Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Voting With Their Feet

See: Low-tax states will gain seats, high-tax states will lose them

The state and local tax burden is nearly a third lower in states with growing populations, ATR found. As a result, per capita government spending is also lower: $4,008 for states gaining congressional seats, $5,117 for states losing them.

And, as ATR notes, “in eight of ten losers, workers can be forced to join a union as a condition of employment. In 7 of the 8 gainers, workers are given a choice whether to join or contribute financially to a union.”

Imagine that.

Here in Washington State, William Gates Senior was one of the principle backers of an attempt to introduce an State Income Tax for Washingtonions. The measure was trounced. The Democrats lost on that one big-time.

See: Why Washington’s Tax on the Rich Failed

Passing I-1098 would have created the state’s first income tax. Polls and pundits said the main opposition to the tax was that voters feared the tax would start with the rich, and then quickly work its way down the income ladder.

“Citizens determined I-1098 was simply the first step toward establishing an income tax on all Washingtonians,” said Scott Stanzel, Defeat 1098 campaign manager, in a statement.

When I was asked about this by people that I know, I would in turn ask them if they really believed that the politicians would not extend the income tax to them. I told them that if they were in-favor of "taxing the rich", they also had to decide how much the trusted the politicians that they would be putting in charge of who was going to be taxed.

Sunday, November 14, 2010

Lame-Ducking Obama Won't Work For The Democrats

The 2010 midterm elections were a referendum on Obama and the Democrat Party. They have been weighed and been found wanting.

Democrats, understandably, are concerned that their troubles are not yet over. If Obama runs for reelection in 2012, they worry, the losses that the Democrats may suffer could be as bad if not worse then what they have suffered in 2010.

To that end, the Democrats are begining an attempt to Lame-Duck Obama. (It won't work.)

See: Opinion | One and done: To be a great president, Obama should not seek reelection in 2012

We do not come to this conclusion lightly. But it is clear, we believe, that the president has largely lost the consent of the governed. The midterm elections were effectively a referendum on the Obama presidency. And even if it was not an endorsement of a Republican vision for America, the drubbing the Democrats took was certainly a vote of no confidence in Obama and his party. The president has almost no credibility left with Republicans and little with independents.

Obama may not be entirely opposed to the proposal, but not in the way that Douglas E. Schoen and Patrick H. Caddell would want. In fact, quite the opposite. Look closely at what Obama said in January of this year.

See: Exclusive: Obama Would 'Rather Be Really Good One-Term President'

"I'd rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president," he told ABC's "World News" anchor Diane Sawyer in an exclusive interview today.

Having Obama declare that he will not run for reelection in 2012 will effectively lame duck his Presidency. Obama will become completely irrelevant to the political debate. He would become the most ignorable politician in Washington D.C.

Obama may be a narcissistic prick, but he is not stupid. He won't declare himself a lame-duck. On the contrary, he will campaign hard for reelection by being an even more outrageously leftist extremist. He will not move to the center to meet Republicans half-way. He will flip the Republicans the political bird and demand that they move to him.

Obama is not a politician out of the pragmatist mold. Obama is a believer. He believes he is working for a better America. He believes in his vision.

When Obama says that he would rather be a really good one term President then a mediocre two term President, he is declaring his belief that it is better to fight for his beliefs to the bloody-bitter end rather then to compromise with the opposition.

Obama will fight it out.

Obama will run for reelection in 2012.

Obama and the Democrats will get their asses handed to them in what will be a historic political route, a defeat that will make their losses in 2010 look moderate.

Expect things to get very weird over the next two years.

Thursday, November 11, 2010

Launched From Hawaii?

We may be able to relax a little about that Chinese Submarine Launched Intercontinental Missile seen off of the coast of California on Monday.

See: Blogger Believes Webcam Image Solves 'Missile' Mystery

Its a weird looking contrail all the same.

I find it easy to believe that the Chinese would have both the know-how and the balls to fire a submarine launched missile close off of the California coast.

I also find the Flight 808 illusion hypothesis to be believable as well.

Additionally, there is the significant problem of the dog that did not bark.

An ICBM is noisy contraption. At 35 miles from the coast, it would have been heard by somebody or at least by something. The waters there are full of boats. There are no silent ICBMs. At least, not yet.

I now think it was just an airliner contrail.

Tuesday, November 9, 2010

A Shot Across Our Bow?

See: Mystery Missile Launch Seen off Calif. Coast

(CBS) A mysterious missile launch off the southern California coast was caught by CBS affiliate KCBS's cameras Monday night, and officials are staying tight-lipped over the nature of the projectile.

See: Mystery 'missile' launch near L.A. no threat to national security, government officials say

Officials with the Defense Department, the Navy and the Air Force said they did not have any details on the object or its launch site. Pentagon officials said that initial indications were that the military was not involved.

"We are aware of the unexplained contrail reported off the coast of Southern California yesterday evening," according to a statement Tuesday from the North American Aerospace Defense Command and the U.S. Northern Command, which operates the U.S. and Canadian missile warning system. "At this time, we are unable to provide specific details but we are working to determine the exact nature of this event.


Friday, November 5, 2010

About The Republican Redistricting Advantage

See: Will Redistricting Be a Bloodbath for Democrats?

Republicans took control of at least 19 Democratic-controlled state legislatures Tuesday and gained more than 650 seats, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The last time Republicans saw such victories was in 1994, when they captured control of 20 state legislatures.

Republicans haven't controlled as many state legislatures since 1928.

Across the country, the map for state legislatures has turned noticeably red as Republicans now control 55 chambers, with Democrats at 38 and the remaining yet to be decided. At the beginning of this week, Democrats controlled 60 of the country's state legislative chambers and Republicans 36.

Tuesday also was a historic day for many state legislatures. In Minnesota, Republicans won the Senate for the first time ever, while in Alabama, they took control for the first time since reconstruction.

The answer to the headline writer's question is yes! (Sort of.)

There will be a bloodbath, but if the Republicans forget about the future, they will just piss away the brief and ephemeral advantage that redistricting will give them.

Republicans will have a unique opportunity to shape the political landscape for the next decade. Redistricting in the States where Republicans now dominate will help adjust the balance of political power at both the state and the federal levels.

Red States will become more red. Blue states will become more blue.

The end result will be a deeper divide between the Constrained in the Red States and the Unconstrained in the Blue States.

Think San Francisco versus Boise.

Republicans should not get too full of themselves over their truly monumental and historic win. Republicans need to keep in mind that the opposition is still convinced that their Unconstrained world-view is the one that should dominate our nation politically and they still have a sizable following.

The main challenge for Republicans over the coming decade will be to seize this historic opportunity to reshape the political landscape by arguing forcefully and confidently for liberty as the best solution to our nations problems. On the other side, the left will argue for Statism as the solution to our nations problems. They will do so boldly and self-righteously. They will not just wither up and blow away.

Redistricting will help Republicans on the margin, but it is not a long term solution to our nation's problems. Our nations's problems are in our culture. Only by reshaping our culture will we be able to help our nation step away from the Statist precipice that the left has brought us.

With every issue that comes up in our nations future, we must argue for increasing individual Liberty as the best solution. Whenever our counterparts on the left offer Statism as a solution to a problem, we must aggressively challenge them and their assertions that surrendering our liberties to the state will solve our problems. Make them defend their assertions. They aren't used to being challenged on their core principles, so this can be fun too.

This is a long term generational project. Do not expect or even hope for quick results. Changing a culture takes time, patience and persistence.

Look to the future, not to just tomorrow.

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

A Deep and Wide Loss For The Democrats.

The Democrats received a historic shellacking at the hands of the voters on Tuesday. The Depth of the repudiation can be seen in the results at the State House level.

See: Republicans Won More Than 23 Legislative Chambers in Historic Wave Election

Last night, Republicans won more than 23 legislative chambers and counting, many in the large states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Indiana. Republicans also won majorities in both houses in the southern states of North Carolina and Alabama and in the New England states of New Hampshire and Maine. We also gained majorities in the West in the Colorado House and Oregon House

That is a big loss.

Note that Oregon is on that list. Oregon is about as deep blue as it is possible for a state to get. Just to the north of Oregon is blue Washington, the Republicans may take the state senate. (And the Race between Rossi (R) and Murray (D) is still too close to call.)

Most of the media coverage about the election will likely focus on the few races that the Democrats one and on a few of the ones that the Republicans one on the Federal level. Reid's win in Nevada looks crooked as all hell but will likely stand. (Something about those machines and the technician that "serviced" them.) Boxer's win in California was not that unexpected. It stinks, but California has some serious issues. Bloody hell, they elected Jerry Brown as Governor. That is seriously deranged.

On the Republican side, Marco Rubio will shake the foundations of the Democrat's race-card political strategies that have helped them divide the country and our politics along racial lines since the civil war. For the Democrats, that is a serious threat to their power at every level. They will probably try to make his life hell. Watch for the Democrats to pull the same kind of stunts against Marco Rubio that they pulled on Clarence Thomas.

For Republicans, there is a danger.

This election was a deep and wide repudiation of Democrats. It was not an affirmation of Republicans.

Republicans now have the best opportunity to make the case for liberty since The Republican Revolution or Revolution of '94. They also risk blowing again.

See: Washington the Biggest Loser as Wave Sweeps Through Congress

Newt Gingrich, the GOP firebrand who helped force Democrats from power in 1994, said Tuesday's results created "a dramatically weaker Democratic Party and a severely repudiated President Obama." He's right about that, of course. But does Gingrich really think Americans gave the GOP a full-throated mandate? He made that miscalculation a generation ago and overreached as the new House Speaker.

That mistake helped reelect Democrat Bill Clinton.

Obama is not on any ballot, but the votes cast are a reflection of how his first two years failed to meet the lofty expectations set in 2008. Liberals accuse him of accomplishing too little. Conservatives accuse him of turning too often to government as a solution.

The Republicans need to take this historic opportunity and make the case for liberty. If they assume they have a mandate, they will be the ones that will get shellacked in the next go-round.

[HT to FinallyFree at c2 - see post 144 for the link to Gateway Pundit]

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

More then ever, Your vote, Every vote, is important.

See: Republicans Appear Poised to Win Big on Tuesday

PRINCETON, NJ -- The final USA Today/Gallup measure of Americans' voting intentions for Congress shows Republicans continuing to hold a substantial lead over Democrats among likely voters, a lead large enough to suggest that regardless of turnout, the Republicans will win more than the 40 seats needed to give them the majority in the U.S. House.

The results are from Gallup's Oct. 28-31 survey of 1,539 likely voters. It finds 52% to 55% of likely voters preferring the Republican candidate and 40% to 42% for the Democratic candidate on the national generic ballot -- depending on turnout assumptions. Gallup's analysis of several indicators of voter turnout from the weekend poll suggests turnout will be slightly higher than in recent years, at 45%. This would give the Republicans a 55% to 40% lead on the generic ballot, with 5% undecided.

Every Republican vote is an essential vote.

This will be an election decided by turnout.

Even Democrats in the safest districts are now in close races.

Take Norm Dicks in Washington state.

See: Poll shows Cloud leads over Dicks

The most notable results in the poll came in the question that asked “If the election for the United States Congress were today and the candidates were Republican Doug Cloud and Democrat Norm Dicks, for whom would you vote?” The answer options were “definitely for Cloud, leaning for Cloud, definitely for Dicks, leaning for Dicks, and not sure”. Doug Cloud received a combined 609 votes for “definitely for” and “leaning for” while Dicks only received 558 for the 2 answers. 95 were still unsure.

Even Norm Dicks is in trouble.

Get every Republican that you know to the polls.

This time, it really matters.

This time, we could really win this.

[HT JCM at C2 - See post#218]

Monday, November 1, 2010

Time to grow out of the Microsoft "Subscription-Software" Trap

Open Office.

It is free. You can install it for free on a machine running a Microsoft OS. It also works on Linux and other non-Microsoft OS's. (Microsoft Office, not so much.) If your customers are still stuck with the Microsoft products, Open Office can save files to the Microsoft formats.

It takes a little getting used to, but I like it.

And the Gates' are pushing an income tax here in Washington State.


Whats that?

Need to upgrade your OS too?

Ubuntu is pretty good, and its free. Linux used to be a pain in the ass to use. It was geekware, built by geeks for geeks. Now it is easy enough for anyone to use.

Linux is now no more difficult and no more buggy then the Microsoft products. And you don't have to fight the malware and virus battles that are de rigueur with Micorsoft products. Overall, I have much fewer problems with my Linux machines then I do with my Microsoft machines.

Go Linux. Because it just works.

Did I mention that the Gates's are pushing an Income Tax proposal here in Washington State?

Screw'm and the horse (Microsoft) that they rode in on. Bastards.

Friday, October 29, 2010

Rossi 48% - Murray 47% in latest Rasmussen Poll

Rasmussen is calling it a tie. The margin of error in the poll is (+/-) 4. This will be an election decided by turn-out, and heavily dependent on an honest counting of the ballots.

See: Election 2010: Washington Senate - Washington Senate: Rossi (R), Murray (D) Tied

Republican Dino Rossi and incumbent Democrat Patty Murray are separated by a single point in the U.S. Senate race in Washington with less than a week until Election Day.

The latest Rasmussen Reports statewide telephone survey of Likely Voters shows Rossi picking up 48% of the vote, while Murray draws support from 47%. Three percent (3%) prefer some other candidate, and two percent (2%) are still undecided.

There is also the 50% ("Incumbent Rule") for the Murray camp to worry about. While undecided number of 2% is small it can be the deciding factor in this race. If the Incumbent rule holds in this case, Rossi will be Washington State's next Senator.

Of course, all of this pre-election polling is only a good indicator of how an honestly conducted count of the vote might look like. Rossi has had trouble with the state engaging in some very strange ballot counting practices before. in his 2004 gubernatorial campaign Rossi won the Governor's race in the first count and the second in a recount, only to lose it to a strange as all hell third count. The 2004 gubernatorial count strongly suggests that an honest counting of ballots can be problematic, if not downright Chicago-esque here in Washington State.

This will be an election to keep an eye on.

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Democrat Vote Fraud - Machines Rigged To Vote For Democrats

Vote Fraud - Its the only hope that the Democrats have.

See: Nevada Voters Complain Of Problems At Polls

LAS VEGAS -- Some voters in Boulder City complained on Monday that their ballot had been cast before they went to the polls, raising questions about Clark County's electronic voting machines.
Voter Joyce Ferrara said when they went to vote for Republican Sharron Angle, her Democratic opponent, Sen. Harry Reid's name was already checked.

Ferrara said she wasn't alone in her voting experience. She said her husband and several others voting at the same time all had the same thing happen.

"Something's not right," Ferrara said. "One person that's a fluke. Two, that's strange. But several within a five minute period of time -- that's wrong."

Watch your vote.

They will take that away from you too if they get half the chance.


[Update - 11:27 am]

And in North Carolina, more strange Democrat vote fraud.

See: Ballot Machine Malfunctions Reported in Nevada, North Carolina

In North Carolina, an incident was reported in which a voter tried to vote a straight Republican ticket and instead the voting machine indicated that a straight Democratic ticket was voted.

"Sam Laughinghouse of New Bern said he pushed the button to vote Republican in all races, but the voting machine screen displayed a ballot with all Democrats checked. He cleared the screen and tried again with the same result, he said. Then he asked for and received help from election staff.

"'They pushed it twice and the same thing happened,' Laughinghouse said. 'That was four times in a row. The fifth time they pushed it and the Republicans came up and I voted.'"

With an important, possibly history-making election drawing nigh, the idea of voter fraud is being raised on talk radio and other venues. The fact that the current president learned politics in the rough and tumble atmosphere of Chicago, a place known for ballot manipulation, does not exactly assuage suspicions.

Malfunction my ass.

The Democrats need to understand that if they bugger the elections to the point that nobody believes in them anymore, things will get ugly.

[Update 10:42 pm]

So lets take the above two stories and look at a tie-in.

See: Nevada voting machines automatically checking Harry Reid's name; voting machine technicians are SEIU members

Now the county voting technicians aren't unique here -- many of Clark County's employees are also represented by the SEIU. But it is worth mentioning, the SEIU is hyperpoliticized and has seen its fair share of corruption. (It certainly seems more questionable than Diebold, the voting machine manufacturer with Republican ties that was at the center of many conspiracy theories on the left during the Bush administration.)

Unions increasingly have a major financial stake in election outcomes, both as a matter of their own election expenditures, and as a function of what they stand to gain if their legislative agenda is enacted. Should they really be responsible for tabulating the votes? That's certainly something voters ought to think long and hard about.

We may have to outlaw government employee unions.

Saturday, October 16, 2010

Washington State Senate Race Still Too Close To Call - Rossi Polling Ahead Of Murray

The Washington State Senate race is one of a handful of contests that could go either way.

See: Rasmussen Predicts GOP Gain of 55 in House

“Republicans should have 48 seats [after the elections next month], Democrats 47, and five seats could slide either way,” said Rasmussen in his banquet address at the Western Conservative Political Action Conference. He was referring to seats in five states in which the Senate race this year he considers too close to call: California, Illinois, Washington, West Virginia, and Nevada (or “that mudwrestling contest,” as Rasmussen described the race between Republican Sharron Angle and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid).

That is bad news for long time incumbent, Patty Murray. She has been in office since 1988. That is long time. A very long time. (Think back, way back, all the way back to when George Bush Sr. beat Michael Dukakis.)

[Update and Correction - Patty Murray won her US Senate seat in 1992, the same year that George Bush Senior lost to Bill Clinton, with Ross Perot making a mess on the fringe. I confused Patty Murray's first race for the state legislature, where she won a seat in the Washington State Senate.]

Rossi now leads in Rasmussen's October 8th report.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in Washington shows Rossi with 49% of the vote, while Murray’s support stands at 46%. Three percent (3%) prefer some other candidate in the race, and two percent (2%) are undecided.

What should especially worry Murray is the Incumbent 50% Rule. This rule says that if the incumbent polls bellow 50% in the poll closest to the election, the "undecideds" will over 80% of the time, break for the challenger. (Go Rossi!)

I can see November from my house.

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

On accident, or on purpose?

See: Military ballots may not count in Illinois

Cray says she is currently compiling data from each of Illinois' jurisdictions to determine which were compliant and which were delinquent. Cray said it's possible the ballots may not be counted because the state was tardy in sending them out.

Illinois was required to have all of its absentee ballots mailed by Sept. 18, the national deadline. Election officials have until Nov. 15 to count the absentee ballots, which must be postmarked by midnight Nov. 1 to be eligible.

This kind of stuff is not acceptable.

Wednesday, October 6, 2010

One Year Today


Sun glistened sea,

Sparkling waves,

Dancing in the cool Autumnal breeze.


Sunday, October 3, 2010

$100 To Dino Rossi

I just sent the Dino Rossi campaign $100.00.

This is not something that I can really afford to do. It is also something that I could not afford to not do.

In our lives, we are often confronted with "put-up or shut-up" moments.

Now is one of those times.

The race is close. Rasmussen has called the Washington State Senate Race a toss up. Rasmussen is a competent polling company. Their work is good.

On the sidelines, there is very little that individual voters like you and I can do to help move our nation in the right direction. So much of what happens in the political sphere that will shape our future happens in political campaigns like Dino Rossi's.

We can help.

We can help a candidate like Dino Rossi take his message to the voters by sending him and his campaign a small amount of money. We can do this much. If we are serious about what we believe, we must do at least this much.

Dino Rossi has answered the call.

We must, in kind, answer it too.

Washington State Senate Race Now A Toss Up.

See: Election 2010: Washington Senate

Incumbent Democratic Senator Patty Murray and Republican challenger Dino Rossi are back to a virtual tie in Washington’s race for U.S. Senate.

The latest Rasmussen Reports statewide telephone survey of Likely Voters shows Rossi picking up 48% support, while Murray earns 47% of the vote when leaners are included. Two percent (2%) prefer some other candidate, and three percent (3%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

This race now moves back to a Toss-Up from Leans Democrat in the Rasmussen Reports Election 2010 Senate Balance of Power rankings.

We are about a month away from election day.

Washington State's Senate race will be decided on turn-out.

Can the Democrats get their people to the polls this November?

We shall see.

The Republicans are all fired up.

They will vote.

The Democrats . . .

Its not looking so good for the Democrats.

See: DC rally shows support for struggling Democrats

Organizers claimed they had as many participants as Beck's rally. But Saturday's crowds were less dense and didn't reach as far to the edges as they did during Beck's rally. The National Park Service stopped providing official crowd estimates in the 1990s.

In other words, the Democrat's rally was a flop.

Friday, September 24, 2010

The Democrat's Clown Congress

Stephen Colbert is a fucking clown.

Bringing in a clown to testify on the highly charged issue of illegal immigration is the Democrat's way of expressing contempt for those Americans that want our immigration laws enforced.

See: Colbert tells Congress farm work 'really hard'

WASHINGTON – Taking his blowhard comedy act to Congress, Stephen Colbert told lawmakers that a day picking beans alongside illegal immigrants convinced him that farm work is "really, really hard."

"It turns out — and I did not know this — most soil is at ground level," Colbert testified Friday. Also, "It was hotter than I like to be."

Nancy Pelosi thought that bringing in a clown to testify before congress was not only appropriate, "It was great."

See: Colbert Offers Comedy Shtick in Farm Workers Testimony, Fails to Amuse Lawmakers

"Of course I think it's appropriate," she said. "He's an American. He can bring attention to an important issue. I think it's great."

Fuck you Nancy.

Fuck you Democrats.

Friday, September 17, 2010

Is Feingold Going To Lose It?

See: Rasmussen: Feingold now trailing by 7 in Wisconsin

After winning his primary to gain the Republican nomination to challenge Senator Russ Feingold, businessman and newcomer Ron Johnson also got a bump in the polls. The latest Rasmussen survey puts him ahead of the incumbent by seven, 51/44. But as with all surveys conducted in the immediate aftermath of a primary, some caution should be taken:

Go to HotAir to read the rest. Check out the link to the Rasmussen survey.

Tuesday, September 7, 2010

Polls Forecast A Grim November For Democrats

See: Generic Congressional Ballot - Rasmussen Reports (Monday, September 06, 2010)

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 48% of Likely Voters would vote for their district's Republican congressional candidate, while 36% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent. The survey data was collected on the seven days ending Sunday, September 5, 2010.

This matches the largest advantage ever measured for the Republicans. Three weeks ago, the GOP also held a 12-point lead.

Still, while the margin has varied somewhat from week-to-week, Republicans have been consistently ahead in the Generic Ballot for over a year. During 2010, the GOP edge has never fallen below five points. When Barack Obama first took office as president of the United States, the Democrats enjoyed a seven-point lead on the Generic Ballot.

Those are some pretty grim numbers for the Democrats. This November is looking like it will be a bloodbath at the ballot box.

Two years ago, the Democrats had won everything. Now, as the chill of the approaching autumn can be felt in the evening air, the Democrats find themselves about to lose the House, with the Senate now in play.

Even Senator Patty Murray (D), in the solidly blue state of Washington, is falling behind her challenger, Dino Rossi (R). (Rossi 48%, Murray 46%)

The Democrats now find themselves having to fight hard for Seats like Murray's that they used to take for granted.

Sunday, August 29, 2010

Obama And The Politics Of Failure

An interesting question from the other side of the pond.

See: The great Obama-Axelrod-etc. mystery

Here's one of the big questions, really, one to chew on over the weekend, one that's asked a lot around this town. How could a bunch of people who ran such a brilliant campaign be doing such a lousy job at the politics of governing?

The answer is actually very simple.

Obama and his team have successfully rammed through a number of measures through the congress that would, and will, fundamentally change the nature of our government and our relationship with it.

Obama's plummeting popularity is a consequence of his political success.

Confusing President Obama's popularity with his political success is a mistake. He has been very successful. Obama is very unpopular now because of his political successes.

Friday, August 27, 2010

Compassionate Cannibalism and the End of Western Civilization

From the Seriously Not Funny files

See: Cannibal Restaurant Has Berliners Disgusted

"Donors wanted! Become a member today!" reads an announcement on the website. On the menu page, the restaurant, called Flimé, is careful only to indicate "meat" without giving away what kind -- surely an effort to keep the ruse going. Those who want to become members must submit a form complete with responses about health and exercise habits.

"After the medical check, you can decide which body part you want to donate!" the website says. The form tells prospective members that "Flimé only covers the costs for hospitalization.... The designated use of the donated body part is free to Flimé." The German version of the website is also advertising for a job opening for an "open-minded surgeon."

We are all living in the Wiemar Republic now.

Saturday, August 14, 2010

Laura Dekker's Equatorial Circumnavigation

She is in Portugal now. The start date will be announced shortly.

See: Dutch teen arrives in Portugal ahead of solo sailing bid

Dekker wants to break the record for the youngest world solo sail set in May by Australian teenager Jessica Watson. Watson completed a non-stop, unassisted round-the-world trip a few days before her 17th birthday.

Dekker turns 17 on September 20, 2012, allowing her a little over two years to complete the trip, during which she intends to stop at several ports along the way.

Dekker has said her route from Portugal will take her across the Atlantic Ocean and into the Pacific via the Panama Canal. She plans to stop at the Galapagos islands before heading to Australia, Thailand and through the pirate-infested Gulf of Aden back to Europe.

This is not the same race as Jessica Watson's. It is similar, but it is not the same.

Jessica Watson sailed The Three Capes route. Laura Dekker is sailing the equatorial route. Another difference is that Jessica Watson sailed non-stop and Laura Dekker will make port in several places.

I am less comfortable with Laura Dekker's adventure then I was with Jessica Watson's.

Laura Dekker is very young. Many people will object on that alone. While I find her age to be a little worrisome, I am more concerned about the route that she will travel. Jessica Watson traveled south and sailed around the three Capes, Cape Agulhas, Cape Leeuwin and Cape Horn).

Where Watson had to brave stormy seas, Dekker will have to brave filthy pirates. I would prefer storms over pirates. Where as the sea and the storms are indifferent and lack malice, pirates are the scum of the planet. Pirates are malice.

Training can solve most problems associated with age, storms and seas. Pirates are different. With Pirates, age becomes a problem.

Laura Dekker will be at sea for over a year. She will travel around the equator and pass through some of the most pirate infested waters of the world. She will avoid the physical dangers of the three capes. Hopefully she will be able to avoid the Pirates as well.

May she find easy sailing fair winds on her way.

Sunday, August 8, 2010

Anchor Babies And The Move To Change The 14th Amendment

Often in politics, the wrong solution to a issue is sought to solve a problem that the law already provides a workable remedy.

In an attempt to discourage illegal immigrants from exploiting their children as a means to remain in the US, Republican politicians are suggesting that it is time to revise the 14th Amendment of the constitution to disallow birth-right citizenship.

Birth-right citizenship is being exploited. The numbers are truly staggering.

See: Across Texas, 60,000 babies of noncitizens get U.S. birthright

In Texas, between 60,000 to 65,000 babies achieve U.S. citizenship annually by being born in the state's hospitals, according to a tally released by the state's Health and Human Services Commission. Last year, such births represented almost 16 percent of the total births statewide.

Between 2001 and 2009, births to illegal immigrant women totaled 542,152 in Texas alone.

Thats just Texas.

It would be interesting to know what the national numbers are.

The 14th Amendment is not the problem. The lack of will at the federal level to enforce our immigration laws is the problem.

If Illegal aliens have a baby in the US, fine. The children may have US citizenship. The parents still do not. The parents still should be made to leave the US. The children may return to the US at a later time or even be allowed to remain with legal US residents. The Illegal parents still MUST leave.

If the law was enforced, there would be no anchor-baby problem. The law is not enforced, so anchor-babies are exploited.

Monday, August 2, 2010

Sheriff Babeu Explains Arizona's Problem With The President

See: Arizona Sheriff: ‘Our Own Government Has Become Our Enemy’
“What’s very troubling is the fact that at a time when we in law enforcement and our state need help from the federal government, instead of sending help they put up billboard-size signs warning our citizens to stay out of the desert in my county because of dangerous drug and human smuggling and weapons and bandits and all these other things and then, behind that, they drag us into court with the ACLU,” Babeu said.

What is the Obama Administration's goal? Why do they refuse to meaningful defend the border and why do the want to prevent the States from doing the job the Federal Government refuses to do?

Could it be that the Obama Administration does not think that the border should be effectively closed to illegal immigrants?

Sunday, August 1, 2010

The Rising Risk Of War With Mexico

See: Mexican Drug Cartel Allegedly Puts a Price on Arizona Sheriff's Head
On the day parts of Arizona's immigration law, SB 1070, went into effect, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is in the news for another reason: there's a price on his head - allegedly offered by a Mexican drug cartel.

This is not the first instance of a Mexican Drug Cartel threatening to kill US Law Enforcement Officers.

See: Drug cartel issues threat to off-duty Nogales police officers
A Mexican drug cartel has threatened Nogales police officers, saying they will be targeted for retribution if they conduct off-duty drug busts.

Nogales Police Chief Jeffrey Kirkham told the Nogales International on Friday that the threats stemmed from an incident approximately two weeks ago, when off-duty officers surprised marijuana smugglers while riding horseback in an unincorporated border area east of town.

The officers seized part of the drug load, and the smugglers were able to flee back into Mexico with the other part.

“As a result of that,” Kirkham said, “our officers have received threats from the cartel that they are to look the other way if they are off-duty, or they will be targeted by a sniper or by other means.”

In our nation's history, we have dealt with a similar problem with Mexico.

It resulted in what the history books call "The Punitive Expedition" or "The Poncho Villa Expedition."

In late 1915 - early 1916, Poncho Villa began a campaign of killing Americans living and working in Northern Mexico. It escalated from there to a cross border war into New Mexico.

Poncho Villa's raid into Columbus New Mexico, killing 18 and wounding 8, sparked a military response from the US.

A General Pershing type incursion into Mexico to hunt down Mexican Narco-Terrorist may have to be repeated if the Democrat led US Government is unable or unwilling to secure our borders with Mexico. This would not be a good war, though it may become a necessary one.

The Democrats in Washington D.C. need to recognize the risks they are running by refusing to look at the cross border threats from Mexican gangsters as serious threats to our national security.

So far to date, the most aggressive and forward posture that the Obama Administration has initiated to contain the violence that is spilling across the border from Mexico, is to put up signs in the desert on the American side of the border, warning Americans to stay out of threatened US land. Tactically, Obama has implemented a policy of retreat.

See: Parts of Arizona Considered Under Control of Mexican Cartels and Smugglers: Feds Respond With Lawsuit Against Arizona
The signs were posted over a month after a Pinal County Sheriff's Deputy was shot by suspected drug traffickers while patrolling the area around the junction of Interstate 8 and Arizona Highway 84. Last week, two bodies belived to those of drug mules were found shot to death in the same area where the deputy was ambushed. Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu said in an interview Tuscon's KGUN TV that the cartels are in increasing control of parts of Arizona, including Pinal County.

As unpleasant as it may be for Obama and the Democrats that control Washington D.C. to consider, they have to secure the US border with Mexico. If they fail to do so, they will be responsible for having failed to prevent a war that we will end up having to fight on our southern border.

[Fenway's Not Another New England Sports Blog! has more on the topic of the Mexican Narco-insurgency and the illegal immigration issue. Its worth taking a look at.]

Saturday, July 31, 2010

Illegal Immigrant Supporters Versus American Baseball Fans

You may have heard about the two Illegal Immigrant supporters that ran around Citi Field durring the New York Mets - Arizona Diamond Backs game.

Did you hear about the crowd's response?

See: Men Run Onto Citi Field With Mexican Flags
As the trespassers were taken from the field people in the stands started chanting "USA, USA."

Running around the ballpark with the Mexican Flag pretty much tells America where these Illegal Immigrant supporters heads are at.

Friday, July 30, 2010

Borders Versus The Quest For World Peace

See: Memo outlines backdoor 'amnesty' plan

With Congress gridlocked on an immigration bill, the Obama administration is considering using a back door to stop deporting many illegal immigrants - what a draft government memo said could be "a non-legislative version of amnesty."

The memo, addressed to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Alejandro Mayorkas and written by four agency staffers, lists tools it says the administration has to "reduce the threat of removal" for many illegal immigrants who have run afoul of immigration authorities.

On the surface, it is about the politics of illegal immigration.

But there is something happening here that is working below the surface. It is a "Big Picture" thing. It is something that is working on an emotional level in the Modern American Left.

It explains much of the way the modern American Left feels about the problem that we have with illegal immigration.

*Primarily, the Modern American left. along with their European counterparts, have a problem with National borders. They see Nationalism as the cause of much of the warfare and strife of the last one hundred years. They believe that a world without borders would necessarily be a more peaceful one. Without countries, they reason, there could be no war, there could only be peace and love.

John Lennon's Imagine is not just a silly pop song. It is their prayer, their hymnal, their anthem. It is a dream that the Modern American Left hopes is our future and the whole worlds future.

(Yoram Hazony's Israel Through European Eyes explains why Israel is hated by much of the European, and by extension, the American Left. The core of his argument is compelling and it has important implications for all of the Western Nations that fought in WWII.)

Thursday, July 29, 2010

Arizona's S.B. 1070 Versus The De Facto Amnesty

Heather McDonald at the National Review's blog The Corner writes about what Bolton's ruling against Arizona's Immigration Law means.

See: What Judge Bolton’s Injunction Doesn’t Say

In enjoining Arizona’s landmark immigration law, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton maintains the Obama administration’s carefully cultivated fiction: that what concerns the White House regarding S.B. 1070 is its effect on legal, rather than illegal, aliens. Almost nowhere in the government’s briefs or the judge’s ruling is the arrest and detention of illegal aliens addressed. This fiction is transparent, however. The real threat posed by S.B. 1070 was that it would disrupt the de facto amnesty that the executive branch has accorded to the vast majority of illegal aliens. It would start to implement congressional mandates and the public will that the immigration laws be enforced. For that reason, it had to be stopped.

[Emphasis is mine.]

The ruling will be appealed. Jan Brewer knew that no matter which way Clinton appointed U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton ruled, the law would be appealed up through the courts, eventually reaching the Supreme Court Of The United States.

Arizona will fight.

It will be a long fight.


Arizona's S.B. 1070.

Judge Bolon's Ruling.

Friday, July 23, 2010

Democrats, Art And Laying Off Firefighters

The link here is to an article that talks about how the Democrats that run the City Of Ann Arbor Michigan prioritize their spending.

See: The Art of the Ann Arbor City Budget

What I want to draw your attention to in this article is not so much the mundane everyday example of the insanity of a city run lock-stock-and-barrel by Democrats, but the way the left-media reports the news when Democrats do psychotically stupid things.

Here is the key:
Ann Arbor City Council member Stephen Kunselman, a Democrat, opposed the art deal.

Kunselman's party affiliation is a fair thing to report. But what is the missing context? (Read the whole article.)

What does that one line, the only line in the article that mentions the political party of any of the politicians involved, imply?

Doesn't it suggest that those that supported laying off firefighters and spending almost a million bucks on a fancy sprinkler spigot were not Democrats?

As it turns out, the City Council is 100% Democrat.

Singling out Kunselman as a Democrat, without also explaining that the whole city council is made up of nothing but Democrats, leaves out important and informative detail.

It is a deception.

So when you are reading or watching the news, always, always, caveat lector. Especially if the reporter claims to be non-partisan.

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

Oliver Stone - Shaping The Things To Come

Oliver Stone is an influential shaper of public thought.

His movies, which include Natural Born Killers, Platoon, Wall Street, JFK, Nixon, and W will be viewed by hundreds of millions of people, not just in the US, but all over the world. The people who see his movies, see the world through his world-view.

What is his world-view? What does the man think?

See: Oliver Stone: US should nationalize oil resources

LONDON – The Gulf of Mexico oil spill shows that the United States should follow the example of South American socialists in nationalizing its energy industry, filmmaker Oliver Stone said Tuesday.

The Academy Award-winning director of "Born on the Fourth of July" and "JFK" said that America's country's natural wealth was too important to be left in private hands, telling journalists in central London that oil and other natural resources "belong to the people."

"This BP oil spill is typical" of what happens when private industry is allowed to draw revenue on what should be a public good, Stone said.

"We shouldn't make this kind of profit on oil or on health or on war or on prisons. All these industries should be public industries."

Stone, 63, is in the British capital to promote his documentary, "South of the Border," which tells the story of firebrand Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and his left-wing Latin American allies.

This man makes movies. His movies shape people's understanding of reality. What kind of world will his viewers make for our future?

Hosni Mubarak And The End Of Peace In The Middle-East

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak is not a nice man. Egypt owes him much. The world owes him much. And all the same, he is not a nice man.

Advancing in age, and reported to be suffering from terminal cancer, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak will soon be unbound from this mortal coil. His long, difficult, and sometimes extremely unpleasant leadership of the people of Egypt will soon come to a close.

From those days long ago, immediately following the assassination of Anwar Sadatt, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has kept Egypt a relatively sane Muslim nation.

Egypt's peace with Israel, while strained and at times uncomfortable, has held.

How long will this peace last after Mubarak passes?

Would you give it days, weeks, months or optimistically, years?

When Mubarak leaves this world, the peace that we have enjoyed in the middle east, what little peace there was, may come to seem a golden age long past.

Pray for Egypt.

Pray for Israel.

Pray for all of us.

Saturday, July 17, 2010

Politics Is Downstream Of Culture

Bill Whittle's Declaration Entertainment Project

Website Link

Yoram Hazony makes a similar argument. Hazony argues that books and schools are the big drivers in the culture. I think that both Whittle and Hazony are correct. Books and Movies are entertainment venues. Schools shape the people who will wright the books and make the movies that America and the world will read and see.

See: Israel Through European Eyes

What can be done? A good start would be to read Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions—or to read it again if you read it in college. If you’re used to academic books, it’s an easy read. And if not, it’s a bit of an effort, but worth it. No book will give you a clearer insight into what’s happening to Israel today in the international arena, on the campuses, and even, to some extent, in Israel’s universities.

After that, we have to begin talking about what it takes to establish a new paradigm, or to rebuild an old one that has collapsed. There’s much to be said about this, and it’s not for now. But I’ll leave you with just this thought as a start on it: Paradigm shifts aren’t like an election campaign or a struggle over some aspect of policy, much less a short-term media battle like the one over the Turkish flotilla, which can be resolved one way or another in matter of weeks or months, if not days. Paradigm shifts are unusual in the lives of individuals. And when they happen, they often take years to work themselves out. For this reason, clashes between political paradigms tend to play themselves out over a generation or more. By the same token, the relevant media in which these clashes are played out aren’t the newspapers or television or the internet. By the time we’re reading the newspapers or watching CNN, we’ve already got our paradigm in place—just like the reporters we’re watching, who just keep reporting from within their own set paradigm, over and over again. When it comes to shifts of political paradigm, these take place principally through books, which expose people to an idea at length and in depth; and in schools, where such books are studied and discussed, especially universities. If we are interested in the reconstruction of the paradigm that has served as the foundation for Israel’s existence, that’s where the work is going to have to be done.

See: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions - Thomas S. Kuhn


Three Must Read Essays

Start with Lee Smith's Hollow Men.

Next read Yoram Hazony's Israel Through European Eyes.

Follow that up with Daniel Gordis' The Tower of Babel and the Birth of Nationhood.

The three tie together.

There is a big picture truth in these three.

Israel is the fulcrum of the world. In these three essays, there is a glimpse of the lever that moves nations and shapes our future.

ht: Kosh's Shadow and Spin Strangeness & Charm - twitter link.

Friday, July 16, 2010

I-dosing - The Latest Battle Front Of The War On Drugs

Occasionally there is something in the news that just seems so over the top that it might possibly be a prank.

This one is from Wired.

See: Report: Teens Using Digital Drugs to Get High

I-dosing involves donning headphones and listening to “music” — largely a droning noise — which the sites peddling the sounds promise will get you high. Teens are listening to such tracks as “Gates of Hades,” which is available on YouTube gratis (yes, the first one is always free).

Those who want to get addicted to the “drugs” can purchase tracks that will purportedly bring about the same effects of marijuana, cocaine, opium and peyote. While street drugs rarely come with instruction manuals, potential digital drug users are advised to buy a 40-page guide so that they learn how to properly get high on MP3s.

Oklahoma’s Mustang Public School district isn’t taking the threat lightly, and sent out a letter to parents warning them of the new craze. The educators have gone so far as to ban iPods at school, in hopes of preventing honor students from becoming cyber-drug fiends, News 9 reports.

This strikes me as being just plain silly, both the fad and reaction to it.

I half wonder if it is just a bunch of kids trying to freak-out their parents.

It also reminds me of Larry Niven's Wire-heads.

Except . . .

. . . I now have this terrible urge to play some Philip Glass music . . .

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

Of Riots And Renting Votes With Borrowed Money

See: The disintegration of the welfare state

Democracies produced Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, fulfilling the expectation of Socrates and Machiavelli that democracies end in tyranny. Now democracies are fulfilling the complementary expectation of Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman that democracies end in bankruptcy. Put a democracy in charge of the Sahara, Mr. Friedman once said, and sand itself will become scarce. Democracies are indeed profligate trustees – or have been for the past 30 or 40 years. Mr. Friedman’s primary fret, though, was the tendency of democracy to centralize political and economic power in the same hands. Most critiques of democracy reflect this elemental distrust. “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb,” Benjamin Franklin reputedly said, “voting on what to have for lunch.”

Democratic self-deprecation isn’t quite as funny as it once was. Mobs have already taken to the venerable, iconic streets of European states, notably among them Greece, birthplace of Athenian democracy. It’s apparently easier to give wealth away than it is to take it back. Democracy assembled the welfare state peaceably enough. Can democracy dismantle it as peaceably? No, it can’t. The mobs are not finishe

Further down in the article is this gem:

“The adoption of Keynesian analysis provided politicians with a rationale for borrowing money to buy votes.”

And here we in the US find ourselves, much as our cousins on the other side of the Atlantic do, broke and deep in debt.

The trouble stems from the fact that you can't really buy a person's vote. At best you can only rent it, one election at a time.

It doesn't take a degree in economics to understand that borrowing money to pay a rent is madness.

Not that madness seems to bother politicians much.

And where will it all end?

Democracies have made people more dependent on the state than any humanitarian necessity required. For Italy, and for other democracies, the worst is surely yet to come. Already, hundreds of thousands of middle-class people have thronged the streets of Paris and Rome, of Milan and Sarajevo, of Reykjavik and Bucharest (where demonstrators stormed the presidential palace, an insurgent act that evokes the spectre of revolution). The World Socialists’ website proclaims an age of rage ahead – and chillingly quotes British historian Simon Schama: “You can smell the sulphur in the air.”

Fun times ahead my comrades. Fun times indeed.

Sunday, July 11, 2010

More Oil Rigs Preparing to Leave The Gulf

See: Diamond Offshore Drilling Announces New Term Floater Commitment

Devon was one of three operators of Diamond Offshore rigs that invoked a force majeure clause in their contracts, claiming that the drilling moratorium would prevent the rigs from working. Diamond Offshore said late last month that it does not believe a force majeure exists under the terms of those contracts and is working with its customers to assess each situation.

[Emphasis is mine-Syrah]

This was at the bottom of a Wall Street Journal article published on the 9th.

Democrat President Obama's disastrous handling of the oil spill, particularly in his strange and oddly tenacious attempts to shut down all deep-water drilling in the Gulf, will have long term consequences for the US and for the world.

Its a big planet. Those oil rigs can be moved anywhere in the world. We are very likely to see a number of them end up off the coast of Brazil much to the benefit of Petrobras and its investors.

The US can profit from the Oil in its territories, or not. It looks like Obama and the Democrats would prefer that the US is made even more dependent on foreign sources of oil.

Saturday, July 10, 2010

The Oil Rig Exodus Begins

See: First rig sails away over drilling ban

"There are two types of rigs in the deep-water Gulf today: those that are leaving the country and those that want to, because with this moratorium hanging over their heads, they simply can't go back to work," Brady said. "I'm afraid this is the first of many rigs and many American jobs to leave the Gulf."

The first rig to leave the Gulf is headed for Egyptian waters.

The Democrat Obama Administration is going to destroy the US Deep Water Drilling industry.

HT: to Squatch at C2

An Ambitious, Lame-Duck Session

The Democrats are about to get their clocks cleaned. That doesn't mean that they will just go away. They are planning a humongous lame-duck party where they can pass huge whopping gobbs of legislation in a big fat "Fuck-You!" to all of the American people that have voted them out of office.

See: The Obama-Pelosi Lame Duck Strategy

Democratic House members are so worried about the fall elections they're leaving Washington on July 30, a full week earlier than normal—and they won't return until mid-September. Members gulped when National Journal's Charlie Cook, the Beltway's leading political handicapper, predicted last month "the House is gone," meaning a GOP takeover. He thinks Democrats will hold the Senate, but with a significantly reduced majority.

The rush to recess gives Democrats little time to pass any major laws. That's why there have been signs in recent weeks that party leaders are planning an ambitious, lame-duck session to muscle through bills in December they don't want to defend before November. Retiring or defeated members of Congress would then be able to vote for sweeping legislation without any fear of voter retaliation.

"I've got lots of things I want to do" in a lame duck, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D., W. Va.) told reporters in mid June.

Get ready people. This is going to be an ugly Autumn.

Thursday, July 8, 2010

Will The Democrat Administration Destroy The US Deep-Water Oil Drilling Industry And Increase US Dependence On Foreign Sources Of Oil?

The Democrat Obama Administration has asked a Federal Court to reinstate its deep water oil drilling ban in the Gulf of Mexico.

See: Obama Asks Court to Reinstate Ban on Deepwater Drilling

The Interior Department, which oversees oil and gas exploration on public lands and offshore, is charged with the “prudent and safe” management of those resources, the court filing said.

“A short-term suspension of deepwater drilling while safety regulations are updated is necessary to achieve that goal,” the document stated.

In his original decision to grant a preliminary injunction against Democrat President Barak Obama's Deep-Water Drilling Moratorium, Judge Feldman wrote: This Court is persuaded that the public interest weighs in favor of granting a preliminary injunction. While a suspension of activities directed after a rational interpretation of the evidence could outweigh the impact on the plaintiffs and the public, here, the Court has found the plaintiffs would likely succeed in showing that the agency’s decision was arbitrary and capricious. An invalid agency decision to suspend drilling of wells in depths of over 500 feet simply cannot justify the immeasurable effect on the plaintiffs, the local economy, the Gulf region, and the critical present-day aspect of the availability of domestic energy in this country.

The world does not sit around on its thumbs when Democrats try to stop things. The Democrats only have jurisdiction over so much of the world. The rest of the world can and will move on.

See: Stop the oil, not job creation

A prolonged moratorium would only make an awful situation worse.

Before the administration takes action on the moratorium, here are questions that decision-makers should ask: What would an extended moratorium on deepwater drilling really mean for the country? Are the perceived benefits worth the real costs?

The spill is already taking an enormous toll on the people in the communities around the Gulf that depend on the jobs and wages that deepwater drilling provides. If the moratorium overcomes the current legal challenge and is reinstated, this toll would only increase.

Oil companies cannot let their rigs go idle in these difficult economic times. If they are denied access to Gulf resources even for a short period, they will take their operations to promising new locations off Brazil, West Africa or China and sign new leases.

Once the rigs leave the Gulf it becomes very tough to get them back. Tens of thousands of Gulf residents are directly — and indirectly — employed by the offshore industry. When the rigs leave, so will their jobs. The scenario has been rightfully compared to the auto industry leaving Detroit.

If this moratorium debate drags on, the rest of the nation could get hit as well. Without this critical source of domestic, affordable fuel, we would be forced to import even larger amounts from overseas.

We already spend $1 billion a day on foreign oil. With a moratorium, that number will rise and our dependence on OPEC grow. Both outcomes increase our energy and economic insecurity — moving the country in the wrong direction.

Interestingly enough, and one possible explanation for the Democrat Administration's urgent and tenacious efforts to put in place and keep in place, a crushing moratorium on US Deep-Water Oil Drilling, may lead back to one of its largest campaign donors, George Soros.

In another part of the world, off the coast of Brazil, large deep-water oil deposits have been discovered. Petrobras, the Brazilian oil giant is poised to begin exploiting those oil deposits. Interestingly, George Soros is one of Petrobras' largest investors. As with Petrobras, George Soros is also one of Obama's and the Democrat Party's largest “investors.” Petrobras needs some deep-water oil drilling rigs to become available so that it can exploit its rich deep-water oil deposits. The Democrat Administration's devastating drilling ban has made many of those deep-water oil drilling rigs available.

Better yet, once those deep-water oil drilling rigs are moved and put inplace far abroad, the US fields that they had served will be effectively shutdown for many years to come, increasing the market value of all of that foreign deep-water oil, and the value of George Soros' huge investment in Petrobras, all that much more.

Is the tail waging the dog?

See also JCM's: C2 Saturday A.M. Bulldog Edition for more on the odd Oil Spill Clean-up problems and the strange connections between George Soros, Barak Obama, the Democrats, and Brazil's Petrobras.

Friday, July 2, 2010

The Health Care Scheme And The Making Of Political Pawns

During the political debate that accompanied the Democrat's health-care scheme's passage, you may have encountered one or two or more people for whom the issue was personal, because they were both poor and had pre-existing conditions that made private health-care insurance something that was beyond their reasonable financial means.

These people were (and still are) in a terrible bind.

For them, the health-care debate was important because they saw themselves as being direct and immediate beneficiaries of the socialized medicine scheme.

I would hope that if I was in their desperate situation, that I would be able to stand on principle and still be able to oppose having my health-care subsidized by the forced appropriation of other peoples earnings. That would be a difficult position to be in. None of us should think it easy to stand on principle when doing so means the strong likelihood of suffering a miserable life and an untimely death.

It is important to keep in mind that they have an extremely difficult time considering the implications of socialized health-care dispassionately. They are directly and immediately involved. They are looking for something that will give them hope for a life that will not be one long grind of depressing poverty and poor health.

I know people like this. I am sure that you do too.

I worry for them.

They have put so much of their hope for a better life into the sweet promises of socialized medicine that they are the ones that will be the most hurt by the inevitable politicization of health-care that is the real heart and driving force of the socialized medicine scheme.

Now for the rest of their lives, they will be whipsawed and terrorized by the unscrupulous Democrats that have now made them desperately dependent on the generosity and and good will of the political class. They will be made the pawns of evil Democrat politicians that will parade them about as victims to be pitied and a reason for which the rest of us should surrender ever more of our earnings and our rights to an ever growing government.

It has already begun.

Take the following news article.

See: Health law risks turning away sick
The Obama administration has not ruled out turning sick people away from an insurance program created by the new healthcare law to provide coverage for the uninsured.

Critics of the $5 billion high-risk pool program insist it will run out of money before Jan. 1, 2014. That’s when the program sunsets and health plans can no longer discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions.

Administration officials insist they can make changes to the program to ensure it lasts until 2014, and that it may not have to turn away sick people. Officials said the administration could also consider reducing benefits under the program, or redistributing funds between state pools. But they acknowledged turning some people away was also a possibility.

There it is. “. . . it will run out of money . . .“ - “. . . they acknowledged turning some people away was also a possibility . . .”

The chronically ill and those with per-existing conditions are now political pawns in a very dirty political game.

We have seen this kind of thing done before (in every election for the last 60+ years) by the Democrats with Medicare and Social Security.

The Democrats will now work to frighten the hell out of the people that they have made dependent on Obama-care by threatening them with misery and death if they vote for anyone but Democrats. This will now happen in every election from now till the end our nation's days.

The chronically ill and those with per-existing conditions think that Obama's socialized medicine scheme will save them. The reality is that they have been reduced to political pawns, to be forever paraded about by Democrats as pathetic and helpless miserable victims in order to help the political class rob the rest of us of our earnings and our rights. On top of that, they will be forever threatened by Democrats with ruin and death at every election should the Democrats ever lose at the ballot box.

Heaven help us all.

Thursday, July 1, 2010

Russian Spy Suspect Jumps Bail?

From the "No shit, Sherlock!" desk:

What happens when you allow a suspected Russian Spy to post bail?

See: From Russia With Gripes
All but one of the 11 members of the alleged ring remain in federal custody. One suspect apparently jumped bail Wednesday. Christopher Metsos, who the Federal Bureau of Investigation said shuttled between Moscow and the U.S. to coordinate the spy network, had been arrested Tuesday in Cyprus while preparing to board a flight to Budapest, Hungary. He posted bail as the U.S. sought extradition on charges of conspiracy to conduct espionage and money laundering

Did someone seriously expect a different result?

See also: Christopher Metsos, 11th Russian Spy Suspect, Skips Bail
Justice Minister Loucas Louca admitted that a judge's decision to release Christopher Robert Metsos "may have been mistaken" but said authorities were examining leads on his possible whereabouts.

"May have been mistaken." Ya think?

Off course the loons of the grass-roots left at Democratic Underground think the whole thing is a hoax.

See: Russian Spy case is a US fucking hoax.
This girl sounds like many other intelligent Russians that come to work in the U.S. This whole case falls more in line with Bush plants in the FBI creating a controversy to make Obama look foolish after his meetings with Medvedev. As Sergei Lavarov said already the timing is very suspect.

I think the DU guy is serious. I think he really believes that.

[Highlighting in the quotes is mine. - Syrah.]

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

"just suck it up; otherwise, the world's going to be destroyed from global warming."

I don't want to spend much time or energy on the Sexual Harassment complaint against Democrat Fmr. Vice President Al Gore.

While these things rather glaringly highlight the opportunistic hypocrisy of the left, there is usually very little that I could or would even want to add to the stories.

But there is something that I saw in a Byron York article that caught my attention.

See: Sex complaint against Gore is detailed, credible
Finally she got away. Later, she talked to friends, liberals like herself, who advised against telling police. One asked her "to just suck it up; otherwise, the world's going to be destroyed from global warming."

If Gore were a Republican, the left would be ripping him to shreds over this. Instead, we see them trying to dissuade this woman from pursuing her complaint by telling her that if she does, the world is going to die a horrible death, and it will be all her fault.

Its almost funny.

But they were serious.

Monday, June 28, 2010

5 to 4 - The Supreme Court reaffirmed the constitutional right of US citizens to keep and bear arms.

See: Gun rights extended by Supreme Court
Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the court, said the Second Amendment right "applies equally to the federal government and the states."

The court was split along familiar ideological lines, with five conservative-moderate justices in favor of gun rights and the four liberals, opposed.

The article's headline is an insult. The Supreme Court did not extend gun rights. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the constitutional right of US citizens to keep and bear arms.

The ruling is a must read.


The following is excerpted from the ruling, starting at page 23.
After the Civil War, many of the over 180,000 African Americans who served in the Union Army returned to the States of the old Confederacy, where systematic efforts were made to disarm them and other blacks. See Heller, 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 42); E. Foner, Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution 1863–1877, p. 8 (1988) (hereinafter Foner). The laws of some States formally prohibited African Americans from possessing firearms. For example, a Mississippi law provided that “no freedman, free negro or mulatto, not in the military service of the United States government, and not licensed so to do by the board of police of his or her county, shall keep or carry fire-arms of any kind, or any ammunition, dirk or bowie knife.” Certain Offenses of Freedmen, 1865 Miss. Laws p. 165, §1, in 1 Documentary History of Reconstruction 289 (W. Fleming ed. 1950); see also Regulations for Freedmen in Louisiana, in id., at 279–280; H. R. Exec. Doc. No. 70, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 233, 236 (1866) (describing a Kentucky law); E. McPherson, The Political History of the United States of America During the Period of Reconstruction 40 (1871) (describing a Florida law); id., at 33 (describing an Alabama law).18

Throughout the South, armed parties, often consisting of ex-Confederate soldiers serving in the state militias, forcibly took firearms from newly freed slaves. In the first session of the 39th Congress, Senator Wilson told his colleagues: “In Mississippi rebel State forces, men who were in the rebel armies, are traversing the State, visiting the freedmen, disarming them, perpetrating murders and outrages upon them; and the same things are done in other sections of the country.” 39th Cong. Globe 40 (1865). The Report of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction— which was widely reprinted in the press and distributed by Members of the 39th Congress to their constituents shortly after Congress approved the Fourteenth Amendment19—contained numerous examples of such abuses. See, e.g., Joint Committee on Reconstruction, H. R. Rep. No. 30, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 2, pp. 219, 229, 272, pt. 3, pp. 46, 140, pt. 4, pp. 49–50 (1866); see also S. Exec. Doc. No. 2, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 23–24, 26, 36 (1865). In one town, the “marshal [took] all arms from returned colored soldiers, and [was] very prompt in shooting the blacks whenever an opportunity occur[red].” H. R. Exec. Doc. No. 70, at 238 (internal quotation marks omitted). As Senator Wilson put it during the debate on a failed proposal to disband Southern militias: “There is one unbroken chain of testimony from all people that are loyal to this country, that the greatest outrages are perpetrated by armed men who go up and down the country searching houses, disarming people, committing outrages of every kind and description.” 39th Cong. Globe 915 (1866).20

Union Army commanders took steps to secure the right of all citizens to keep and bear arms,21 but the 39th Congress concluded that legislative action was necessary. Its efforts to safeguard the right to keep and bear arms demonstrate that the right was still recognized to be fundamental.

The most explicit evidence of Congress’ aim appears in §14 of the Freedmen’s Bureau Act of 1866, which provided that “the right . . . to have full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty, personal security, and the acquisition, enjoyment, and disposition of estate, real and personal, including the constitutional right to bear arms, shall be secured to and enjoyed by all the citizens . . . without respect to race or color, or previous condition of slavery.” 14 Stat. 176–177 (emphasis added).22 Section 14 thus explicitly guaranteed that “all the citizens,” black and white, would have “the constitutional right to bear arms.”

It is an important ruling.

4 of the 5 Supreme Court Justices opposed it.

Elena Kagan is now up in front of the Senate for her Confirmation hearing.

If she were on the Court, how do you think she would have ruled?

Senator Robert Byrd Is Dead

I will not praise the man.

Here is the Press Release from the Governor of West Virginia.

June 28, 2010


Contact: Sara Payne Scarbro, 304-558-2000 or

Gov. Joe Manchin today released the following statement after learning about the passing of U.S. Sen. Robert C. Byrd:

"Gayle and I are deeply saddened by the passing of our dear friend and great senior Sen. Robert C. Byrd.

"Like all West Virginians, the news broke our hearts. Sen. Byrd was a fearless fighter for the constitution, his beloved state and its great people.

"He made a significant mark as a member of Congress in both our state's and nation's history. His accomplishments and contributions will define history for eternity.

"Our hearts and prayers go out to his daughters, friends and loved ones, his committed staff and to the people of West Virginia; we have suffered a terrible loss."

- Gov. Joe Manchin

He is dead.

A requiem for the man.

May God have mercy on him.

May God have mercy on all of us.

Sunday, June 27, 2010

Is There A Soros Connection To The Offshore Drilling Moratorium?

From: The Drilling Ban Is Soros' Bonanza
If the moratorium stands and energy prices rise, the only ones to profit will be foreign-owned companies such as Petrobras and investors such as George Soros, who has an investment in the oil giant in the neighborhood of $900 million. Yes, the same George Soros who also is a major investor in the Democratic Party and President Obama's 2008 campaign.

Soros would love to see domestic offshore drilling shut down and those three dozen deep-water rigs sitting idle shipped off to the coast of Brazil. He has a huge investment in both Petrobras and the Democrats. He expects a return on all his investments.

While we track the trail of oil gushing from Deepwater Horizon, we should also follow the money that will be gushing into George Soros' bank account, courtesy of the U.S. government and the American taxpayer.

What purpose does the Offshore Drilling Moratorium serve?


From: Moratorium Won’t Reduce Drilling Risks
Nor is it clear, if the moratorium went into effect, the pullback would be all that temporary. For one thing, the moratorium is contingent on a special commission making yet more safety recommendations in six months, but there is no guarantee they’ll be done by then. Meanwhile, there are only so many floating rigs in the world, and Brazil, for instance, has just embarked on a $200 billion drilling program. (You read that right: $200 billion.) It takes a month to move an idle rig from the Gulf of Mexico to Brazil, where it will likely stay for years. So a six-month moratorium would quite likely have far greater effect on American oil production that it would seem at first glance.

So again,- What purpose does the Offshore Drilling Moratorium serve?


From an article in the Wall Street Journal, published in August of 2009.

See: Obama Underwrites Offshore Drilling

The U.S. is going to lend billions of dollars to Brazil's state-owned oil company, Petrobras, to finance exploration of the huge offshore discovery in Brazil's Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro. Brazil's planning minister confirmed that White House National Security Adviser James Jones met this month with Brazilian officials to talk about the loan.

The U.S. Export-Import Bank tells us it has issued a "preliminary commitment" letter to Petrobras in the amount of $2 billion and has discussed with Brazil the possibility of increasing that amount. Ex-Im Bank says it has not decided whether the money will come in the form of a direct loan or loan guarantees. Either way, this corporate foreign aid may strike some readers as odd, given that the U.S. Treasury seems desperate for cash and Petrobras is one of the largest corporations in the Americas.

And again we should ask, - What purpose does the Offshore Drilling Moratorium serve?

[UPDATE - Monday, June 28th, 2010 - 13:00]


JCM at Correspondence Committee just pointed me to a post that he put up on this subject back on Saturday the 19th.

See: c2 saturday a.m. BULLDOG

I don't think any of this was planned. Obama is relying on process instead of action. A process which bolsters his contention that fossil fuel is bad, and that we need huge "investments" (read taxes) to get to alternative energy sources.

The drilling moratorium sounds like "action" but again is process, a process which directly or indirect benefits some of his closest advisors.

The advice he is getting is both process oriented, and tainted.

The result is not fixing the problem, but supporting other agendas. I do not believe it is a conspiracy in that there was or is a "plan." It is like with much of the left a "distributed conspiracy" that a bunch of individuals with similar goals, working each on their own little piece to push events in a way that matches their worldview.

A perfect storm of events, personalities, ideologies, and agendas driving the outcome toward what they prefer.

I agree. Not a conspiracy so much as tainted advice and the natural outcome of a group of people working from a shared world-view.

There is also a lot at stake.

I think that we should keep all of this in mind along with the tenacity the Administration has displayed in its efforts to keep the Moratorium in place, even after it has been overturned by a federal court.

What purpose does the Offshore Drilling Moratorium serve? Why the urgency to reinstate it?

The Gulf Of Obama Oil Spill Crisis

The Gulf Oil Spill Crisis belongs to Obama and the Democrat Party, not BP.

Politics, nothing else but politics, made the spill much more of a disaster then it needed to be. For that, the blame belongs to Obama and the Democrats, not BP.

BP was blocked from bringing in outside assistance by the Democrat Obama Administration. From that point forward, the responsibility for the disaster belongs to no one but Obama and the Democrat Party.

See: Avertible catastrophe

In sharp contrast to Dutch preparedness before the fact and the Dutch instinct to dive into action once an emergency becomes apparent, witness the American reaction to the Dutch offer of help. The U.S. government responded with "Thanks but no thanks," remarked Visser, despite BP's desire to bring in the Dutch equipment and despite the no-lose nature of the Dutch offer --the Dutch government offered the use of its equipment at no charge. Even after the U.S. refused, the Dutch kept their vessels on standby, hoping the Americans would come round. By May 5, the U.S. had not come round. To the contrary, the U.S. had also turned down offers of help from 12 other governments, most of them with superior expertise and equipment --unlike the U.S., Europe has robust fleets of Oil Spill Response Vessels that sail circles around their make-shift U.S. counterparts.

Why does neither the U.S. government nor U.S. energy companies have on hand the cleanup technology available in Europe? Ironically, the superior European technology runs afoul of U.S. environmental rules. The voracious Dutch vessels, for example, continuously suck up vast quantities of oily water, extract most of the oil and then spit overboard vast quantities of nearly oil-free water. Nearly oil-free isn't good enough for the U.S. regulators, who have a standard of 15 parts per million -- if water isn't at least 99.9985% pure, it may not be returned to the Gulf of Mexico.

(You should read the whole thing. I would have quoted the whole thing, which covers more than I have cited, but the Financial Post deserves the traffic. Give them a visit. It is worthwhile.)

For some people, specifically meaning Obama and the Democrat Party, politics is more important than effectiveness. BP may have been the source of the spill, but they are not the reason it has become a disaster. Obama and the Democrats own this disaster because they prevented BP and other outsiders from helping to mitigate it.

The Obama Administration is the most partisan administration that this nation has seen since Johnson, and the most progressive since Wilson. For them, Politics trumps everything. Obama and the Democrat Party are the reason this spill has become a disaster.

Remember that in November.

Repay Obama and the Democrat Party for their role in turning the Gulf of Mexico into an ecological disaster zone.

Thursday, June 24, 2010

How President Obama lost "big-time" to the Rolling Stone

From its very beginning, even in its very title, the Rolling Stone article The Runaway General never seriously pretended to be anything but a hit piece written to make Gen. McChyrstal and his staff look like a bunch of cartoon-ish clowns on the very verge of going full-tilt maverick.

The President had an obligation and a duty to be The Commander In Chief AND The President Of The United States in this affair, carefully weighing the evidence and carefully considering the consequences of his words and actions on our nation's interests, our efforts in Afghanistan and elsewhere. In my judgment, he failed miserably when he accepted the General's resignation and with his remarks in the Rose Garden.

The Runaway General was an article written with the intent of creating a destructive division between the General and his state-side superiors. President Obama made the article succeed in that. President Obama gave the Rolling Stone the win, without even much of, or any real fight at all.

President Obama should have turned the situation around and made it clear that our success in Afghanistan was not going to be jeopardized by an over the top and ridiculous hit piece produced by a silly music magazine with its extremist attempt to make the General and his staff look like idiots.

The President could have then made the observation that while commanders in the field may have differences of opinions with their civilian leadership back home, they understand and are fully committed to our nations tradition and principle of the primacy of civilian leadership over the military.

He could have further remarked that it is natural for every General, and in fact, every President, to want to provide our soldiers with all of the tools, materials and troop levels necessary to assure overwhelming victory in the field, but it is the unfortunate nature of political reality that it is not always easy or even possible to provide as much material and personnel support to the troops in the field that we would all like. He could have made a half-humorous aside at this point that he is personally very glad that no shitty little Rolling Stone reporter has overheard and misreported his private complaints about the difficulties he has had in providing the military with everything that they have have asked for in their efforts to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The President should have then berated those people in his Party and in the press who have tried to liken Gen. McChrystal to Gen. MacArthur, pointing out that at no point in any part of that stupid execrable article or in any other report about Gen. McChrystal from anywhere else, did he actively engage in the same kind of blatant and extra constitutional attempts to undermine the President's authority and our nations tradition of Civilian leadership of the military in any way or fashion resembling the excesses of General MacArthur.

The President should have then concluded by expressing his confidence in the abilities of Gen. McChrystal, his staff and his efforts to help make Afghanistan a successful, productive and peaceful nation.

Instead, Obama FUBARed it.

This was a Sister Souljah moment for President Obama and he flubbed it "big-time."