November 13, 2008
Liberals recently bombarded us with bad things that they read about Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber. Among the claims they had, on authority, were that Gov. Palin thought that Africa was a country and that Joe the Plumber was a relative of Charles Keating. Ha ha!...and Dan Quayle can't spell potato. Oh, they are soooo brilliant! Well, I'm here on better authority to tell them that they were duped, which is not hard to believe since Obama duped them, too.
Here are the "corrections."
A Senior Fellow at the Institute of Nonexistence (Selections)
It was among the juicier post-election recriminations: Fox News Channel quoted an unnamed McCain campaign figure as saying that Sarah Palin did not know that Africa was a continent.
Who would say such a thing? On Monday the answer popped up on a blog and popped out of the mouth of David Shuster, an MSNBC anchor. “Turns out it was Martin Eisenstadt, a McCain policy adviser, who has come forward today to identify himself as the source of the leaks,” Mr. Shuster said.
Trouble is, Martin Eisenstadt doesn’t exist. His blog does, but it’s a put-on. The think tank where he is a senior fellow — the Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy — is just a Web site. The TV clips of him on YouTube are fakes.
And the claim of credit for the Africa anecdote is just the latest ruse by Eisenstadt, who turns out to be a very elaborate hoax that has been going on for months. MSNBC, which quickly corrected the mistake, has plenty of company in being taken in by an Eisenstadt hoax, including The New Republic and The Los Angeles Times.
Now a pair of obscure filmmakers say they created Martin Eisenstadt to help them pitch a TV show based on the character.
The pranksters behind Eisenstadt acknowledge that he was not, through them, the anonymous source of the Palin leak to falsely claim that he was the leaker....
Mr. Gorlin and Mr. Mirvish say the blame lies not with them but with shoddiness in the traditional news media and especially the blogosphere.
In July, after the McCain campaign compared Senator Barack Obama to Paris Hilton, the Eisenstadt blog said “the phone was burning off the hook” at McCain headquarters, with angry calls from Ms. Hilton’s grandfather and others. A Los Angeles Times political blog, among others, retold the story, citing Eisenstadt by name and linking to his blog.
Last month Eisenstadt blogged that Samuel J. Wurzelbacher, Joe the Plumber, was closely related to Charles Keating, the disgraced former savings and loan chief. It wasn’t true, but other bloggers ran with it.
These liberals remind me of the smart alec kids in grammar school who waved their hands wildly to have the teacher choose them for the answer to a problem (Ooh, ooh, Teacher, pick me, pick me!)--and, then, get it wrong. It's still funny.
Authored by Woody
November 02, 2008
Who said the following?
"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
A. A socialist leader to suppress domestic opposition
B. A U.S. Presidential Candidate
D. You still here? You better run to vote.
* * * * *
Why do we need an internal army that we haven't needed before? Who are these agents of suppression supposed to protect--the public or the government? Are there any individual rights that bother Democrats?
I don't know about you, but this worries me. If Obama admits to wanting this internal military force, what is he not telling us? It's not hard to imagine. This is change...the wrong kind.
Posted by Woody
October 30, 2008
Socialism is better defined by its goals rather than its means to those goals. For instance, does it matter if redistribution of the wealth is brought about by actual government ownership of the means of production, the technical definition, or by government control of the private means of production--which is Obama's approach? The result is the same.
However, Obama's plan is a better plan for government socialists. Rather than government ownership of business, his plan simply takes over control and takes the rewards of private enterprise, while leaving the risks with the business owners who have to make it work and who are more motivated and forced to be more creative than government management. Nice.
Consider this a warning of what Obama with a Democratic Congress could do to businesses, especially small businesses, to get that control. Obama could and likely will mandate many of the following possibilities onto companies.
25 Obama Mandates:
- Mandated days off to vote
- Mandated paid holidays
- Mandated health care insurance (which he still refuses to explain)
- Mandated increases in matching social security taxes
- Mandated low hiring qualifications
- Mandated jobs for employees lost to automation
- Mandated hiring quotas
- Mandated minimum wage increases
- Mandated wage adjustments for "comparable worth"
- Mandated child care programs for employees
- Mandated union recognition with no secret ballots
- Mandated profit limits and "excess earnings" tax
- Mandated "volunteer" social work
- Mandated welfare tax credits advanced by companies
- Mandated gay marriage benefits
- Mandated paid maternity leave for moms and dads
- Mandated severance and extended unemployment benefits
- Mandated retirement contributions
- Mandated redistribution of existing retirement balances
- Mandated religious tolerance for Muslims and observance of their holidays
- Mandated rehab and continued employment for addicts
- Mandated safety requirments beyond all reason
- Mandated fees and taxes for "global warming"
- Mandated price controls
- Mandated rationing - the best one
Businesses, particularly small ones, will have their backs broken with mandates.
But, that shouldn't matter to Obama's base, which thinks that it doesn't have to fear for their jobs, as Obama, with a Democratic run Congress, could mandate that business owners forego profits to maintain employment levels--until they are all out of business. It's all in the name of the common good.
It's socialism, no matter how it is accomplished, and it's being pushed by people who think that it's government which makes our country great rather than its people--and they are wrong and should be denied their chance for the wrong kind of change.
Authored by Woody
June 16, 2008
Do you want to know what you can expect about freedom of choice and privacy when it comes to your own medical care after government pushes into that field? You may not have any. Now that Massachusetts has "universal health coverage," look at how they are fighting to control private clinics.
Mayor Thomas Menino and members of his public health commission object to Walgreen's plans to open a clinic.... Their complaint: Competition from retail clinics might draw patients away from the state’s network of community-health centers....
...the Massachusetts Public Health Council has issued its planned set of rules governing the operations of retail clinics. The rules, which refer to "limited-care clinics," require the clinics to offer patients and primary care physicians with access to electronic medical records, among other things.
And, how is the state government doing with managing costs that were supposedly thought out?
When Massachusetts launched its landmark universal health insurance initiative nearly two years ago, the state put off addressing rising costs so it could expand coverage immediately. Now those costs are dominating the discussion as the state faces a recession and pivotal funding decisions that could make or break health reform.
A short-term funding problem - closing a budget gap of about $100 million by July 1 - may be solved quickly if the state approves an increase in the cigarette tax and devotes the money to healthcare reform, as is widely expected. A larger issue will also come to a head by July 1: the need to secure a new three-year commitment from the federal government to pay for half the soaring cost of insurance subsidies. Massachusetts is seeking up to $1.5 billion....
Government doesn't handle garbarge collection as well as private collection companies. Now, it wants to take over health care, force out private clinics, ignore privacy concerns, and increase taxes to run the bureaucracy. Should we look forward to what Barack Obama and the Democrats plan for the rest of the nation?
Authored by Woody
May 14, 2008
Leftist: "True patriotism is in expressing one's opinion"
Rightist: "OK, I'll buy that. In my opinion...."
Leftist: "Shut up you damn fascist!"
March 07, 2008
From the LA Daily News...
Shawn Sage long dreamed of joining the military, and watching "Full Metal Jacket" last year really sold him on becoming a Marine. But last fall, a Los Angeles Superior Court commissioner dashed the foster teen's hopes of early enlistment for Marine sniper duty, plus a potential $10,000 signing bonus.
..."The judge (Children's Court Commissioner Marilyn Mackel) said she didn't support the Iraq war for any reason why we're over there," said Marine recruiter Sgt. Guillermo Medrano of the Simi Valley USMC recruiting office. She just said all recruiters were the same - that they `all tap dance and tell me what I want to hear.' She said she didn't want him to fight in it."
Sage, 17, said he begged for Mackel's permission. "Foster children shouldn't be denied (an) ability to enlist in the service just because they're foster kids," he said.
...Mackel said she denied delayed enlistment to an eager Navy recruit as well, Medrano said. She expressed concern that recruiters treat recruits "like another warm body," he said. "She said, `All you care about is your numbers."'
...When he graduates and turns 18 in June, it'll be all Semper Fi, bonus or no signing bonus, whether he's allowed early deployment or not. ..."I didn't do it for the signing bonus, because I'm a motivated kid," he said. "I am hoping to join the military before I graduate. I want to serve my country."
This young man may one day fight for the freedom of this anti-U.S. judge. That's some appreciation she shows for someone willing to sacrifice his life to protect her. Shawn Sage seems like a good kid. He deserves better. The judge doesn't.
Do you think that the judge and her defenders would express faux outrage if her patriotism was questioned? Well, I question it.
Authored by Woody
Other Posts on this subject....
News Blaze: An Open Letter to Commissioner Marilyn Mackel
Michelle Malkin Special report: Tracing the Left’s escalating war on military recruiters
February 07, 2008
...on the brouhaha in Berkeley wanting the Marine Recruiting Station out of the city limits, because frankly, those folk are all nitwits and that is being oh-so-very generous. But, my friend Raven pointed me to a blog called From The Halls To The Shores with the most exquisite reply to Media Benjamin and her followers in the Code Pink organization cult of anti-US zealots. Put Mike the Marine on your favorites list or book mark. You won't regret it.
January 31, 2008
...the Berkeley City Council...voted 8-1 to tell the U.S. Marines that its Shattuck Avenue recruiting station "is not welcome in the city, and if recruiters choose to stay, they do so as uninvited and unwelcome intruders."
In addition, the council voted to explore enforcing its law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation against the Marines because of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
And it officially encouraged the women's peace group Code Pink to impede the work of the Marines in the city by protesting in front of the station. ...the council voted 8-1 to give Code Pink a designated parking space in front of the recruiting station once a week for six months and a free sound permit for protesting....
This is one time that I agree with the city of Berkeley, but for a different reason. The Marines should leave because the city isn't worthy of protection. But, I'm sure that the city makes liberals proud, because you won't hear any Democratic or liberal leaders condemning these actions.
If the Marines leave, I hope they bring out the last flag.
Authored by Woody
November 06, 2007
Al Gore, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, Oscar winner, High Priest of Global Warming, confidant of the IPCC, burner of copious amounts of jet feul in private jets and owner of a huge energy inefficent home. And chief spokesman of the Kyoto accords which even his boss knew better than to submit to the Senate for ratification.
Al Gore, and others push for lowering our CO2 "footprint" and increasing the use of bio-fuels to help with that process. Bio-fuels, those fuels made from the distillation of bio-mass. Any bio mass will do, but some of the best is from grains. Including corn, wheat, rice etc.
Do you remember the movie Soylent Green, or perhaps No Blade of Grass? Eco thrillers about what happens when population becomes too big, food becomes too scarce. Of course that was science fiction, and everyone knows that science fiction doesn't become fact. But the reality is, that the greenies, by deliberately pushing bio-fuels have invoked the law of unintended consequences. People are starving because what could have been food, is being used to produce bio-mass to produce bio-fuels to allow users of fuels another period of time (A day? A week? A year?) where they won't have to make the hard choices of a sensible energy policy.
Instead the demand for bio-fuels is growing and in the long run, people will die becuase of the short-sighted program. Glenn Reynolds the Instapundit states: "BIOFUELS ARE NOW officially evil." but some of us have been saying that for some time. The link above is to an article in The Guardian and the article states rather clearly:
It doesn't get madder than this. Swaziland is in the grip of a famine and receiving emergency food aid. Forty per cent of its people are facing acute food shortages. So what has the government decided to export? Biofuel made from one of its staple crops, cassava. The government has allocated several thousand hectares of farmland to ethanol production in the district of Lavumisa, which happens to be the place worst hit by drought. It would surely be quicker and more humane to refine the Swazi people and put them in our tanks. Doubtless a team of development consultants is already doing the sums. [emphasis added]Shades of Soylent Green for sure.
Those wishing to play politically correct games with the lives of people should be ashamed:
"Last March, President Bush and Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva signed an agreement committing their countries to boosting ethanol production. They said increasing use of alternative fuels would lead to more jobs, a cleaner environment and greater independence from the whims of the oil market.
Ziegler called their motives legitimate, but said that "the effect of transforming hundreds and hundreds of thousands of tons of maize, of wheat, of beans, of palm oil, into agricultural fuel is absolutely catastrophic for the hungry people."
The world price of wheat doubled in one year and the price of corn quadrupled, leaving poor countries, especially in Africa, unable to pay for the imported food needed to feed their people, he said. And poor people in those countries are unable to pay the soaring prices for the food that does come in, he added."
So, the next time you fill up with e-85 or feel strongly about the non-issue of global warming, think about that child in Africa, and demand a rational energy policy from the Democrats in Washington and the President making kissy face with Brazil.
November 05, 2007
There is a new evil in the world, and it comes in the ubiquitous plastic bottle. It covers 2/3rds of our planet, life as we know it cannot exist without it, and many don't have sufficient clean and potable supplies of it. It is called water. Di-Hydrogen Monoxide. H2O. Ay matey, that fluid that mixes so well with a good bourbon or scotch.
That liquid state of matter that allows us our coffee and tea and is an integral part of climate change (whether the GW enthusiasts admit it or not). The stuff coming out of the sky in April to produce the "flowers, that bloom in May." Yes, putting it in a bottle so that people can buy it and transport it fairly easily is the new evil. Don't believe me? How could you not believe me, this is a transcendental issue, one more important than Darfur, more important than Iraq, more important than Christmas Merchandising.
Yesterday, Eric posting at Classical Values noted
... all this talk of taking a politically correct "pledge" not to drink bottled water makes me feel like running out and buying several cases on general principle.
The activists are also screaming that bottled water leads to war:The Women's International League of Peace and Freedom has launched a three-year "Save the Water" campaign, on the notion that drinking bottled water encourages privatization, which can lead to wars over water.
This really shouldn't come as a shock, because I heard about a recent incident involving an employee who was scolded at work for drinking a bottle of water from Fiji. Until then, I hadn't known there was such a thing about politically incorrect water, so I asked, and I was told that the objection was that because bottled water is transported, while tap water comes out of the faucet, that bottled water eats up more carbon than tap water, and the longer the distance from the source, the more carbon is burned.
But a lot of things are transported long distances -- many of them a lot more frivolous in nature than water. Does it matter whether the water industry helps the Fiji economy, or is that irrelevant?
In this world of carbon credits, save the dolphins, massive musical galas worldwide to stop global warming while at the same time putting millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere to transport those singers and their crews, it is becoming increasingly obvious that those with a chip on their shoulder about this or that, about something or other are less interested in what is truly going on than in making themselves feel relevant. Oh sure, they decry this wastefulness, want to save this or that animal but really, what is this all about. We hear folks like Ted Kennedy saying the rich don't pay enough in taxes; does TK overpay to show he really cares? Does he chip in a few tens of thousands of dollars so that a few middle class won't have to pay so much? Is Al Gore willing to move into a small home to reduce his carbon footprint?
How about John Travolta preaching to us about global warming while he maintains his numerous airplanes because "he likes to fly?" Is John Edwards willing to live in the "other" of the two Americas? And so it goes with this newest fad, some people don't have access, some carbon is used to transport it and it causes "privatization" which will surely bring war down on our heads.
Any bets on what the next "newest best thing" is going to be? [/rant]
H/T to Classical Values via Glenn Reynolds
October 27, 2007
From a psychological standpoint, the question is "Do people make choices based on the size of their bank accounts and what they have to pay the taxman?" If Charlie Rangel (D-NY) has his way, the answer will be a most assuredly yes as tax coffers grow by some trillion dollars. You read that correctly. A T.r.i.l.l.i.o.n. dollars! That is the size of the taxman's bite should America be foolish enough to elect a "progressive" to the White House and leave the Democrats in charge of the two houses of congress.
In an editorial in Friday's Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal we find this:
You can't say Charlie Rangel lacks for ambition. The House Ways and Means Chairman has been saying he wants to pass "the mother of all tax reforms," and even that doesn't do justice to the trillion-dollar tax baby he delivered unto Washington yesterday."The Associated Press has put it slightly differently:
"No one thinks his plan has a chance of becoming law this year, but its beauty is as a signal of Democratic intentions for 2009. In proposing what would be the largest tax increase in history, Mr. Rangel is showing the world what he wants the tax code to look like if Democrats run the entire government." [emphasis added]
" WASHINGTON - The House's top Democratic tax writer outlined a $1 trillion plan Thursday to eliminate the alternative minimum tax and ease the tax burdens of most people by asking the rich and some companies to pay more. "Which leads one of my favorite people, Donald Luskin to state:
"Consider that single word "asking." Tax laws don't ask people to pay. There's no questioning involved, no opportunity for the taxpayer to answer when "asked." Laws require people to pay, command them, force them, coerce them, under penalty of imprisonment."And therein lies the tale. In the "progressive mind" the proper place of taxes are to take from what you have earned and spread that among those who, for one reason or another, haven't earned it, but whom the "progressives" have deemed have a claim on yours by dint of their physical, mental, emotional health, their location, their education or lack of it, their status as a victim of someone or some natural disaster. It is the ultimate in the well practiced tactic of the left of class warfare. For a group that believes in equality, the left sure does do the class thing a lot.
If we go all the way back to Marx and Engles, the basic idea was for the lower "classes" to rise up, throw off their shackles and take over the means of production so that all would be equal. For the left in general, and the progressives in particular this has a great deal of meaning. For it is equality of result that they seek, not equality of opportunity despite all their talk of "level playing fields." Take education for example, buy claiming that so many were being disenfranchised by poor schooling (in spite of the fact that the term disenfranchise has little to do with "education" per se) the left was able to shame the rest of us into funding a massive education establishment with tens of thousands per student in more spending over a 12 year period with no appreciable return on the dollar. In fact, there is more than enough justification to state catagorically, for a lot of reasons, not just dollars spent, that the quality of "learning" by today's youth is much less than it may have been in my daughters time, my time or my parent's time. The same holds true for poverty spending. Despite massive transfers of wealth from the more to the less fortunate, there are still significant problems with poverty relative to the rest of the nation.
But, the progressives and the left continue to push their tax breaks for those that pay few if any taxes because tax policy buys votes, or, as Alexander Tyler put it because tax largess buys votes. Well, what Tyler actually said is:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse (bounty, gifts, donations, generous giving, etc.) from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising them the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by dictatorship.
Democracies progress through this sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependence; from dependence back again to bondage.[emphasis added]"
So, what will it be citizens, sell your vote cheaply because you are envious of others, or insist on tax policy that makes sense, eliminates wasteful spending and represents the true functions of government as opposed to curing every ill that comes down the proverbial pike?
UPDATE: Greg Mankiw's Blog has some real numbers:
October 26, 2007
Hugo Chavez seems determined to disallow anyone to interfere with his naked grab for power by "reforming" the constitution of Venezuela. Does this look like a functioning democracy to you?
Note the persuader the policeman on the right is carrying. Yep, a fully functioning democracy you bet. Sort of reminds me of this one. Tyrants - once installed, it's hard to change your mind!
October 24, 2007
October 19, 2007
When you next hear someone in that hell-hole called the United States Congress or the United States Senate wailing about the lack of insurance "For The Chi'ren" I want you to take a deep breath, consider the face of the lying scalliwag and imagine a large load of cow excrement suddenly dropping on their head.
Senator Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) has introduced amendment 3358 to the HHS funding bill that essentially states that until all children under the age of 18 are insured either via government or private insurance policies that no "pork barrel spending" can be attached to the HHS bill. That means no new gizmo for Senator Strident's home town, no new study by a thinktank that contributed to Senator Jerk or no new highway project leading to some obscure little island off the coast of Alaska. No new pork!
There are those readers, no doubt, who will say that I am surruptitiously castigating Liberals and Democrats for pork spending, but I'm really not. I'm including Republicans in the mix. They have, in the past, been as bad and sometimes even worse then the Democrats when it comes to "special projects." But it will be interesting to see if Senator Coburn's amendment is passed and exactly who votes for it considering who was most strident in attacking President Bush's veto of the SCHIPS bill. It will also be interesting to see if it survives the hammering out of differences between the House and the Senate. My bet is that the "majority" will vote for it, but that it will get dropped from the bill after the house/senate reconcilliation is done. That way, people can say that they voted to eliminate pork, but then also vote their pork in.
You see boys and girls, Senator Coburn has the right idea, everyone in America has the right to expect the House and Senate to get rid of the fat; afterall its our money. But the reality is, they really don't give a flying flip through a rolling donut for you as a person or taxpayer. They really only care about being re-elected, all of 'em.
So, Senator Tom, you keep fighting the good fight, and keep on recognizing the little victories, and maybe it will change the process. But, you being a Dr. and all, you know the consequences of holding your breath.
October 14, 2007
There are times when I cannot believe the extent that some folks will go to, to make total assess of themselves. And believe me, this is not an issue of being liberal or conservative, I've seen both in action and when it happens both disgusts me. However, there are some actions that go above and beyond any rational, logical, level-headed actions and rise to the heights of a cloud cuckoo land.
Such are the current plans of the Madman of London Ken Livingston. Livingston has a long history of living high on the hog. This most recent plan is estimated to cost £2 million (equivalent to $ 4,068,000.00) and will celebrate (Are You Ready For This?) the 50th anniversary of Fidel's Communist Revolution in Cuba! Speaking at a public meeting Livingston said
"We've got the backing of the Cuban government for a massive festival to celebrate 50 years of justice in Cuba." Oh. My. God. 50 years of JUSTICE? Who are you kidding Mr. Livingston?
Livingston visited Cuba (and Venezuela) late last year and got along famously with the murderous thugs Castro and Chavez. Now, he plans to turn Trafalgar Square into a huge festival for someone that has held Cuba in bondage for 50 years. Livingston touts Cuban health care (a lá Michael Moore), education etc., neglecting to mention the dissidents in prison, murdered, families torn apart, librarian's jailed, food rationed, etc. Well, and why shouldn't he? Livingston is a member of the Labour Party and has been twice elected by the citizens of London as their Mayor, however he has long had the nickname 'Red Ken' and 'Ken Leninspart' for his wildly radical socialism. So, get ready folks for a vision of Trafalgar Square transformed into a Paean for Fidel Castro and Communism in Cuba for the last 50 years.
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.