Tuesday, July 30

Media stoking racial anger after Zimmerman verdict

For a number of reasons--chiefly black anger/resentment, fired up by a media determined to lie to make a more dramatic story--a growing number of blacks are now absolutely convinced of 4 things:
  • that Trayvon Martin did nothing at all that would have caused an ordinary, reasonable person to shoot him; 
  • that George Zimmerman was gunning for Martin, determined to shoot him from the outset;
  • that Florida law "allows" people to "hunt and kill black youth;" and
  • regardless of the facts of the case, Zimmerman should have been convicted of *something,* solely because he shot a black teen.  

Nothing else matters to them.

Typical is a teacher in Alabama: "I see Trayvon Martins every day. I worry about young black men and their prospects in a world where a man is able to kill one without being convicted of something. Even if it isn’t as simple as that, kids will see it that way. Rednecks are holding their heads a little higher and tapping the guns on their holsters eager for a stand-your-ground moment.”

"...in a world where a man is able to kill [a black man] without being convicted of something."  Really?  Cuz I don't think that's really what bothers you.  Because if it did you'd be wailing about all the unsolved black-on-black shootings in Chicago.

The truth is that you have not a scintilla of interest in wailing about those shooting deaths--because it's not the fact that some blacks are being shot to death that bothers you.  Rather, it's the race of the shooter.  As you see it, while whites shooting blacks is an outrage, black-on-black shootings aren't much of a problem at all.

As I understand the definition, that makes you a racist.

Another teacher cited the verdict as showing that Florida law "allows people to hunt and kill black youth,” and said that it was important to talk about it with students.

Oh yes, by all means, talk about "it" with students.  Sadly for everyone, the "it" you'll talk about is the lie you already uttered:  That Florida law (or anywhere else) "allows people to hunt and kill black youth."

In a sane world you'd be jailed for uttering such incendiary bullshit--as deadly as yelling fire in a crowded theater (which virtually all rational adults know is not protected by the First Amendment).

But there's not a single politician in this country with the balls to call your bullshit by its name.  Because they're all scared shitless to be accused of being raaacist.

Just keep the incendiary lies coming, racebaiters--with the full backing of the mainstream media and nearly every Democratic politician.

When the black mob comes howling down your street, do you think they'll bother asking whether you're liberal before they kill you?

911 Museum "creative director" wanted to yank photo of firefighters raising flag??

Charles Cooke at National Review has noticed something:  History shows that great nations can survive many awful things without collapsing, but can't survive the loss of national self-confidence.

If you want examples of our loss of national confidence they're easy enough to find, but Cooke has one particular example in mind.  It's the "creative director" of the 9/11 Memorial Museum--a waste of skin who goes by the name of Michael Shulan.

Seems there's an iconic picture of three NYC firefighters, covered with ash from the destroyed buildings, raising an American flag in the rubble in what seems to have been a spontaneous gesture of...what?  Hope?  Courage?  Defiance?  The interpretation is left to the viewer.

You've almost certainly seen the photo.  Here it is:



Now this fellow--who, again, is the creative director of the 9/11 Museum--decided he didn't like the photo, and you may be curious as to his reason.

The "creative director" voiced his disapproval as follows:
I really believe that the way America will look best, the way we can really do best, is to not be Americans so vigilantly and so vehemently. 
My concern... is that we not reduce [9/11] down to something that was too simple, and in its simplicity would actually distort the complexity of the event, the meaning of the event.
Ah yes, "the complexity of the event."

What "complexity" do you have in mind, Mr. Shulan?  Would that be the complexity of Muslim terrorists using a box cutter to cutting the throat of a flight attendant or pilot?

Or perhaps the "complexity" of 343 New York City firefighters who voluntarily entered the doomed buildings to try to rescue survivors?

Or is it the complexity of the decision made by those trapped above the blazing floors where the hijacked jets hit, on whether to burn to death or jump?

Please, do enlighten us, Michael.

And you say we should not be Americans so vigilantly and so vehemently, eh?

What is it about American vigilance, exactly, that you find so disturbing?

I'd take this position apart but I'm already sick of this asshole and everyone like him.  This guy is clearly a metrosexual loon and should be fired immediately.

And whoever hired him should be fired as well--not necessarily for a bad attitude but for the obvious incompetence in hiring a guy for such a vital position without checking into his background.

Obama unilaterally declares yet another portion of a law void, dares Congress to do anything about it

On July 24th the man who has sealed all his records from public scrutiny gave a speech in Galesburg, Illinois, at which he blamed congress for refusing to support his great efforts to...something.  Same old.

Afterwards, he offered reporters a chance to ask him questions.  Jackie Calmes of the NY Times asked about Obama's unilateral declaration delaying the starting date of "employer mandate" part of the Obamacare law for a year.

Here's Calmes' question: “People questioned your legal and constitutional authority to do that unilaterally — to delay the employer mandate.  Did you consult with your lawyer?”

Here's the Lightworker's reply:

Jackie, if you heard me on stage today, what I said was that I will seize any opportunity I can find to work with Congress to strengthen the middle class, improve their prospects, improve their security.
      But where Congress is unwilling to act, I will take whatever administrative steps that I can in order to do right by the American people.

So is that a "no"?  Of course.  But to say that directly would spotlight his imperial style ("you will do as I decree"), so he throws in a cloud of bullshit to distract listeners from realizing that he didn't want to give a straight answer.

And it gets better:  He went on to say that if Congress didn’t like his unilateral rewriting of the law it passed, they could try to do something about it.  Complaints that the Constitution didn't permit him to rewrite laws didn't bother him:  “I’m not concerned about their opinions,” he said. “Very few of them, by the way, are lawyers, much less constitutional lawyers.”

If you're a quick study you probably found that last statement too astonishingly arrogant to possibly have been uttered by a savvy president.  Fair enough.  Here's his full statement:
And if Congress thinks that what I’ve done is inappropriate or wrong in some fashion they’re free to make that case. But there’s not an action that I take that you don’t have some folks in Congress who say that I’m usurping my authority. Some of those folks think I usurp my authority by having the gall to win the presidency. And I don’t think that’s a secret.
But ultimately, I’m not concerned about their opinions — very few of them, by the way, are lawyers, much less constitutional lawyers.
One hardly knows where to start.  For example, consider his repeated use of the phrase "usurp my authority."  The phrase makes no sense:  One usurps someone else's authority or power, not your own.  It sounds as if he doesn't know what the word means.

And to say "very few" members of congress are lawyers?  Dude, 60% of all U.S. senators are lawyers.  If you want to say you just meant members of the House ("congress" being used to refer to either the House or to both wings of the legislature), it's a mere 170 members.  And you call that "very few"?  You're either a bluffer or ignorant of the facts.

Sounds like you just pulled this out of your ass, hoping no one would check your assertion.  As you've done  your whole life:  Bluff, and count on the fact that because you were so well-spoken and sounded so sure of yourself, everyone would believe your bullshit.

Oh, and that clever little addendum, "...much less constitutional lawyers."  You seem to be implying that you know more about the Constitution than the average law school grad.  (And yes, I realize you lectured on the topic at Chicago U.)  But for someone who implies that he has unusual knowledge about our founding document--once said to be "the supreme law of the land"--you seem to ignore it when it suits you.

Specifically, Article 2 section 3:  "...he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."

Explain the meaning of that phrase to us, Barry.


The state of public education in America


American taxpayers spend $600 billion per year on basic K-12 education.

That works out to an average of about $11,000 per-pupil—an all-time high, and nearly four times more (after adjusting for the effects of inflation) than in 1961.

How is this working out for us?

In Detroit 47 percent of the adults are functionally illiterate.

77 percent of 8th-graders were rated "below basic" on the National Assessment of Education Progress.

And this wonderful outcome costs a mere $11,000 per student.

But that's just the national average.  Out here in Flyover Country it's quite a bit less, while in the big cities it's more.

A LOT more.

The record for the highest amount spent--naturally--is Washington, DC., where the public schools spend $29,400 of taxpayer funds per student per year on elementary and high-school education.

That's far more than the yearly cost of college out here in flyover country.  In fact that's about what it costs an undergraduate to study at Harvard.

So what kind of results do taxpayers get for this enormous annual expenditure?  Other than huge salaries for a few hundred really bad administrators, the actual educational results are about what you think:  jack-shit.

I'm not blaming teachers for this--at least not most of 'em.  Most teachers (other than union firebrands) are at the bottom of the organizational chart and can no more change things than a conservative freshman congressman from a blue state.

Rather, the problems are caused by a) teachers' unions, and b) "administrators"--the educational equivalent of bureaucrats; non-teaching types.  In the last 40 years or so the number of these positions has exploded, along with their salaries.  Of course this isn't unique to the education bureaucracy but happens to all bloated organizations that don't have any significant competetion.

A third factor is political correctness--the utterly goofy notion that "you just can't do or say" X, because someone's feelings would be hurt.  Or because it would make you intolerant.  Or similar liberal bullshit.

Folks, reality can be a stone-cold bitch at times.  If some thug-wannabe sitting in a classroom is constantly making it impossible to teach and learn, what kind of goofy thinking says Oh, it wouldn't be right to cause the poor dear any distress by kicking his ass out of school--better to sacrifice the education of the other 30 kids in the class.

Policies like that don't come from rank-and-file classroom teachers--who presumably would rather teach students than deal with disruptive jerks.

So 40-some years after teachers' unions and political correctness took over, what have we gotten?  A whole bunch of kids who are functionally illiterate.  Reams of adults who can't do simple math.  Voters who will believe that a politician who implies that everyone can get benefits and no one will have to pay for them is a great thinker.

Monday, July 29

The push is on to blame Detroit's troubles on...Republican policies???

If you follow current events you probably know that a week or so ago Detroit filed the largest municipal bankruptcy in U.S. history.

Just 20 minutes after that filing judge Rosemarie Aquilina declared that the bankruptcy filing violated a provision of Michigan's constitution.  She opined that the filing "disrespected the president" and would cause hardship to city employees, and thus she would not allow it to proceed.

But that's just an amusing aside.  Here's the story now:  Because Detroit has completely, utterly collapsed as a functional city, the liberal media is working overtime to find a way to avoid blaming this collapse on liberal policies.  Indeed, the Lying Media are determined to convince us that liberal policies had no role whatsoever in causing this disaster.

Instead the media are blaming...Republican policies.  Like de-regulation.  The elimination of protective tariffs.  Whites who left a corrupt, crime-infested city for the safety of the suburbs.  And...well, anything and everything except liberal policies.

Think I'm being facetious?  Here's some wacko-leftist at MSNBC, Ed Schultz:
Michigan used to be a symbol of industrial strength in manufacturing in this country. But thanks to a lot of Republican policies the city is now filing for bankruptcy.
Now, it’s the largest public sector bankruptcy in U.S. history, and the consequences could be devastating if you care about people.  Roughly 30,000 retired workers are concerned about their pensions.  Make no mistake, Detroit is exactly what the Republicans want.
Hard to believe anyone can be this dishonest.  And amazingly, I'm told that MSNBC actually gives this idiot his own television show.

Strap in, troops, cuz the Dems and their lyin' media allies are just gettin' started.
 
New York Times columnist Paul Krugman suggests that “for the most part the city was just an innocent victim of market forces.”  Yep.  So according to Krugman, Detroit's problems had little to do with Democrat politicians spending too much, stealing too much, and giving too much to unionized city workers who naturally ensured their re-election year after year after year.  Just "an innocent victim of market forces.”

Exactly which "market forces" Krugman has in mind he cleverly doesn't name.  Classic liberal argument style in that regard, eh?  Cuz, y'know, a typical low-information voter could well conclude that what Krug meant was that competition from overseas had made it impossible to build cars at a profit in the U.S.

This will certainly come as a surprise to Honda, BMW and other makers who do, in fact, build cars here--profitably, and with American workers. 

Now, there's no doubt that financial downturns are hard on all cities and regions that experience them.  The key difference is that when that happens (and eventually it comes to all) conservative governments do just what responsible individuals do: cut spending, even if it means not going out to eat, and eating mac-and-cheese instead of more costly fare.  You cut cable TV and going to bars.

Liberals, on the other hand, ignore reality and keep spending like there's no problem.  A typical trick is for the government entity to refuse to pass a budget.  Cuz if they don't pass a budget, obviously no one can criticize the pols for spending more than the budget's carefully-planned and agreed limits.

So it is that even as Detroit tries to declare bankruptcy, it's announced that it will build a $400 million hockey arena.

This is rationalized as a job-creator--much like Obama's infamous $800 Billion "stimulus" bill, which was supposed to create millions of jobs, but of course didn't.

But hey, to Democratic pols, when you've spent a city or country into bankruptcy and driven away most of the tax base, spending $400 million to build a hocky rink makes perfect sense.  Stimulus!  Keynesian economics!  Borrow more and spend more!  Then retire somewhere else and make someone else figure out how to solve the mess.

Saturday, July 27

Mainstream Media: "He got away with murder!!!"

Gerald Marion is the fire chief of  Englewood, New Jersey.  He seems like a pretty responsible guy.  And here's how he characterizes the Travon Martin shooting: 
I’ve never been an activist [but] I’m fed up. It should not be a law that you get to murder because you’re uncomfortable.  The fact they can be killed and their killer walks away?  Clearly something is wrong."
The fact they can be killed and their killer walks away?” he said. “Clearly, clearly something is wrong.” - See more at: http://www.northjersey.com/englewood/Englewood_fire_chief_asks_city_council_to_boycott_business_with_stand-your-ground_laws.html?page=all#sthash.PAqfJIKg.dpuf
The fact they can be killed and their killer walks away?” he said. “Clearly, clearly something is wrong.” - See more at: http://www.northjersey.com/englewood/Englewood_fire_chief_asks_city_council_to_boycott_business_with_stand-your-ground_laws.html?page=all#sthash.PAqfJIKg.dpuf
The fact they can be killed and their killer walks away?” he said. “Clearly, clearly something is wrong.” - See more at: http://www.northjersey.com/englewood/Englewood_fire_chief_asks_city_council_to_boycott_business_with_stand-your-ground_laws.html?page=all#sthash.PAqfJIKg.dpuf
Pay attention to this.  Pay really, really close attention.  Because this is how and why the next civil war will start.  (And in fact, has already quietly started.)

Gerald Marion lives in New Jersey.  He isn't a recent transplant from Florida, and the ONLY things Gerald Marion knows about the Martin case are what he's seen and heard from the lying, race-baiting, moronic mainstream media (MMM).

That MMMedia has been *relentlessly* pushing the lie that Martin was shot NOT because he ambushed and was beating a guy who had simply been watching him, but because a "white guy" just wanted to shoot this poor innocent black teenager, because the latter was either a) black; b) wearing a hoodie; or c) black.

At the time Martin jumped Zimmerman, the latter hadn't drawn on Martin, hadn't yelled at him or had words with him, but was just watching him.  If Martin has the undisputed, uncontroversial right to be walking in public at any hour, it seems axiomatic that anyone else similarly has the right to watch him do that.

It should be obvious to most rational adults that if Martin hadn't jumped Zimmerman and started beating him, NOTHING would have happened, and Martin would be alive and well today.

Yet a huge fraction of blacks read the event as a white guy (the NY Times invented the new ethnic category of "white-hispanic") got to "murder" Martin simply and entirely because the white guy was "uncomfortable."

If you think that's too extreme I invite you to scroll back to the top and read the direct quote from the NJ fire chief.

The Lying Media's insistence on pushing the false story is beyond reprehensible.  It will trigger a wave of black assaults on whites that will likely kill hundreds of Americans over the next five years.  Indeed, such assaults have already started.

I feel sorry for the folks in Philly and similar cities where this will be worst.  Out here in Flyover Country it won't be a problem, but a dozen big cities will see lots of bloodshed.  And all because the idiots in the MMM just HAD to lie about the Martin case, and put words in the mouth of the lone non-white juror to get her to say "he got away with *murder*."

The MMM has morphed this case away from legitimate and seemingly uncontroversial self-defense, into "murder" and a club to repeal stand-your-ground laws.

The injuries and deaths from the assaults triggered by the media lie are on your head, media whores.  I hope you enjoy watching what you created.

A nation of liars--well, on one side, at least

Victor Davis Hanson notes that far too many of the "elites" of the U.S. are chronic pathological liars.  He wonders how this came to be.  Some (edited) highlights below:

"Recently the attorney general of the U.S. lied to Congress:  He said he knew of no citizen’s communications that his department had monitored.  This was a flat lie.

In fact, Holder knew that his subordinates were targeting reporters.

He lied again about the New Black Panthers case, swearing that there was no political decision to drop the case. Not true; the decision to drop the case came from the top.

He lied yet again--to Congress, under oath--about when he first learned about the gun-running operation called Fast and Furious.

The director of national intelligence also lied, under oath, to Congress.  Later, James Clapper admitted that he had given the “least untruthful” account.  Oooh, congratulations James, that's soooo admirable.

Still later Clapper admitted that he had just flat-out lied to Congress. Was he disgraced? Fired? Further confirmation of his “largely secular” lie?  Nope.  He was not punished or reprimanded in any way.  And equally important, not a single member of the Lying Media so much as batted an eye.  Yet when W was president the Lying Media constantly shrieked about how horrible...awful!...ghastly!...invasive! it was for the gummint to collect data on Americans.  Why did they change their position completely?

Elizabeth Warren invented an entire pedigree.  Her blatant lie won her a Harvard tenured professorship--and later, even after her lie became widely known, a U.S. Senate seat.

Harry Reid knew nothing about Mitt Romney’s tax returns, but lied about them anyway.

Barack Obama has also lied--a lot, and from the very beginning of his national career. He looked right into the cameras and denied he knew Bill Ayers well.  Ayers, he said, was "just some guy from the neighborhood." Same denial about Tony Rezko.

He lied when he promised, as a newly elected senator (his first national post), he said he wouldn't seek the presidency.   And of course since he had all of zero experience nationally when he was elected to that position, everyone fully believed him.

Lied when he said he'd close Guantanamo.

Lied when he said he'd cut the deficit in half in his first four years.  His actions suggest he never had any intention of even trying to do so.

He's lied about the circumstances of America’s gas and oil production surge — which occurred despite his anti-oil policies, not because of them.

He lied about his involvement in the radical ACORN community action group, and fabricated about his father’s and grandfather’s World War II involvement.

Tally up what Barack Obama said about his health care initiative, the border fence, and his fiscal policy. Almost all of his major assurances proved to be...lies.

He even lied about much of his own biography.

But why focus only on politicians like Holder, Clapper, Warren and Obozo?  The Lying Media routinely peddles the most infamous lies--provided the lies are of a class that could be called “noble untruths."  For example: ABC manipulated a video to show George Zimmerman without much injury to his head, and no one seemed the least bit perturbed.

NBC edited an audiotape to suggest that Zimmerman was a racist.

The New York Times even invented a new journalistic category, “white Hispanic,” to suggest Zimmerman was really mostly white.  Of course the paper would never suggest that Barack Obama wasn't African-American, nor call Bill Richardson a “white Hispanic.”  You might ask 'em why the different standards.

They won't respond, but you might enjoy asking 'em anyway.

The Lying Media blythely printed the content of a letter allegedly written by the prosecution's star witness, Rachel Jeantel, and only at the trial did Zimmerman's defense team manage to show--live, in front of the cameras, and thus impossible to ignore--that Jeantel didn't write it--and couldn't even read "cursive" writing.

Moreover, in her paid-for after-trial interviews she admitted she lied in her initial testimony to investigators.


Virtually every one of the Obozo administration's current scandals involves lies. No unbiased, rational person believed Lois Lerner's declaration--echoed by the White House--that the IRS targeting of Tea Party groups was entirely the decision of rogue agents from a Cincinnati field office.

No one believes the government's explanation that the attack on our people in Benghazi--that killed four Americans--was triggered by a bad video on the internet, which  Susan Rice had assured the nation on all the Sunday talk shows.



Why do so many on the left routinely lie?  Because they get away with it.  And are actually rewarded for it.  We've become a society in which ends are all that matter--no matter what ghastly things one did to accomplish them.  Barack Obama is president — and who now cares about the details of exactly how that happened?

A century ago, if a politician repeatedly uttered lies he'd be impeached and shunned.  But when Joe Biden habitually makes things up the media just shrugs and says “that’s just ol’ Joe.”

Hillary Clinton lied--a lot--when she was first lady about documents under subpoena. She lied as a candidate about coming under hostile fire in the Balkans. And she lied as secretary of State about the train of events in Benghazi.

And? Those lies were either forgiven or quickly forgotten.  Or they contributed to the “complex” persona who--astonishingly--is among the most widely admired in the U.S.

It's often said that no one can fool history, especially in the age of the Internet.  But the truth is that liars on the left liars routinely not only get away with it, but also get a short-cut to fame and wealth.

If Susan Rice had gone on television and confessed the details about the status and recent history of the security measures in Libya she likely would have been out of a job — either by being fired or by the failure of her president to win reelection.  Once again, lying paid off big-time: Obama was re-elected--and appointed Rice to be national security advisor.

Decades ago lying was considered bad, and a person who was shown to be a liar was disgraced and usually shunned.  But today lying almost always pays off for the liars--at least if they're Democrats/liberals.

You might consider how that came to pass, and what it means for our future.

Website by Obama transition team--letting viewers compare O's promises to his delivery--quietly taken down by Dems

Anyone remember anything about 2008?  I mean, it was five whole years ago so it wouldn't be surprising that certain events have sorta...faded from memory, as it were.

Some events have even faded from the official record.

Way back in 2008 when Barack the All-Knowing was getting ready to take office, his "transition team" created a website called "Change.gov," laying out the candidate’s promises for change.

One of those was to encourage whistleblowers.  Here's what they said way back in 2008:
Often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled.

We need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance.

Barack Obama will strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government. Obama will ensure that federal agencies expedite the process for reviewing whistleblower claims and whistleblowers have full access to courts and due process.
The site included the following famous promises:
  • Sunlight Before Signing: Too often bills are rushed through Congress...before the public has the opportunity to review them. As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days. 
  • Shine Light on Earmarks and Pork Barrel Spending: Obama's Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act will shed light on all earmarks by disclosing the name of the legislator who asked for each earmark, along with a written justification, 72 hours before they can be approved by the full Senate.
  • Enforce Executive Branch Ethics: The Obama-Biden administration will...work with inspectors general in all the federal agencies to enforce ethics rules, minimize waste...

Wow, that is SO inspiring!  Such wonderful principles!  Surely this will be "The most transparent administration ever!!"  That is SO fabulous!

See, we told you Barack was the LightWorker!  He'll be the best president EVAH!  And we know he'll actually do those things, 'cuz, you know, he...he promised.  And he's...he's Barack.

So his administration will never try to ram a bill through by bribing key senators--like by offering sweetheart deals to their states.  His administration will listen to people like the Inspector General of the IRS and diligently investigate any wrongdoing those honorable investigators may find.  He'll protect low-level employees who blow the whistle on abuses by government.  And he'll surely fire any agency head who uses a fake email account to conduct government business--such as might be done to avoid the possibility of having to turn over damaging emails if ordered to do so by a judge.

To top it all off, the website even offered visitors a way to monitor Obama's fulfillment of his promises, by comparing them against his administration's actual actions.

Now for the punchline:  This webpage has been quietly deleted from the internet.

Sleuths report that the last time it was viewable was June 8th--two days after Edward Snowden revealed the Administration's phone surveillance program.

The White House didn't respond to multiple requests for comment on why the page was deleted.

For what it's worth, the site can still be viewed on the Wayback archive--for the moment, anyway.

It really is worth your time to click on the link above and see for yourself how Obama has ended up doing the exact opposite of virtually everything his minions promised on that site. 

But wow, it certainly sounded great, eh?

Source:  Huffington.

Question


Sunday, July 21

Leftists: "Whites shooters are targeting 12-year-old blacks." The facts disagree. Media ignores the facts.

Great article by Heather Mac Donald at National Review.  The main points:

In the wake of the Zimmerman acquittal the Left is screaming (as it always does) that American justice is biased against blacks.  (Mac Donald gives several examples from articles in mainstream publications.)

The idea that the criminal-justice system discriminates against blacks — allegedly the only reason why the percentage of black jail inmates is far greater than their percentage of the whole population — is a staple of civil-rights activists and Leftists.  Unfortunately for those groups, every effort to actually prove this claim has come up short.

A 1994 survey of felony cases from the country’s 75 largest urban areas found that blacks actually had a lower chance of prosecution following a felony than whites, and were less likely to be found guilty at trial. Alfred Blumstein has found that blacks are underrepresented in prison for homicide compared with their arrest rates.

Instead, virtually all studies of charging and sentencing show that the factor that accounts for higher black incarceration rates is that they commit crimes at a far higher rate.

Criminal-law professors across the political spectrum agree that the Zimmerman verdict resulted from prosecutorial overkill, not juror bias. While the state's prosecutors may have made some mistakes, the trial was scrupulously fair and presented the prosecution with full opportunity to make its case.  In fact the judge appeared to favor the prosecution in most matters.

Not only is the charge of racial bias in the criminal-justice system false, this falsehood lends support to the claim by black race-baiters that the main homicide threat faced by young black males comes from other races.  In the wacked-out community the threat is implicitly from whites--or "honorary whites," as the media portrayed the half-Hispanic Zimmerman.

Lest you think this is an exaggeration, here's what the grandson of MLK told attendees at the NAACP's national convention just last Wednesday:  “Our children are targeted. Our community is targeted.”  And he doesn't mean by the IRS.

Protesters at the Orlando, Fla., courthouse this week held signs reading “Endangered species: young black men and boys.” The New York Times ran an article today about the “painful talks” black parents are having with their children about how not to get gunned down by whites.

But the truth is that not only do blacks kill whites at a far higher rate than vice-versa, blacks are also far more likely to be killed by...other blacks:  In 2012 blacks committed about 75 percent of all shootings in New York, and whites a little over 2 percent, though blacks are 23 percent of the city’s population and whites 35 percent.

Sixty percent of the NYC's homicide victims are black. Their killers? They aren’t white:  The shooting rate in predominantly black Brownsville, Brooklyn, is 81 times higher than that of predominantly white and Asian Bay Ridge, Brooklyn.

The picture is the same nationally.  In 2008 black males between the ages of 14 and 24 killed others at ten times the rate of white and Hispanic males combined in the same age category.  As for interracial crime, black homicide offenders in 2010 had nearly three times more white and Hispanic victims than there were black victims of white and Hispanic homicide offenders, despite blacks’ much lower population numbers.

Although the media pushed the “white death threat” meme hard after the Trayvon Martin shooting, more recently they've been forced, however fleetingly, to acknowledge the huge amount of black-on-black shooting.  The January 2013 shooting death of 15-year-old Hadiya Pendleton, a majorette in the Chicago marching band that had played at Obama’s inauguration, triggered a moment of attention to Chicago’s black-on-black shooting rate. 

Yet this recognition of the actual homicide risk to blacks has no effect on the Left's “white racists targeting innocent black kids” lie.  Amazingly, The American Prospect’s Bouie went so far as to argue that “there’s no such thing as ‘black-on-black’ crime.”  This is such an obvious crock that he has to quickly claim that black-on-black crime is simply a matter of proximity.  He claims blacks kill each other only because they  live next to each other.  He avoids examining the difference in crime rates between black and other communities because that would reveal the obvious lie.

Black race-baiters want to avoid admitting the real source of the vast majority of black homicide deaths because it undercuts their absurd claim that young black males are being targeted by whites. 

Denial by black race-baiters notwithstanding, the simple, inescapable truth is that black males commit violent crimes of all types at a disproportionately high rate.


Friday, July 19

Writer for liberal rag: Farmers "just need to get better" at productivity ??

So many people make so many stupid statements that it's hard to know when one is being sarcastic.  Perhaps the author of the WaPo article below was being sarcastic.  Maybe you can decide.


We’re not growing enough food to feed the world
     by Brad Plumer in the WaPo, July 1, 2013

How are we possibly going to feed the world over the next few decades?  [1]

After all, consider what we’re up against: The global population is expected to swell from 7 billion today to 9.6 billion by 2050. The rising middle class in China and India is eating more meat than ever. [2] 
[Meanwhile] we’re setting aside more farmland for biofuels [3] and trying not to cut down any more forests (which exacerbates climate change).

In theory, there’s a simple solution here: The world’s farmers will just need to get better at squeezing more productivity out of existing farmland. [4] 
Crop yields have been steadily improving since the advent of synthetic fertilizer and modern agricultural techniques.  [T]hose yields will just need to keep improving in the years to come. [5]

1.  Even though we have the best, most innovative farmers on the planet, and the best technology, we can't feed a world where so many governments seem determined to enforce policies that make it impossible for their populations to be self-supporting.  Short answer:  it's not our responsibility.  Not even close.

2.  Liberals have been screeching for at least a few decades now that we should eat less meat.  So if we stop supplying meat to China and India, according to liberal lights we'd actually be doing 'em a favor, right?

3.  Using productive acreage for crops that will used only as feedstock for biofuels is an idea that even if possibly well-intentioned, turns out to be dumb.  It's cost taxpayers tens of billions in subsidies and has put upward pressure on food prices around the world.  It is lunacy, idiocy...the kind of "solution" a child might devise--an attractive goal with no consideration of real-world consequences, like deciding to eat nothing but icecream for every meal.

4.  Author Brad Plumer is a genius!  Once he explained it, it was so obvious!  It's so simple that it's amazing no one could see it until Brad pointed it out.  And it's such a classic example of liberal brilliance that I'm gonna put it on its own line so it can get the attention it deserves.  (ahem): 
The world’s farmers will just need to get better at squeezing more productivity out of existing farmland.
I think we should all be in awe of such brilliance.  Unless it was sarcasm, in which case it makes a lot more sense. 

5.  In case some ol' cynics--including, one suspects, every farmer--were tempted to consider Plumer's "simple solution" a bit too simplistic--if not childishly unreal--the author explains how this goal of "squeezing more productivity" can be achieved in the last sentence:  After correctly noting that "Crop yields have been steadily improving since the advent of synthetic fertilizer and modern agricultural techniques," he ties it all together with a single sentence:
 [T]hose yields will just need to keep improving in the years to come. 
No word yet on how big a government team Brad thinks it will take to get the word out to the crops that their yields "will just need to keep improving in the years to come," but we have no doubt that if you give him a mere two billion bucks or so, he'll find a way to form a government agency and spend it.

Clearly, to a liberal writer for Time, the solution to food shortage really is simple, going something like this:
  1. Form government agency with initial budget of $2 billion;
  2. ????
  3. Crop yields keep improving in every year to come!

Y'know, there oughta be a Nobel for this kind of thinking.  I mean, if the committee gave a Nobel peace prize to an unknown politician a month after he took office, when the guy had accomplished exactly nothing up to that point, you can't ignore Brad Plumer. 

Makes perfect sense if you're a liberal.

Thursday, July 18

One-time "Paris of the West", U.S. city files largest municipal bankruptcy in U.S. history.

In wartime, residents often flee beseiged cities.  So if the population of a city fell from almost 2 million people to just 700,000, it would be logical to guess that it was beseiged by warring factions.

But suppose I told you--as the Left constantly tells us when it thinks it advantageous--war is not the answer?  Further, suppose I told you the city was once the 4th largest in the country and was once called "the Paris of the west."  Fifty years ago it had the highest per-capita income in the nation.

The city, of course, is Detroit.  A city where 40 percent of the street lights don't work.

A city that's closed two-hundred of its parks.  Where the response time to 911 calls is an hour.

A city with 80-thousand abandoned or severely deteriorated buildings.

A city where 47 percent of all adults are functionally illiterate.

This, friends, is what cities are like in third-world shitholes.  How it happened in America should be a huge lesson.

It's so deeply in debt that it just declared bankruptcy.

And what do you think caused the devastation of Detroit?  Was it because
a.   the city's name starts with a consonant?
b.   it's located up north, close to that other big country, and cold weather makes life too hard?
c.   City Hall was built on an ancient indian burial ground? or
d.   there was a 4-year artillery battle for the city; or
e.   for the last 52 years the city has been run 100 percent by Democrats?

Just kidding, citizen.  Decades of Democrat rule had nothing whatsoever to do with Detroit's problems.  Just like overly-generous pension benefits and ridiculously high salaries to unionized city employees played no role whatsoever in the city's financial problems.

In fact, eminent economist--and, we hasten to add, Nobel laureate--B.H. Obama reassured all and sundry that he wouldn't let this fine city fail.  Sayeth the Lightworker, "We refused to let Detroit go bankrupt!"

Yesterday Detroit declared the largest municipal bankruptcy in U.S. history.

After the bankruptcy filing, the White House issued a statement saying that President Obama is following the situation and that he remains “committed to continuing our strong partnership” with Detroit.

Wait, didn't he say his administration "refused to let Detroit go bankrupt"?  I'm confused.  Of course in ObamaWorld language is flexible, and the definition of success is the same as for Barry's other signature acheivements, like the so-called Stimulus bill, GM bailout, trashing of bankruptcy laws, Cash for Clunkers, Solyndra, ObamaCare, banning new drilling permits in the Gulf while loaning Brazil two Billion to drill off their shores, and purging FBI training manuals of all words that Muslims might find offensive.

Hoo-eee, that dude is soooo wicked-smaht.

Remember, citizen:  Decades of Democrat rule had no role whatsoever in the implosion of the city that once had the highest per-capita income in the U.S.  Got it?

Radical Islamist writes letter to 14-year-old they shot, explaining the reasons (??)

Nine months ago in Pakistan a masked man boarded a bus loaded with schoolgirls.  He asked for one by name, and then when a friend pointed her out, he shot her in the face at point-blank range.

The girl--then 14 years old--had been speaking publically in favor of education for girls for two years.  Radical Islamists forbid education for girls.  The shooter was a member of one of the most radical Islamic groups, called the Taliban, and that group quickly claimed responsibility.

Amazingly the girl survived and was rushed to the U.K. for treatment.  She recently addressed the U.N.

Now a Taliban leader has written her a letter explaining why they tried to kill her, and it's a must-read.

The letter offers a glimpse into the almost incomprehensibly dark, clouded mind of an Islamic fundamentalist.  If you're old enough to remember the Unabomber's manifesto, these folks are way goofier.

The Taliban and other radical Islamists seem to be so far from the norms of rational thought as to make conveying even the simplest thought a challenge.  For example, here's the radical Islamist author explaining why the Taliban shot her (and intended to kill her)--not, he says, for her desire for an education, but...well, it's hard to be sure:
You have said in your speech yesterday that pen is mightier than sword, so they attacked you for your sword not for your books or school.
But if her "sword" is a pen, and the pen is used for writing ideas and such, isn't that really a complaint about her push for education for girls?  As I said, hard to be sure what he really means.  And I'm not at all certain he has a firm grip on the reason.

Shooting an unarmed schoolgirl?  Burning students in schools?  Nothing personal, see--it's just what they do.

Liberal writer: Martin case is really about "white privilege"??

Liberals have been going nuts about the Zimmerman verdict.  Latest example is a piece in Time magazine.  Like every liberal writer bloviating about the Zimmerman case, the author completely ignores the issue of self-defense and instead decides the fundamental issue in the case is...white privilege??
If there's one good thing to come out of the George Zimmerman verdict it's the acknowledgement of white privilege
      by Eric Liu, Time magazine, July 17, 2013

If there is one hopeful note amid all the anguish and recrimination from the acquittal of George Zimmerman, it’s that growing numbers of white people have come to appreciate whiteness for what it is: an unearned set of privileges.
Whiteness had nothing to do with this case. Self-defense is a right enjoyed by all, regardless of race, not a privilege available only to whites. As many have noted, if the races of the two were reversed the shooting wouldn't have made the news.
[T]he core issue...is that Martin died not because he was wearing a hoodie but because he was wearing a hoodie while black. Blackness was the fatal variable.
Bullshit. The core issue was and is, Is a person who's been ambushed and is flat on the ground getting pounded obligated to simply be beaten to death, or does that person have the right of self-defense?
And so now, post-verdict...huge numbers of white Americans are posting testimonials and images to declare that because they are not black they have never had to confront the awful choices Martin faced when Zimmerman began to pursue him.
First, notice how the author describes GZ's watching Martin as "pursuing" him. Aids the "poor innocent Trayvon" theme. Martin made a bad choice to ambush and pound GZ. Obviously he didn't have to do that. Martin assaulted Zimmerman, period.
[This is] about owning up to the unequal privilege of being nonblack and saying, in essence, “I am George Zimmerman [so] I get to have my fears trump reality. I get get-out-of-jail-free cards. I get a presumption of innocent victimhood, no matter what my own acts or attitudes.
There are some statements that are so packed with utter bullshit that one hardly knows where to begin. First, note how smoothly the author switches from "white privilege" to "the privilege of being nonblack." Because unfortunately for the author, GZ was half Hispanic. Oooh, that doesn't support the point of the piece: "white privilege." So the author deftly finesses the inconvenient fact.
[I]f America is to transcend its long conflation of whiteness with Americanness, it will fall on white people — those wise enough to see they are not Martin and humane enough not to become George — to lead us all to that promised land.
Once again we see the core liberal/Left/Democrat premise that Zimmerman's use of a gun in defending his life against an ambush beating was "inhumane." Does anyone think liberals truly oppose the use of deadly force in self-defense when someone is attacked?  Of course not. Rather, they saw a chance to agonize about a young black who chose to ambush and beat senseless someone of a different race who had done him no harm.

Martin chose to attack Zimmerman because he thought he could beat him.  In other words, he could get away with it.  He couldn't have known that GZ was armed and would not have attacked had he known that.  He was using the classic urban-predator mind-set of "I'm bigger and stronger so I can do whatever I want," but for once that assumption didn't hold.

And if the races had been reversed, no one on the left would have said a word.

Wednesday, July 17

We're getting closer to total amnesty--and 11 million new Democrat voters. You ready?

Obozo granted an audience to the Mexican network Univision, in which he was asked about the legalization of every illegal alien in the U.S.--an act widely called "amnesty" but known in politically-correct circles as comprehensive immigration "reform."

When the interviewer asked whether Obama could simply order amnesty if that bill isn't passed in congress, Obie replied "Probably not.  I think that it is very important for us to recognize that the way to solve this problem has to be legislative. I can do some things and have done some things that make a difference in the lives of people by determining how our enforcement should focus.”

Obie was referring to his executive order of a year or so ago, in which he ordered all government employees not to enforce laws against illegal immigration.

That sounds so innocuous that you may have missed it:  The president *unilaterally* abrogated a law passed by congress and not ruled unconstitutional by the courts.  In other words, he is ruling by decree.

To say this is an impeachable offense belabors the obvious.

Some on the left claim Obozo's earlier executive order to not arrest illegal immigrants who were under 16 when their parents brought them to the U.S. is a strong precedent for him to use the same method to decree that ALL illegal immigrants are now citizens.

Frankly I don't think he'll have to, because I think the Republicans in the house are so eager to not be called raacists that they'll fall for Harry Reid's trap:  they'll pass a bill loaded with seemingly tough border-security provisions, and they'll think they've done a great job.  But then it will go to a conference committee--anonymous, no minutes, no press, public not allowed to watch.

And out of this conference will come a bill that amazingly, mysteriously has loophole language added to all the border-security provisions, rendering them null and void.  So we get amnesty with no increased border security.

The bill will give full citizenship--including the vote, obviously--to all aliens living in the U.S. as of last January.  Whether they make that happen when Obozo signs it or some time down the road is of little consequence, because the future will be set:  Democrat control of the White House and both branches of congress for at least several decades.

Of course House republicans will be totally shocked by this turn of events.  They'll say they had no idea--no idea--that those sneaky Democrats in the senate would gut their strong bill and just give Obozo all those new Democrat votes.  So, y'know, you can't blame the republicans because they were doublecrossed.

But of course everyone over the age of 15 knows this will happen.  It's so sadly predictable.  Total slam-dunk.

The only way to prevent it is if the House doesn't even take up an immigration "reform" bill this session.  But of course...

Oh, if you're curious about the source of the story on Obozo's interview with Univision, it's that den of lunatic-fringe folks at the WaPo.

Tuesday, July 16

New, more serious IRS misconduct disclosed; and why you won't hear about it

You may think you've already heard about the story below.

Unless you're a political junkie, you haven't.  What you've heard about is the IRS targeting conservative groups to deny or greatly delay their applications for tax-exempt status (which is absolutely crucial to getting significant donations).

That's bad enough, but what just broke is more serious:  J. Russell George is the inspector general who oversees the IRS.  He wrote a letter to Senator Charles Grassley, revealing results of investigations suggesting that IRS officials had targeted political candidates for audits.

He also revealed that donor tax information was improperly accessed or disclosed. 

George also noted that "we presented evidence of a willful unauthorized access to the Department of Justice, but the case was declined for prosecution."  Unless the department had solid legal grounds for declining to prosecute, failing to do so suggests that the department may have tried to cover up the misconduct found by the I.G.. 

Grassley has since written a letter to Holder asking for details on who made the decision not to prosecute and why.  He asked whether the Justice Department had an ulterior motive for not pursuing the case.

If there was a good legal reason not to attempt prosecution, there would have been many discussions and a thick paper trail.  Emails.  Nice long Word docs.  Things that are hard for amateurs to slip into the computer files with back-dates.

Getting to the bottom of this should be a slam-dunk.

Now:  The Constitution charges the president [spit] to see to it that the laws of the nation are faithfully executed.  Willful failure to do so should be solid grounds for impeachment.

Of course this won't happen.  It wouldn't happen even if Obozo was caught on video handing a nuclear warhead to an al-qaeda representative.  It's not that an impeachment wouldn't carry the House, but that with the senate [spit] entirely controlled by the Democrats, the asshole would never be *removed* from office.  So why bother?

When a nation's top officials have signaled a total, complete, willful abandonment of the law, can anyone doubt that disaster is mere months away?

Ah, you say this is bullshit, just the wild rantings of the tinfoil-hat lunatic fringe, eh?  Okay, you got me:  here's the link.

Black professor says God is "a white racist with a problem."

You really should see this.  It's a blog post by one "Anthea Butler," who reportedly is an associate professor of...religion...at the University of Pennsylvania.

Unless this was sarcasm, I get the strong impression this Butler person is sick, twisted, miserable, jealous and just plain nuts.  Her fundamental premise is that God is...well, let her speak for herself:
God ain’t good all of the time. In fact, sometimes, God is not for us. As a black woman in a nation that has taken too many pains to remind me that I am not a white man, and am not capable of taking care of my reproductive rights, or my voting rights, I know that this American god ain’t my god. As a matter of fact, I think he’s a white racist god with a problem. More importantly, he is carrying a gun and stalking young black men.
So "God ain't good all of the time", eh?  Could it just possibly be, darlin', that God is the very definition of good, and the problem is that you're too damn twisted and demented to understand what he wants from us?

You say you think He is "a white racist god with a problem"?  Logic would suggest that if God is all-powerful and the definition of good, then if there's a problem, its source is staring back at you from the mirror.

And this twisted wretch is a professor of...religion??  Wow, that explains SO much!

Utterly nuts.

Saturday, July 13

Any bets on riots?

As the jury began deliberations in the trial of George Zimmerman, angry blacks and a few white revolutionaries were calling for riots if the jury doesn't return a guilty verdict.

Of course you think I'm exaggerating.  In which case click here and see for yourself:  It's
If Zimmerman walks free again, it will be like a declaration of Open Season on Black youth!  This...must not be allowed to go down without determined mass resistance.
[We call] on everybody who wants to see “Justice 4 Trayvon” to take that desire to the streets.  Make plans for a vigil when the case goes to the jury, and to TAKE TO THE STREETS ON THE DAY OF OR THE DAY AFTER THE VERDICT COMES DOWN, WHICHEVER WAY IT GOES!
Emphasis is in the original.  And note well that "whichever way it goes" line.  What does it tell you when the dude is calling for protesters to "take to the streets" regardless of the verdict?

There's still time for Obama to go on national television and call for no demonstrations, as I suggested a day or two ago.  It would be a thoughtful, responsible thing for a president to do.  But I don't think this will happen, because Obie doesn't want to be seen by blacks as "reasonable" in situations like the Martin case, because it would anger his base.  For the same reason, if the rioters start burning inner cities, I don't see Obie taking the lead in calling out the National Guard with orders to shoot.  His base would go nuts.

So with no one in the WH willing to publically call for calm we'll just have to see if the hotheads and race-baiters succeed in igniting riots.or if cooler heads prevail.

Democrat and former House Speaker Pelosi tells reporters Obamacare mandate was NOT delayed ??

Democrat Nancy Pelosi was speaker of the House, the highest-ranking Democratic member of that body.  So you'd think things she says would be pretty representative of the party's positions.

Clearly you haven't been paying attention.

After Obama ordered a one-year delay in the "mandate" portion of Obamacare, reporters asked Pelosi about the whole snafu.  Here's what Pelosi said during a press conference on Thursday:
The point is...is that the mandate was not delayed. Certain reporting by businesses that could be perceived as onerous, that reporting requirement was delayed, and partially to review how it would work and how it could be better. It was not a delay of the mandate for the businesses.
Even the Democrat-loving Washington Post was shamed into reporting this astonishingly untrue statement.  (The Post awarded it "three Pinocchios.")

Questions for readers:  Does Pelosi actually believe the employer mandate was NOT delayed?  With all her staffers, being the ranking Democrat in congress [spit] and with a topic of such huge impact to the country, how could she not know this? And what does her statement tell you about the caliber of folks who somehow have managed to make it to the top leadership positions of the Democratic party?

Friday, July 12

UK teacher forbids schoolkid from drinking water to avoid offending...Muslims

Data point number 3,865,395 on how "creeping sharia" takes over a nation.  This example comes from a liberal gradeschool teacher in the U.K.

Seems that on the hottest day of the year in Portsmouth, England, a ten-year-old in a school wanted a drink of water.  But there were Muslim children in the class.  And right now Muslims are observing "Ramadan," during which they're not permitted to eat or drink during daylight hours.

Fair enough.  If their fucking ridiculous bloodthirsty "religion" demanded that they set themselves on fire, that's their business.

But the teacher decided it that since the Muslim kids were forbidden by their faith to eat or drink, "it wouldn't be fair" to the Muslims if any of the other students took a drink of water during the school day.  The story at the link also said she was concerned that letting the non-Muslim student drink might offend the Muslim children.  So she ordered that the ten-year-old not to take a drink of water.

I've seen enough crazy "politically-correct" bullshit in my life to be thoroughly sick of it.  I've finally decided that the statist bastards that push that crap are my mortal enemies--as they are of all non-statists. 

That is all.

Chair of Texas Democratic party makes brazenly false claim about consequences of controversial bill

Ordinary rank-and-file Democrats can't be regarded as speaking for the party.  But you'd think the chair of the Democratic party of a very large state would be held to a higher standard.  Namely, you'd expect him or her to be truthful and factual, or at least not to lie to the press about major things.

Hahahahahahaha!

Consider one Gilberto Hinojosa, who by all accounts is the chairman of the Democratic party of Texas.  On July 3rd Hinojosa sent an email seeking support to defeat the bill before the Texas legislature restricting abortion to not later than 20 weeks (with exceptions for health) and force abortion providers to comply with the same requirements as regular clinics.  The email included this line:
If this bill passes, someone living in El Paso would have to drive 550 miles each way to San Antonio for something as simple as cervical cancer screening at a clinic.
This claim was so outrageously false that even left-wing Politifact was shamed into investigating its veracity.  And here's what happened:
When we contacted the Democratic Party about Hinojosa’s claim, spokeswoman Tanene Allison told us by email that although the chairman’s San Antonio reference could be read as saying no El Paso facility would continue to provide such services, it was not intended that way.

Hinojosa "does recognize that there may be other clinics open for these screenings in El Paso," Allison said.
"Our intention was to say that if you go to the clinics that are covered under HB2, you would have to drive 550 miles to get some of the services that you normally get locally," Allison said. "We certainly could have been clearer...."
Ah yes, just as Bill "Slick Willy" Clinton "could have been clearer" in denying he'd ever had sex with "that woman, Miss Lewinski."  Just as Susan Rice "could have been clearer" in her unequivocal claim that the attack in Benghazi was entirely due to outrage over an amateur movie trailer on YouTube. 

Just as Barack H. Obama "could have been clearer" in saying "Health insurance costs will go down for everyone."

Just as Janet Napolitano "could have been clearer" in saying "Our southern border is more secure now than at any time in the past."

But one thing doesn't need to be any clearer:  the modus operandi for most Democrat politicians is lie, lie, lie--frequently, shamelessly, brazenly; secure in the knowledge that not one time out of a thousand will any of the Dem-loving media be so rude as to actually call you on it.

And if by chance someone in the media does point out your outrageous lie, trot out a female spokesperson (less likely to be seriously questioned by other reporters) to say "We could have been clearer."

Shocker: RINO NY Times opinion writer backs amnesty.

David Brooks writes for the NY Times, where he's billed a conservative.  That's bullshit, since Brooks invariably supports the liberal position on every issue. 

He stays true to form on the topic of amnesty--oooh, sorry:  Immigration "reform" in an opinion piece for the Times yesterday (titled "Pass the bill").  In it, Brooks cites a number of point in trying to make his case.  Among them are the fact that the CBO allegedly claimed amnesty would increase GDP by a few percent over ten or 20 years.

He cites a separate study by the American Action Forum claiming amnesty would increase per capita income by $1,700 after 10 years.

How...interesting.  Because just seven paragraphs later he agrees that amnesty would drive wages down, but brags that it would decrease wages less than expected.
The second conservative complaint is that the bill would flood the country with more low-skilled workers, driving down wages..... In the first place, the recent research suggests that increased immigration drives down wages far less than expected. Low-skilled immigrants don’t directly compete with the native-born. They do entry-level work, create wealth and push natives into better jobs. 
Which is it, Mr. Brooks?  Do you claim amnesty will increase wages, or drive them down?  Do you even realize that you contradicted yourself?

And consider the next two sentences after the bolded one above:
Low-skilled immigrants don’t directly compete with the native-born. They do entry-level work, create wealth and push natives into better jobs.
Does Brooks believe--as he seems to be implying--that there are no entry-level jobs in the U.S. that are being performed or sought by Americans?  Because if there are any, seems to me low-skilled immigrants will be competing directly against low-skilled Americans.

Brooks's claim that immigrants will "push natives into better jobs" is similarly flawed:  An unskilled American isn't automatically going to develop increased skills just because the Democrats declare amnesty.  In fact, just a few 'grafs earlier he claimed "this bill radically increases the number of high-skilled immigrants."  What possible reason does Brooks have to believe the folks who are "pushed into better jobs" won't be these high-skilled amnesty winners instead of low-skilled Americans?

We could go on but you get the drift:  Brooks's job is to write pieces to give upper-class Republicans enough psychological cover to support amnesty.  He does this by asserting at the top of the pieces that all reasonable people support amnesty.  And since his readers all want to be thought of as reasonable people, that's a wrap.

There's no need to be consistent or truthful since no one actually reads those pieces critically.  Thus just the headline and a few assertions are enough to do the trick.

You think I'm kidding about no one reading his stuff critically?  Hey, the contradictions got by the vaunted Times editorial staff, right?

Blogger Drew at Ace's summed it up nicely:  Supporting amnesty means supporting policies that hurt Americans in order to provide benefits to people from other countries who have broken our laws.

A responsible president would explicitly call for no rioting or assaults if GZ is acquitted

I'm not following the Zimmerman trial very closely, but I gather that just yesterday--with the trial almost over and the prosecution widely said to have presented a weak case--the prosecutor suddenly asked the judge to amend the charges to include two lesser charges.  Presumably this was so if the jury didn't convict on the original charge, it could convict on a lesser one.

I understand it's not uncommon to add charges, but to do so at the last minute is a huge injustice--because the defense doesn't have a chance to put on *any* defense against the lesser charges.

Obviously the prosecutor knew he was planning to do this.  And the judge shouldn't have allowed it at the last minute.  That she did allow it speaks to a second, larger point:

With the trial essentially over, the barest whispers of speculation are starting to appear in the Lying Media about what will happen if--by some wild chance--Zimmerman is acquitted.  The actual subject of the concern typically is never mentioned:  how extensive will black rioting be?

You'd think the government would have a huge stake in preventing any rioting.  With that in mind, a responsible president would go on national television and sternly advise "people" (cuz you couldn't say "blacks" cuz, raacism) not to riot or attack others after a verdict is reached.

If I lived in a large city I'd certainly want the president to do everything possible to ensure no riots.  But I suspect the extent of Obama's prescription for no rioting is for the jury to return a guilty verdict on the murder charge.

Maybe Obama will act responsibly.  But I suspect he won't because doing so would be viewed as criticizing or oppressing blacks--something he simply can't bring himself to do.  It's the same reason he never criticizes Muslims, no matter what outrageous butchery they commit.


Oh well.

Thursday, July 11

If I were WalMart I'd run an ad telling why we scrapped 3 stores--for 5 years.

As readers might have guessed, I have more than a moderate dislike of statists, socialists and thugs.  Thus when the leftist council of Washington D.C. passed a bill that would force WalMart to pay a minimum wage 50 percent higher than the minimum wage every other employer in D.C. had to pay if it wanted to open any of three new stores already under construction, I was hoping WalMart would respond by telling the council to jump off a cliff.

And particularly council member Vincent B. Orange (D-At Large), a lead backer of the bill.  Orange noted that “We’re at a point where we don’t need retailers. Retailers need us.”

Ah yes, councilman, keep telling yourself and your constituents that.  And I'll admit you're right, but only to the extent that Democrat policies have relieved people of the burden of actually seeking out and finding jobs which require them to show up and actually "work" [eewww, shudder!] for a living.  Your philosophy--if we can glorify playground thinking with that term--endears you to dumb voters but it will eventually destroy everything.  Because more and more people will be lured by your offer of "free money," until so few are working that the government will collapse from deficit spending.

But then, you don't think that far ahead.  In fact, I suspect you don't think past the next bribe or the next election.

In any case, as it turns out, after the bill was passed WalMart announced it was abandoning plans to open three of the six planned stores and was reviewing its options on the three already under construction.  You can read the whole story here.

Let me congratulate WalMart on a great response.  But if I was a WalMart exec I'd consider doing a lot more to turn this shocking abuse of political power into a long-lasting lesson for local residents:  First I'd stop construction on the other three stores.  Then I'd pick a couple of business-friendly newspapers and sign a five year contract for a quarter-page ad to run a few times a week, to read as follows:
Dear District residents:  We wanted to open six big new stores in some of the poorest neighborhoods in the district.  These stores would have hired 1,800 local residents, with all jobs paying a minimum of $8.25 per hour.  However, some opportunistic leftists on the D.C. council, aided by their union supporters, rushed out a bill that would have forced WalMart to pay $12.50 per hour.

This law was worded so that effectively it applied just to WalMart.  In fact the law specifically exempted stores whose employees were union members.

It should be obvious that if we're required to pay $12.50 per hour we'd have to lose the low prices that make WalMart so desirable.  If we didn't we'd lose money on these stores--and you need to know that businesses can't stay in business if they don't make a profit.

Your representatives on the council obviously would rather you not have 1800 new jobs, and force you to pay more for your purchases.  This shows they really don't give a damn about you.

Oh, and they don't know squat about business or economics.  Which is why they're politicians.

If you want a whole bunch of jobs and lower prices, you know were to find us.  But please be advised that we won't come back as long as even one of the following council members is still on the council:  [list those voting for the bill here]

Unemployment claims up--"unexpectedly" of course--but that's really good economic news

A story from Reuters, July 11, 2013:  (Keep in mind that most of these phrases were taken verbatim from the Labor Department's press conference releasing the weekly numbers, so it's not ALL Reuters' doing.)
The number of Americans filing new claims for unemployment benefits rose last week, although the level still appeared to point to healing in the nation's job market.
Didja get that?  New applications for unemployment were up, which obviously "appeared" to show "healing" in the national job market.  Explanation:  "Healing" in this context is a nice vague word--no one can disprove it.  And of course "appeared" is an obvious weasel-word.
The reading was likely clouded by seasonal factors. The Labor Department can have a tough time seasonally adjusting claims in early July because many factories shut down during that period for retooling, but the scheduling for the shutdowns varies from year to year.
"The reading was likely clouded..."?  Translation:  We're gonna do everything possible to disguise news that would have been reported as negative if a Republican were president, and "clouded" is a nice vague word that implies it's damn near impossible for anyone to make sense of such complex numbers.  Here:  "The Labor Department can have a tough time adjusting..."  See?  So just take our word for the soothing, reassuring conclusions!
Even with the increase, the number of layoffs remains in the range of the levels seen over the last year, and is consistent with a continued drop in the unemployment rate.
So again, the Party Line is that unemployment "continues" to drop.  Ah.  That would explain why first-time jobless claims rose last week.

We could go on and on but why bother?  One recalls the line about "Dear Leader increased the meat ration from 200 grams per week to 150."  Sorry, I don't remember where that's from but it's devastating.

Wednesday, July 10

D.C. council passes law to force WalMart to pay employees at least $12.50 an hour if it wants to open a store in D.C.

[See Update at end of post.]

If you're a leftist you won't find anything wrong with what I'm about to describe.

Seems WalMart--a non-union company--had plans to open six new stores in some of the poorest neighborhoods in Washington D.C.   The stores would provide 1,800 new jobs.  But union leaders knew that if the new stores were built, business at unionized competitors would almost certainly plummet, so they got their friends on the D.C. council to introduce a very special bill.

This bill provided that any company wanting to open a store bigger than 75,000 square feet would have to pay a mininum wage of $12.50 per hour--unless the store's employees were members of a union.

The minimum wage in D.C. is $8.25 per hour.

Short answer:  the bill was designed to apply only to WalMart.  It was also designed to be the wedge that could destroy the company, because if D.C. got away with this, other liberal, Democrat-run councils would see the opportunity to do the same thing.  Having to pay a minimum wage 50 percent above that paid by competitors would presumably either force the company to raise their prices to uncompetitive levels or would make the stores money-losers.  Or WalMart could unionize.  With any of these outcomes the unions would win.

The council knew it had the company over a barrel, since three of the stores were already under construction.  Almost no one believed the company would abandon these projects and simply write off all their costs.  It was a perfect extortion plot.

WalMart execs warned the council that if it passed the bill, the company would reconsider building the stores.

Oooh, you can't ever threaten Democrat pols by telling 'em the consequences of stupid bills (like Obamacare or the Porkulus or Cash for Clunkers or or or...).  The council passed the bill.

But always remember, children, Democrats strongly support poor working folks and will do everything they can to help them.  So when activists complain that inner-city residents have a hard time finding fresh, inexpensive food and low-priced necessities near their homes, Democrats will pressure big retailers to open stores there.  Unless it's WalMart.

When inner-city residents complain about a lack of jobs available to unskilled workers, Democrats will wheedle big retailers to open stores there.  Unless it's WalMart or any other big, successful, non-unionized company.  Cuz you folks really don't want any of those insulting ol' $8.25 an hour jobs when we've made it so you can get paid just as well for not working a lick.

What's really funny is to read some of the 5,000-plus comments to the WaPo article about this.  It's amazing how many commenters hate WalMart.  Real class-warfare stuff.

But always remember, Democrats tirelessly fight for the working man.  Reeaally. Trust us.  And passing this law to force WalMart to pay 50 percent more than the current minimum wage was just us trying to help you working folks.

Clueless morons.  That would be the D.C. council, all leftists and any working stiff who believes 'em.

WalMart hasn't announced whether it will continue with its plans to open the six stores.  So the drama hasn't fully played out yet.  If the company presses on with its plans I suspect we'll see this trumpeted by every liberal rag as a huge victory:  "D.C. Democrats force WalMart to pay a living wage!"  By contrast, if the company abandons its plans--removing 1800 jobs from D.C.'s poorest neighborhoods, I suspect you won't hear a word about it.

Finally a legal postscript:  When the U.S. was founded there was a legal principle that laws had to apply equally to all parties.  The notion of passing a law imposing a tax on just the five richest people in the land would have horrified the founders.

This principle was regarded as so fundamental, so vital to a decent society that the Supreme Court extended it to provide that the courts would reject as unconstitutional even a law that applied to all persons if the burden of obeying it was deemed by the court to fall disproportionately on one group of citizens.

This of course was the basis for the court's finding that even though "poll taxes" applied to all, they were nevertheless illegal.

But in the last 100 years or so politicians gradually abandoned this fundamental principle.  The notion that the government could tax peoples' income at vastly different rates would have shocked the founders.  Similarly the idea that congress would write a provision into law allowing the president to exempt specific, named companies from complying with requirements regarding taxes or health insurance would have been shocking.

The D.C. law was so narrowly written as to leave little doubt that it was intended to apply to one specific company.  Theoretically this should make it clearly unconstitutional.  But given the wholesale disregard of fundamental legal principles by all courts in the U.S. during the reign of Obama, if you were a WalMart attorney, would you trust the courts to uphold the fading principle that laws must apply equally to all?

UPDATE:  After the council passed the bill a WalMart spokesman said the company was scrapping plans for three of the stores and will review its plans for the three stores already under construction.

Key assumption of Obamacare is crap--but don't worry, everything's right on track!

Last month the government of California provided new details about the state's health insurance "exchange," which is supposed to begin operations in January in support of that brilliant piece of crap called Obamacare.

Liberals, of course, hailed California's press release as showing that Obamacare would be able to provide excellent health insurance to all, at a price lower than anyone was paying before.  (Remember the infamous promise that "Everyone's health costs will go down"?)

But one of the core assumptions about Obamacare--one on which its economic viability is totally dependent--is that millions of young, healthy people will begin buying health insurance, starting now.  This assumption, of course, is unrealistic in the extreme.

To put it a different way:  The only way insurers can afford to do things like accept pre-existing conditions at no extra cost is if they're collecting billions in premiums from healthy young people who rarely have many medical expenses.  If young, healthy people don't buy insurance, the system collapses.

The problem is that at the moment, most younger Americans don’t bother to buy health insurance. 

Ooops.

Ah, but the brilliant Democratic staffers who crafted Obamacare had that one covered:  They simply included a provision in the bill commanding everyone over the age of 18 to buy health insurance!

Very canny, very clever, these Democrats.

Problem is, in 2014 the penalty--whether it's called a "fine" or a "tax" depends on which side of the argument the government chooses to take at that moment, and what question is being pursued--for failing to buy health insurance is either $95 or 1 percent of taxable income.

Hey, you say, that doesn't sound like a problem! 

But consider that the cheapest individual health insurance policy offered by the California exchange will cost $1,944 per year.

See the problem yet?

If you're a liberal/Democrat/"progressive" you almost certainly don't.  It's that if healthy 20-somethings rarely buy health insurance *now* (because they don't think it's a good deal now), and the penalty/tax for *continuing* to not buy it is about $1800 less than the cost of buying it, what makes any sane adult think a significant number will rush out and buy health insurance?

Ooops.  There goes the core fiscal assumption.

But wait, it gets better!  Obama just unilaterally decreed (gotta love those decrees) that for the first year at least, for some unexplained reason the gummint would not be checking the income status of people who apply for the "free" health insurance that's cited as the program's signature achievement.  A handful of cynics speculated that this declaration just might, possibly, lead to even more fraud and waste of tax dollars, as everyone and his uncle presented themselves to the DHS claiming utter poverty.

Of course that surely won't happen.  Because Obama supporters are all fine, upstanding Americans who would never lie to get more gummint bennies.

Tuesday, July 9

Obama supporters happily sign petition to repeal the Bill of Rights

I know a lot of liberals must be pretty smart.  But the ranks of Obama supporters also seem to include a huge number of people who--to put it charitably--make certain rocks seem like Rhodes scholars.

A guy in California went up to people in public and asked if they supported the president.  If they said yes he told 'em there was a bill in the works to repeal the archaic, outmoded, ancient "Bill of Rights."  He said this was supported by Obama, and he asked if they'd sign a petition that would "help Obama repeal the Bill of Rights."

He made sure to repeat several times that this petition was to help Obama repeal of the Bill of Rights--and added "all of them."  The Obama supporters didn't even bat an eye.

Oh, and he filmed it all.  Makes for some pretty funny viewing.

The really amusing part is that the signers weren't inner-city 9th-grade dropouts wanting Obamaphones and free rent, but were almost all white and well dressed.  Really makes you wonder. 

Can't decide which explanation is more frightening:  That they didn't understand what the guy was asking 'em to sign...or that they did.

Leftist spin on a train wreck

A story on Yahoo news shows one of two things (maybe both):  1) Yahoo totally supports Obama and liberal/Dem positions, always; and 2) liberals are either dishonest or don't understand the notion of cause and effect.

The story is about the train that started rolling down a long hill in Quebec.  The train was parked--the crew was sleeping in a local hotel--when the train started rolling.  It picked up enough speed to derail a few miles down-slope.  The wrecked cars caught fire, killing some 50 people in the little town where it crashed.

The train took off because the air-brakes lost pressure in the middle of the night.  The brakes lost pressure because firefighters shut down one of the engines--which happened to be the one supplying air to the brakes.

The firemen shut down the engine because it caught fire.  Minutes later they notified the railroad that they'd done that but the dispatcher--not realizing the significance--took no further action to get personnel out to the train to get another air source to replace the stopped engine.

The post-crash fire was fueled by oil from wrecked tanker cars.  (A huge amount of oil is shipped this way.  It's generally a very safe way to ship, but of course the tank cars can't withstand a train wreck.)

Now here's how Yahoo wrapped up their story:
[The railroad] is one of many North American railroads that have vastly stepped up shipments of crude oil as pipelines from North Dakota and from oil-producing regions in Western Canada fill to capacity, and the accident is bound to raise concern about the practice of transporting oil by rail.
Didja get that?  Railroads have "vastly stepped-up shipments of crude oil as pipelines from...oil-producing regions fill to capacity."  Yeah, I can see that shipping oil by rail thing is shaping up to be a huge problem.  In fact, considering deadly train wrecks like this one, should governments even allow oil producers to move oil by rail? 

Of course, there's a safer way to move oil long distances.  In fact, not only is it safer, it's also MORE ENERGY-EFFICIENT!  It's called...wait for it...a pipeline.  And years ago, energy companies that knew North Dakota and western Canadian fields were starting to be developed proposed building one of these pipelines from the oil fields to U.S. refineries.  And you won't believe this but they didn't even want taxpayer money to do it!  (What nerve!  thinking they could build something useful without gummint money!)

But some asshole high up in the U.S. gummint ordered some unrelated government agency--the "State Department," as I recall--to deny permission to build an oil pipeline to move Canadian crude to the U.S.   You may be asking what the hell State Department has to do with oil production or energy.  Don't ask.

Can you guess who ordered State to nix the pipeline?  That's right!  Barack Hussein Obama, genius and lightworker.  The man who can't string two coherent sentences together without a teleprompter.

But if you're a Dem/leftist, you only reach the conclusion Yahoo published:  that the tragic, deadly train derailment "raise[s] concern about...transporting oil by rail."

Like I said, the notion of cause-and-effect escapes 'em.  Or maybe they do know but are just covering for Duh Won.

"But at this point, what difference could it possibly make?"

Monday, July 8

Obamacare: a disaster, but their *intentions* were good. Most of 'em, at least

I am indebted to one Charles Kirtley, who commented about Obamacare more or less as follows:
You mean if [Obamacare] makes hiring full time workers more expensive, companies will adapt by hiring more part-time employees instead?  Whoa, who'da thunk it?
Commenter "c5then" added,
Since Obamacare provides that the "penalty/tax" slapped on a business for NOT providing health insurance is less than the cost of health insurance, can anyone guess what will happen to most employer-provided health insurance? 
These two clearly have more common sense than three-quarters of Havahd PhDs.

But of course, "much good should it do them," because our self-proclaimed betters have managed to bribe, pervert, twist and distort the myriad arcane rules of modern lawmaking enough to pass the abominable piece of shit--and Repubs don't have the votes to repeal it.  (Not that they ever would if they *had* the votes, the spineless jellyfish.)

I will laugh my ass off when the first poor dumb sumbitch who voted for Obozo, only to get fucked by Obamacare, finally wakes up and realizes what he or she lost.  I'll be buying drinks for all my conservative friends who not only knew this was gonna be a disaster (a prediction, I must admit, far less difficult than rocket science), but also warned everyone how much of a disaster it was gonna be.  To no avail, of course.

To my Democrat friends (and I do have a few):  I know that for most of you, your hearts were/are in the right place.  The media trotted out story after tragic story about people without health insurance who were financially devastated--forced to declare bankruptcy--by a medical crisis.  And it was just SOOOO sad!

Hey, *I've been there* and I fully agree it's *awful!*  Absolutely sucks.  But if you keep working hard you can fight your way out of it.  Even a medically-caused bankruptcy.

But y'all felt it was unfair that some people didn't have health insurance, so you agreed with Barky and Harry and Nancy and the rest of the Dems that the government could--and should--give health insurance to poor folks.  In fact your Dem leaders said it would be easy:  All we had to do was....destroy our semi-free market in medicine by forcing everyone (even the young) to buy health insurance; destroy the last vestige of the notion of personal responsibility, turn the industry over to all-powerful bureaucrats, declare amnesty for 30 million illegal aliens and VOILA!!  The U.S. would be a far better country.

Republicans warned that there was no such thing as a free lunch--that giving "free" health insurance to roughly 40 percent of all U.S. residents would bankrupt the government.  But being Democrats, you didn't believe that.  And to be honest, most of you wouldn't have cared in any case.  Your mantra was "There IS such a thing as a free lunch, because Barack (pbuh) and Harry Reid and Nan Pelosi said so!!  We can give "free" health insurance to the uninsured by simply cutting the crappy, greedy insurance companies out of the middle, and having gummint and businesses pay docs directly.  See?"

It sounded so totally plausible, dinnit?  I mean, everybody knew insurance companies were making a killing on health insurance.  They cashed your premium checks and then almost never paid a dime in claims.  People had to meet some ridiculously high deductible (that almost no one ever met) before their insurance would pay a dime.  Yeah, I know.

So your solution was to turn the whole rice bowl upside-down, and command everyone to "buy" health insurance.  And if you made less than X, the gummint would give you health insurance.  Very elegant.

If you're a bit more cynical you may have suspected, deep down, that Obamacare would bankrupt the government.  But you really didn't care because you know the poor sumbitch is dead anyway.  Plus, all your leftist friends have been wanting to bankrupt the U.S. for decades because they thought the U.S. was the source of all evil in the world anyway.  So it was gonna be a good thing. 

Plus if you made less than the unspecified limit you wouldn't have to pay that awful health-insurance premium anymore.

God, I love you guys!  You're the best!  You had the courage of your convictions:  You analyzed all the factors, pondered the likely costs and possible problems, and emailed your rep asking him to vote for it.

Just kidding!  Forgive me if I suspect you didn't give it much thought after "Democrats favor..." and "Obama supports..."   Oh, and..."free."

So now that Obama has just decreed a delay in the law's requirement that businesses implement the *cost* part of this wonderful law until after the vital midterm elections next year, you probably think that was entirely due to prudence:  Hey, wouldn't wanna rush into a possibly-flawed implementation, right?  I mean, rushing into stuff is almost always risky--like passing a 2200-page law that absolutely no one but Harry and Nancy had had a chance to read, eh?  So...let's do be prudent.

And about that word "decreed":  A lot of laws have "may be delayed" or "president may temporarily waive" provisions in 'em, to allow for extenuating circumstances.  Did Obamacare?  I don't think that's in there.  Cuz, y'know, if they'd put in the customary loophole provisions it would have called unwanted attention to the sheer *size* of this monstrosity, and the trillions of dollars of new gummint expenditures it was authorizing. 

Which might have cost the Dems one or two crucial votes.

And it would never, ever...never...ever...occur to you that the delay Obie just ordered might have been less an admission that they couldn't be ready in time, and more to keeping y'all happily voting Democrat in the midterms.  Don't want to let voters find out the real cost of this monstrosity before the midterm elections, eh?

Nah, y'all don't think that way.  If a Democratic pol--let alone one as brilliant as Obozo--says something, no matter how bizarre-sounding, it must be true, right?

I love you people!  You remind me of certain very earnest college freshmen, who are absolutely sure they know how everything works.  Oh, and your intentions are good--hearts in the right place and all.  And that really, really is important.  Bad intentions can't help but have bad outcomes, while naive folks with good intentions--well, once in a great while mighty forces intervene to save their naive asses.

Surely...surely...that will happen in this case.  Cuz your intentions are good.  Just as they were back when Obie and the Chicago gang were bribing senators to get this piece of crap passed.  Cuz free health insurance for folks is a great end...and we all know that it's okay to use...unusual...means if one wants to achieve great ends, right?

In fact, didn't the Founders discuss exactly this principle--"the ends justify the means" or something?