My Channel

Thursday, July 31, 2014

Bill Clinton Didn't Take Out Bin Laden and Was Proud of It on September 10, 2001.

Well... wow. No embed but listen and weep. From FOX:
Until now, Clinton's eerie words had not been made public. But a businessman who had access to the nearly 13-year-old recording handed it over to Sky News Australia, which broadcast it in a report Monday.

"I'm just saying, you know, if I were Usama bin Laden -- he's a very smart guy, I've spent a lot of time thinking about him -- and I nearly got him once," Clinton said on the recording.

"I nearly got him. And I could have killed him, but I would have to destroy a little town called Kandahar in Afghanistan and kill 300 innocent women and children, and then I would have been no better than him."

"And so I didn't do it," he added.

Clinton had recently left office at the time of the speech. 

3000 dead to save 300?

Ok. Did he possibly know what was going to happen? No. But he is an opportunist. He will use whatever he can at whatever time he can to make himself look better. There is ample evidence to suggest things like the Jamie Gorelick wall put up between agencies, an unwillingness to do what was necessary, and Clinton turning a blind eye to what was happening well before 9/11 directly contributed to 9/11 happening.

Remember, 9/11 wasn't the first time the towers were attacked. Over the course of the next 8 years, we were attacked time and time again. After Mogadishu and Black Hawk Down, it was clear the administration had no stomach for war. (He had interns to diddle, after all.)

This illustrates however that Democrats and Liberals are consistently wrong in their understanding of the world. Economics, foreign policy, social issues... they really understand nothing. They get in power and make decisions that affect our lives. Or gets us killed.

Giving them power results in death. Remember this next time you vote for a raging liberal. The consequences aren't always apparent immediately, which is tough in this instant-on age we live in.

But there are consequences. Clinton's decisions took 8 years. What will happen in the next 8 years when the consequences of Obama's decisions are fully wrought upon us?


Wednesday, July 30, 2014

Obama Lied, Joe Wilson Vindicated, Senate Introduces Bill to Stop Illegal Immigrant Subsidies from Obamacare

Remember this little nugget?


Obama said illegals wouldn't get benefits from Obamacare.Yes I recall all the kerfuffle on Joe Wilson yelling "You Lie!" to the great Obama. I bet you do too. The press had a field day:
The President's seemingly simple statement that "the reforms I am proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally" is not hard to check. In the Senate Finance Committee's working framework for a health plan, which Obama's speech seemed most to mimic, there is the line, "No illegal immigrants will benefit from the health care tax credits." Similarly, the major health-care-reform bill to pass out of committee in the House, H.R. 3200, contains Section 246, which is called "NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS." Some Republicans have claimed that these protections are too weak, since they do not require stringent eligibility checks that would prevent illegal immigrants from gaming the system.

It did not take long for the condemnations to rain down on Wilson. Republican Senator John McCain went on CNN to call Wilson's behavior "totally disrespectful" and to ask for an apology. Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy was beside himself as he walked out of the House chamber. "I've been here for 35 years. I've been here for seven presidents. I've never heard anything like that," he said, adding that he had no doubt how it would play in the hinterlands. "It strengthens the President, because it demonstrates what he is facing. Most people have respect for the President."

Except as it turns out, Obama did lie. Joe was right. Why else would the Senate have to introduce a bill to get the illegal subsidies to stop? Because it wasn't defined in the bill in the first place. And Obama doesn't give a shit if it was or wasn't, if he said he wouldn't in the past, or really anything that doesn't benefit him in the here and now. He'll hand over the money behind his back while telling you to your face that he is not in fact handing money that you can plainly see with your lying eyes. Now be more respectful, you heathen hillbilly.

U.S. Senator David Vitter (R-La.) today introduced a package of bills to prevent illegal immigrants from receiving healthcare subsides through Obamacare and higher education tax credits.

"Illegal immigrants absolutely should not be benefiting from American taxpayers through Obamacare or our higher education tax credits," Vitter said. "We need to actually enforce our immigration laws and take away any incentives to live here illegally."

Vitter says the Stopping Illegal Obamacare Subsidies Act is a much needed response to a June 2014 report from the non-partisan Inspector General (IG) which found over one million Obamacare applications with problems related to an individual's citizenship and legal status have gone unresolved.

Vitter's bill would stop the Obama administration's plans to automatically enroll these potentially illegal immigrants for 2015, and eliminates these illegal Obamacare subsidies by prohibiting taxpayer funded financial assistance for individuals whose self-attested personal information, including social security numbers, citizenship, and legal status are inconsistent with federal data sources.

Tuesday, July 29, 2014

"Well Funded" Is a Magic Phrase that Solves Everything! You GOP Just Hate Poor!

Ok, maybe this is too light (rail).
Some days you just have to shake your head.

So Iowahawk had a tweet that I and some others latched on to. Started out like so:

Now what this is in reference to is the myriad of city governments that desperately want to shove light rail down our throats. I can attest to that here in Kansas City, a town that straddles a state line and has tons of arteries going to downtown and around the city. I435 is a loop that runs no less than 80 miles around the entire city.

There is a bus system in place and it works but here, most people have cars. Yes, even poor people. Transportation is not a pressing issue. As for light rail, it's anything but when it comes to cost. Amtrak is bleeding money. Most light rail systems need tons of subsidies to keep afloat. Not to mention the accidents that happen.

Liberals seem to think that every city should emulate New York for some reason, a city with minimal land area and built from the ground up on an intricate subway system. Message to liberals: Other cities have different geographical challenges.

Of course the cost is a drain on the taxpayers, who liberals seem to think are the golden goose they can kill and get the eggs out of all at once. 10 trillion and counting in debt would argue against that kind of sustainability. Eventually you run out of other people's money. Spending several billion on a system that then requires more billions to keep going year after year for a subset of the population that could never afford to pay the ticket daily without the subsidies is inefficient in the extreme.

Of course these simpletons never believe that there is any other way, the poor need light rail and you hate the poor. As shown in these tweets:

I had to have fun of course.

But like most libs, they have no sense of humor.

I tried talking slower.

Oh wait, I thought we were talking about light rail?

So I did a little research and math. Watch the liberal scurry away.

I posit that the left don't give a rat's posterior about the poor. Let me ask you what's more useful, a car or a light rail car? You don't have to work around your car's schedule. You don't have to worry about getting accosted in a car. You don't have to have to get a ride to get to where you can get into your car. You don't have to walk another two miles from where you need to go because your car won't go the last mile (or two.) I bet it would be better for the poor to have a car than to have a bus or light rail. Especially in a city that is spread out over a state line where I would have to change cars when I got there.

So let's forget the absolute drain on taxpayers (who pay money to businesses and get paid so they can actually power the economy) light rail is. Let's just see how much money would have to be spent.

So let's look at what the Government considers poor:

Persons in family/householdPoverty guideline
For families/households with more than 8 persons, add $4,060 for each additional person.

So for simplification purposes, let take all people making 19,790 or less and consider them "poor." According to the stats, there are approximately 15% of people that are considered "poor." That's about 46.5 million. (A number that has gone up significantly since the great spending spree has begun with Barack Obama by the way but I digress.)

Now if you remove those under 18, that leaves about 30 million in "poverty" according to the census. Given that many are married, indigent, already have a car, etc, my numbers came up to about 10 million that really could use a car. I also am not certain how many they consider poor that might be illegal immigrants.

A decent car, not a Lexus but dependable, should cost around 10k. In bulk, the government could work with used lots and manufacturers to make that happen.

10,000,000 * 10k =  100 billion. That's a lot.

Now a take a look at this:
The cost of recent surface light rail lines has ranged from a low of $43 million per mile in Norfolk, VA to a high of $204 million per mile for the new Milwaukie line in Portland. Los Angeles's Crenshaw Line , which includes short subway sections, clocks in at $165 million per mile. In Toronto, the Eglinton LRT line, which consists of almost a 50/50 split between surface and subway operation, is estimated to cost C$403 million per mile, which as of May 2012 was about equal to US$400 million per mile. In contrast, the Canada Line in Vancouver, which is about 70% underground with most of the rest being elevated, only cost C$177 million per mile - a low amount attributed to its cut-and-cover construction and very short station platforms (at 50m they can only accommodate two car train sets).

So how many miles of light rail are wanted/in place? In 2014 they want to put in 743 miles across various urban areas. They project a total cost of outlays for the new projects at 81.4 billion. This does not include the various operating costs for existing operations that are running. These run into the billions a year across the US. None of this has increased ridership and poor planning and the inability to cheaply make changes to these lines have made them unwieldy in the face of changing demographics in commuters:
Based on the decisions to build these projects, which were made by hundreds of local officials and often endorsed by residents through referenda, you might think that the experience building light rail in the 1980s had been unambiguously successful. Yet it doesn't take much digging to find that over the past thirty years, these initial five systems in themselves neither rescued the center cities of their respective regions nor resulted in higher transit use — the dual goals of those first-generation lines.

According to an analysis of Census data, in four of the five cities with new light rail lines, the share of regional workers choosing to ride transit to work declined, and the center city's share of the urbanized area population declined, too. San Jose was the only exception, seeing a quarter of a percentage increase in the percentage of workers using transit and a 6 percentage point increase in its center city's share of the urbanized area.
So wouldn't just giving people a car have better results? They would have better access to jobs. We could save the light costs and put it into roads which cost anywhere from 1.8 to 4 million a mile to maintain/expand, significantly cheaper. We can get tax revenue from the extra gas that gets sold. We've handed them a freedom they don't have with light rail. We give them housing, why not cars?

Of course I'm not advocating either. Giving away things always results in abuse. But my point is that Mr. Lefty up there doesn't have any answers or even thinks about doing this. He only wants to point out how much he hates the other side. He also wants to boil down the argument to "lol u GOP hate poor lolz!!!11eleven!!1!!!"

The less cities, states, and feds are pulling money out of our pockets, the more we have to spend and make ourselves NOT poor. That breeds innovation and maybe we can build our own better and cheaper rail systems. Or something no one has thought of yet. Point is, we can more efficiently help the poor by helping the economy and I'm hard pressed to see how this is it. But if I don't want to just mindless spend tax dollars on stuff that liberals like, I hate poor people. No more to see here, no more argument necessary.

I'm not certain liberals really care about poor people. Giving a car away would be a lot better for them than light rail. It never crosses their mind. Why? Cause agenda! That's why!

Power and Persecution: Thy Name is Leftist

A couple of unrelated articles juxtaposed themselves in my mind and made me realize how bass-ackward liberal thinking really is. Not that I wasn't already well-aware of it, but the articles brought it into sharp focus.

Liberals truly believe they are the underdog fighting oppression. Nevermind that they pretty much own pop-culture, education, government, and the media. I would argue that these four institutions far exceed the power of conservative bastions, private business (which is no where near as politically monolithic as the media is) and religion.

Businesses are not politically minded and deal with the government and politics as a necessary resource or obstacle to be overcome to doing what they do: sell whatever widget or service they sell. The primary motivation is profit but not so fat guys can light their cigars with 100 bills and use 3rd world children as footstools. Profit is necessary to simply keep the company going and improving. Breaking even means breaking.

Religion is more idealistic but the enthusiasm for religion is waning. Not to say people aren't religious but these days people put their faith into things that aren't faith based. Brother Gore's Church of the Global Burning is doing quite nicely.

Suffice to say that while the left may not dominate political thought for the general population, they do dominate the corridors of power. Which is why they've gotten more unhinged as time has gone on. Take this article from the Federalist:
When power is never limited or checked or balanced, it can’t get enough of itself. When it reaches a tipping point at which a power-mongering clique or dictator can further the goal of more power accumulation (in the name of whatever), it will destroy anything that gets in the way. And it will rationalize any use of force in the name of a better tomorrow. That’s the just nature of the beast.
Indeed and so the persecution from the left is totally justified in their minds. Add to that their new religious and moral fervor in supporting anything the right finds objectionable and there's the religion they practice now. "League of Contrarians" I would call it. Anything resembling traditional religion is considered the status quo, and they must destroy it. Ironically they feel as if they are the ones fighting the uphill battle, even though they have taken over most of the avenues of power that would have been an obstacle to them. They have limited, co-opted, or dispelled the power these older, traditional institutions have. They use that power to keep "fighting the power:"
Tolerance is a practice that has been defined by the left as an act of condoning. Conservatives must condone any, and all behavior that they may find objectionable, even if it violates their own religious or personal code. Should they make a personal choice not to participate in practices to which they are opposed, they must be publicly shamed, and verbally flogged. On the other hand, if a liberal believes something to be objectionable, they have every right to object. That is the leftist definition of tolerance.
So if you object to what they do, you are oppressing them and you're morally wrong. The freedom fighters will heroically fight you. By any means necessary.

When the people in power fight as if they have to use guerilla war tactics, it results in a lot of ugliness. Take for instance the current Israeli conflict. Israel is supported by the US so they are the more powerful. It doesn't matter if Hamas launches rockets into their territory unprovoked. They don't have as good a weapons making Hamas the underdog. We love the underdog. We are now morally right. So we can say any vile thing we want to an actress who tweets support of Israel:

So remember, it's not about whether or not it makes sense, who started what, or anything that deals with things like reality. Hamas can fire rockets unprovoked because of past reasons. Even though Hamas was given back land, even though Hamas agreed to various treaties, it doesn't matter cause Israel did something sometime in the past.

No the only thing that matters is whose side you are on. After all, if Bush is a war criminal with his drone strikes and invasions, why isn't Obama? Did he not "invade" Pakistan to get Bin Laden? Is he not killing civilians with the drone strikes?

It's ok, he's on our side. Our side is the underdog. Even when we are in charge. So everything is ok when we do it.

This is how they think. They are not to be reasoned with, they are only to be defeated.

Monday, July 28, 2014

No #Podcast This Week

Jim is out this week and I have too much stuff to do this coming weekend to edit up a solo. We will pick it up again after the 3rd and have one up by the 10th at the latest. In the meantime I direct you to the Chadderbox for some funny conservative talk. Enjoy!

Sunday, July 27, 2014

David Gregory Accuses Paul Ryan of Hating Poor People, Eating Puppies, and Lighting Butterflies On Fire

Gregory began his questioning of Ryan by pushing liberal talking points that more government policies are needed to combat poverty: 
Skeptics have cited one thing that really struck me which is that some of the poor states are run by Republican governors who have refused to even expand access to Medicaid under the ObamaCare law. So you can understand why people would be skeptical that giving them that kind of power would actually lead to constructive solutions to deal with people who are poor.
For his part, Congressman Ryan pushed back against Gregory and argued that “these programs don't work with each other. In many ways, they end up being counterproductive, because poverty is a complicated problem and it needs to be customized. And secondly, we had basically a poverty management system with respect to the federal government.”

After the Meet the Press moderator maintained that Ryan’s view towards poverty lacked compassion, the GOP congressman shot back:
We don't want to have a poverty management system that simply perpetuates poverty. We want to get at the root causes of poverty to get people out of poverty. And I would argue that that is the best way to go forward and that's what we're proposing here. Which is have benefits that are customized to a unique person's problems because poverty is very complicated. To not just keep them where they are but help them get to where they want to be. 
Gregory’s criticism towards Ryan’s anti-poverty program is especially ironic given recent reports that the NBC host just purchased a new $5.4 million house in D.C. but he then finds it appropriate to then criticize someone else for supposedly lacking compassion.
Well of course. The only possible way to be compassionate is to make sure we tax people, run it through a massive bureaucracy,  waste most of the money, steal the rest, and then pat ourselves on the back for supporting the people who put in this oh-so-compassionate welfare state in the first place. Sure the poor never seem to stop being poor but anything else would be uncompassionate.

Now hand over your wallets you heartless douchebags.

#Podcast Carpool Conversations Episode 13: Border, O-Care, IRS, Liberal Hate, and Apes!

Well we got the sound finally good except for some clicks here and there which we think is power in the car. Jim's back and we talk about the border, the Obamacare court decisions, the border chaos, IRS emails (they have a tape?), and Dawn of the Planet of the Apes.

Here's the youtube site for SixBeersIn. 

Friday, July 25, 2014

Gruber Lied... It Must Be a Day That Ends in "Y"

Well this story is burning up the blogosphere here, here, here, and here so I don't have too much to add to it. It's devastating but simply not surprising. Dems will do anything to gain control of health care, will lie whenever it's convenient, and shamelessly lie when caught in said lie:

I mean, if the president lied about keeping your healthcare plan, did you really expect some White House advisor to be clean and pure as the wind-driven snow? You did? Then you're a naive liberal idiot.

Tuesday, July 22, 2014

Update: 4th Circuit Overrules DC Circuit

Contrary to the D.C. Circuit decision today, the 4th Circuit upholds the Obamacare federal exchange subsidy. Maybe the Obama admin knew about the opinion, which would explain why it was so confident subsidies would flow pending court cases.

This all but guarantees the Supreme Court will take the case since there is a split in the Circuits.
We'll see.

Beginning of the End? Court Throws Out Key Obamacare Provision

A three-judge panel ruled 2-1 on Tuesday that the IRS went too far in reinterpreting the language in ObamaCare to extend subsidies to those who buy insurance through the federally run exchanges, known as

The case, Halbig v Sebelius, is one of the first major legal challenges that cuts to the heart of the Affordable Care Act by going after the legality of massive federal subsidies and those who benefit from them.


The ruling, though likely to be appealed, could threaten the entire foundation of the newly devised health care system. Nearly 90 percent of the federal exchange’s insurance enrollees were eligible for subsidies because of low or moderate incomes that the outcome of the case could potentially leave millions without affordable health insurance.
Well the Affordable Care Act was designed to get people health insurance. Looks like it can't do that, just mandate that you buy it whether you want to or not. Net Effect? Premiums are higher.

This bill is the ultimate fail. I'm still not sure what the fallout will be on this ruling, I'll keep you posted.

Monday, July 21, 2014

Wanting Border Security Doesn't Mean Trading in Your Humanity

I've been involved in some twitter wars with some people apparently really unhappy with Dana Loesch. She, along with Glenn Beck and some others, have been donating their time and money to help these kids that are pouring over the border.

This isn't sitting well woth the send-them-back crowd, most of whom are on our side. But the hardline stance isn't going to work at the moment. What started it all was an article by the American Thinker, a blog I typically enjoy but decided to go hardline cynical for some reason.

First from Loesch:
The gospels also implore us to minister and to witness…And the parable of the talents implores us to use that which we have been given by God to do good and glorify his name through our works, which includes using our talents and our platform to serve as good stewards of our fellow man.”

If the issue is Glenn Beck advertising for help with this effort, do they also find it offensive when celebrities promote wounded warriors? Do they find the Salvation Army offensive, when celebrities work with them? I mean, isn't the whole point of charity awareness and to raise funds to help?”

Loesch, who will be accompanying Beck to the border, said she understands the frustrations of those who were angered by the event, saying: “I get it. You feel like you cannot take it anymore from this administration. You feel overwhelmed. Every day there’s a new headline: the NSA, the IRS, the EPA, the NEA, the BLM, the DOJ, the ICE, Benghazi, voter fraud, healthcare.

The list goes on and on and you feel persecuted, and your patience for everything has run out. Fam, I feel you.”
Catherine Evans at the Thinker has taken exception to this and has written an absurdly cynical article insinuating that's it's all for publicity:
This elitist ‘I feel your pain’ rhetoric would not matter or even register on the relevancy meter if these so-called conservative provocateurs did not put up a pretense of representing ‘we the people.’ Their books, speaking engagements, television appearances and radio shows have made them a ton of money. As a token of their gratitude, shouldn't they stop all the pandering and support the general consensus of the people -- you know, the ones who made them rich and famous? If these are our spokespeople, it is no surprise the Left continues to win the war on America.
I don't know Dana or Chris Loesch personally but I do know they've taken the time out to answer my lowly little tweets. Nothing about them strikes me as elitist. But really, that's not the crux of the argument.

Then the hardliners came out, equating helping these people, mostly children, is the same as supporting illegal immigration. I'm hard put to make the connection. I'm not certain if they realize how many of them are kids, how bad the situation is, or if they really are this heartless.

She said children in the camp had measles, scabies, chicken pox and strep throat as well as mental and emotional issues.

“It was not a good atmosphere in terms of health,” she said. “I would be talking to children and lice would just be climbing down their hair.”

A former nurse at the camp told me she was horrified by what she saw.

“We have so many kids coming in that there was no way to control all of the sickness – all this stuff coming into the country,” she said. “We were very concerned at one point about strep going around the base.”

Both the counselor and the nurse said their superiors tried to cover up the extent of the illnesses.

“When they found out the kids had scabies, the charge nurse was adamant – ‘Don’t mention that. Don’t say scabies,’” the nurse recounted. “But everybody knew they had scabies. Some of the workers were very concerned about touching things and picking things up. They asked if they should be concerned, but they were told don’t worry about it.”

The nurse said the lice issue was epidemic – but everything was kept “hush-hush.”

“You could see the bugs crawling through their hair,” she said. “After we would rinse out their hair, the sink would be loaded with black bugs.”
If they do know this, then these tweets may be even worse than I thought.

Couple of things. 1) The "handouts" are through private funds, either raised through charity or taken out of their own pockets. 2) Supporting humanitarian aid is not the same as making public policy.

The policies of the democrats have led us down this road and it has culminated into this mess. It wasn't of our making and we are definitely against open-borders precisely for what is happening down there right now. These kids didn't really do anything wrong. They are rewarded with disease, bugs, and abandonment.

The hardliners believe this will encourage more to come. "You want more?" they say. Hate to tell you but that encouragement has been happening for decades. What Dana does now isn't going to make or break that.

"We do need to work over the government to enforce our laws." True,  but they haven't been for at least 20 years. The damage is done. We now have sick, hungry, and scared children that need help. Sucks, I agree. But really, you want to just push them over the fence and get eaten by wolves?

"We don't need to pay for it, we don't have the money!"  Well, then what's your beef with private charities and funds trying to help?

"It's the government's problem, they should be fixing it." Sure, cause they do such a good job with this kind of things. Ask the VA patients.

Look, I get it. It's a problem and our side has been warning about this since the last amnesty. We've begged for border security and simply enforce the laws on the books. They didn't and this is what they've wrought. We have a golden opportunity to turn public opinion on our side. Tossing kids into the river is going to turn the public against us in a heartbeat.

Also, there's enough secrecy going on down there, might be helpful to have folks like Loesch and Beck to keep an eye on things and let us know.

There is a public relations aspect to this, true enough but that doesn't mean it has to be self-serving. We can change this destructive policy for the greater good.

And if we happen to help some children while getting it done, so much the better.

The Myth that Progressives were Targeted the Same as Conservatives by the IRS

Jehmu Greene was on Fox News with Katie Pavlich on a segment that got cut short so I'm hard pressed to find the video. But in essence Jehmu stated the myth that progressives were targeted the same as conservatives. 

IRS’s three “test” cases were all conservative organizations: Prescott Tea Party, American Junto, the Albuquerque Tea Party. (pp. 14-18)

Congressional Democrats made misleading claims about the targeting. Democratic Members of Congress, including Ranking Member Elijah Cummings, Ranking Member Sander Levin, and Representative Gerry Connolly, made misleading claims that the IRS targeted liberal-oriented groups based on documents selectively produced by the IRS. (pp. 7-13)

IRS selectively released documents supporting the misleading claims. The IRS cited 6103 protections for taxpayer information to withhold details about the targeting from the American public, but reversed its decision in August 2013 to release information helpful to its cause. (pp. 11)

MYTH: Progressive groups were also targeted.Only seven applications in the IRS backlog contained the word “progressive,” all of which were then approved by the IRS, while Tea Party groups received unprecedented review and experienced years-long delays. While some liberal-oriented groups were singled out for scrutiny, evidence shows it was due to non-political reasons. (pp. 32-35)

MYTHS:  False Democratic claims of political targeting about specific groups exposed: Where the IRS identified liberal-oriented groups for scrutiny, evidence shows that it did so for objective, non-political reasons and not because of the groups’ political beliefs. (p.32)

ACORN groups – IRS employees testified that former ACORN affiliates were scrutinized out of concern that they were old organizations improperly applying as new ones and not because of their political beliefs. (pp. 40–42)

Emerge America – IRS employees testified that Emerge Groups were scrutinized after some had already been approved and the IRS became concerned about improper private benefit – not because of their political beliefs. (pp. 42–44)

Occupy Wall Street – The Committee has found no evidence that the IRS subjected Occupy applicants to burdensome and intrusive information requests or even seen evidence that “Occupy Wall Street” or an affiliate organization applied to the IRS for non-profit status. (pp. 44–45)
Want the whole report? Here you go.

When they get on even Fox News and this lie is uncontested, please help us out and let her know she's an idiot. Or more specifically, let's let the world know Jehmu Greene is a hack.

Offensive and Controversial Stories - The Best Kind of Stories!

These stories will probably make liberals cringe, hence why I love them. First off...

Why Aren't There More Gay People?
I ask because there’s something confusing about our “culture war.” Given the prominence of the issue, you would expect homosexuality to be rampant in America. When asked to estimate how many gay people there are, most people guess that it’s on the order of 20% to 25% of the population. But yet another study has been released by the CDC giving a more scientific estimate, and it finds that almost 97 percent of Americans identify as straight – the actual number of self-identified gay, lesbian, or bisexual Americans is closer to 2.5%. So the public’s perception is off by a gigantic order of magnitude.

It’s almost as if someone has been conspiring to elevate this issue way beyond its actual cultural significance. That is precisely what we find, and both sides are to blame.
In Defense of Old Racist Art 
The Western canon is rife with racism, sexism, classism and every other ism that is. In fact, it is largely the Western Canon that defines these isms. As distasteful as the traditional characters of the Noble Savage or the Magical Negro may be to today’s audiences, they still represent significant steps forward in the racial attitudes of their times. The Bronte sisters may have been 19th-Century proto-feminists, but their ideas about the proper role of women would be well out of place in today’s society. What began in the 1970s as an effort by leftists like Howard Zinn to expose the placid lies in our cultural history has turned into a revisionism, a kind of cultural revolution that values today’s social mores over a complex understanding of Western Culture.

Nowhere is this new whitewashing of cultural history more obvious than in the NewSouth Edition of Mark Twain’s classic, Huckleberry Finn. The edition, first published in 2011, changes the word “nigger,” which appears 219 times in the book, to “slave.” The justification for the edits is that exposure to hateful words harms students who read the book. In retrospect, this new Huck Finn foreshadowed the current and much maligned trend towards “trigger warnings” for literature. Just as Chan wishes to protect us all from the racism in “The Mikado,” NewSouth Books wants to protect students from the ugliness at the core of Twain’s seminal text. But these protections do a great disservice to anybody wishing to understand our culture’s past and present.

Speaking of Racist Art, comic books have gone off the PC rails...
Marvel Comics announced last week that the role of Captain America—who, like Archie, has existed as a Caucasian since 1941—will be assumed by a black man from Harlem who until now has played a sidekick known as “The Falcon.” The original Captain America—the white one—is giving his role over to The Falcon because he is now 90 years old and too feeble to be a superhero anymore. All-New Captain America is slated to launch in October.

“In 2014, this should be a thing that we shrug off,” says Marvel executive editor Tom Brevoort about the new black Captain America. “It shouldn’t be seen as revolutionary, but it still feels exciting.”

So if it’s no big thing, why did you do it in the first place, and why does it feel “exciting” to you?

Sunday, July 20, 2014

#Podcast Carpool Conversations: Episode 12 Border, Racism, and Top Secret!

Yes, there's a story

Here's some links to the stories I mentioned:

Maryland Governor Hates Conservatives, says we are going to harass brown people.

Milton Friedman's entire talk on immigration:

Like neighboring Latvia, Estonia took a hard line when it declared independence, refusing to grant citizenship to most ethnic Russian families who were not in the country before Soviet times. A newly free Estonian government in 1991 returned land to Estonians and gave them voting rights in an open democracy. 
"They had the land, they had the money, they were reborn in very good conditions," recalls Andrei Zarenkov, a leading voice in Estonia's Russian community and the director of a Russian cultural center near the capital, Tallinn. 
"Russians had nothing," he remembers. "It wasn't fair. Russians were living in this country and became strangers."
He's a shock jock but he has to watch what he says. I'm all for making better choices in your words and being held responsible for what you say. Sirius can do what they want. But no standard is set for the other side. Blacks regularly defame whites with impunity and none are held to the same standard. So that begs the question, if the media lets blacks get away with bad behavior that whites can't, what does that say about the media's attitude towards blacks? Are they saying that they aren't capable of the same civilized behavior that we hold whites to?
Here's the skeet surfin' scene from Top Secret!

And finally the video on movie posters.

Friday, July 18, 2014

The Press May Be Guilty Of Manslaughter

No I'm not kidding. Let's look at a definition of manslaughter in wikipedia:
Criminally negligent manslaughter 
In jurisdictions such as Pennsylvania, if a person is so reckless as to "manifest extreme indifference to human life", the defendant may be guilty of aggravated assault as well as of involuntary manslaughter. 
In many jurisdictions such as California, malice may be found if gross negligence amounts to willful or depraved indifference to human life. In such a case, the wrongdoer may be guilty of second degree murder.

"Willful and depraved indifference to human life." Ok. Now let's watch this:

Let's not even get into the fact that if Hamas would just stop shooting the goddamn rockets, there wouldn't be any problems.

The ambassador is basically saying that the press is defending Hamas and condemning Israel because Israel is killing civilians. The reason why is because Hamas puts their rockets and rocket launchers not in military areas but in hospitals, schools, and residential areas. Israel targets the rockets and a school gets taken out. Hamas puts out pictures and video of the dead bodies of children which the liberal press eagerly shows to the world. This encourages Hamas to continue to put more rockets in these areas. Which ends up with more civilian deaths.

Anyone with half a brain would know this. The press is being willfully ignorant and causing civilian deaths. If that isn't "willful and depraved indifference to human life," I don't know what is.

I expect Matt Yglesias to be frog marched to jail by the end of the day.

Tuesday, July 15, 2014

The Border Patrol is a Rogue Agency for... Enforcing the Law?

Vargas, 33, posted a picture of himself holding documents on a Facebook page for Define American, an immigration activist group he cofounded, as he was about to go through airport security for a domestic flight.

"The only IDs I have to show security: my Philippine passport and my pocketbook U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence, which I keep with me at all times. I don't know what's going to happen," wrote Vargas.

Another photo posted a few minutes later, showed a man identified as Vargas being placed in handcuffs by uniformed personnel.

Vargas was in the Texas border area to report on the plight of Central American children who fled their countries to escape heightened levels of violence, said United We Dream, an immigration activist group for which Vargas was working.

"Once again, the Border Patrol has proven to be a rogue agency after arresting Jose Antonio, a low-priority case for detention and deportation," it said in a statement.
Am I missing something here? The left wants us to register our businesses, register our guns, register for health care, and basically fill out a form that's approved by them every time we want to poop. But crossing the border? They can't seem to muster a form and go through a basic process?

The law says what it says. The Border Patrol is enforcing what it says. How in the name of Zeus's butthole can anyone define that as "rogue?"

Oh right. A liberal can. Because they are children and like their boy-king Obama, they only enforce the laws they like. Or the ones they make up in their heads. Or when it's politically expedient.

Monday, July 14, 2014

Science Once Again Proves Youth is Not As Stupid As We Thought

Well ok, maybe not science, unless polling is considered scientific. Which is some cases it is. But there is work to do.
52% of Millennials Pick Capitalism over Socialism; 64% Prefer a Free Market Economy Over a Govt-Managed Economy 
Half of the millennial respondents were asked to select the “better system,” capitalism or socialism: 52 percent chose capitalism and 42 percent chose socialism. This may surprise some, since among a national sample only 31 percent of all Americans have a favorable view of socialism.35 But when the other half of the sample chose between a “free market economy” and an “economy managed by the government,” 64 percent chose a free market economy and 32 percent favored an economy managed by the government.
So here we have a disparity of 12 percent who prefer a free-market economy and socialism. Wait.. what?

Obviously there are going to be some raised eyebrows at this but then according to Taki:
They may be simply confused and/or dumb, as a previous poll found that only 16 percent of millennials were able to correctly define “socialism” as government ownership of the economy.
The whole point of this blog and podcast is to hopefully educate a tiny bit. Perhaps the youth of America aren't as far off as we'd like to believe which, let's face it, never are. My generation (X) was the fall of western civilization thanks to MTV. It's all cyclical. So while knowledge of the details is still a little suspect, the proof of the failure of government-run anything is there for all to see.

Even the young skulls full of mush, as Rush would say.

Friday, July 11, 2014

Carpool Conversation: Episode 11 Hobby Lobby, Border Chaos, and Movies! #Podcast

This is what happens to the plot.
We've invested in some equipment! Part 1 sounds better, part 2 is getting close to sounding like we actually know what we're doing! (We don't.) We talk about the border chaos, the hobby lobby decision, and Begin Again! Oh and Transformers 4. Mark may kill himself. Enjoy!

Wednesday, July 9, 2014

Liberal Education: Searching for Problems Where None Exist and Equipping Our Youth For Nothing Productive

From Taki:
Arizona State University, perennial favorite for “nation’s least prestigious school,” is showing America why: students can now earn extra credit in a Women and Gender Studies class for being female and not shaving their armpits. One student—whose parents no doubt consider this either $6,000 (in-state tuition) or $10,000 (if she’s out of state) a year well spent—called her 10 weeks of stubble cultivation a “life-changing experience.” 

Women in the less-civilized parts of the world who are forbidden to learn to read or visit the doctor are no doubt emboldened by this simple act of solidarity.
I've always been amused by the liberal idea that a problem exists and must be fixed because Fuck you, that's why. In a country where women have pretty much limitless choices and a culture that is far more accepting of a woman making choices to work or not work or do whatever addle-brained thing comes into her head (such as teaching a gender studies course involving not shaving) than a man who decides to stay at home.

Nevermind those other countries who put their women in hefty bags in the name of some cult-religion that encourages fashion choices combined with high-explosives. Never mind all that. It's America that's oppressive. Oppressive enough that you had to, freely and without fear of reprisal, form a victim/complaint group:
The instructor, Professor Breanne Fahs, doubles as the director of the Feminist Research on Gender and Sexuality Group, or FROGS, an act of not-so-subtle irony or a total inability to sense such. She’s currently hard at work promoting her biography of Valerie Solanas, the insane woman who wrote a book called the S.C.U.M. Manifesto (S.C.U.M. stands for “Society for Cutting Up Men”) and later shot Andy Warhol, causing injuries that almost killed him and would haunt him for life. And don’t forget to check out the FROGS website for a link to an Etsy store selling vulgar apparel promoting something called “menstrual activism,” which apparently involves wearing the crimson curse as lipstick. 
Seriously, we make up problems for ourselves in this country. This article's focus is how education is failing by replacing subjects like Western Literature with Menstrual Studies but I think it's deeper than that. Sure the education system is failing, it's failing because it encourages the young skulls to naval gaze like never before.

And with that, they find all kinds of problems in said naval, and these problems are of dire importance. If they ever looked up, they'd see real problems but that would involve thinking about someone other than themselves. So after 40-60 years, stupid students get stupider, become professors like Breanne Fahs, and even less knowledge is passed down that is actually useful. In the meantime we've got new generations to search ever so desperately for dire problems that are only dire if you live in a self imposed, narcissistic bubble.

Idiocracy is not as far off as you think.

Monday, July 7, 2014

Anthony of Opie and Anthony: Racist. Why? Because Words and Stuff

Anthony Cumia was fired for words and getting beat up. Here's how it went down:
Anthony Cumia gets attacked all the time: Most often for telling the truth about black crime and violence that is stratospherically out of proportion. And how reporters condone it.

On Thursday night, July 3, his bosses at Sirius XM radio fired him for it.

“The decision was made, and Cumia informed, late Thursday, July 3, after careful consideration of his racially charged and hate-filled remarks on social media,” said the suits at Sirius. “Those remarks and postings are abhorrent to SiriusXM, and his behavior is wholly inconsistent with what SiriusXM represents.”

Cumia was typically defiant: “Sirius decided to cave and fire me,” he told his fans in a Tweet. “Welcome to bizarro world. Fired for (something) that wasn't even on the air & wasn't illegal.”
So what happened? 
Cumia says he was out taking pictures—he’s allegedly a photography geek—when he captured a shot of the woman walking under the scaffolding. She’s framed almost in the center of the photo, so it would seem that she didn't accidentally wind up in the shot.

According to Cumia, the woman saw him snap the photo, indignantly stomped up to him, called him a “white motherfucker,” and belted him in the face. On Twitter shortly after the incident, Cumia wrote that he replied by calling her a “&$;;-:”—since it’s six characters and the middle two characters are repeated, I’m going to way out on the banana-tree limb and assume he means “nigger”—whereupon she punched him five more times. Cumia says that about five black males then started hassling him.

He seems to have extricated himself from the situation without any significant loss of blood, at which point he went into full-on Charles Bronson/Clint Eastwood/Travis Bickle mode in the middle of the night on Twitter:

It’s really open season on white people in this day and age. No recourse. Fight back and you’re a racist. The predators know this. Good luck….They run things now. We’re done….There’s a deep seeded [sic] problem with violence in the black community. Try to address it and you’ll be exiled to racistville. But it’s real.
We'll assume the accounts are true. If so, then didn't she start in on the racism? I won't condone Anthony fighting fire with fire, so to speak, but in an emotionally charged situation, stupid things are said. He however was physically attacked. For his words.

From Taki: modern America, it’s considered worse for white people to say or think bad things about blacks than it is for blacks to physically assault whites. 
Indeed. We have seen time and time again that any criticism of the Obama administration is considered racism. Criticize your average non-presidential black person will get you violence in return. Anthony's fault, apparently. He had it coming.

He's a shock jock but he has to watch what he says. I'm all for making better choices in your words and being held responsible for what you say. Sirius can do what they want. But no standard is set for the other side. Blacks regularly defame whites with impunity and none are held to the same standard. So that begs the question, if the media lets blacks get away with bad behavior that whites can't, what does that say about the media's attitude towards blacks? Are they saying that they aren't capable of the same civilized behavior that we hold whites to?

Who's racist again?

Thursday, July 3, 2014

#Podcast Announcement For Carpool Conversations

We probably won't get one up this week due to the holiday. However I do have new studio-quality sound equipment on the way so we stop sounding like we are using tin-cans and string. We should resume by July 13. Stay tuned!

Normal People: But Why Is Rush Limbaugh So Wrong With His Comments? HuffPo: Because, duh.

No explanation needed apparently. He's Rush Limbaugh, that's all you need to know, mouth-breather.
Rush Limbaugh—apparently not content with having caused the Sandra Fluke firestorm—waded into the birth control debate once more on his Wednesday show. This time, the subject was the Supreme Court's recent ruling in the so-called Hobby Lobby case.

The Court said that Hobby Lobby and other "closely held" companies cannot be required to cover birth control for their employees. Limbaugh, who supported the decision, said that the issue should have never been up for debate in the first place.
Ok, he must've said something really, really, REALLY bad.
On Wednesday, the radio host weighed in again. He said one listener called him to point out that the federal government does not require employers to cover eye exams or dental work.

"Which is worse, to go blind from lack of regular eye exams or to get pregnant? And again, pregnancy is something you have to do to cause," Limbaugh said. "It doesn't just happen to you while you're walking down the street except in the case of sexual abuse."

He claimed that women treat pregnancy "like a disease" even though it is the consequence of their actions. "And yet, they wouldn't have the problem if they didn't do a certain thing," he said. "It's that simple."
Um, ok. So really? Where's the controversy? They don't treat pregnancy like a disease? I would expand the term "women" to "Liberal women." Actually, just "liberals" treat pregnancy as a disease. I point to Mr. Fingernail as an example.
 His comments come as no surprise considering the infamous remarks he has made about birth control in the past. In 2012, Limbaugh created a firestorm when he called Fluke — then a law student who had testified at a Democratic hearing about the need for birth control — a "slut" and a "prostitute."
That's not quite what he said. At the very least, there was a point he was trying to make, though you can decide whether or not the point was successfully made. The quotes:
"What does that make her?" he asks. "It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex."
“What does it say about the college co-ed Susan Fluke [sic] who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex — what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute."
Now we can argue the success of the validity of the point. Personally I think he's not that far off but there is more there. Using the state to get what you want and making others pay for it? We can attribute that to welfare as well, doesn't make them sluts. But the HuffPo presents it like Rush just said something like:
"That slut Sandra Fluke is testifying before congress."
The reason why there was such a firestorm is that the point isn't really that far off. If you are making others pay for you to have all the sex you want, well at the very least it should raise an eyebrow on your behavior.

But we don't want to actually argue the points, we just want to shout people down, demonize them, discredit them, and basically dismiss the person without actually addressing any points. They don't really rebuke his point, just flat out state he's wrong like it's just self-evident. It's more typical hack reporting that I've come to expect from the Huffington Post.

Tuesday, July 1, 2014

The Left's Nuance Strikes Again

So in the wake of the Hobby Lobby decision to allow companies to decide whether or not they are going to provide insurance coverage to cover abortifacients.

(Not contraceptives by the way. And they still can pay for your abortions, it's called your paycheck.)

Needless to say, this has some of the stupidest arguments I've ever seen. At some point it gets back to how fetus and embryos are not alive or something. One in particular caught my eye. It starts with Sean Davis letting them have it:

Which leads to this piece of driftwood forming a tweet:

I had to get in on this.

Ok, that is the narrowest definition of comparison you could make. Why? So you can get what you want, which is unlimited abortions.

Fingernails = Not Alive on their own
Embryos = Not Alive on their own.
Fingernails = Embryos.

This is silliness to the ultimate degree. And I told him so:

But we're dealing with driftwood here.

No. But I'm beginning to think you are the fingernail that we're talking about. Fortunately Sean helps me out and I thank him.

Well it went on from there but you get the idea. Narrow your argument down to something inconsequential and meaningless and then hang yourself with it. Fingernails are not embryos. He wants us to try to put a fingernail clipping at the same worth as the embryo and they are not. Gold and Mercury are both elements and in a way are far less complex and far more alike than an embryo and a fingernail. Hell they are only one proton off. But Gold and Mercury are vastly different in their properties, their worth, and their effect on a human being. We don't elevate a fingernail to that of an embryo but he degrades an embryo to that of a fingernail.

An embryo's effect on a human being is vastly different than a fingernail's. Only a liberal couldn't see that.

Gary Oldman: Perfectly Ordinary Dude

He's pissed off the various Leagues, Organizations, and Associations which pretty much makes him a normal guy. Oh and he's about the best actor of our generation. But they were able to get him to do the apology thing which is too bad because he didn't really say anything that outrageous. 
By now we all know the (Chinese fire) drill: famous person says something “politically incorrect”; ordinary folks embrace him as a long-awaited prophet, while Big Gay and/or other “community leaders” condemn him; famous person (usually) issues groveling apology, leaving defenders looking and feeling like morons.

These causes celebrities are the Easter narratives of our times, except played in reverse and with (somewhat incredibly) way more swearing and whining. In point of fact, the stupidest thing Oldman said was “I’m deeply sorry,” during a quivering amends-making turn on Jimmy Kimmel Live.

A careful reading of his entire interview reveals a 56-year-old man who’s plumb disgusted with pretty much everybody, from parents and TV producers to the papacy (“Fuck the pope”).

Oldman comes across as “an eminently reasonable man”’ with a “solid perspective on life.” That’s according to a Jewish acquaintance of mine who, yes, worked in Hollywood for years. The “Official Jews” of the Anti-Defamation League, my pal added, were the real villains, drooling “over the chance to force a celebrity into obeisance to them.”
By the way, how come words from an actor elicit more outrage from the Anti-Defamation League than say.. the 3 kidnapped teens in Israel that were murdered? Just wondering.

I've been an Oldman fan for a while but I was somewhat surprised to hear his comments. Not unwelcome, mind you, and good to see a little common sense coming out of an actor instead of the typical empty headed liberalism. And since he isn't an empty headed liberal and has crossed whatever line that guys like Bill Maher or Shia LaBeaf haven't, he's being vilified. Because of reasons. Weepy apologies are necessary. Penance must be exacted to the church of liberalism.
Ironically, Oldman’s remarks regarding Gibson and Baldwin concerned the arbitrary nature of these all-too-frequent post-modern Salems. Why, Oldman wondered, isn’t Bill Maher fired after joking about Hollywood lesbians, while Baldwin loses his MSNBC gig for calling an aggressive photographer a “fag”?

Why indeed? As the Oldman kerfuffle simmered, the increasingly unhinged Shia LaBeouf wound down an evening of misadventure by referring to his arresting officer as a “fag.” The reaction? Arbiter of cool Lena Dunham tweaked the flaky actor on Twitter, but didn’t call out his “homophobia.” (Dunham added with palpable glee that she was “sorry to contribute to celebrity takedown culture but this is the best current event we have!”)

However, just weeks ago, comic actor Jonah Hill yelled “faggot” at a troublesome pap, and was promptly obligated to perform public penance on two different shows. approvingly deemed Hill’s weepy histrionics “perfect.”
Seriously, take a look at what the left is: a cult. You cannot leave. You will be forcibly returned to the fold if you stray through personal destruction. Some will even call for violence against you if you don't pay proper penance. If you do pay penance, it must be in the cathedral of Oprah or E! or one of the various media denominations.

Free speech? Fuck off. Pay your penance. Bow to our definition of speech. Don't have opinions that vary from what say they should be.