Category Archives: Politics
November 2, 2010Posted by on
UPDATE: New updated map
How bad was it for the Democrats in this years House elections? Compare these two maps from Fox News:
I think that says it all right there.
November 2, 2010Posted by on
I ask that question after watching the Talking Heads and Dems fail basic logic over the last 2 days. I keep hearing how “so what if the Tea Party backed Republicans win the House and pick up seats in the Senate, Obama can still veto everything they do and then where will they be. The Tea Party will then turn against them”. Unfortunately for these talking Heads and the Dems that is not logical in progression. First let’s go back to why the Tea Party formed and what caused them to back conservatives Republicans: The Dems ignored what the voters wanted when they passed stimulus, Wall street Bailouts, Cap and Tax in the House, Obamacare with deem and pass. They did not get angry with the Republicans that voted against all those things but because the Dems had control of the House, a filibuster proof Senate and the President was not able to stop them.
See what that is: Go against the Voters they get angry with you, go with them even when you can’t stop the spending and they are not angry with you.
Now do the voters want the Bush Tax Breaks extended: Yes
Do they want Obamacare repealed: Yes
Do they want Government Spending Cut: Yes
Now lets say the Republicans in the House pass bills that does all that and it gets blocked by the Senate. Who do you think the voters are going to go after in 2012: The Republicans that listened to the voters in 2010 or the Dems that didn’t? Lets say that not only did it pass the House but also squeaked by the Senate and Obama vetos them. Who do you think the voters will go after: The Republicans that listened to the voters in 2010 or Obama and the Dems that didn’t?
If you say the Republicans you just failed basic logic and you did that even with the example of what happened in this election for those that went against the voters staring you in the face. If Obama and the Dems block and/or veto the bills the Republicans pass out of the House that have widespread voter support, Obama becomes a 1 term President and the 2012 election will be an even worse bloodbath for Dems then 2010 is.
October 17, 2010Posted by on
It has already been well established that the NYT’s is a very left leaning newspaper. This is fact that can not be disputed when you go back and look at how they covered the Stalin led USSR, by lying about what was going on there. They knew that Stalin was massacring his own people but lied about it, not just refused to cover it.
We also know that the left has a problem acknowledging the truth about the so call religion of peace: Islam.
However with that all said you would still hope they could do better then this:
No emotion or hint of the defendant’s thoughts flickered across his pale features, as more than two dozen other soldiers and civilians spoke under oath about their struggle to survive in the terrifying minutes after he yelled “Allahu akbar!” — “God is great” in Arabic — and started shooting.
A parade of prosecution witnesses — many of them still struggling with their wounds — provided a gripping, almost cinematic account of the attack in which 13 people died and dozens were wounded.
Yet the gunman and his motive remain an enigma.
Seriously ? You can’t figure out his motive? Here let me help you: Hasan is a Muslim fanatic that wanted to kill and wound as many non Muslims as he could before he died, that way ensuring him his 72 virgins in the afterlife. That is kind of the whole point of yelling Allahu Akbar and shooting people for Muslim fanatics.
September 15, 2010Posted by on
The Republican Senatorial primary in Delaware was a fascinating race and should be a wake up call to not just the GOP establishment but also to the Dems, however in less than 24 hrs the Dems have shown that they hit the snooze button and rolled back over.
Poll after Poll through the years has shown that the United States is a right of center nation, ie conservative. Self identified conservatives out number liberals, but have not historically been motivated to “get out the vote”, it takes something extraordinary to rouse them up. Carter in his bumbling over foreign policy during a recession (hmm sounds familiar) was one such time, Clinton and his wife Hillary during the first 2 years of his Presidency and their running roughshod over the will of the people (hmm sounds familiar) was another. Both times the President and his party angered the conservative majority enough to drive them to vote. Obama and his socialist agenda is another such time and maybe this time both party’s will get the message finally through their thick skulls.
For the Dems: We will never become the Socialist Utopia that the Progressives in your party dream of. Every time you have tried this stunt you have gotten slapped down by the people. Eventually if you keep it up you will anger the majority enough that you guys will only be able to be elected in places like San Francisco and Berkley. You keep letting that Far left fringe setting your agenda and being the face of your part,y you will get the civil war in your party you think is happening now in the Republican party for one very simple reason, something you still haven’t grasped about the Tea Party: The Tea Party isn’t just Republicans. That’s right Dems, there is Democrats in the Tea Party that have watched the far left fringe take over and are pissed. That anger at your actions has been expressed through their involvement in the Tea Party. You guys have been trying the “ignore it and it will go away” strategy for over a year and the problem isn’t getting better for you is it? That’s because hiding your head in the sand only makes it easier for people to kick your ass, not solve your problems. So until you clean the fringe out you will continue to get your ass kicked. If you don’t clean house well your party will fracture leaving you as a rump party of die hard progressives that are just too yellow to call themselves red.
For the Republicans: You also keep forgetting this is a conservative country and keep hauling RINO’s out as if they are something special. Hate to break the news to you but they have been what has cost the GOP elections for the White House. Your compromises to get their votes in the Congress has caused you to enact policies that have gotten you voted out. Why vote for a progressive in RINO clothing when you can have the real thing at less cost? And yes a RINO is worse then having a progressive Dem in any particular Senate or House Seat, especially when you have a socialist President and this is something the GOP establishment like Karl Rove can’t or won’t comprehend. They like to put out that someone like O’Donnel is unelectable and we needed Castle in that seat, now we will have one less (R) Senator. Now here is where Rove just can’t seem to grasp what that means in the real world even when someone points it out to him. Using Rove’s own example of a vote coming down to 1 Senator lets not just look at Castle as a Republican by himself, let put him into context. First lets assume that the bill is something like Cap and Tax and the vote comes down to this Delaware Senatorial seat. If the vote is Yea Obama gets his Job killing bill passed, if Nay it dies the death it deserves. So lets look at 3 scenarios and how things work out and why a RINO in that seat is the worst thing in the world;
September 7, 2010Posted by on
Taking a page out the economic play book of the Soviet Union, President Obama has come out with a 6 year infrastructure plan to build roads, bridges and rail lines. You know the things the Stimulus plan of 2009 was supposed to have done. Remember shovel ready?
White House officials said the $50 billion in new government spending would be the first installment of a six-year transportation strategy that would include investments in high-speed rail and air traffic control. To pay for it, the administration would raise taxes on oil and gas companies.
Well so much for the pledge about not raising taxes on the middle and lower income classes, because we all know that those increased taxes will lead to rate hikse, higher heating oil costs and it will cost you more to drive to work (for those that won’t lose their jobs when the economy tanks).
Another laugher is how this President says the Republicans do not have any new ideas, then turns around and comes up with ideas to “help” the economy that are 80 years old. Also for being such a great intellectual he should also have know these 5 err 6 year plans have a very bad track record, just go ask the Soviets:
The Five-Year Plans for the National Economy of the Soviet Union (Russian: пятилетка, Pyatiletka) were a series of nation-wide centralized exercises in rapid economic development in the Soviet Union. The plans were developed by a state planning committee based on the Theory of Productive Forces that was part of the general guidelines of the Communist Party for economic development. Fulfilling the plan became the watchword of Soviet bureaucracy. (See Overview of the Soviet economic planning process) The same method of planning was also adopted by most other communist states, including the People’s Republic of China. In addition, several capitalist states have emulated the concept of central planning, though in the context of a market economy, by setting integrated economic goals for a finite period of time.
The initial five-year plans were created to serve in the rapid industrialization of the Soviet Union, and thus placed a major focus on heavy industry. Altogether, there were 13 five-year plans. The first one was accepted in 1928, for the five year period from 1929 to 1933, and completed one year early. The last, thirteenth Five-Year Plan was for the period from 1991 to 1995 and was not completed, as the Soviet Union was dissolved in 1991.
First lets look at a “successful” five year plan:
The First Plan, 1928–1933
From 1928 to 1940, the number of Soviet workers in industry, construction, and transport grew from 4.6 million to 12.6 million and factory output soared. Stalin’s first five-year plan helped make the USSR a leading industrial nation; albeit at the expense of millions of lives and a decline in the standard of living.
Remember in the progressive world millions dying is considered a success. Now lets look at an unsuccessful one:
The Second Plan, 1933–1937
Because of the success of the first plan, the government went ahead with the Second Five-Year Plan in 1932, although the official start-date for the plan was 1933. The Second Five-Year Plan gave heavy industry top priority, placing the Soviet Union not far behind Germany as one of the major steel-producing countries of the world. On top of this, communications, especially railways, became faster. As was the case with the other five-year plans, the second was not uniformly successful, failing to reach the recommended production levels in such crucial areas as coal and oil. The second plan employed incentives as well as punishments and the targets were eased as a reward for the first plan being finished ahead of schedule in only four years. Women were encouraged to participate in the plan as childcare was offered to mothers so they could go to work and not need to worry about their children.
During this time, the new Soviet system of government continued to evolve as different solutions were applied in an attempt to revive the agrarian sector of the country’s economy, but these efforts were largely unsuccessful because almost all of the farmers had already been evicted, imprisoned and systematically murdered as the political persecutions shifted into high gear, culminating in the Great Purge. The sum total of The Second Five-Year Plan was a deterioration of the standard of living because the focus of “planners’ preferences” replaced consumer preferences in the country’s economy, with an emphasis on military goods and heavy industry, so that is what the economy provided. This resulted in a much lower quality and quantity of available consumer goods.
So let me gets this straight? The first plan was a success and they had millions die and the standard of living dropped, the second plan failed and they had millions murdered and the standard of living dropped? Hmm I’m beginning to see a pattern emerge here. Never mind they had to get the kinks worked out and finally be able to feed themselves?
The Eleventh Plan, 1981–1985
During the Eleventh Five-Year Plan, the country imported some 42 million tons of grain annually, almost twice as much as during the Tenth Five-Year Plan and three times as much as during the Ninth Five-Year Plan (1971–75). The bulk of this grain was sold by the West; in 1985, for example, 94 percent of Soviet grain imports were from the nonsocialist world, with the United States selling 14.1 million tons. However, total Soviet export to the West was always almost as high as import, for example, in 1984 total export to the West was 21.3 billion rubles, while total import was 19.6 billion rubles.
Ok they didn’t things just got steadily worse, but don’t worry they had a 5 year plan to fix that!
The Thirteenth Plan 1991
This plan, which would have run until 1995, only lasted about one year due to the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991.
So how is that hope and change working out?
September 2, 2010Posted by on
Just when Climate Scientists thought the Oxburgh Science Inquiry of the CRU, that didn’t look at the science of CRU (see: http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/01/oxburgh-and-the-jones-admission/ ) and the Muir Russell Inquiry that didn’t Inquire too much about the naughty bits ( see: http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/22/blatant-misrepresentation-by-muir-russell-panel/ ), had made it safe for them to return to business as usual just got a bit of bad news:
31 August 2010
The Science and Technology Committee will hold an oral evidence session following-up to the previous committee’s report on the disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
The session will be on:
Wednesday 8 September 2010 at 10.30 am
Thatcher Room, House of Commons
The Committee will take evidence from Lord Oxburgh, who headed the International Panel that was set up by the University to assess the integrity of the research published by the Climatic Research Unit.
An oral evidence session with Sir Muir Russell, who headed the Independent Climate Change E-mails Review, will be announced in October.
The sessions will focus on how the two reviews responded to the former committee’s recommendations about the reviews and how they carried out their work
Now for those that have not been following the Climategate aftermath closely might have missed that the Members of the UK Parliament that sat on the committee believe that they had been lied to by UEA and thes supposed “Inquiries:
Parliament was misled and needs to re-examine the Climategate affair thoroughly after the failure of the Russell report, a leading backbench MP told us today.
“It’s not a whitewash, but it is inadequate,” is Labour MP Graham Stringer’s summary of the Russell inquiry report. Stringer is the only member of the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology with scientific qualifications – he holds a PhD in Chemistry.
Earlier this week the former chair of the Science and Technology Committee, Phil Willis, now Lord Willis, said MPs had been amazed at the “sleight of hand”.
“Oxburgh didn’t go as far as I expected.
The Oxburgh Report looks much more like a whitewash,” Graham Stringer told us.
Me thinks that Sir Muir Russell and Lord Ron Oxburgh are being called in for a grilling, what happens after that is anyone’s guess but one thing can be said the UK Parliament is not happy about those Inquiries.
h/t Bishop Hill
August 26, 2010Posted by on
White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel has a saying: “Don’t let a crises go to waste” and the MSM tries real hard to help him out. Take the stabbing of a New York Cabby who is a muslim and the MSM tying it to conservatives and being against the “Ground Zero” Mosque. Of course they over look the fact that such well-known icons of the left such as Sen Majority leader Harry Reid is against the mosque, but that is just business as usual when the MSM fills out their computerized templates for their stories. However this time trying to exploit this crises is going to backfire big time on them. You see it wasn’t some right-wing wacko attacking a muslim who just happened to be a cabby, nope it was a LEFT WING wacko who attacked a cabby that opposes the “Ground Zero” Mosque who just happens to be a muslim.
How do I know this? Well at least one news organization is actually doing its job of finding what the true facts are:
For one thing, the alleged attacker, Michael Enright, worked with an organization that very much favors the project.
For another, the cabby, Ahmed Sharif, says he’s opposed to it — though Sharif does say that he’s worried that debate over the planned project might have played a role in the attack.
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/the_cabby_attack_VpY81VsHp8ryhO46pIxGzN#ixzz0xjB732Pg
Now if the MSM actually did its job when they first reported the attack on the cabby they would have just reported the facts that a Muslim cab driver was attacked by a white young man (now this is the important part) for REASONS UNKNOWN. Then when the backgrounds, opinions and stances on issues of both men was known then you can report if it was a “hate” crime or not. Instead they have a template for a white guy that attacks a muslim: It has to be a right-wing wacko and he is doing this out of hate of muslims. From there they try to smear such people as Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh for spreading hate using their template story as the brush.
However the truth is now out and will we see the MSM retract their previous stories? Will we now see stories about how the Left Wing supporters of the Mosque are spreading hate against Americans and that they are nothing but vicious and violent individuals? Will they now run stories saying that Nancy Pelosi is stirring this hate (remember it is her that wants to investigate people who are against the mosque including that Muslim cab driver) and due to that is causing the violence?
Why do I doubt they will ever see those type of stories? Oh right they don’t have a template for a left-wing hate crime to just plug names and races into then print out.
August 19, 2010Posted by on
Recently there has been two articles released dealing with Woolly Mammoths and Climate Change.
The first was on 24 May:
Mammoths contributed to global warming with methane emissions
Mammoths helped to fill the atmosphere with methane and keep the Earth warm more than 13,000 years ago, scientists believe.
Now we got this on 18 Aug:
Woolly mammoth killed off by climate change
Climate change rather than the hunting skills of early man killed off the last of the woolly mammoths, according to a new study.
There you have it folks Wooly Mammoths farted too much, thus causing Global Warming and in the end it killed them. Now if they had only enacted a Cap and Trade system of Farts they would still be alive.
August 18, 2010Posted by on
The phrase “Separation of Church and State” is a fallacy in the sense that it does not exist in the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
There it is folks the First Amendment to the US Constitution and all it states is that the NATIONAL (ie the Feds) government can not establish a NATIONAL, official religion of the entire United States, or prohibit anyone from exercise of any particular religion. Oh and for you atheists out there it includes you too and if we went by it like we are suppose to you wouldn’t like the First Amendment very much. What the First Amendment didn’t do was ban, prevent or abolish a STATE Religion, now before you knee jerk read those capitalized words carefully. Now some of you may not have learned this in school due to the state they are in now, but there were official STATE Religions in the United States well after the Constitution went into effect and they were constitutionally legal.
I know you are going “WHAT!” yep, that is because most people never learned that the Constitution is basically a document that tells you what the Federal Government can and cannot do, not what the States can and can not do. That is left up to each states own state constitutions. Don’t believe me? Well check it out:
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution explicitly forbids the federal government from enacting any law respecting a religious establishment, and thus forbids either designating an official church for the United States, or interfering with State and local official churches — which were common when the First Amendment was enacted. It did not prevent state governments from establishing official churches. Connecticut continued to do so until it replaced its colonial Charter with the Connecticut Constitution of 1818; Massachusetts retained an establishment of religion in general until 1833. (The Massachusetts system required every man to belong to some church, and pay taxes towards it; while it was formally neutral between denominations, in practice the indifferent would be counted as belonging to the majority denomination, and in some cases religious minorities had trouble being recognized at all.)
Now what changed all that?
The 14th Amendment and the Supreme Court stretching it to mean that the Constitution no longer only applied to the National Government but to state governments too, but not always. They do make exceptions for and against different religions based on how “popular” they are in certain circles.
Again you don’t believe me do you?
You do remember that Polygamy was part of the Mormon religion don’t you? You do know that the Supreme Court stated they can interfere with your practice of that?
Although the constitution did not define religion, the Court investigated the history of religious freedom in the United States. In the ruling, the court quoted a letter from Thomas Jefferson in which he stated that there was a distinction between religious belief and action that flowed from religious belief. The former “lies solely between man and his God,” therefore “the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions.” The court argued that if polygamy was allowed, someone might eventually argue that human sacrifice was a necessary part of their religion, and “to permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.” The Court believed the true spirit of the First Amendment was that Congress could not legislate against opinion, but could legislate against action.
The version of Jefferson’s Danbury letter which the Court used was in fact a mistaken transcription. While the Court quoted Jefferson as writing, “the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions”, Jefferson’s original handwriting reads “the legitimate powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions.”
So we have seen how Freedom from Establishment of a Religion and from prohibiting the free exercise thereof has been changed to Freedom from Establishment of a Religion and from prohibiting the free exercise thereof, except if we don’t like it and it violates our secular laws. That was the slippery slope we started down. Now we got Federal Government employees stopping people from praying on the steps of the Supreme Court, because it might offend someone. Now here is the rub remember back at the beginning I said that the First also applies to Atheists, well here is how it does it. You see that Federal Government Employee that stopped someone from praying, be it a Christian, Jew, Muslim or any other religion has now forced an Atheist practice on them: Not praying. So that employee has violated the First Amendment not just by prohibiting the free exercise thereof of that persons religion, but also by his/her own fiat or their boss or someone up the line has forced that person to practice Atheism in public. You see the First Amendment doesn’t allow Atheist practices or as it’s put non-religion to override religious practice:
The court, in an opinion by Justice Souter, held that the funding of a school district designed to coincide with the neighborhood boundaries of a religious group constitutes an unconstitutional aid to religion. Souter concluded that “government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion.”
Basically an Atheist is not harmed by the person praying nor by the employee because no one is forcing the Atheist to adopt a religious practice, but by the employee stopping the person from praying he is forcing him to an irreligion practice, you know like how the Jews had to worship in secret during the time just before and during the Spanish Inquisition.
So what does this trip through the history of the First Amendment and the warping of it all mean today. Well lets look at it in the context of the proposed “Ground Zero” Mosque.
If we use the original intent and use of the First Amendment the Federal Government has no say in the matter, but the Local and State Governments of New York City and New York State, could tell the Muslims “nope not allowed” and be constitutional.
If we use the expanded and warped usage via the 14th Amendment and the precedent of the Mormons practicing Polygamy the Federal Government can not meddle with any Muslims belief in Islam but they are allowed to meddle in the way he practices it. So again the Muslims could be told “nope not allowed” and be constitutional.
And finally we got a new can of worms that just might cost Mayor Bloomberg big time. You see there was this little Greek Orthodox church that sat in the shadow of the twin towers that was destroyed on 9/11 and they have been waiting almost 9 years to be allowed to REBUILD their church. Not build a new one, but replace one that was already there. Now if the city give the Muslims the go ahead this quickly but still hasn’t let the Greek Orthodox rebuild, there you got the Mayor favoring one religion over another which is unconstitutional. So he either has to let the Greek Orthodox build theirs or put the brakes on the Muslims.
The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America accused New York officials on Tuesday of turning their backs on the reconstruction of the only church destroyed in the Sept. 11 attacks, while the controversial mosque near Ground Zero moves forward.
The sidelined project is the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, a tiny, four-story building destroyed in 2001 when one of the World Trade Center towers fell on top of it. Nobody from the church was hurt in the attack, but the congregation has for the past eight years been trying to rebuild its house of worship.
While the mosque project cleared red tape earlier this month, negotiations between the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and the church stalled last year — and will not be revived, according to government officials. Though the particulars of the two projects are completely different and on the surface unrelated, the church and its supporters see a disconnect in the way the proposals have been handled.
So for those crying Freedom of Religion and Separation of Church and State, you do not have a legal leg to stand on either via the original interpretation of the 1st Amendment nor with the interpretation and precedents set by the establishment clause of the 14th Amendment. By not letting them build in that location is not meddling in their beliefs as the Supreme Court ruled but effecting their practice of those beliefs which they are allowed to do. Also you don’t have a moral leg to stand on either, not while that little Greek Orthodox Church and its congregation have had to jump through hurdles for 8 years just to get slapped in the face, while the Muslims get a fast track.
August 16, 2010Posted by on
Remember that famous line from the 1973 film Soylent Green starring Charlton Heston? For those that don’t because you are too young or for any other reason here is a brief synopsis of the film:
Soylent Green is a 1973 American science fiction film directed by Richard Fleischer. Starring Charlton Heston, the film overlays the police procedural and science fiction genres as it depicts the investigation into the brutal murder of a wealthy businessman in a dystopian future suffering from pollution, overpopulation, depleted resources, poverty, dying oceans and a hot climate due to the greenhouse effect. Much of the population survives on processed food rations, including “soylent green”.
Jeez sounds like today doesn’t it? What you will find in this film is every eco loony scare story there is including what happens when you let them implement “solutions” to these problems. One of the “solutions” is assisted suicide, but the question in the film is: What happens to the bodies?
Well at the climax of the film you find out:
Prompted by Roth, Thorn sneaks into the basement of the assisted suicide facility, where he sees corpses being loaded onto waste disposal trucks. He secretly hitches a ride on one of the trucks, which is driven to a heavily guarded waste disposal plant. Once inside the plant, Thorn sees how the corpses are processed into Soylent Green wafers. Thorn escapes and heads for the “Supreme Exchange”, but is ambushed by Fielding and several other gunmen. He retreats into a cathedral filled with homeless people. After a desperate fight through throngs of sleeping homeless, Thorn kills Fielding.
When police backup arrives, the seriously wounded and nearly hysterical Thorn confides to Hatcher the horrible secret behind Soylent Green, finally urging him to spread the word: “Soylent Green is people! We’ve got to stop them somehow!”
Now nothing even close to that could ever happen in the real world now could it?
Well think again, just keep those bolded words from the Soylent Green film plotline in mind when reading the following quotes:
Belgian undertakers plan to dissolve dead and flush them into sewage system
Belgian undertakers have drawn up plans to dissolve the corpses of the dead in caustic solutions and flush them into the sewage system.
The controversial new method is said to be less expensive and more environmentally friendly than running highly polluting crematoria or using up valuable land for graves.
The departed would go into the sewage systems of towns and cities and then be recycled in water processing plants.
Now I wonder where that treated water goes to……ah never mind that for the moment just be glad that is only happening in Belgium and could never happen in the US. Right?
Six states in America – Maine, Colorado, Florida, Minnesota, Oregon, and Maryland have recently passed legislation that allow the process to be used.
And life once again imitates art: Your Tap Water is Grandma! I seriously wonder how far away we are from truly having Soylent Green.
h/t to SDA