A short bio on Voltaire.
October 31, 2015
CNBC anchor lied about Donald Trump negotiating the length of the CNBC debate.
But this from The liberal Huffington Post on October 16th, prior to the debate, states otherwise:
Looks like Donald Trump is getting his way.Trump and fellow Republican presidential hopeful Ben Carson sent a letter to CNBC on Thursday threatening to not participate in the next GOP debate if it exceeded 120 minutes, including commercial breaks. In a tweet Thursday, Trump claimed CNBC had agreed to limit the debate to two hours.Both Politico and CNN reported Trump's claims were true, saying the Republican National Committee began calling campaigns Friday morning to inform them the debate would be restricted to 120 minutes.The business mogul also took to Twitter to make his disdain for a long debate known.
Okay tinfoil hat time - that's so easy to check. It's too easy to expose the lie. So why do it? Are the liberal media now attempting to generate sympathy for Trump candidacy in the hopes he becomes the nominee and can be decimated in the general election by Hillary Clinton? I wonder.
October 30, 2015
October 29, 2015
I haven't posted a Dictator Watch in quite some time. In the case of Venezuela, since the passing of Hugo Chavez, I haven't paid as much attention. Yet they are no less a socialist overlord driven society than before.
But their socialist 'utopia' is apprently, and not shockingly, struggling for cash.
The cash-strapped country could default by next year when lots of debt payments are due. Venezuela's reserves, which are mostly made up of gold, have fallen sharply this year as the country needs cash to pay off debt and tries to maintain its social welfare programs.Venezuela owes about $15.8 billion in debt payments between now and the end of 2016.But it doesn't have enough to make good on its payments. Venezuela only has $15.2 billion in foreign reserves -- the lowest amount since 2003. A lot of those reserves are in gold.
So it would seem that socialism in Venezuela cannot survive the fall in oil prices.
October 28, 2015
Rand Paul at the CNBC debate. Good topic, well covered by Paul, but one of too few moments for him to stand out. The other concern, as well versed as he is on the Fed, most voters are not that engaged on the topic. I am coming from the position that being a good policy person and having good ideas does not win a presidency. You need to connect. You need to be likable and you need a moment or two to shine. Being right is not enough.
I liked John Kasich in the past. He's done a lot of good things. And I understand he needed to make some waves by going after the front runners. But geez if he didn't take the moderator's bait, and this doesn't become the attack ad campaign for Democrats if Trump or Carson become the nominee. For that, he loses all credibility with me.
You want evidence that liberals are salivating at this clip? I found this video on a liberal Youtube channel.
On the fly observations of the GOP debate.
Who seems to be doing well:
Cruz - an effective gotcha on the panel's gotcha style questioning. A big round of applause followed.
Rubio - just an overall good job on multiple questions - enough to get him a second look as a lot of people's second choice.
Fiorina - an effective education job on government's role, crony capitalism, and she came across as warmer and more likable.
Christie - the global warming junk aside, he was clear on multiple subjects and just the right amount of forceful and indignant when needed.
Trump - he came across as softer and slightly more likable, which is something he needs.
Kasich - started by disrespecting others on the panel and otherwise did not capture the hearts and minds to keep his candidacy alive.
Carson - good, but uninspiring answers shows he's lacking in the charisma that's needed to win.
Huckabee - seemed too scripted on topics like Social Security.
Paul - invisible, but it didn't seem like it was his fault - he didn't get into the main frays much. He needed to do so.Bush - I look at him and I think he's just so unconnectable to voters, $40 billion dollars in PAC money would not be enough to get him elected
Basically it's on now. Not being a much more than an occasional viewer of CNBC, and having been away from hard core news for a few days due to work, I actually wasn't aware of it.
I don't think this will be a big deal debate, even though it's supposed to be policy-focused. I don't expect any knockout punches to be throw. I don't expect big changes in polling numbers starting tomorrow either. But I'll be watching. Maybe I will have something interesting to talk about tomorrow.
October 27, 2015
You were thinking Obama? Nope, impeachment at the IRS. Not exactly headline news, but worth mentioning in light of the Tea Party targeting scandal.
WASHINGTON—Today, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) and 18 members of the Committee introduced a resolution to begin proceedings in the U.S. House of Representatives to impeach Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Commissioner John Koskinen.In introducing the resolution, Chairman Chaffetz said, “Commissioner Koskinen violated the public trust. He failed to comply with a congressionally issued subpoena, documents were destroyed on his watch, and the public was consistently misled. Impeachment is the appropriate tool to restore public confidence in the IRS and to protect the institutional interests of Congress. This action will demonstrate to the American people that the IRS is under repair, and signal that Executive Branch officials who violate the public trust will be held accountable.”
Hat Tip: Bluegrass Pundit.
October 26, 2015
A recent poll from Gallup indicates that support for the Tea Party is at an all time low.
Americans' support for the Tea Party has dropped to its lowest level since the movement emerged on the national political scene prior to the 2010 midterm elections. Seventeen percent of Americans now consider themselves Tea Party supporters, and a record 54% say they are neither supporters nor opponents.
The headline decries the end of the Tea Party. But the growth come in the form of apathy. The percent of those who consider themselves opponents of the Tea Party has dropped modestly as well. The number of people who do not consider themselves supporters or opponents has grown considerably. That's come predominantly at the expense of Tea Party supporters. But put another way, the total percentage of those aligned with or not opposed to the Tea Party has remained constant. Doesn't sound as bad, does it?
Furthermore, keep in mind that president Obama's job approval polling was at an all time low prior to the 2012 election. He turned it around in time to win, before the ratings waned again, but still reside above his historical lows. The difference is that the Tea Party, is not running for political office - at least not directly. But that doesn't mean their popularity is unimportant.
The question of whether the Tea Party has run its course is actually two different questions: (1) Is there still a need for a Tea Party in America? (2) Has the Tea Party as an amorphous entity run its course. The answer to that is a resounding yes - to both questions.
The Tea Party's ideals are something America desperately needs. Despite the constant liberal media sniping at it, the Tea Party serves to remind Americans who listen, how far the country has drifted from the principles that made the nation great. The need is there. So in that sense the Tea Party has not run it's course.
But as people drift away, or are less inclined to identify themselves as aligned with the Tea Party when asked by a pollster, there is clearly either an image, or energy problem. So the Tea Party needs to reinvent itself, or dissolve and re-grow under a new banner in order to attract new attention and to distance themselves from the false image thrust upon them by an all too willing liberal media. After all, the Tea Party is soooo Obama era. We have new self-declared enemies in the likes of Hillary Clinton. A new opponent requires a new face of common sense standing to oppose it because the old one is not working well enough.
And the fluid nature and disparate objectives of local chapters of the Tea Party made (sorry for the verbiage) a collective push impossible. That's not an inconsequential factor either. A movement requires a single direction, not 47 different objectives that are somewhat aligned.
But other than that, the Tea Party is just fine.
October 25, 2015
You can say what you want about socialist Bernie Sanders, on this he is not wrong:
Sanders (I-Vt.) never mentioned the former secretary of state and current front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination by name, but his message was clear: He has been a man of conviction, prepared to upend the system; she is too often a political weather vane, too cautious and catering to the political establishment.
That is not to say that Hillary doesn't hold some very progressive convictions. She's just more sneaky about them - not willing to come across as progressive for fear of losing supporters, unless she's talking to a progressive audience. Indeed she's not afraid to abandon those convictions in favor of winning - sometimes even contradicting herself within the same debate.
Still, the Washinton Post was quick to come to Hillary's defense in the same article, opening with this:
Bernie Sanders has long said that he would not run a negative campaign against Hillary Rodham Clinton. But his campaign took on a decidedly sharper edge Saturday night at the Iowa Democratic Party’s Jefferson-Jackson Dinner.
It will be interesting to see, with Biden not hopping into the fray, whether Sanders feels he has to step up his negative game going forward.
October 24, 2015
It's about total monkey speed. Watch and see:
October 23, 2015
Weird Al goes after bad grammar. Funny, catchy and most definitely needed in today's culture. Way to go Weird. Or is it Al? Or is Weird Al correct?
October 22, 2015
October 21, 2015
I've been willing to give Trump the benefit of the doubt this election cycle. Maybe he really has become more conservative in recent years. Maybe he really does see that the country is not only under-performing but is on the brink of not being able to recover to it's old glory (pardon the double entendre). But this scares me, and I'll tell you why.
The Republican presidential front-runner said he did not think Biden could have won the Democratic nomination, saying to thunderous cheers from the audience that he would much rather take on Hillary Clinton in the general election."Frankly, I really want to run against Hillary," Trump said. "That's the one we want to go against. You go against that record, you're just gonna win. We're gonna win."Trump added that Clinton had made "so many mistakes."
True, Clinton has been a disaster as a Secretary of State. Her record of accomplishments is actually extremely thin. She's really not so formidable. Except she is. Despite Benghazi, the Russian Reset, emailgate, and everything back to Whitewater, she's still leading most polls on the Democrat side and is faring well enough against Republicans. Why? Is she Teflon or bulletproof? Maybe but that's not my concern with respect to Trump's comments.
If he's serious about saving the country, wouldn't he want to go against someone not so formidable? Why wouldn't he want a slam dunk victory?
(1) He's clueless. Remember him trying to resurrect the Obama birth certificate issue after most of us had moved on to Obama's poor decisioning? He doesn't understand how difficult she will be to beat.
(2) He's displaying false bravado. But why? This is still far enough out that he can't possibly think the reverse psychology will scare Hillary voters into a Bernie Sanders vote instead.
(3) He delusional - he really thinks he's unbeatable. No comment needed on how problematic that is.
(4) This one scares me the most - he's a Democrat Manchurian candidate meant to implode when finally facing Hillary Clinton or if he fails to do so, carry out the Democrats' agenda anyway.
Of course there is the possibility he's right, but this time it seems less plausible than an actual Trump presidency - which makes a Trump presidency all that much less likely.
It's a good day for Hillary Clintyon - Joe Biden will not run for the presidency in 2016.
Interestingly, Biden was not silent about Clinton's referral to Republicans as her enemy. He suggested it was divisive instead of inclusive. Sounds like a shot at the leader of the race on the Democrat side.
I for one thought h'd jump in. I have to wonder if he's looking towards the possibility of being acclaimed leader as a result of a brokered convention. With it becoming a two horse race, that seems less likely, but it's still not impossible.
October 20, 2015
This via Politico indicates that Carly Fiorina's time in the GOP race upper echelon have come to an end:
Carly Fiorina's time near the top of the Republican polls may have come to an end, as another national CNN/ORC poll out Tuesday suggests. Just 4 percent of Republican or Republican-leaning voters said they would cast their votes for her in a primary election, down from 15 percent in September...Fiorina's poor showing comes a day after she finished in sixth place with 7 percent in a similar NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll of national Republicans.
A few bad polls and you are out? If she quit based on that, then she's not fit to be president. She's surged, after a debate as a matter of fact, and she can do it again. She needs more visibility, and that means another debate because she's not getting the coverage of a Trump or Clinton, and in a crowded field, you need visibility.
But don't expect her to fold. It's still way too early for that unless your name is Walker or Perry.
Harry Reid has endorsed Paul Ryan for speaker. What?
Harry Reid just gave Paul Ryan an unwelcome endorsement for speaker.The Democratic leader offered his surprise backing for Ryan (R-Wis.) to assume the House speakership, saying he hopes Ryan runs and wins the job because he's a "Paul Ryan fan.""He appears to me to be one of the people over there that would be reasonable. I mean look at some of the other people," Reid said. "I don't agree with him on much of what he does. I think what he's done with Medicare and Medicaid, what he's wanted to do I disagree with. But generally speaking we've been able to work with him."
Now that's a head-scratcher. What should Paul Ryan do when the devil endorses him? I think I'd quit pursuing the job.
October 19, 2015
Not another Trudeau. That very name makes Obama seem like a National Review conservative. Justin Trudeau's father Pierre Elliot Trudeau, the most liberal prime minister Canada has ever seen, did a lot of damage to the country during his tenure. Now his son has been handed a majority government by a lot of gullible voters and promises to do more of the same.
This does not bode well for Canada. When a platform
includes features legalizing marijuana and a destructive tax increase for the 1% (which actually affects a lot more people than 1%), you know things are not going to go well.
Conservatives had a good lengthy of run but they ironically in an effort to be more moderate ended up just being dull. They didn't make a noticeable difference and did not electrify their base. Indeed they managed annoy a lot of potential voters during the election cycle by appearing heartless on Syrian refugees - not wrong, just heartless. They were the authors of their own demise. They had no reason to lose, but a lackluster four years and a lackluster election campaign, they blew an election they could have, and should have won. In four years the Liberal party will undo the the last decade of conservative advances.
It's a shame.
You've seen the Norm MacDonald fake Colonel Sanders ads for Kentucky Fried Chicken by now. It's funny and clearly, he's not the real Colonel Sanders. It's just as funny when Hillary Clinton tries to do it.
It didn't work in 2007/2008, but she seems to think a fake accent will help her now.
October 18, 2015
Despite being the world's most followed religion, Christianity seems to be under assault - from the socialist left, from radical Islam (yet again), from Russia, from atheists and their sympathizers, faux Christians who would rather stand with its persecutors than their fellow Christians (despite evidence to the contrary), and governments, among other groups.
Christianity is under siege. It's unfortunate because so much of Western society, our culture, our beliefs, our once great work ethic, are rooted in Christian principles. Socialism is not Christian despite what some would have you believe. And Christianity, and traditional values such as liberty, self-reliance, and morality are good things, not bad things, or things that should bend to other values like collectivism and immorality. Christianity should not quietly succumb to persecution. As Christians we should defend our faith and extol the virtues of what is great about Christianity.
Labels: Christianity under siege
October 17, 2015
Remember when Hillary Clinton's husband had Elian Gonzalez returned to Cuba at gunpoint? All you need to know about how the child turned out 15 years later is revealed in this quote, via CNN:
"Fidel Castro for me is like a father," Gonzalez said in an interview with Cuba's state-run media in 2013. "I don't profess to have any religion, but if I did my God would be Fidel Castro. He is like a ship that knew to take his crew on the right path."
Isn't that just wonderful?
October 16, 2015
October 15, 2015
Disclaimer: I have no prior exposure to Red Pill Philosophy. I do not purport to know more about his philosophical views, other than the brief exposure to what I've seen in the video below. Therefore I do not condone or denounce anything beyond what is discussed below.
Regardless of what someone's beliefs are, Youtube censorship of ideas is a dangerous thing. By censoring via managing it's monetization policies, Youtube is trying to cleverly avoid the label of internet censors. The ideas may be abhorrent, they may be anathema to Youtube's advertising clients. But should that simply not mean that advertisers should be able to opt out of that particular user's Youtube videos? Why is Youtube trying to manage millions of new videos every week, something it simply cannot hope to manage? Youtube does have the right and obligation to protect itself from supporting slander, inciting of violence etc. But there has got to be a smarter way.
I watched the Democratic debate the other night on CNN. I think it's worth mentioning that Anderson Cooper did a decent job. There were no great moments, but I did notice that Hillary Clinton tried to create space between herself and Bernie Sanders and that was important. While Sanders remained true to his socialist roots he tried maintain that he did value America's entrepreneurial spirit, he believed that America had a lot to learn from countries like Sweden and Denmark.
Clinton, pounced - subtly. It was a shrewd move, if not a deceptive one. She isn't that far from Sanders in many respects. But she positioned herself as a capitalist, but trying to win votes on both the left and right, she talked about small business versus big business and maintained that occasionally we (meaning government presumably) have to do things to save capitalism from itself. That no doubt includes wealth re-distribution and/or crippling regulation.
Another thing that stood out - no one seems to care about Hillary's email trouble. Why? Because it's a black eye on her and the party. Kudos again to Cooper for stating that many people do care about it.
Another observation - Martin O'Malley was drab. He isn't likely to get traction from the debate that translates into polling success. Could that be the cue for Joe Biden to get in the race?
Canada's federal election is on October 19th. What had been a tight 3 way race started to open up a bit a few weeks ago, with the socialist NDP party falling back to their traditional third place territory and polls showing either the Conservative party or the Liberal party pulling ahead. That was then. The three latest polls all have shown the Liberals, led by unproven neophyte Justin Trudeau (son of the most progressive liberal Prime Minister Canada has ever had, Pierre Elliot Trudeau), pulling ahead of the Conservatives. Unproven but popular, sounds familiar doesn't it. Unproven typically means unqualified, right?
It doesn't matter.
Polls have been notoriously erratic in recent years - in 2012 there were as many polls showing Mitt Romney beating Obama as there were showing Obama winning. But in this case there's a trend that's emerging. Conservatives having led the country for quite a few years, have been bland. "Stay the course" is not a rallying message to inspire voter turnout or political empathy.
Interestingly the Conservatives and the socialist NDP have promised to continue balanced budgets. Trudeau has promised billions in deficit spending - openly. And it looks like the Liberals are going to win right now, with only days to go before the election. Worse for the conservatives is that even if they d pull out a minority government (more seats in parliament than either other party but not more than the two combined), Thomas Mulcair, leader of the NDP has vowed to form a coalition government with the Liberals to ensure that Prime Minister Harper never leads this country again. That would be bad because the country would not just move left, it would move further left than if the Liberals simply win a minority government again, as in that case they could rely on the NDP to support most of their legislation without having to include conciliatory elements for the socialist left.
So for the conservatives, the best case, another majority government is seemingly off the table. A Conservative minority victory would likely see them out of power unless the Liberals and NDP could not reach an accord (which was the case last time they tried). The best case may be a Liberal minority government in the hopes that much of what they do is unpalatable to the NDP and the NDP along with Conservatives force another election after not too long. And the worst case - a Liberal majority government - which is also not very likely.
None of those options indicate a continued Conservative government at this time. Dark days indeed, we can now only hope that the recent polls are flawed. We saw how well that worked for Mitt Romney in 2012.
October 14, 2015
October 13, 2015
Jeb Bush must be panicking. Why else would he suddenly be making a pronouncement that he would repeal and replace Obamacare? Leading from behind, Bush is looking for a gamechanger;
Bush is the third major Republican candidate to release an Obamacare-centric plan, along with US Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida) and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker unveiled his healthcare proposals earlier this year before he dropped out of the race.
Highlighting that this is about votes rather than conviction was this,
As part of its effort, however, the Bush campaign said it would introduce a "transition" plan for what it estimated were 17 million individuals it said have become "entangled in Obamacare."
Bush clearly sees the polling that shows, despite his fundraising advantage, he's not connecting with Republican voters. Hence the timing of this announcement. The odd part is that it happens on the same day as the first Democratic candidates debate. It's almost as if Bush wants it buried by other news. Is that deliberate or just him out of tune with what it takes to win a presidential election cycle?
Democrats still gambling on Hillary Clinton to win the presidency in 2016 should pay close attention to the first Democratic debate in Vegas today. Martin O'Malley is going to be the game changer in this debate, no matter what he does, or doesn't do.
Make no mistake, O'Malley needs to have a game changing performance. Expect him to charge hard at front-runner Clinton as well as the stalking horse Bernie Sanders. He may end up having a stellar performance, he may not. In either case, the fact that he's suddenly going to be part of the narrative, matters. Here's why.
O'Malley can make a difference to the race by having a good debate and chewing into Hillary Clinton's supporter base. That would weaken her relative to Sanders and also the non-committal, not-in-the-race Joe Biden. If this becomes a 4 way race, even with O'Malley at the bottom of the totem pole, the race tightens.
Of course the supporters that shift to O'Malley could come more from Biden and/or Sanders supporters. That would only help Hillary Clinton's lead, which seems to shrink with each subsequent poll. That too changes the face of the race. Does Biden stay out if his support base shrinks, or if Hillary's lead widens? Or does he stay out even if his support remains unchanged but O'Malley has such a strong showing as to indicate a sudden momentum?
The third scenario is one in which O'Malley does not distinguish himself as relevant (i.e. he pulls a Scott Walker). While this is less likely, O'Malley could stumble or fail to impress, even though he's geared up for this to be his shot, his launch pad. But suppose he does nothing worthwhile, doesn't that provide the impetus for Biden, who has been sitting on the sidelines until after this debate passes, to hop right in and join the fight? O'Malley may be the reason Biden has not yet declared himself a candidate.
Tonight, despite all the distasteful socialist, progressive and liberal rhetoric, will be a game changer and conservatives should pay attention because more so than any GOP debate so far, this will affect the race in a major way. Conservatives should be prepared for their eventual opponent be it Hillary or anyone else and this debate could very well be the beginning of determining who our opponent will eventually be.
October 12, 2015
This interview, complete with some cleverly hidden words, shows the president is not on Hillary's side and will not run cover for her on the Emailgate scandal.
(1) He claims to have not known about it when it happened. In other words this is her own scandal, not anyone else's.
(2) It's been "ginned up" "in part" because of politics. So he's saying (or implying at least) that there's legitimate concern there as well.
Thanks Obama, that's actually helpful.
October 11, 2015
October 10, 2015
Wait until after the debate. Either Bernie Sanders is going to bury her, or else make her look really, really good. I suspect it's the former, and I wouldn't be surprised if he has a surprise to reveal about her.
Meanwhile, her poll numbers seem to be cratering;
Just days before she will take the stage in the first Democratic debate, Hillary Clinton's lead over rival Bernie Sanders has narrowed, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll.Clinton's support among Democratic voters fell 10 points within less than a week.From October 4 to October 9, Clinton saw her support tumble from 51 percent of Democratic support to just 41 percent. Her nearest competitors, Vermont Senator Sanders and Vice President of the U.S. Joe Biden, who has yet to decide whether he will run, both made gains. Support for Sanders jumped from just over 24 percent to 28 percent, and Biden rose from 16 percent to a even 20 percent in the same time period.
As polls go, that's highly unusual to say the least. Are they getting a Comeback Queen meme ready for her?
October 9, 2015
Google, officially secretly supporting Hillary Clinton. This is how you know there's an incestuous relationship between big business and government.
An under-the-radar startup funded by billionaire Eric Schmidt has become a major technology vendor for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, underscoring the bonds between Silicon Valley and Democratic politics.The Groundwork, according to Democratic campaign operatives and technologists, is part of efforts by Schmidt—the executive chairman of Google parent-company Alphabet—to ensure that Clinton has the engineering talent needed to win the election. And it is one of a series of quiet investments by Schmidt that recognize how modern political campaigns are run, with data analytics and digital outreach as vital ingredients that allow candidates to find, court, and turn out critical voter blocs.But campaigns—lacking stock options and long-term job security—find it hard to attract the elite engineering talent that Facebook, Google, and countless startups rely on. That’s also part of the problem that Schmidt and the Groundwork are helping Clinton’s team to solve.
When big business supports a party that has regularly posited anti-business regulation, you know there's a quid pro quo relationship. That relationship - you give us money and we'll support an environment that supports your business at the expense of smaller competitors. Crony capitalism. GE, GM, Google. They're all guilty, along with the Democrats.
If you want to rail against the 1%, make sure you understand what you are upset about rather than blindly assuming it's the Republicans who are the nefarious evil party. A little bit of common sense can go a long way.
The Who live at Royal Albert Hall.
October 6, 2015
If Joe Biden wants to enter the race for the Democratic nomination for president and he wants to win (or at least torpedo Bernie Sanders), this is marketing genius. True it happened back in August, but the seed has been planted. And maybe that's affecting his poll numbers positively and Hillary's negatively. Who knows, maybe Sanders' numbers negatively as well.
At the end of August, while friends were still worrying aloud that he was in the worst mental state possible to be making this decision, he invited Elizabeth Warren for an unannounced Saturday lunch at the Naval Observatory. According to sources connected with Warren, he raised Clinton’s scheduled appearance at the House Benghazi Committee hearing at the end of October, even hinting that there might be a running-mate opening for the Massachusetts senator.Biden and Warren were alone that afternoon, and those around them have been particularly secretive about the meeting. Warren’s spokesperson didn’t return requests for comment."His bet is that disaffection with Hillary will allow him to peel away some of her donors and operatives,” former Obama adviser David Axelrod, who’s spoken about the race with the vice president, told The Associated Press last week, trying to sum up the approach.
Biden, smart as a slow fox (or something like that).
From the "we're too complex for you to understand" file, the Hillary Clinton camp is searching for their catch phrase or slogan. Isn't that confidence inspiring? They need to dumb it down for you. Alas, they can't.
At Hillary Clinton’s campaign headquarters in Brooklyn, staffers are invited to complete a phrase that is written on a wall: “Hillary for ...”Beside it, staffers have plastered dozens of sticky notes with various words and phrases.While the wall could be seen as a freewheeling experiment in the manner of a tech startup, it could also be regarded as symptomatic of a nagging problem for Clinton in the 2016 race: namely, the difficulty she has had in explaining why she’s running for president. “The wall of stickies makes me nervous, because she should be for one vision for America and then maybe she achieves that vision with a bunch of policies,” said Democratic strategist Jamal Simmons. “I’m probably for most of the things on the stickies, but voters will have a tough time digesting a campaign with about a hundred policies.”
If I may be so bold as to suggest a singular slogan, I offer this, which seems to be their mantra anyway:
It is not truth that matters, but victory.
To be honest, it's not mine, it's Hitler's. But if the jackboot fits....
October 5, 2015
There's an article in The Atlantic about Bernie Sanders, the socialist mayor (back earlier in his career). If that doesn't tell you everything you need to know about why not to vote for him, you're probably a Democrat.
The mayor says, “It’s not welfare. It’s money that never should have been taken from you in the first place, for God’s sake.”The old woman looks at him and smiles indulgently. She clearly likes the mayor. “I shouldn’t say this,” she tells him, “but I saw you on TV the other night, with my son, when they finish fixing North Avenue? And my son says to me, ‘That Mayor Sanders, he’s a communist, you know.’ And do you know what I say to him?”Sanders shakes his head no.“I say to my son, ‘Don’t go around saying such things where intelligent people can hear. They’ll think you are stupid.’”She laughs, a silvery laugh, and the mayor laughs, too, and rising from the sofa, he puts his huge hands on her tiny shoulders, thanks her and makes sure Thabault has got her address.Stopping him at the door, the woman says, “I told my son that you’re a socialist, not a communist.”“Precisely!” the mayor shouts.
I'm a murderer, not a mass murderer.
Oh really, what do you murder?
Liberty, self-reliance. Self-respect. But that's all.
Seems like mass murder to me.
When your best defense is that you are less evil than the alternative, that's weak reason for an endorsement of any kind. Even worse, the woman in the story endorsing Sanders had a French accent. The only thing worse than a socialist or a communist is a French one. They're so snooty about it.
Vladimir Putin doesn't give a damn about John Kerry's warning that Russian planes flying over Turkey risk being shot down. He really doesn't Obama blinked on Iran in 2010 and has been blinking like a mole exposed to a 10 million volt spotlight ever since.
Putin meanwhile, does not care what American leaders say. He's going to do what he wants. Actions might change his mind, but that's been noticeably lacking from this administration.
The first thing to understand about Vladimir Putin is that he’s not content just to win. He has to destroy his opponents, foreign or domestic.His deeds may be despicable and his manners far too crude for the Upper West Side, but the guy is a force of nature, a man who — by sheer strength of will — has used a broken country and its rusting military to change the world. Meanwhile, our astonished president sulks like a high school girl stood up by her boyfriend (“But Vladimir . . . you promised!”)...Expect a lot more aggression and violence from Putin between now and Inauguration Day 2017. Obama’s delusional worldview — that of a narrow-shouldered, bleeding-heart undergraduate at a second-rate university — is a gift to Putin that keeps on giving. (In almost seven years in office, Obama still hasn’t grasped that words don’t stop bullets.)
Putin has his own path, and he won't flinch in following it. Not with mamby pamby Chamberlainian leadership in America. Not with China threatening more and more to replace Russia as the Asian superpower. Kerry, your warnings really mean nothing.
October 4, 2015
This is more than astounding, it's violently shocking. President Obama's administration tried to convince Argentina's socialist government back in 2010 to provide the Ahmedinejad regime in Iran with nuclear fuel. This is not some right wing conspiracy (although you probably won't see a banner headline in the New York Times about it). No, in fact this is coming from the president of Argentina herself according to her official website.
In 2010 we were visited in Argentina by Gary Samore, at that time the White House’s top advisor in nuclear issues. He came to see us in Argentina with a mission, with an objective: under the control of IAEA, the international organization in the field of weapons control and nuclear regulation, Argentina had supplied in the year 1987, during the first democratic government, the nuclear fuel for the reactor known as “Teheran”. Gary Samore had explained to our Minister of Foreign Affairs, Héctor Timerman, that negotiations were underway for the Islamic Republic of Iran to cease with its uranium enrichment activities or to do it to a lesser extent but Iran claimed that it needed to enrich this Teheran nuclear reactor and this was hindering negotiations. They came to ask us, Argentines, to provide the Islamic Republic of Iran with nuclear fuel. Rohani was not in office yet. It was Ahmadinejad’s administration and negotiations had already started.
And also in a recent U.N. speech;
Now, Obama will likely face more criticism after Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner revealed in a speech before the United Nations General Assembly on Monday that a former Obama administration official tried to convince Argentina to provide nuclear fuel to Iran sometime in 2010.
Unbelievable. And this only a year after Iran's Green Revolution, and during a period of some pretty nefarious Iranian activities. I'm not sure if it rises to the level of treason but it must be pretty close in trying to help an avowed, self-declared enemy of the West and America in particular become nuclear. Especially so, since they've an undeclared goal of weaponized nuclear capability. One thing is certain however, it does rise to the level of stupid.
October 3, 2015
It appears that Joe Biden is going to run against Hillary Clinton. He's expected to decide next week, but there are early telltale signs already that some in the know expect he will.
Some Hillary Clinton donors are defecting to Joe Biden, resisting entreaties from the Democratic front-runner’s campaign to stand by her despite slipping poll numbers.A few of the fundraisers have gone public with their presidential preference. Others have quietly decamped and signaled their intentions to the Draft Biden 2016 super PAC that is working to prod the vice president into the race for the White House.“Instead of being ready for Hillary, we’re waiting for Joe,” said Bill Bartmann, the founder and chief executive of CFS2 Inc., and onetime donor to Mrs. Clinton’s friendly super PAC. Mr. Bartmann’s switch in allegiance prompted one Clinton campaign official to contact him and ask: “Why are you doing this?” he said.
As George Takei might say, "Oh my!"
A short bio on writer Edgar Allen Poe.
October 2, 2015
I'm not looking for another Bush presidency, but the media continuing to do Hillary Clinton's bidding because the left fears him, and that's unacceptable.
The claim is he callously dismissed the deaths in the Oregon shooting with a "stuff happens". Here's the whole clip however:
What Bush did, was choose words that could be easily taken out of context. A double standard the left never has to worry about - even lies (Anthony Weiner's "my twitter was hacked") get accorded full sobriety and belief.