Tag: politics

But, but, he’s UNELECTABLE

As was the case in 2008, Republicans are going to have to go with Ron Paul if they want to beat Obama. Even with the administration lurching from one debacle to the next, they cannot win by putting up another hated servant of Wall Street and the neocons like McCain, Romney, Giuliani, Palin, Pawlenty, and Huckabee. And this will be especially true when the economy is understood to be continuing on its long march netherward:

Pit maverick Republican Congressman Ron Paul against President Obama in a hypothetical 2012 election match-up, and the race is – virtually dead even. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of likely voters finds Obama with 42% support and Paul with 41% of the vote. Eleven percent (11%) prefer some other candidate, and six percent (6%) are undecided. Ask the Political Class, though, and it’s a blowout. While 58% of Mainstream voters favor Paul, 95% of the Political Class vote for Obama.

As the poll indicates, the Republican Party leadership would much rather lose to an approved mandarin like Obama than elect a real republican who would threaten the bifactional ruling party. No doubt National Review and other “conservative” media sites will soon be finding ways to deprecate these poll findings.

Democrats iz smart

Ever since I was in college, I always found it remarkably amusing that Democrats thought they were the more intelligent party by virtue of the fact that Ivy League academics tend to be left-wingers. They always seemed to forget that there are more crack whores across the country than there are Ivy League professors. Anyhow, courtesy of Steve Sailer, this chart of preferred cable channels by party should further tread the myth of the intelligent Democrat into the mire. SoapNet, VH1, and Nick at Nite… yes, those are most certainly indicators of the American intellectual elite.

Curiouser and curiouser

The Son of Kenya sneaks out and loses the press corps to attend what appears to have been a nonexistent soccer game:

The first Google map shows the path between the White House and the location of the soccer game President Obama said he was going to watch. Distance between the White House and 40th & Chesapeake is 5 miles, or 13 minutes apart. The second Google map shows the path between the White House and the Kenyan Embassy (2249 R Street NW), a distance of 1.5 miles, or 7 minutes apart.

Why does this matter?

On 4/12/10, Jefferson’s Rebels picked up on the story that had recently been circulating the net [courtesy of WorldNetDaily – VD]. We reported on a bizarre comment made by Kenya’s Minister of Lands. James Orengo plainly said on the floor of Kenya’s National Assembly: “If America was living in a situation where they feared ethnicity and did not see itself as a multiparty state or nation, how could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the President of America?”

There is only one rational explanation. Obama, with his spectacular intelligence, was the only one at the White House capable of realizing that Michael Steele had cunningly planted “James Orengo” in the Kenyan ministry and needed to personally explain the dastardly Republican plot to delegitimize his hold on the Cherry Blossom Throne to the Kenyan ambassador.

Actions have consequences

Although they always seem to come as a surprise to liberal Americans:

Experts warn there won’t be enough doctors to treat the millions of people newly insured under the law. At current graduation and training rates, the nation could face a shortage of as many as 150,000 doctors in the next 15 years, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges.

That shortfall is predicted despite a push by teaching hospitals and medical schools to boost the number of U.S. doctors, which now totals about 954,000. The greatest demand will be for primary-care physicians. These general practitioners, internists, family physicians and pediatricians will have a larger role under the new law, coordinating care for each patient.

The U.S. has 352,908 primary-care doctors now, and the college association estimates that 45,000 more will be needed by 2020. But the number of medical-school students entering family medicine fell more than a quarter between 2002 and 2007.

At least the health care you’re not getting will cost you less. So there is that, anyhow.

Anti-republican Republicans

Keep this Kentucky Senate in mind the next time the Republican Party asks you for money to stop the growth of government. Because they don’t mean it. Not even a little. And they never have:

The prospect of a Paul victory scares some Republicans. Former Vice President Dick Cheney endorsed Mr. Grayson last month after conservatives in Washington circulated an e-mail message about what they called Dr. Paul’s “troubling” views on national security. Mr. Grayson’s supporters note that Dr. Paul once argued for closing the detention center at Guantánamo Bay and that he said detainees who cannot be convicted should be sent back to Afghanistan….

Mr. Grayson argues that some of Dr. Paul’s ideas (getting rid of the Departments of Energy, Education and Commerce) are too “weird” for Kentucky. And in increasingly sharp ads, he argues that Dr. Paul is downright dangerous when it comes to foreign policy. “Here’s a guy who is outside of the Republican mainstream,” Mr. Grayson said in an interview here.

Given the disaster that mainstream Republicans proved themselves to be from 2000 to 2006, to say nothing of the Banking Bailout of 2008 that was orchestrated by mainstream Republicans, one would logically conclude that being outside of the Republican mainstream is exactly what is required for both Kentucky and the nation. And needless to say, “troubling views” means nothing more than a refusal to endorse the Imperial America approach to foreign policy.

There is nothing conservative about Imperial America or its self-styled conservative advocates. Nor is it possible to support the Iraqi and Afghanistan occupations while simultaneously claiming to support small and limited government.

The limits of written law

It doesn’t matter how perfectly you attempt to tie it down, government will always find a means of expanding its power:

Minnesota’s Republican governor, Tim Pawlenty, says the new federal health care law is unconstitutional. DFL Attorney General Lori Swanson says it’s not.

If the legal question gets to the U.S. Supreme Court, it may be decided with the help of a long-gone small-time Ohio farmer who once was fined $117 for growing too much wheat.

A key question about the health care bill involves just how far the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce reaches. For nearly 70 years, one influential precedent on that issue has been the peculiar case of farmer Roscoe Filburn, whose crop was deemed to influence commerce “among the several states” — the kind of commerce the Constitution permits Congress to regulate — even though none of the excess wheat left his farm.

Hope, Change, and Murdering American Citizens

I don’t think this is what the Obamatrons had in mind. And I’m not sure which is more appalling. The news that Barack Obama has just decided to start killing American citizens without granting them the benefit of an arrest, a trial, or a conviction, or the fact that writers at National Review are actually supporting his dictate:

The Obama administration has authorized operations to capture or kill a U.S.-born Muslim cleric based in Yemen, who is described by a key lawmaker as Americas’s top terrorist threat, officials said on Tuesday. The decision to add Anwar al-Awlaki, of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, to the target list followed a National Security Council review prompted by his status as a U.S. citizen.

Officials said Awlaki directly threatened the United States. “Awlaki is a proven threat,” said a U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity. “He’s being targeted.”

Rep. Jane Harman, chairwoman of the House of Representatives Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence, described Awlaki as “probably the person, the terrorist, who would be terrorist No. 1 in terms of threat against us. He is very much in the sights of the Yemenis, with us helping them,” said Harman, who recently visited Yemen to meet with U.S. and Yemeni officials. She told Reuters that Awlaki’s U.S. citizenship made going after him “certainly complicated.”

To his credit, Kevin D. Williamson is among the sane “conservatives” left at NRO:

I hate to play the squish, but am I the only one who is just a little bit queasy over the fact that the president of the United States is authorizing the assassination of American citizens? Andy writes that this is “obviously the right call.” I might be persuaded that this is, in fact, the right call. But obviously? No hesitation there? It seems to me that the fact of U.S. citizenship ought to be a bright line on the political map.

Surely there has to be some operational constraint on the executive when it comes to the killing of U.S. citizens. It is not impossible to imagine a president who, for instance, sincerely believes that Andy McCarthy is undermining the Justice Department’s ability to prosecute the war on terror on the legal front. A government that can kill its citizens can shut them up, no? I ask this not as a legal question, but as a moral and political question: How is it that a government that can assassinate Citizen Awlaki is unable to censor Citizen McCarthy, or drop him in an oubliette? Practically every journalist of any consequence in Washington has illegally handled a piece of classified information. Can the president have them assassinated in the name of national security? Under the Awlaki standard, why not?

Odious as Awlaki is, this seems to me to be setting an awful and reckless precedent. Consider how “interstate commerce” has been redefined over time to cover that which is neither interstate nor commerce, for the sake of political expediency. It is easy to imagine “national security” being treated the same way, particularly in an open-ended conflict against a loosely defined enemy.

No, this is not the right call. This is madness. And it is another step in the descent to open and unmitigated evil. There is no other way to describe it. The sickening thing is that without the ludicrous decision to grant citizenship to so many third worlders possessing zero loyalty to the nation, there would be no excuse for legally painting federal crosshairs on each and every U.S. citizen. This isn’t merely a direct assault on the Constitution, it is far more impeachment-worthy than anything Bill Clinton ever did.

If Citizen Awlaki is deemed worthy of government assassination today, you can be assured that other American citizens will deemed “a proven threat” in the future.

Derbyshire is correct

In case you’re wondering why the USA is utterly dooomed, consider the results of a recent Right Wing News poll on which right-wing figures 80 right-wing bloggers like and dislike. (Full disclosure: I was one of the 80 polled.)

How do you feel about Ron Paul?
Strongly like: 7% (6 votes)
Like: 23% (19 votes)
Dislike 28%: (23 votes)
Strongly dislike: 40% (32 votes)

How do you feel about George W. Bush?
Strongly like: 30% (25 votes)
Like: 56% (46 votes)
Dislike 11% (9 votes)
Strongly dislike: 1% (1 vote)

When Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan are on the most unpopular list and Michelle Malkin and George W. Bush are among the most popular among self-styled conservatives, the only logical conclusion is that John Derbyshire is entirely correct. American conservatism is absolutely doomed.

A government of dunces

Obamacare faces immediate corporate blowback:

One of the “cute tricks” passed with Medicare Part “D” (by George W. Bush) was a “tax credit” for corporations who provided health care to retirees from their firms. This too was a distortion – an intentional one put into that bill to “buy off” some key Reps and Senators to insure passage of Medicare Part “D” (the biggest boondoggle and scam in the history of the Republic – until President Obama signed this piece of crap legislation.)

But this legislation repeals that little ditty in the Medicare Part “D” law. Remember, the Democrat talking points were that this bill would “lower your costs” and “make health care more affordable.” It was also called a “jobs bill” – that is, that this bill would create jobs.

Within hours corporations announced intent to recognize the repeal of this exemption – via 8Ks filed with the SEC. This was not a surprise – Caterpillar had warned the Administration, as had other firms, that the bill as written would increase their costs and that they would have to recognize those forward costs.

Securities laws require firms to disclose material changes when they are realized – which in this case means when the bill was signed into law, since they had already analyzed the bill and it’s impact. Legally, these companies are obligated to file the 8Ks disclosing these charges.

The Administration and Democrats generally ignored these folks when they warned of this impact before the bill was passed…. Well, the corporations weren’t lying, and now the 8Ks are flying. Caterpillar has announced an intent to take a $100 million non-cash charge, John Deer $150 million, and AT&T a whopping $1 billion.

We are indeed amused. Obama won’t prove to be the worst president ever, as Wilson and Lincoln almost surely have first and second positions locked down, but he is definitely one of the most comedic. And I suspect that he’s still only scratching the surface of his potential.

They know they’re losing

When you’re losing, change the language:

“NPR News is revising the terms we use to describe people and groups involved in the abortion debate. This updated policy is aimed at ensuring the words we speak and write are as clear, consistent and neutral as possible. This is important given that written text is such an integral part of our work.

On the air, we should use “abortion rights supporter(s)/advocate(s)” and “abortion rights opponent(s)” or derivations thereof (for example: “advocates of abortion rights”). It is acceptable to use the phrase “anti-abortion”, but do not use the term “pro-abortion rights”.

Digital News will continue to use the AP style book for online content, which mirrors the revised NPR policy.

Do not use “pro-life” and “pro-choice” in copy except when used in the name of a group.

So, an “abortion rights supporter” is not “pro-abortion rights”? How does that make any sense? However, I do generally agree with the move away from the pro-life / pro-choice dichotomy. Most abortionettes are not uniformly pro-abortion, they primarily support it in the case of black women or when a baby inconveniently stands in the way of obtaining that all important degree in Starbuck’s managementWomen’s Studies or Walmart receptionistSociology. And “pro-choice” was always stupid. It was as about as reasonable as describing Hitler as “pro-choice” when it came to Jews.

Anyhow, it’s a pretty transparent to cast the anti-abortion movement as anti-rights. Because all rights are good, after all. Personally, I tend to view the two sides as “abortionette” and “decent, civilized human being”. The ironic thing is that it’s usually the ignorant pro-infanticide crowd that attempts to portray the opposition as paleolithic. But if there is one thing that archeology has taught us, it is that pre-Christian societies viewed it as a parental right to murder unwanted children, especially baby girls.