Republican Tendencies

E-mails show GOP circling Palin in late 2008 - CNN.com:

The MSM is panting and salivating like a starved dog in a butcher shop over the release of Palin e-mails. Let's just review a bit here:

• When Wikileaks brought out the State Department e-mails / memos showing the "real views" on various world leaders, how did they like that? They tried to arrest the guy.
• When hackers got the real climate data records that showed that a lot of Global Warming was a hoax, how did they like that? They tried to arrest the hackers. 
• What was their attitude on getting BO's birth certificate? Columbia or other school records? Information about his time at ACORN? Maybe his e-mails of early Chicago politics would be interesting? Guess not -- I could imagine the Press being curious, but curiosity this selective makes them essentially a palace guard for Democrats. 
• What is the normal position on "invasion of privacy"? 

It is easy to understand of course. They HATE Sarah Palin, and want her out of their sight anyway they can make that happen.

 I always wonder though, if people are born with "Republican tendencies"? Even though all their teachers and classmates are liberal, they somehow see things differently.  They see how Republicans are treated in the media, and the first few times they make comments in maybe history or government class about "personal responsibility", or potentially "how do we KNOW what is really "progress"", the strong disapproval let's them know they are "different"?

I guess it must be true though that being a Republican is a choice --  some day in maybe HS or College Sarah woke up, knowing the way things ought to be and "went Rogue" -- she willfully chose evil over good and thus began on the path of enmity with the American media and elites.

There is hope of redemption though. Look at Arianna Huffington. She had a short stint as a conservative commentator in the early '90s during which she was seen as a complete air headed idiot by the left. She subsequently "went left", and is now viewed as one of the most brilliant women in the world, taking in $315 Million on the sale of her Huffington Post far left web site.

So while some things about humans are innate, others can be put on and off like fashions. It is a good thing we have the liberal elites to tell us which are which!

Liberal "Fact" On Deficits

Tim Pawlenty’s Economic Plan: Lies and Lunacy - The Daily Beast:

Last month, the CBO released a little-noted document, which I first encountered via Bruce Bartlett, breaking down the debt this country has accumulated since 2001. The grand total of debt is $11.8 trillion. Of that, more than half, or $6.2 trillion, was added because of lost revenue, while $5.6 trillion was added because of spending. Now you may look at those numbers and say, well, spending is almost half. And yes, it is. But what’s interesting in this chart is that the lost revenue figure matches exactly the actual current deficit.

For those who reside in the world of fact, it’s beyond question that the decrease in tax revenue because of the Bush tax cuts and the economic meltdown that resulted from conservative deregulatory policies has done more than spending to create the crisis. Unfortunately, we don’t live in a world of fact. We live, instead, in a world of right-wing ideological lunacy. And so we get things like Tim Pawlenty’s jaw-dropping economic plan, which ignores completely our revenue reality.

Here is a link to the "little noted document":
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12187/ChangesBaselineProjections.pdf

In the liberal world, you willfully declare the sub-prime meltdown to be a "Republican problem due to de-regulation", completely ignoring the fact that the whole creation of the sub-prime market was a Democrat program to give folks without good enough credit a "deal" on homes. That is exactly like creating crack cocaine and blaming lack of drug laws / enforcement for there being problems caused by it. Was sub-prime abused? Helllllooo ... what else would you expect!!! Government programs are ALWAYS abused, they create a false and unsustainable reality, just like cocaine ... that is why a smaller government is MUCH safer!!

Then you make up numbers:

• The hated "Bush tax cuts" were supposedly responsible for $1,186 of the $6,220 ... you do all you can to make it sound like those were the culprit, they were 1/6th of the problem 
• "Tax Act of 2010" $354 Billion, ... Democrats in control of all 3 branches ... 1/4 the size of those horrid tax cuts. Bush??? Hate to say it, he left office in Jan '09!!
• ARRA = TARP ... 2009, $253 Billion, BO, 60 votes in Senate, big house majority. Bush? I don't think so.
• Note 2007, last year of Republicans in control of house/senate. Total deficit $161 Billion. One of the best kept secrets in the American media!
• Total deficits 2008-2011 after Democrats took over House / Senate followed by WH in 2009 $4,565

There you have it. Your own party is hugely ('08) and TOTALLY ('09 -'11) responsible for the numbers (unless of course you want to give Bush / Republicans credit for the surplus in 2001, they did have both houses from '94-2006), but who is it that is a "lunatic and a liar"??? The folks responsible for $1,635 B out of $6,200 B ... SIMPLE!!!!

Does anyone really need any more to understand why this country is over the cliff and falling like a rock??? Vast sections of the media and electorate have a willful disregard of fact.

"Change" in Perspective

The Factory of Selective Moral Outrage - Page 1 - Victor Davis Hanson - Townhall Conservative

Good summary of a few of the selective outrages on various topics, financial meltdown, Patriot Act, the wars, etc. a lot of media outlets, entertainers and people have shifted 180 degrees on exactly the same issues now that their ideology is in the WH.

As it says at the end; General "Betray Us" is now up for head of the CIA and the left is just fine with that!

Debt Ceiling Sanity

Our Salutary Debt-Ceiling Scare - Charles Krauthammer - National Review Online: "and"

Charles nails it, nothing to add, a worthy column.

Can America See Through BO?

RealClearPolitics - Seductive Beliefs: Part II

Good column by Sowell.

Obama is politically savvy enough to know how to get his point across without blowing his cover.

The fate of the United States of America may depend on how savvy we the people are in seeing what he is doing-- and how soon, before the situation becomes irretrievable.

Finding the Weiner Hacker

iowahawk: Help Me Bring the Weiner Hacker to Justice

This story would of course bring down any Republican congressman in 24 hours, but for a liberal congressman, "stuff happens".

Well done (and funny) coverage by IOWAHAWK in the link. I think that Congressman Weiner ought to contact OJ on the search for Nichole's killer. Like the Weiner Hacker, I'm sure he is still "at large" so to speak ... perhaps Rep Weiner looking in a mirror would aid in the search.

Liberal Alchemy, Opinion to "Fact"

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2013/05/28/study-finds-fact-checkers-biased-against-republicans

I've noted a new MSM device that seems to be designed to turn conservative statements into "lies" and liberal opinions into "facts". Much like lead into gold, it doesn't work if you have a brain you use for something beyond keeping your head from collapsing, but it explains why a lot of the left finds these "fact checkers" to very "factual".

After all, it fits their biases, so it MUST be TRUE! But, perhaps the left ought consider the old saw that "if it conforms to your biases, you ought to strongly consider that it is FALSE".

The fact that, as the Lichter study shows, "A majority of Democratic statements (54 percent) were rated as mostly or entirely true, compared to only 18 percent of Republican statements," probably has more to do with how the statements were picked and the subjective bias of the fact checker involved than anything remotely empirical. Likewise, the fact that "a majority of Republican statements (52 percent) were rated as mostly or entirely false, compared to only 24 percent of Democratic statements" probably has more to do with spinning stories than it does with evaluating statements.

A lot of what goes on in politics, economics, society, etc is a LONG way from "fact". The modern world is loaded with "statistical science" which is pretty much an oxymoron. How good is the economy? Like a lot of such things "it depends" -- what you use to measure it, which parts you give the most focus, how you deal with government vs private, young vs old, etc.

If you can get some "Fact Check Site" to take your cherished position as the "true way" to view the glass (half empty, half full, twice as big as it needs to be, etc) and call the other side liars. The advantage as always goes to the dominant culture -- millions of people that only listen to one side of the news get another way to have their biases confirmed and continue to live a comfortable life in the the thrall of "The Party".

BO Grounds NASA

Column: Is Obama grounding JFK's space legacy? - USATODAY.com

Not a particularly well written article, but the authors are guys that I have enough respect for to read independently of their writing skills.

The fact is that America has lost it's way in so many ways, and NASA is just a small example. We need new leadership, we need a vision beyond the transfer of existing wealth from one pocket to another and general decline.

Space was once a REAL "Final Frontier". I guess I really am getting old -- I'm looking back at the space program of the 60's as "the good old days". Damn ... how did Ronald Reagan manage to remain optimistic and positive out into his 80's? Oh wait, he was Reagan -- he WAS the hope, and he still had the illusion of thinking that Carter was the worst president we would ever have!

The Mythology of BO

Shelby Steele: Obama's Unspoken Re-Election Edge - WSJ.com

Very Very well written and solid analysis. Read it!

Maybe Herman Cain is our only hope?

BO Attacks Boeing

Battling over Boeing: Jobs in Texas threatened | Viewpoints, Outlook | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle: "growth"

The unions have definitely got their moneys worth out of BO. The real message here is that America is increasingly anti-Business. Less jobs, less wealth, less revenue -- say hello to Chicago style corrupt managed national decline!!

Block Maintainence

Seniors, Guns and Money - NYTimes.com

Here we have Krugman, alledgedly an economist and columnist for the "Paper of Record", the New York Times. Assured to be "unbiased" by NBC, CBS, ABC, NPR, CNN, etc. The Wall Street Journal and Fox news are "biased". The real answer? ALL are biased, but falling into the trap of thinking that your biases are "truth" tends to deepen and widen the unacknowledged bias.

Here is a little quote from USA today before we begin -- http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-05-20-cover-generation-wealth_N.htm

Tungare is part of the wealthiest generation in American history — a group of 67 million people 55 and older who are so affluent that the gap between them and younger people increasingly is making the USA a nation of haves and haves-much-less.

Got that? One great way to divide the haves and have nots is by age. Seniors are richer. Way richer.

Much attention has focused on the multimillion-dollar paychecks of corporate chief executives and hedge fund managers, who've enjoyed windfalls at a time when the wages of ordinary workers have stagnated. But the graying of wealth and income may be the most important twist in the new inequality.

Now let's hear what the ever-helpful Mr Krugman has to say about the issue:

Anyway, the truth is that older Americans really should fear Republican budget ideas — and not just because of that plan to dismantle Medicare. Given the realities of the federal budget, a party insisting that tax increases of any kind are off the table — as John Boehner, the speaker of the House, says they are — is, necessarily, a party demanding savage cuts in programs that serve older Americans.

No Paul, the TRUTH is that older richer Americans need to look hard at taking benefits from poorer, younger and unborn Americans. The core of the Ryan plan is to turn Social Security and Medicare from a Ponzi scheme where everyone believes they can get more out than they put in, to a serious safety net program for the NEEDY ELDERLY. Because if the country goes bankrupt, the truly needy will be the ones hurt the worst. It is pretty hard to go back to work when you are sitting in a nursing home with no remaining living relatives.

Eventually, reality will force us to be honest. FICA and Medicare were Democratic programs to buy votes by making promises that it was known could not be kept and would bankrupt the nation. Krugman knows this, the Democrat elite knows that, but to them this isn't about anything but raw political power. They could care less about the fact that their path will hurt the neediest Americans the most of all, just as they care nothing about the fact that their poverty programs have destroyed the lives of millions of their supposed beneficiaries through broken families, addiction, and the loss of the cultural impetus to personal responsibility and work.

If Krugman DID want to do something about "the wealthy", he would do something like what Ryan and the Republicans are trying to do -- admit that the jig is up on vote buying programs, and it is time for those who have been responsible in life and saved for their golden years to pay. While I'm a little short of those actual golden years, I'd consider myself in that group. I'm one of the people that will pay for the Republican approach. What is up? Have I turned benevolent rather than evil as we all know conservatives are at their core?

Actually not. The Democrats programs are nearly guaranteed to give us hyperinflation, while I'm hedged to a degree, there is no way that is good news for my portfolio, let along my children's future. I've still got money in the market, and also money that I would like to see in bonds drawing interest. A bankrupt US is not going to make for great market conditions going forward. I'm getting older and will nearly certainly need more health care. Since someone has to pay for that and I'm certain it won't be the Democrats mythological super-rich, it is MUCH better if we can ratchet down the giveaways to those of us that have put away assets, broaden those that are paying down to say "$50K income",  and focus assistance on the truly needy. That kind of approach is best able to give us some sanity.

While we are speaking of sanity, let those that can afford to pay for treatments that cost $100s of K in their 50's or 60's pay for them and have them -- just like they have their million dollar motorhomes  to arrive in, or multimillion dollar planes. God bless them -- they can be the paying guinea pigs for the advanced stuff that can be available to the rest of us later. 

When Is 80% Not Broad Support?

Minnesota Poll: Big show of support for voter photo ID | StarTribune.com

That party split was reflected in the poll: A whopping 94 percent of Republicans supported photo ID, compared to 64 percent of Democrats.

Any election reform -- so called -- needs to pass with broad bipartisan support," Dayton said last Friday. "So far that proposal has not met that test." In the Legislature, only two Democrats supported the bill.

Got that? Doesn't matter than 60% of your own party supports it, nor that 80% of the population does. No matter, Dayton knows better!

Democrats really need to change their name to PoS (Party of State) -- because that is what they are. They are Statists -- one party rule, and even in that one party, only the very elite rule. Note that their "elite" doesn't have to have much on the ball, with Dayton being a great example. He came by his money the old fashioned way -- he inherited it!

Weekend At Bernie Bin Ladin's

Althouse: "Do you remember how the news media warned Bush how they would go after him if he even dared to mention 9/11 in any of his campaign speeches or ads?"

Ann is a law professor and Madison, brilliant and conservative -- and a cute blond to boot. Just the kind of woman that liberals really, really, really hate!!!

Yes, I DO remember how HORRIBLE it was for W to use anything about his handling of 9-11 in 2004 campaign. I'm CERTAIN the press is going to use exactly the same standard with BO!!!

Earth To Liberal Reality

RealClearPolitics - Boehner's Unreality Check: "philosophy"

This column points up how hard it is for communication to happen when people have vastly different models. As they look across the isle, both sides tend to be absolutely convinced that the the other side is completely out to lunch, "lying", saying things for only political purposes, etc. -- they simply can't imagine a reality that much different from theirs existing.

Reasonable economists can disagree about the effectiveness of the stimulus spending and whether it was worth the drag of the additional debt, but no reasonable economist argues that it hurt the economy in the short term.

Well that pretty much dismisses any potential for "reasonable disagreement"! Let's say that you are an alcoholic and someone gives you a massive amount of alcohol. There is NO WAY you could see that as harmful -- in your model it would be GREAT! If you are addicted to massive government spending, the reaction is quite similar. A business person or an investor looks at a Trillion here and a Trillion there of short term borrowing and goes "uh oh" -- and decides that gold, cash or inflation protected bonds might be a better investment than the stock market, or investing in a new business, or starting a new project, or hiring more people.

So, therefore, "unreasonable" -- it is impossible for the author of this column to imagine a world where the government is a 1/3 part of a 10+ Trillion dollar economy, so when the other 2/3s of the economy see the government being run by an insane clown posse, they reduce their investments in growth on the assumption that "there has to be something coming in the future for the business climate than BO, Nancy and Harry. But then, it is simply "unreasonable" to think like that.

During the early 1980s, taxes were cut and public debt ballooned, from 26 percent of GDP in 1980 to 40 percent by 1986. In 1993, taxes were increased (and spending cut); debt as a share of the economy fell, from 49 percent to 33 percent. In 2001 and 2003, taxes were cut. By the time President Obama took office, debt had climbed to 40 percent of GDP.

Some taxes were cut and others were raised. Revenue went UP -- but so did spending, by a lot more. The cause of ALL our deficits since at least '80 has been SPENDING!! Our revenue as a percentage of GDP has been flat. The government is a drunk to end all drunks -- a drunk can only drink so much, the government can spend an UNLIMITED amount of money, and that is what it keeps doing and is projected to do forever. Only it won't -- because while how much liberals want to spend is without limit, the capacity of the nation to carry pending and debt IS LIMITED.

Listening to Boehner, I began to think the country suffers from two deficits: the gap between spending and revenue, and the one between reality and ideology. The first cannot be solved unless we find some way of at least narrowing the second.

Yes, there is A LOT of "ideology" around. I'm reminded of the Reagan quote; "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant; It is that they know so much that isn't so". One might add that they are always absolutely certain they the right answer as well -- MORE, MORE, MORE .... MORE GOVERNMENT!!!

Men Not At Work

Your link text here.

Good little column -- we have lost our dynamism. 

The result is this: There are probably more idle men now than at any time since the Great Depression, and this time the problem is mostly structural, not cyclical. These men will find it hard to attract spouses. Many will pick up habits that have a corrosive cultural influence on those around them. The country will not benefit from their potential abilities.