conservative Republican business owner he wants you to get robbed.
And if you're a conservative Republican parent, he wants your children to be kidnapped and molested.
That way see you'd understand what it was like and you would stop opposing Obama's job plan that includes hiring more police (and other public sector union workers).
Of course Democrats could always drop their strident gun laws which make it difficult and/or prohibitively expensive for law-abiding citizens to own firearms, in which case crime would drop substantially among all categories and there would be no need to hire extra police.
But hey, we all know that's a crazy idea. We will always need as many public sector employees as possible, and since they are putting so many states in the red, the feds have an obligation to step up and foot the bill. Everybody wins, except the Democrats, the public sector unions, and, well, those other crooks and rapists.
Liberal Democrat Senators Mind Your Own Business So You Don't Have To
Oh yeah, that would be me.
And they seem bound and determined to prove my point yet again, by calling for Major League Baseball to impose a voluntary ban on smokeless tobacco during the upcoming World Series between St. Louis and Texas.
See, this is how clever these progressives are. Dick Durbin of Illinois (the number two Dem asshat in the Senate), along with Frank "DeCavalcade" Lautenberg of New Jersey, Tom "Ethanol Subsides" Harkin of Iowa, and Richard "Prosecutorial Misconduct" Blumenthal of Connecticut, aren't threatening to pass a law or anything, they want Major League Baseball, and the Player's Association, to ban smokeless tobacco on a voluntary basis-you know, for the good of the chiiiii-dren. This, of course, is their fall back strategy when accusations of racism, sexism, homophobia and general intolerance start to lose their respective edges. They trot out the kids and try to tug at the heartstrings by appealing to our sense of responsibility and what not. It's the old commie diversionary tactic I like to call the commie two-stomp. Step back, obfuscate, reverse course, sidestep, and then go full steam ahead towards the ultimate goal. You know, that one that never changes with these scum, which is full on government control of all aspects of the economy, and society at large. They can't even leave our national pastime in peace.
As witnessed at St Louis Today
Durbin and three other Democratic senators asked the Major League Baseball Players Association to prohibit use all tobacco products on the field, in the dugout and even in locker rooms at Major League Baseball parks.
Who would be affected by seeing the players use tobacco in THE FUCKING LOCKER ROOMS is yet to be explained. Thankfully, they can't pass a law as it stands now because HAW HAW HAW the Commiecrats lost control of the House of Representatives last year.
Oh, but before they lost the House, earlier in April 2010, Democratic Lefty Lunatic Henry Waxman did call for a law banning smokeless tobacco from Major League Baseball. It didn't get anywhere probably because, unfortunately, far too many people were obsessed with such mundane matters as, you know, FINDING A FUCKING JOB!
Now of course the Democrats are reduced to using a great sport as a political whipping post, which makes you wonder in just how bad of disarray, just how desperate, the Democrats are. Unemployment is still at over nine percent and we just had a plot to kill diplomats on American soil sponsored by, allegedly, the Iranian regime, the housing market is still in the crapper, the world is still full of people who want to either rip us off or destroy us, or both, the borders are as porous as ever, and we are on track to break twenty trillion dollars in national debt, and can't do anything to reverse course, while lowlife scumbags are piling into the streets making all kinds of unreasonable demands, and the government is doing everything it can to disrupt job creation by the private sector.
But Dick Durbin still marks time on his calendar for this. And people wonder why I will no longer vote for a Democrat under any scenario. But if you are one of the ones who do wonder why people like me make such a big deal about it, it's really pretty simply. If Democrats can find excuses to extend their dictatorial objectives during the absolute shittiest of times like we have now, just imagine what they will try to get away with when times are good, should We The People become more complacent.
One way they accomplish this is by giving you something you want, or need, and think you just can't live without it and must be supplied or subsidized by the government. In the case of Major League Baseball, they have enjoyed close to a century of exemption from the confines of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, which makes Major League Baseball a legally recognized monopoly.
This could easily be revoked at any time by a significant court challenge, or possibly even by a legislative act which would probably be upheld this go-round, which of course gives Congress a great deal of leverage.
The anti-trust exemption could and should be ended, in all honesty. That would put a stop to at least this avenue of interference.
Because frankly, the likes of Dick Durbin should be allowed no closer to Major League Baseball than the cheap seats. Unless of course its by way of a baseball bat up the side of the head, but that's probably asking for too much, unfortunately.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Donald Douglas-Struck By The Poison Of Progressive Ideology
Zilla Of The Resistance is now Zilla For The Defense of a fellow blogger who is being unfairly maligned by his leftist enemies. His name is Donald Douglas and he blogs at the American Power.
According to Douglas-
Some time back, one of my colleagues suggested that no matter what the nature of online disagreements, no matter how intense or vile, taking such disagreements to an opponent's employer is outside the bounds of decency: it is simply un-American. And I would add that when those same workplace complaints involve blatant and patently false allegations amounting to libel, those taking such actions are not only un-American, but genuinely satanic. And I have to apologize to longtime readers who might be getting bored with such blogging, but writing about the progressive left's perpetual campaign of personal destruction, against my economic livelihood, is how I'm able to deal with the issues, keep my sanity, and of course clear my good name. As I noted earlier, there is essentially no lie that's beyond the pale for the radicals. They'll do anything to destroy opponents. And they don't stop. And virtually to the one, the complaints leveled against me have been pure lies. I'm not going to recount them. All of this is of a piece. But since many on the left are coordinating these attacks, the frequency seems to be accelerating. I'll soon know more about the latest round of allegations and lies. In the meantime, here's a roundup of the workplace attacks I've defended against now for almost three years. In each case, there's never been any finding of impropriety or wrongdoing. In fact, the opposite's been true: Accusers have been revealed as the hateful demonic scum that they are. RTWT
The page which contain links to numerous examples of personal and workplace harassment is here-
The problem seems to be three-fold. Professor Douglas is-
*A university professor
*A devout Christian
*A staunch, unabashed conservative who blogs unapologetically for conservative principles and against the politics of the radical left.
As such, he has made many enemies. One of these is E. D. Kain, one of the founders of the blog The League Of Ordinary Gentlemen.
Kain for his part has accused Douglas of defamation and joined the chorus of those who have complained to Douglas's employer. This in particular seems to have something to do with Douglas's criticisms of Kain due to the latter's seeming change of political allegiance over time. I of all people could certainly be sympathetic to Kain, as my views have also evolved, though in the opposite direction. However, when Kain contacted the University, he went way over the line, which he himself admitted in a comment at the post in question.
Only problem is, after posting the apology Kain evidently complained again to Douglas's employer, and demanded that he refrain from any criticism of him on his blog, allegedly going so far as to demand the blog be shut down.
But its not just Kain, there are more engaged in harassment of Douglas, and the charges run the gamut from defamation to accusations of involvement in child pornography.
This is the left, and this is what they do. Freedom of speech, it seems, means freedom to join their cause and act in agreement with their principles, but does not apply to those who hold an opposing viewpoint. But to take it to the extent of harassing employers and fellow employees, or family, unfortunately is not seen as out of bounds to the hard core left.
Full disclaimer. Unlike Douglas, I am not a Neocon, and I would probably find more disagreement with him over pertinent issues than agreements. Truthfully, I don't see Neocons as conservative at all, I see them as pro-national security, anti-communist liberals, which is what they are. As such, they tend to also be Big Government conservatives, and liberal in almost all matters not related to national security, and on many matters that are as far as how they perceive the proper way of going about achieving their policy goals.
But I still respect them and steadfastly defend their right to express their views, on their own blogs and elsewhere. For anyone to attack them to the point of harassment in their personal and professional lives is clearly beyond the pale, and totally unacceptable.
Can there be any question of what life would be like under any kind of leftist regime, especially one with unchecked power.
According to Douglas-
Some time back, one of my colleagues suggested that no matter what the nature of online disagreements, no matter how intense or vile, taking such disagreements to an opponent's employer is outside the bounds of decency: it is simply un-American. And I would add that when those same workplace complaints involve blatant and patently false allegations amounting to libel, those taking such actions are not only un-American, but genuinely satanic. And I have to apologize to longtime readers who might be getting bored with such blogging, but writing about the progressive left's perpetual campaign of personal destruction, against my economic livelihood, is how I'm able to deal with the issues, keep my sanity, and of course clear my good name. As I noted earlier, there is essentially no lie that's beyond the pale for the radicals. They'll do anything to destroy opponents. And they don't stop. And virtually to the one, the complaints leveled against me have been pure lies. I'm not going to recount them. All of this is of a piece. But since many on the left are coordinating these attacks, the frequency seems to be accelerating. I'll soon know more about the latest round of allegations and lies. In the meantime, here's a roundup of the workplace attacks I've defended against now for almost three years. In each case, there's never been any finding of impropriety or wrongdoing. In fact, the opposite's been true: Accusers have been revealed as the hateful demonic scum that they are. RTWT
The page which contain links to numerous examples of personal and workplace harassment is here-
The problem seems to be three-fold. Professor Douglas is-
*A university professor
*A devout Christian
*A staunch, unabashed conservative who blogs unapologetically for conservative principles and against the politics of the radical left.
As such, he has made many enemies. One of these is E. D. Kain, one of the founders of the blog The League Of Ordinary Gentlemen.
Kain for his part has accused Douglas of defamation and joined the chorus of those who have complained to Douglas's employer. This in particular seems to have something to do with Douglas's criticisms of Kain due to the latter's seeming change of political allegiance over time. I of all people could certainly be sympathetic to Kain, as my views have also evolved, though in the opposite direction. However, when Kain contacted the University, he went way over the line, which he himself admitted in a comment at the post in question.
Only problem is, after posting the apology Kain evidently complained again to Douglas's employer, and demanded that he refrain from any criticism of him on his blog, allegedly going so far as to demand the blog be shut down.
But its not just Kain, there are more engaged in harassment of Douglas, and the charges run the gamut from defamation to accusations of involvement in child pornography.
This is the left, and this is what they do. Freedom of speech, it seems, means freedom to join their cause and act in agreement with their principles, but does not apply to those who hold an opposing viewpoint. But to take it to the extent of harassing employers and fellow employees, or family, unfortunately is not seen as out of bounds to the hard core left.
Full disclaimer. Unlike Douglas, I am not a Neocon, and I would probably find more disagreement with him over pertinent issues than agreements. Truthfully, I don't see Neocons as conservative at all, I see them as pro-national security, anti-communist liberals, which is what they are. As such, they tend to also be Big Government conservatives, and liberal in almost all matters not related to national security, and on many matters that are as far as how they perceive the proper way of going about achieving their policy goals.
But I still respect them and steadfastly defend their right to express their views, on their own blogs and elsewhere. For anyone to attack them to the point of harassment in their personal and professional lives is clearly beyond the pale, and totally unacceptable.
Can there be any question of what life would be like under any kind of leftist regime, especially one with unchecked power.
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Friday, October 14, 2011
Blinded By The Light
I have no idea whether or not the following story is true, but if it does turn out to be valid its going to send shock waves through the GOP. Apparently, someone, an unidentified source from inside the camp of GOP Florida Senator Marco Rubio, has informed Robert Stacy McCain of the blog The Other McCain, that someone on Rubio's staff has been trying to influence the GOP Republican presidential primary calendar. The person or people involved, which may or may not include Rubio himself, have been instrumental in moving up the date of the primary, in what would seem to be a transparent attempt to benefit the then current front runner, Mitt Romney. If true, the plan is as clever as it is diabolical, as it presupposed that New Hampshire, which has a state law declaring they must have the first primary in the nation, will be obliged to likewise move up the date of their own primary. New Hampshire also heavily favors Romney at the current time. All of this has caused not just New Hampshire, but other states, specifically Iowa, South Carolina, and Nevada to move their caucus and primaries up as well.
So, whether or not Rubio is involved directly or indirectly, what does he get out of this? Presumably, he would be picked as Mitt Romney's running mate.
As you can imagine, this has, or will cause much anxiety among conservative circles, most of whom see Rubio as a kindred conservative spirit while viewing Mitt Romney as an establishment favorite, and a bit of a squish. While Romney's support has held steadily in the mid-to-upper twenty percent of GOP voters, he never seems to rise above that due to his moderate, RINO reputation based mainly on his identification with big government conservatism at best, and at worst his support for such left-leaning policies as universal health care and a belief in Anthropogenic Global Climate Change, to name just a few things.
If Rubio is perceived as having betrayed the conservative Tea Party movement in order to secure a place on the ticket with the RINO Romney, it could be bad news for the Republican cause.
But should it really be a surprise? Rubio hails from Florida, a battleground state, and though he is seen as a Tea Party conservative, is he really? Conservatives have since his election, and well before, heaped praises on his head, and hailed him as one of the saviors of conservative principles. Yet all the while Rubio seems to have been taken under the wing of the Bush dynasty, particularly ex-Florida governor Jeb Bush, and was invited by Nancy Reagan to speak at the Reagan Library, where at one point he prevented Mrs. Reagan from falling, in an episode that almost seemed staged to me.
At 40, Rubio is a relatively young man, practically a kid in political terms, yet here he is one the one hand the object of near-veneration by the Tea Party, yet feted by and absorbed into the establishment club. Having had a small taste of the potential of the power and influence of Washington politics while rarely questioned or met with a critical eye, should we not have expected this?
This is of course presuming the story is true and that Rubio is himself knowingly involved if it is true. It might well be that the story comes from a plant in the Rubio camp, possibly even a Perry supporter. But the story bears watching, and it will be interesting to see how Rubio responds, if he does.
Whatever the case, conservatives should take from this an object lesson. Being possibly majority Christian, they more than most should be aware of the dangers of the allure of political power and influence. You can dress a man in royal raiment, and tell him in so many words that he's "a god, not a man". Do it long enough and he might even take you seriously on some level. Then by the time that old owl hoots, more often than not the corruption has already done its work, and irreversible damage.
UPDATE-When questioned about McCain's report, Marco Rubio issued a sternly worded denial, ending with "Hahaha". That Marco, such a jovial sort. Even accused McCain-the apparent "they" of the denial-of making the report up "out of thin air". Here's a portion of Rubio's statement, courtesy of The Shark Tank
“Don’t you think if something like that had happened, you would have heard something? 100% fiction, they just made it up out of thin air . . . Ok, BTW, if this were true, it means you got scooped in you own state!!!! Hahaha”
So what exactly is the truth? Who knows? Rubio admits to spearheading the effort to move Florida's primary up in 2007, so I guess that could serve to give him some plausible deniability cover. And then there's this, from The Shark Tank post linked above-
the recent move by the Florida legislature was carried out by a committee spearheaded by House Speaker Dean Cannon and House Majority Leader Carlos Lopez-Cantera- both have endorsed Governor Rick Perry in the Presidential primary.
Convoluting matters further, one of Perry’s top campaign consultants was also Governor Charlie Crist’s consultant during the 2010 Senate race before Crist jumped ship and ran as an Independent, and that Perry’s Florida team was being led by Rich Heffley, Jim Rimes and Randy Enwright. Heffley was responsible for fabricating the infamous “truthaboutRubio” attack website against now Senator Rubio.
So the initial link could be a concerted effort by Perry staffers and former Crist operatives to hurt both Romney and Rubio and in the meantime deflect from the involvement of the Perry campaign apparatus for their role in the primary calendar debacle, something R S McCain has been in the forefront of critical reporting about.
Still all in all, I'm not ready yet to absolve Rubio of complicity. Strange bedfellows and all that.
One thing is for sure. Once the jovial smiles and the joking was over, I bet Rubio started going through his staff with a fine toothed comb. Expect at least one head to roll.
So, whether or not Rubio is involved directly or indirectly, what does he get out of this? Presumably, he would be picked as Mitt Romney's running mate.
As you can imagine, this has, or will cause much anxiety among conservative circles, most of whom see Rubio as a kindred conservative spirit while viewing Mitt Romney as an establishment favorite, and a bit of a squish. While Romney's support has held steadily in the mid-to-upper twenty percent of GOP voters, he never seems to rise above that due to his moderate, RINO reputation based mainly on his identification with big government conservatism at best, and at worst his support for such left-leaning policies as universal health care and a belief in Anthropogenic Global Climate Change, to name just a few things.
If Rubio is perceived as having betrayed the conservative Tea Party movement in order to secure a place on the ticket with the RINO Romney, it could be bad news for the Republican cause.
But should it really be a surprise? Rubio hails from Florida, a battleground state, and though he is seen as a Tea Party conservative, is he really? Conservatives have since his election, and well before, heaped praises on his head, and hailed him as one of the saviors of conservative principles. Yet all the while Rubio seems to have been taken under the wing of the Bush dynasty, particularly ex-Florida governor Jeb Bush, and was invited by Nancy Reagan to speak at the Reagan Library, where at one point he prevented Mrs. Reagan from falling, in an episode that almost seemed staged to me.
At 40, Rubio is a relatively young man, practically a kid in political terms, yet here he is one the one hand the object of near-veneration by the Tea Party, yet feted by and absorbed into the establishment club. Having had a small taste of the potential of the power and influence of Washington politics while rarely questioned or met with a critical eye, should we not have expected this?
This is of course presuming the story is true and that Rubio is himself knowingly involved if it is true. It might well be that the story comes from a plant in the Rubio camp, possibly even a Perry supporter. But the story bears watching, and it will be interesting to see how Rubio responds, if he does.
Whatever the case, conservatives should take from this an object lesson. Being possibly majority Christian, they more than most should be aware of the dangers of the allure of political power and influence. You can dress a man in royal raiment, and tell him in so many words that he's "a god, not a man". Do it long enough and he might even take you seriously on some level. Then by the time that old owl hoots, more often than not the corruption has already done its work, and irreversible damage.
UPDATE-When questioned about McCain's report, Marco Rubio issued a sternly worded denial, ending with "Hahaha". That Marco, such a jovial sort. Even accused McCain-the apparent "they" of the denial-of making the report up "out of thin air". Here's a portion of Rubio's statement, courtesy of The Shark Tank
“Don’t you think if something like that had happened, you would have heard something? 100% fiction, they just made it up out of thin air . . . Ok, BTW, if this were true, it means you got scooped in you own state!!!! Hahaha”
So what exactly is the truth? Who knows? Rubio admits to spearheading the effort to move Florida's primary up in 2007, so I guess that could serve to give him some plausible deniability cover. And then there's this, from The Shark Tank post linked above-
the recent move by the Florida legislature was carried out by a committee spearheaded by House Speaker Dean Cannon and House Majority Leader Carlos Lopez-Cantera- both have endorsed Governor Rick Perry in the Presidential primary.
Convoluting matters further, one of Perry’s top campaign consultants was also Governor Charlie Crist’s consultant during the 2010 Senate race before Crist jumped ship and ran as an Independent, and that Perry’s Florida team was being led by Rich Heffley, Jim Rimes and Randy Enwright. Heffley was responsible for fabricating the infamous “truthaboutRubio” attack website against now Senator Rubio.
So the initial link could be a concerted effort by Perry staffers and former Crist operatives to hurt both Romney and Rubio and in the meantime deflect from the involvement of the Perry campaign apparatus for their role in the primary calendar debacle, something R S McCain has been in the forefront of critical reporting about.
Still all in all, I'm not ready yet to absolve Rubio of complicity. Strange bedfellows and all that.
One thing is for sure. Once the jovial smiles and the joking was over, I bet Rubio started going through his staff with a fine toothed comb. Expect at least one head to roll.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Parents Declare War On Battle Creek Michigan School District
It seems the parents there do have quite a problem with a science book that proclaims Al Gore to be an "eco-hero".
It can't get much worse than that. But there is more-
Thirty-five school districts are using the seventh-grade science kits this year, including Vicksburg, Otsego and Schoolcraft in the Kalamazoo area.
The book holds up Al Gore as an “eco-hero;” promotes organizations such as Greenpeace and Rainforest Alliance; urges children to persuade their parents to “Vote Green” and buy organic; cautions against new-home construction, the plastics industry and conventional agriculture, and notes “many people believe that it is best for the earth for families to have no more than one child.”
I bet most of those kids in that district don't know the first thing about science past the 101 basics, if indeed that much. Granted, this was a seventh grade text, but that's not really the point. In science, and in practically all other courses, everything in the way of practical knowledge must take a backseat to political correctness and indoctrination. This is the primary if not the sole reason why the US is so far behind the developed world, and beyond, in science, math, and practically every other subject.
I bet if you asked these kids why they shouldn't mix sulfuric and hydrochloric acid they'd probably guess "because it's a bad trip?"
It can't get much worse than that. But there is more-
Thirty-five school districts are using the seventh-grade science kits this year, including Vicksburg, Otsego and Schoolcraft in the Kalamazoo area.
The book holds up Al Gore as an “eco-hero;” promotes organizations such as Greenpeace and Rainforest Alliance; urges children to persuade their parents to “Vote Green” and buy organic; cautions against new-home construction, the plastics industry and conventional agriculture, and notes “many people believe that it is best for the earth for families to have no more than one child.”
I bet most of those kids in that district don't know the first thing about science past the 101 basics, if indeed that much. Granted, this was a seventh grade text, but that's not really the point. In science, and in practically all other courses, everything in the way of practical knowledge must take a backseat to political correctness and indoctrination. This is the primary if not the sole reason why the US is so far behind the developed world, and beyond, in science, math, and practically every other subject.
I bet if you asked these kids why they shouldn't mix sulfuric and hydrochloric acid they'd probably guess "because it's a bad trip?"
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Tea Party Versus the Occupy Scumbags
I have been, so far unsuccessfully, trying to find the joyous news of an Occupy Fargo scumbag who lost his worthless life when he fell off a bridge. Until such time that I can regale you with the specifics of this happy report, enjoy the compare and contrast of this video, in which some Tea Party people risked their lives, or at least a case of severe nausea, by walking into the serpents den that is the Occupy DC protest movement.
It's pretty easy to tell the difference between the two groups. One group, the Tea Party, believes in limited government, liberty, free-markets, and bathing. The other group, the Occupy movement, are various degrees of socialists, fascists, and word on the street is there are a fair number of Ron Paul followers as well. Which if true is possibly the one and only thing the two groups have in common.
Well, aside from the fact that, legally, both are predominantly American citizens, and that the Occupy crowd is also made up of, allegedly, human beings.
H/T Say Anything Blog
It's pretty easy to tell the difference between the two groups. One group, the Tea Party, believes in limited government, liberty, free-markets, and bathing. The other group, the Occupy movement, are various degrees of socialists, fascists, and word on the street is there are a fair number of Ron Paul followers as well. Which if true is possibly the one and only thing the two groups have in common.
Well, aside from the fact that, legally, both are predominantly American citizens, and that the Occupy crowd is also made up of, allegedly, human beings.
H/T Say Anything Blog
Monday, October 10, 2011
Mutiny For The Bounty
The Other McCain shares this video that warmed the cockles of my little heart. After all, the unwitting recipient of the crowd's disdain is the same idiot who supported Obamacare on the grounds that the government has the right to force you to pursue your "constitutional right" to the pursuit of happiness. If you don't believe that, I blogged about it here, where you can also see the video where he makes this outrageous claim.
Therefore, when I saw the Occupy Wall Street hipsters put Democratic Congressional thug John Lewis in his place, my initial thoughts were, well they can't be all bad. Watch the fun as Lewis becomes more and more frustrated. You can almost hear him thinking out loud, "don't these people know who the hell I am? I'm Civil Rights "hero" John Lewis. How dare they say I'm no better than they are!"
When I remember how Lewis was one of a group of Black Congressional Caucus members who one time strolled through a Tea Party crowd and later lied, claiming people in the crowd shouted "nigger" and spat on him, I found myself wondering if this crowd would meet the same criticism. But of course that's not going to happen. After all, this protest, and all the other similar ones across the nation, are supported by the powers that be. Not just by the SEIU and other unions, and by activists such as World Can't Wait and Code Pink. They are also supported by Barak Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and other Democrats, who disingenuously compare them to the Tea Party. Yes, the Democratic Party supports this nationwide movement, including the Occupy Philadelphia group that recently marched through the streets of Philadelphia carrying a Soviet flag.
So what do they want, this motley crue of Ron Paul supporters, hipsters, and various stripes of progressives and socialists? Well, besides free stuff, that is. They would seem to want a more fair, equitable distribution of the nation's wealth, jobs, better pay, and of course a higher tax rate on all those that they demand provide them with all of these goodies. And of course they want relief from the burdens of those student loans they've been unfairly saddled with. After all, can they help it that there just isn't that great a demand these days for PoliSci, Sociology, Economics, and Anthropology grads?
But although these things might have provided the original impetus, there is very likely much more to it than that.
Sunday on Face The Nation, Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain declared, to a teary-eyed Bob Schieffer, that the Occupy Wall Street Movement is nothing more than a blatant attempt to distract from the failed policies of the Obama Administration by focusing public outrage at the banks, and Wall Street, who by the way overwhelmingly supported the election of Obama in 2008 against John McCain.
All in all, this movement is one that should be welcome, if anything, as a sign of the on-going implosion and disintegration of the left as they stumble through their on-going divorce from reality.
Therefore, when I saw the Occupy Wall Street hipsters put Democratic Congressional thug John Lewis in his place, my initial thoughts were, well they can't be all bad. Watch the fun as Lewis becomes more and more frustrated. You can almost hear him thinking out loud, "don't these people know who the hell I am? I'm Civil Rights "hero" John Lewis. How dare they say I'm no better than they are!"
When I remember how Lewis was one of a group of Black Congressional Caucus members who one time strolled through a Tea Party crowd and later lied, claiming people in the crowd shouted "nigger" and spat on him, I found myself wondering if this crowd would meet the same criticism. But of course that's not going to happen. After all, this protest, and all the other similar ones across the nation, are supported by the powers that be. Not just by the SEIU and other unions, and by activists such as World Can't Wait and Code Pink. They are also supported by Barak Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and other Democrats, who disingenuously compare them to the Tea Party. Yes, the Democratic Party supports this nationwide movement, including the Occupy Philadelphia group that recently marched through the streets of Philadelphia carrying a Soviet flag.
So what do they want, this motley crue of Ron Paul supporters, hipsters, and various stripes of progressives and socialists? Well, besides free stuff, that is. They would seem to want a more fair, equitable distribution of the nation's wealth, jobs, better pay, and of course a higher tax rate on all those that they demand provide them with all of these goodies. And of course they want relief from the burdens of those student loans they've been unfairly saddled with. After all, can they help it that there just isn't that great a demand these days for PoliSci, Sociology, Economics, and Anthropology grads?
But although these things might have provided the original impetus, there is very likely much more to it than that.
Sunday on Face The Nation, Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain declared, to a teary-eyed Bob Schieffer, that the Occupy Wall Street Movement is nothing more than a blatant attempt to distract from the failed policies of the Obama Administration by focusing public outrage at the banks, and Wall Street, who by the way overwhelmingly supported the election of Obama in 2008 against John McCain.
All in all, this movement is one that should be welcome, if anything, as a sign of the on-going implosion and disintegration of the left as they stumble through their on-going divorce from reality.
Saturday, October 08, 2011
Ed Schultz At Half Wits End
This might be one of the most entertaining videos I've ever posted. It shows two leftist idiots from MSNBC going at each other. Ed Schultz is speaking in support of Obama's jobs plan, and Dylan Rattigan is saying it doesn't go nearly far enough. After so long, a frustrated and visibly angry Schultz calls it off.
When far left commie loon Ed Schultz represents the moderate faction of your party, you know you've got real fucking problems. This might well be a foretaste of a serious problem among the American left. Hey, I know how they might resolve their differences. Bullets.
H/T Bluegrass Pundit
When far left commie loon Ed Schultz represents the moderate faction of your party, you know you've got real fucking problems. This might well be a foretaste of a serious problem among the American left. Hey, I know how they might resolve their differences. Bullets.
H/T Bluegrass Pundit
Occupy Portland Finds The Perfect Spokesperson
As we know, the Occupy Wall Street movement has spread across the country, to such diverse places as Washington DC, to Louisville and Lexington Ky, and-Portland Oregon. The following YouTube video is a perfect representation of the kind of folks one might find at such an event. Much thanks to Ace of Spades HQ for digging up this fine specimen of humanity.
Friday, October 07, 2011
The Walking Brain Dead
FilmLadd has a brutal evisceration of Bill O'Reilly, who just cant seem to see the trees for the forest. O'Reilly seems to live in a world where everyone basically has the best of intentions. They're just wrong. Thus, in his world view, George Soros is nothing more than a greedy capitalist, a kind of modern day Robber Baron who manipulates social unrest for his own personal power and enrichment. Barak Obama truly loves America and is a patriot. He just has a skewed ideological vision of what is best for the country and for "the folks".
And the Occupy Wall Street Movement, which has just recently expanded to other areas, including Washington D.C.'s K-Street and even to Lexington Kentucky? They're just a bunch of hippies who want free stuff, or equality, or whatever, but nobody should take them seriously, according to O'Reilly. Soon, these same socialist ideologues will follow in the footsteps of their sixties forebears. They themselves will occupy Wall Street in the form of investment bankers and stock-brokers. They will no longer rail against the system. They will be the system.
It is all too clear however that the repercussions today could be much more serious, with longer lasting implications, and one must wonder to what extent Obama is involved with the movement, albeit in the background, though publicly encouraging such random acts of public protest as resulted in one group taking possession of the Brooklyn Bridge, which in turn necessitated the arrest of more than seventy protestors.
Robert Stacy McCain in the meantime points out another group of allies the sixties hippy crowd never had-the unions, particularly the SEIU, along with myriads of others, including teachers.
It's all a bit murky to me. O'Reilly is correct about one thing. Most of this crowd are gravely disappointed in Obama, whom they feel has let them down, whom they believe has sold out to the Wall Street crowd. In fact, this is true in a sense. He sold out to them during his first campaign. Wall Street by and large donated more money to him than to McCain, more possibly than to any other candidate, Democrat or Republican, in history.
Still, there can be no doubt that Obama wants to shore up his leftist base, and so has no compunction about using weasel words to the effect that the Occupy Wall Street Movement speaks for a large and growing disaffection across the country.
One of the protestors is a man I have had a terse acquaintance with for some time. In fact, Troutsky is on my blogroll. (yes, I have some commies on my blogroll). He certainly has no love lost for Obama or the Democrats. Still, note how the old trout guide waxes poetic in this post about how he is working on the sidelines, or as he puts it, on the periphery, and adds this bit of warning to those unions who don't toe the line.
It's great to see SEIU down at Zucotti Square but I hope someone asks them about California health care workers. Because their union is actively scabbing and trying to break a courageous strike. It is time for honest critique of EVERYTHING, just get it out in the open and talk.
It would seem as though healing the sick and saving lives must, alas, take a back seat to the glorious cause of civil unrest and property theft. So what to make of all of this? If you're out and about on your daily routine to and from work, the store, seeing to business matters, etc., what should you do if you run into a horde of these devoted progressives trying to stick it to the man? What can you do? You certainly have to keep a watchful eye and if possible, take judicious notes. Capture the mayhem on video if at all possible.
And by all means, go armed if you can. Just in case the unthinkable happens.
And the Occupy Wall Street Movement, which has just recently expanded to other areas, including Washington D.C.'s K-Street and even to Lexington Kentucky? They're just a bunch of hippies who want free stuff, or equality, or whatever, but nobody should take them seriously, according to O'Reilly. Soon, these same socialist ideologues will follow in the footsteps of their sixties forebears. They themselves will occupy Wall Street in the form of investment bankers and stock-brokers. They will no longer rail against the system. They will be the system.
It is all too clear however that the repercussions today could be much more serious, with longer lasting implications, and one must wonder to what extent Obama is involved with the movement, albeit in the background, though publicly encouraging such random acts of public protest as resulted in one group taking possession of the Brooklyn Bridge, which in turn necessitated the arrest of more than seventy protestors.
Robert Stacy McCain in the meantime points out another group of allies the sixties hippy crowd never had-the unions, particularly the SEIU, along with myriads of others, including teachers.
It's all a bit murky to me. O'Reilly is correct about one thing. Most of this crowd are gravely disappointed in Obama, whom they feel has let them down, whom they believe has sold out to the Wall Street crowd. In fact, this is true in a sense. He sold out to them during his first campaign. Wall Street by and large donated more money to him than to McCain, more possibly than to any other candidate, Democrat or Republican, in history.
Still, there can be no doubt that Obama wants to shore up his leftist base, and so has no compunction about using weasel words to the effect that the Occupy Wall Street Movement speaks for a large and growing disaffection across the country.
One of the protestors is a man I have had a terse acquaintance with for some time. In fact, Troutsky is on my blogroll. (yes, I have some commies on my blogroll). He certainly has no love lost for Obama or the Democrats. Still, note how the old trout guide waxes poetic in this post about how he is working on the sidelines, or as he puts it, on the periphery, and adds this bit of warning to those unions who don't toe the line.
It's great to see SEIU down at Zucotti Square but I hope someone asks them about California health care workers. Because their union is actively scabbing and trying to break a courageous strike. It is time for honest critique of EVERYTHING, just get it out in the open and talk.
It would seem as though healing the sick and saving lives must, alas, take a back seat to the glorious cause of civil unrest and property theft. So what to make of all of this? If you're out and about on your daily routine to and from work, the store, seeing to business matters, etc., what should you do if you run into a horde of these devoted progressives trying to stick it to the man? What can you do? You certainly have to keep a watchful eye and if possible, take judicious notes. Capture the mayhem on video if at all possible.
And by all means, go armed if you can. Just in case the unthinkable happens.
Wednesday, October 05, 2011
Grover Norquist Exposed On The House Floor
H/T for the below post goes out to Zilla Of The Resistance, whose tireless and unwavering efforts against radical Islam, including her efforts to expose what she calls "Islamoblow" politicians and other enablers or "Islamocoddlers" deserves special commendation. At this point she may be, in her own smaller way, an even more effective voice of opposition than Pamela Gellar, who a good many people tend to shut out without a fair hearing. I urge all readers of this post to visit Zilla's blog and show her your support.
Is Grover Norquist's Americans For Tax Reform being used by Norquist as a money laundering operation? It seems that there is more than ample reason to believe that to be the case, but if so, the veil seems to be finally lifting. Or possibly unraveling. The question remains, who of all of Norquist's unsavory acquaintances, not the least of whom is convicted felon Jack Abramof, has utilized Norquist's organization for illicit means. The answers might surprise you if you are unfamiliar with the man's history, but the answer would seem to be such groups as CAIR, Hamas, Hebbollah, and the Islamic Brotherhood. It would seem that Grover is a major champion and advocate of the religion of peace.
It has gotten to the point where one Congressman, Republican Frank R. Wolf, just today denounced Norquist on the floor of the House. I won't go into detail, as you can read it all here, but the problems with Norquist seem multifaceted.
For one, he has been a strong supporter of any and all Islamic causes here in the US. That in and of itself need not necessarily be cause for alarm, so long as it is transparent, but if he is using the ATR as a means of funneling money back and forth, and to and from Islamic radical organizations, then it becomes grave cause for concern. But more to the point, he has been a strong influence on GOP lawmakers through the aegis of the ATR's "No New Tax Pledge" which he has hitherto run almost like a protection racket.
First, GOP lawmakers and candidates are pressured to take the pledge, and then bludgeoned without mercy if they show signs of wavering from that pledge in the slightest ways. Unfortunately, this goes way beyond raising taxes. Also forbidden is any serious effort at entitlement reform. Perhaps even more disturbing is Norquist's insistence that any attempt to repeal subsidies or even the more odious forms of tax exemptions currently enjoyed by wealthy individuals and large corporations is also tantamount to breaking the pledge.
The end result would seem to be the wielding of a type of influence that might make George Soros green with ency. Yet, according to the Congressman, this kind of influence is stopping any budgetary reform progress dead in its tracks.
The question remains, who benefits the most from Norquist's influence? Have tax loopholes and exemptions made it possible for some corporations to funnel money to Norquist's organization in large sums? And how is this money being used, and for whose benefit? Are some of our major corporations unknowingly funding organizations whose overall objective and purpose is to supplant Western Civilization and to install shariah law?
And of course, although it wouldn't seem to fall under his purview, Norquist has probably twisted arms insofar as legal efforts on behalf of the Islamic groups he supports. For example, he was a vocal proponent of the Ground Zero Mosques, and has been a staunch opponent of the Patriot Act. He has also been at the forefront of demands for the closure of Guantanamo Bay, in demanding civil rights for even the most heinous of foreign-born jihadists, and has even been an advocate of terrorist fundraisers such as Sami Al-Aryan.
It is a disturbing list of allegations, but if true, Republicans need to cut this millstone from around their neck. Prosecution as well should be forthcoming, but there's the rub. How many people in Congress are just in too deep with Norquist to feel comfortable with any further revelations?
Is Grover Norquist's Americans For Tax Reform being used by Norquist as a money laundering operation? It seems that there is more than ample reason to believe that to be the case, but if so, the veil seems to be finally lifting. Or possibly unraveling. The question remains, who of all of Norquist's unsavory acquaintances, not the least of whom is convicted felon Jack Abramof, has utilized Norquist's organization for illicit means. The answers might surprise you if you are unfamiliar with the man's history, but the answer would seem to be such groups as CAIR, Hamas, Hebbollah, and the Islamic Brotherhood. It would seem that Grover is a major champion and advocate of the religion of peace.
It has gotten to the point where one Congressman, Republican Frank R. Wolf, just today denounced Norquist on the floor of the House. I won't go into detail, as you can read it all here, but the problems with Norquist seem multifaceted.
For one, he has been a strong supporter of any and all Islamic causes here in the US. That in and of itself need not necessarily be cause for alarm, so long as it is transparent, but if he is using the ATR as a means of funneling money back and forth, and to and from Islamic radical organizations, then it becomes grave cause for concern. But more to the point, he has been a strong influence on GOP lawmakers through the aegis of the ATR's "No New Tax Pledge" which he has hitherto run almost like a protection racket.
First, GOP lawmakers and candidates are pressured to take the pledge, and then bludgeoned without mercy if they show signs of wavering from that pledge in the slightest ways. Unfortunately, this goes way beyond raising taxes. Also forbidden is any serious effort at entitlement reform. Perhaps even more disturbing is Norquist's insistence that any attempt to repeal subsidies or even the more odious forms of tax exemptions currently enjoyed by wealthy individuals and large corporations is also tantamount to breaking the pledge.
The end result would seem to be the wielding of a type of influence that might make George Soros green with ency. Yet, according to the Congressman, this kind of influence is stopping any budgetary reform progress dead in its tracks.
The question remains, who benefits the most from Norquist's influence? Have tax loopholes and exemptions made it possible for some corporations to funnel money to Norquist's organization in large sums? And how is this money being used, and for whose benefit? Are some of our major corporations unknowingly funding organizations whose overall objective and purpose is to supplant Western Civilization and to install shariah law?
And of course, although it wouldn't seem to fall under his purview, Norquist has probably twisted arms insofar as legal efforts on behalf of the Islamic groups he supports. For example, he was a vocal proponent of the Ground Zero Mosques, and has been a staunch opponent of the Patriot Act. He has also been at the forefront of demands for the closure of Guantanamo Bay, in demanding civil rights for even the most heinous of foreign-born jihadists, and has even been an advocate of terrorist fundraisers such as Sami Al-Aryan.
It is a disturbing list of allegations, but if true, Republicans need to cut this millstone from around their neck. Prosecution as well should be forthcoming, but there's the rub. How many people in Congress are just in too deep with Norquist to feel comfortable with any further revelations?
Monday, October 03, 2011
Was Rick Perry Wrong And If So, How Exactly?
Rick Perry looks to me like he's on the way out as a presidential contender, and that's probably just as well. The man is a horrid debater. Even in a debate with the Teleprompter Messiah, you need to not come across as tongue-tied for the simple fact it makes you look unsure of your facts, your position, and yourself.
With that out of the way, its really too bad, because I think Perry is getting a bad rap. But its a rap that is resonating in GOP circles nationwide. Here's just one example recently posted in American Spectator from a Republican congressional candidate from North Carolina by the name of Vernon Robinson, remarking at a rally (in front of a Mexican restaurant that is alleged to hire illegal immigrants) regarding Rick Perry's supposed "Amnesty" ideals.
"If Governor Perry's amnesty policy is adopted, it will mark the first time a Texan has surrendered to Mexico in 175 years," continued Robinson. Robinson called for using troops to secure the border, implementing e-Verify, cutting off welfare to illegal immigrants, an end to ballot printed in Spanish and other foreign languages, rescinding birthright citizenship, and restricting the jurisdiction of federal judges who stand in the way.
I'm not sure how much of that Perry would agree or disagree with, but I'll take the governor at his word and assume he sincerely wants to control illegal immigration, meaning like most conservatives he wants to at least slow it to a crawl if not eliminate it all together.
As for me, I find myself agreeing with every single item stated by Robinson. I might be even more hard core than he is. For example, until such time that we can repeal Posse Comitatus and thus put troops on the border (which frankly we should be able to do anyway) we should mandate that our border control agents not only have the right to shoot to kill in self-defense when they are attacked by illegal immigrants at or near the border, but they should be able to shoot them when they are trying to elude capture. If that sounds harsh, bear in mind many of these people are drug smugglers, gang members, and that some even engage in human trafficking. A good rule of thumb is, if you don't want to get shot, don't resist or evade law-enforcement, even if you think you're in the right. Let your attorney sort that out. The Mexican Embassy will appoint you one free of charge and will scream to high heaven in your defense, even if you're a convicted child rapist.
I hope I've made my point. I've been accused of a lot, but being weak on immigration and border security, well that's not one of them. Of course things can change and that might be starting with this post.
My question is, what exactly did Perry say that was so horrible, other than the mangled, garbled, amateurish way he said it?
Let's take it one step at a time. Only instead of looking what he actually said, let's pretend we're Democrats and twist his words around to mean something different than what actually came out of his mouth.
"You Republicans who don't believe in the Texas Dream Act are a bunch of heartless sons-of-bitches"
And of course, as I hope everyone knows, this is not what he said at all. In fact, he wasn't even referring to American citizens, nor specifically Republican voters, in my opinion. What he actually said, to paraphrase him, was "if you don't support giving an education to children who are brought here through no fault of their own, frankly I don't think you have a heart."
This was actually an amateurish and really pretty lame attempt to attack not GOP voters, but GOP politicians and policy-makers who dissent from his views. Where Perry messed up profoundly was in making the mistake of assuming that most Republican voters would agree with him. But he wasn't intentionally attacking them. Perry is not that big a fool. He just hasn't caught on yet that the United States as a country is bigger and more complicated than most things. Including, yes, even Texas.
But conversely, we all screw up when we fail to recognize the unique texture of the Texas landscape. To most of us, illegal immigration is frightening. How many are here, what will be the long-term effects on our culture and society? Will they add an unstoppable horde of supporters to the leftist agenda? It's uncharted territory, to be sure. But Texas to an extent is that territory, and Texans have lived it daily. They have had to deal with the unique problems it poses directly, not as a mere abstract concept.
Seen in this light, I can see Perry's point. Say you have a bunch of kids who have been here since a very young age. Their parents work hard, hidden in the shadows, but in the meantime these kids attend school. Some of them work hard and learn, and make good grades. Some even graduate with honors, as they and for the most part their parents contribute to the culture and society, and don't break the law, other than through the fact that they are here illegally.
Some of these kids have gone on to enter the US military and have fought for their adopted country. Why then should they not be granted a scholarship to attend a Texas University, or allowed to pay in-state tuition, seeing as how Texas is the state in which they have resided, went to school, and worked? Provided they meet the qualifications for attendance, and scholarship, and are willing to work hard, who are we to say them nay? We are always hearing about how we need more doctors, scientists, engineers, mathematicians. Well?
And about this border fence business. Perry is right on that as well. The idea of constructing a fence along the entirety of the Mexican-American border is a non-starter to me. It's grandstanding and demagoguery at best, and anytime I hear someone talk that crap I tend to tune them out. For one thing, are you going to construct a damn fence in the middle of the Rio Grande? Because if you can't solve that challenge then you are faced with the prospect of separating Texas landowners from large portions of their own acreage.
And then, as surely as night follows day, as soon as the fence is built, they will reduce the numbers of border agents, probably by significant amounts. The problem is, you will still need x number of agents or the fence becomes nothing more than a temporary inconvenience. And if you have the number of agents, or national guard troops that you need to make the fence an efficient deterrent, then voila, guess what? Turns out you don't need the damn fence after all, because the same amount of border agents can do the job as good without the fence as with it. Strike that, they can probably do the job even better.
It's like the guy that puts up a high fence around his property. Sure it will keep some people out, all but those that are really determined, and once those determined ones get over, the fence no longer protects you, it protects them. Border agents by and large aren't gifted with x-ray vision. They can't see through the wall any better than the illegals, and if you don't have a hell of a lot of agents, then the illegals will get over. And those that do make it through will be the last ones you would want. And make it through they will, one way or another.
As for the lettuce pickers and the bed-changers, I don't care about them. I want limitations on how many come here, to be sure, and I want those to come here legally, but in the meantime I want to focus our energy and attention on the truly criminal element. If we really, really want to we can get rid of them by shooting them down like the invading army of insurgents that they are in a very real way, if necessary. And make no mistake, that's what they are.
The others we can deal with over time, by initiating a pathway to citizenship for those who have otherwise obeyed the rules and worked whenever possible.
But first we have to secure the borders, in a sensible, realistic way. And a border fence is not going to cut it for the reasons I mentioned. Plus, frankly, I think its intended more as a boondoggle than anything. Just who will build the thing, and how much will it cost. This thing could end up making the Big Dig look like a skateboard park.
So let's all take a deep breath. We have too many important things to worry about. And in fact, this nonsense about a border fence is one of the main things that is holding up progress on actually securing the border. Put the boots on the ground and do everything else sensible that is required to at least slow this problem down to a trickle, and then let's move on from there.
With that out of the way, its really too bad, because I think Perry is getting a bad rap. But its a rap that is resonating in GOP circles nationwide. Here's just one example recently posted in American Spectator from a Republican congressional candidate from North Carolina by the name of Vernon Robinson, remarking at a rally (in front of a Mexican restaurant that is alleged to hire illegal immigrants) regarding Rick Perry's supposed "Amnesty" ideals.
"If Governor Perry's amnesty policy is adopted, it will mark the first time a Texan has surrendered to Mexico in 175 years," continued Robinson. Robinson called for using troops to secure the border, implementing e-Verify, cutting off welfare to illegal immigrants, an end to ballot printed in Spanish and other foreign languages, rescinding birthright citizenship, and restricting the jurisdiction of federal judges who stand in the way.
I'm not sure how much of that Perry would agree or disagree with, but I'll take the governor at his word and assume he sincerely wants to control illegal immigration, meaning like most conservatives he wants to at least slow it to a crawl if not eliminate it all together.
As for me, I find myself agreeing with every single item stated by Robinson. I might be even more hard core than he is. For example, until such time that we can repeal Posse Comitatus and thus put troops on the border (which frankly we should be able to do anyway) we should mandate that our border control agents not only have the right to shoot to kill in self-defense when they are attacked by illegal immigrants at or near the border, but they should be able to shoot them when they are trying to elude capture. If that sounds harsh, bear in mind many of these people are drug smugglers, gang members, and that some even engage in human trafficking. A good rule of thumb is, if you don't want to get shot, don't resist or evade law-enforcement, even if you think you're in the right. Let your attorney sort that out. The Mexican Embassy will appoint you one free of charge and will scream to high heaven in your defense, even if you're a convicted child rapist.
I hope I've made my point. I've been accused of a lot, but being weak on immigration and border security, well that's not one of them. Of course things can change and that might be starting with this post.
My question is, what exactly did Perry say that was so horrible, other than the mangled, garbled, amateurish way he said it?
Let's take it one step at a time. Only instead of looking what he actually said, let's pretend we're Democrats and twist his words around to mean something different than what actually came out of his mouth.
"You Republicans who don't believe in the Texas Dream Act are a bunch of heartless sons-of-bitches"
And of course, as I hope everyone knows, this is not what he said at all. In fact, he wasn't even referring to American citizens, nor specifically Republican voters, in my opinion. What he actually said, to paraphrase him, was "if you don't support giving an education to children who are brought here through no fault of their own, frankly I don't think you have a heart."
This was actually an amateurish and really pretty lame attempt to attack not GOP voters, but GOP politicians and policy-makers who dissent from his views. Where Perry messed up profoundly was in making the mistake of assuming that most Republican voters would agree with him. But he wasn't intentionally attacking them. Perry is not that big a fool. He just hasn't caught on yet that the United States as a country is bigger and more complicated than most things. Including, yes, even Texas.
But conversely, we all screw up when we fail to recognize the unique texture of the Texas landscape. To most of us, illegal immigration is frightening. How many are here, what will be the long-term effects on our culture and society? Will they add an unstoppable horde of supporters to the leftist agenda? It's uncharted territory, to be sure. But Texas to an extent is that territory, and Texans have lived it daily. They have had to deal with the unique problems it poses directly, not as a mere abstract concept.
Seen in this light, I can see Perry's point. Say you have a bunch of kids who have been here since a very young age. Their parents work hard, hidden in the shadows, but in the meantime these kids attend school. Some of them work hard and learn, and make good grades. Some even graduate with honors, as they and for the most part their parents contribute to the culture and society, and don't break the law, other than through the fact that they are here illegally.
Some of these kids have gone on to enter the US military and have fought for their adopted country. Why then should they not be granted a scholarship to attend a Texas University, or allowed to pay in-state tuition, seeing as how Texas is the state in which they have resided, went to school, and worked? Provided they meet the qualifications for attendance, and scholarship, and are willing to work hard, who are we to say them nay? We are always hearing about how we need more doctors, scientists, engineers, mathematicians. Well?
And about this border fence business. Perry is right on that as well. The idea of constructing a fence along the entirety of the Mexican-American border is a non-starter to me. It's grandstanding and demagoguery at best, and anytime I hear someone talk that crap I tend to tune them out. For one thing, are you going to construct a damn fence in the middle of the Rio Grande? Because if you can't solve that challenge then you are faced with the prospect of separating Texas landowners from large portions of their own acreage.
And then, as surely as night follows day, as soon as the fence is built, they will reduce the numbers of border agents, probably by significant amounts. The problem is, you will still need x number of agents or the fence becomes nothing more than a temporary inconvenience. And if you have the number of agents, or national guard troops that you need to make the fence an efficient deterrent, then voila, guess what? Turns out you don't need the damn fence after all, because the same amount of border agents can do the job as good without the fence as with it. Strike that, they can probably do the job even better.
It's like the guy that puts up a high fence around his property. Sure it will keep some people out, all but those that are really determined, and once those determined ones get over, the fence no longer protects you, it protects them. Border agents by and large aren't gifted with x-ray vision. They can't see through the wall any better than the illegals, and if you don't have a hell of a lot of agents, then the illegals will get over. And those that do make it through will be the last ones you would want. And make it through they will, one way or another.
As for the lettuce pickers and the bed-changers, I don't care about them. I want limitations on how many come here, to be sure, and I want those to come here legally, but in the meantime I want to focus our energy and attention on the truly criminal element. If we really, really want to we can get rid of them by shooting them down like the invading army of insurgents that they are in a very real way, if necessary. And make no mistake, that's what they are.
The others we can deal with over time, by initiating a pathway to citizenship for those who have otherwise obeyed the rules and worked whenever possible.
But first we have to secure the borders, in a sensible, realistic way. And a border fence is not going to cut it for the reasons I mentioned. Plus, frankly, I think its intended more as a boondoggle than anything. Just who will build the thing, and how much will it cost. This thing could end up making the Big Dig look like a skateboard park.
So let's all take a deep breath. We have too many important things to worry about. And in fact, this nonsense about a border fence is one of the main things that is holding up progress on actually securing the border. Put the boots on the ground and do everything else sensible that is required to at least slow this problem down to a trickle, and then let's move on from there.
Saturday, October 01, 2011
Friday, September 30, 2011
Warren Buffett-Snake Oil Salesman And All-Around Fraud
I want to preface this post by stating, I am sick and tired of hearing about how Warren Buffett pays a lesser percentage of tax on dividends than his secretary pays in income tax. That's only to be expected, as capital gains are taxed at fifteen percent. But what is really irritating as how he portrays this as being so unfair to his poor hapless secretary.
This is not a woman who works in some obscure small town doctor or lawyer's office, or some struggling regional business.
This is the secretary of WARREN FUCKING BUFFETT!!! I have no doubt whatsoever that she makes well up into six figures in salary, probably enough to put her well into the upper income bracket. And that's before you start factoring in other compensation, probably a generous end of the year bonus, birthday bonus, shares of stock, etc. This is not a woman who is just making it.
In the meantime Buffett's company, Berkshire Hathaway, has been in negotiations with the feds as to how much back taxes they owe. The hypocrisy knows no bounds, but don't tell MSNBC that. If you tell them Buffett should release his tax returns, they will call you a Buffett Birther.
Now, Buffett is conducting a scam to inflate the price of Hathaway stock, by announcing a buy-out for up to ten percent above the current price, on the grounds the current stock doesn't reflect what he insists is the company's real value. Alice Schroeder, who has had dealings with the so-called Oracle From Omaho, also hints that this might be a ploy to simply drive up the stock, after which Buffett might decide not to re-purchase after all.
Incidentally, Schoeder once wrote a book about Buffett, who told her when there were two conflicting accounts as pertains to any subject, to always use the version least favorable to him. Then he cut off all contact with her for painting him in an unfavorable light.
This is the kind of man we are suppose to listen to when he advises us to raise taxes on the rich, ie anyone, person or business, who makes more than 250,000 dollars a year.
Two possibilities, either one or both of which might explain this phenomenon.
1. The government has something on Buffett
2. Buffett wants certain businesses to lose their stock value so he can snatch them up.
It's one of the two, and probably both. I would almost be willing to bet my life on number two.
In the meantime, if Warren is really that upset that he isn't paying his fair share, here's a couple of things he can do.
1. If you're really in charge of Berkshire Hathaway, stop haggling with the feds. Pay them what they say you owe. Would they lie to you?
2. Here's an even better idea. There are a plethora of charities, some of which do good work, and some of which are struggling, that could always use a shot in the arm, an infusion of quick, ready cash, hell, a respected spokesman (note, better move fast on that one).
Just a few I can think of off the top of my head. Salvation Army, ASPCA, Boys And Girls Club, Make A Wish, Children's Hospital, The Red Cross, The Boy Scouts.
Granted, not all charities are good, some have a mixed record, some are wasteful of their donations. You can ferret those out, I'm sure. Even the worst of them couldn't be any more wasteful than the federal government.
But of course, Warren Buffett couldn't care less about fairness and government efficiency. There's something else up, and you can bet the main beneficiary, in the long run, will always be Warren Buffett.
This is not a woman who works in some obscure small town doctor or lawyer's office, or some struggling regional business.
This is the secretary of WARREN FUCKING BUFFETT!!! I have no doubt whatsoever that she makes well up into six figures in salary, probably enough to put her well into the upper income bracket. And that's before you start factoring in other compensation, probably a generous end of the year bonus, birthday bonus, shares of stock, etc. This is not a woman who is just making it.
In the meantime Buffett's company, Berkshire Hathaway, has been in negotiations with the feds as to how much back taxes they owe. The hypocrisy knows no bounds, but don't tell MSNBC that. If you tell them Buffett should release his tax returns, they will call you a Buffett Birther.
Now, Buffett is conducting a scam to inflate the price of Hathaway stock, by announcing a buy-out for up to ten percent above the current price, on the grounds the current stock doesn't reflect what he insists is the company's real value. Alice Schroeder, who has had dealings with the so-called Oracle From Omaho, also hints that this might be a ploy to simply drive up the stock, after which Buffett might decide not to re-purchase after all.
Incidentally, Schoeder once wrote a book about Buffett, who told her when there were two conflicting accounts as pertains to any subject, to always use the version least favorable to him. Then he cut off all contact with her for painting him in an unfavorable light.
This is the kind of man we are suppose to listen to when he advises us to raise taxes on the rich, ie anyone, person or business, who makes more than 250,000 dollars a year.
Two possibilities, either one or both of which might explain this phenomenon.
1. The government has something on Buffett
2. Buffett wants certain businesses to lose their stock value so he can snatch them up.
It's one of the two, and probably both. I would almost be willing to bet my life on number two.
In the meantime, if Warren is really that upset that he isn't paying his fair share, here's a couple of things he can do.
1. If you're really in charge of Berkshire Hathaway, stop haggling with the feds. Pay them what they say you owe. Would they lie to you?
2. Here's an even better idea. There are a plethora of charities, some of which do good work, and some of which are struggling, that could always use a shot in the arm, an infusion of quick, ready cash, hell, a respected spokesman (note, better move fast on that one).
Just a few I can think of off the top of my head. Salvation Army, ASPCA, Boys And Girls Club, Make A Wish, Children's Hospital, The Red Cross, The Boy Scouts.
Granted, not all charities are good, some have a mixed record, some are wasteful of their donations. You can ferret those out, I'm sure. Even the worst of them couldn't be any more wasteful than the federal government.
But of course, Warren Buffett couldn't care less about fairness and government efficiency. There's something else up, and you can bet the main beneficiary, in the long run, will always be Warren Buffett.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)