Saturday, February 13, 2016

To the Bernie Bros

Time to discover the Liberals Karl Popper and Eric Hoffer. You probably aren't aware of these men, but you should consider their wisdom. You could even do an internet search.

Bernie Sanders' ideas are not vaguely new. There's a body of rational criticism you need to understand if you pretend to intellectual honesty.
"I remained a socialist for several years, even after my rejection of Marxism; and if there could be such a thing as socialism combined with individual liberty, I would be a socialist still. For nothing could be better than living a modest, simple, and free life in an egalitarian society. It took some time before I recognized this as no more than a beautiful dream; that freedom is more important than equality; that the attempt to realize equality endangers freedom; and that, if freedom is lost, there will not even be equality among the unfree."
― Karl Popper, Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography - 1976
"The nineteenth century was naïve because it did not know the end of the story. It did not know what happens when dedicated idealists come to power; it did not know the intimate linkage between idealists and policemen, between being your brother’s keeper and being his jailkeeper.

It is disconcerting that present-day young who did not know Stalin and Hitler are displaying the old naïveté. After all that has happened they still do not know that you cannot build utopia without terror, and that before long terror is all that’s left."
-Eric Hoffer, Before the Sabbath - 1974

Friday, February 12, 2016

Unlearn for Bern

You know, the Bernie voters more and more resemble the demographic contingent that “got clean for Gene.” Minus the clean bit, lacking the <sarc> civility of the Vietnam era </sarc> and adding tribalist whining about the 1st Amendment.

On a whim I checked 'sarc' on Duck-Duck-Go: "Sexual Assault Response Coordinator." In this case, that’s Bill Clinton, Gloria Steinem and Madeline Albright. It's all in how you parse "sexual assault response." Camille Paglia had some thoughts on this - “Sexism has nothing to do with it”.

But back to my point: The main difference between Gene McCarthy and Bernie Sanders is that no one in the 1960's could possibly have run on an overtly socialist platform. But for Obama, no one could run on one now. Bernie's acolytes think the problem is Barack didn't transform enough.

The new generation of students doesn't remember the Soviet Union, hasn't read the Black Book of Communism or The Road to Serfdom and paid no attention to the lessons of Hugo Chavez (much less Mao, Stalin or Castro). Their "war" is fueled by abysmal economic ignorance. Not that the Vietnam era protestors were students of the dismal science, it just wasn't their reason for being, and they couldn't have sold socialism to a wide audience however much protest leaders may have wanted to.

How quickly we forget when the far left runs the government schools.

Thursday, February 11, 2016

Self-banned from Twitter

I'm done with Twitter. Account deleted. Here's why.

They're sitting there scratching their heads about why their user numbers are stagnant. Maybe they'll wake up when the user base declines.

Monday, February 08, 2016

Mr. Bill: Sander's supporters sexist

They threatened to deploy cigars.
People who have gone online to defend Hillary, to explain why they supported her, have been subject to vicious trolling and attacks that are literally too profane often, not to mention sexist, to repeat.
Bill Clinton unloads on Bernie Sanders ahead of crucial New Hampshire primary

NOT The Onion.

Real women know their place

"When you’re young, you’re thinking, “Where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie."
-Feminist superhero Gloria Steinem, on why young women aren’t flocking to Mrs. Bill.
I see a bumper sticker: Horny co-eds for Bernie!
"And just remember — there's a special place in hell for women who don't help each other."
-Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, at a Mrs. Bill’s campaign event.
Ms. Albright should know.
"Sen. Sanders is the only person who I think would characterize me, a woman running to be the first woman president, as exemplifying the establishment."
-Mrs. Bill on why she can’t possibly be “establishment:” Because she has a vagina.
Mrs. Bill? Bernie is far from the only one, or Gloria Steinem wouldn’t have been sticking her foot in her mouth up to the knee.
"Sometimes when a woman speaks out, some people think it's shouting."
-Mrs. Bill on her calm demeanor involving gun control.
Sometimes, when a woman screeches for years on a topic, she calls it speaking out.
"Bernie is building a movement, we're told (with little evidence of lasting organization, by the way), but it's a movement whose loudest advocates are entitled young men who heap the vilest abuse on women who don't deign to join it."
-Joan Walsh, writing at The Nation in Jan 2016
It’s a movement lasting a bit too long for Mrs. Bill’s comfort.
"First of all, Clinton only won the women’s vote narrowly in 2008, besting Barack Obama by just 2 percent…

The drop in Clinton’s support among women also makes sense given that we know women don’t merely support female candidates just because they’re women."

-Joan Walsh (same one), writing at Salon in Sep 2015
No, they support female candidates solely because of the candidate's sex because they’re being bullied by feminist SJW hacks who can’t remember what they write after a few months.

Sunday, February 07, 2016

YOU are a Trump donor

Donald Trump makes a big deal out of using his own money to finance his campaign. He mentioned it again last night when he was booed for insulting the audience:
Trump said he was self-funding his campaign, so Republican donors weren't a fan of his candidacy.

"The reason they're not loving me is I don't want their money. I'm going to do the right thing for the American public," Trump said.
Self-funding? Ignoring the immense free coverage he's had from the media, which you paid for with your time watching ads, a lot of the actual money he's using to finance his campaign came from you. The Donald brags about "leveraging" (to use a polite term) politicians, "I've got to give to them, because when I want something, I get it. When I call, they kiss my ass."

He has reason to brag:
None of this (Except maybe the tax avoidance at the Grand Hyatt*, the unreported lobbying** against the Mohawk Casino and the attempt to screw an elderly woman out of her house.) was illegal. All of it shows Trump is a corporatist whore, whose "business" benefits from transferring taxpayer dollars to his pocket.

Trump says this demonstrates corruption in politics. If so, it also demonstrates corrupt "business" practice. He doesn't talk about cleaning up the problem, he just says he's above it now. Because he already got your money.

Doing "[T]he right thing for the American public?" Donald Trump: A consummate utilitarian ethicist.

*When tax receipts from the Grand Hyatt plummeted to $667,000 from $3.7 million the year before, the city budget director asked Auditor General Burstein to review the hotel's financial records. Burstein said the Grand Hyatt, through "aberrant" accounting practices, had understated its profits by $5 million and shorted the city by $2,870,259 in taxes.

"The people who didn't get the foregone taxes were the police, the schools and public hospitals of this city," she said, adding that "Trump leveraged tax forgiveness and clout into a deal where he had essentially no risk at all; there was no downside. Then, having triumphed, he repaid his benefactors by excoriating them as inept, venal and useless."

Although Trump pressured her to kill the audit, Burstein said, she insisted on publishing it.

**In October 2000, Trump and his associates agreed to pay $250,000 to the state and issue an apology because he secretly paid for the ads attacking the Mohawks and didn’t inform the state lobbying commission.

Thursday, February 04, 2016

Crime fees

DC Wants To Pay People Not To Commit Crime

I think the project should be named Danegeld.

Proposing we just give our lunch money to the bullies.

I do have questions:
How do they prove they didn’t commit a crime?
Seems rather like a payment for not getting caught.

What’s the risk of signing up, do you get a stiffer sentence if you fail?


Minimum Wages Surged In 6 Cities Last Year; Then This Happened
Another failed hypothesis.
Hiring at restaurants, hotels and other leisure and hospitality sector venues slowed markedly last year in metro areas that saw big minimum-wage hikes, new Labor Department data show.

Wherever cities implemented big minimum-wage hikes to $10 an hour or more last year, the latest data through December show that job creation downshifted to the slowest pace in at least five years.
Will this experiment be treated like the climate models, or will its proponents actually pay attention to whether their predictions match reality?

I'm betting the former.


If you want to see Carly Fiorina on stage at Saturday's debate, you might consider signing this petition.

Christie, Kasich, Bush and Carson are on stage and:

  • Carly finished ahead of Christie and Kasich in Iowa.
  • She has the same number of delegates as Bush and Kasich (Christie has zero).
  • She is polling ahead of Dr. Carson in New Hampshire.
  • She has twice the cash-on-hand as either Governors Christie or Kasich.
  • She is already on the ballot in 32 states.
Let her debate. She's earned it.

You can also tell the RNC by emailing to:

Tuesday, February 02, 2016

Advantage Sanders

Dem sen: Sanders has no 'interest in foreign policy'
Democratic senator and top Clinton surrogate Claire McCaskill bashed rival Bernie Sanders on the day of the Iowa caucus as lacking the foreign policy chops needed to serve as commander-in-chief...

"He doesn't have experience and hasn't shown a great deal of interest in foreign policy, hasn't really demonstrated the breadth and depth of knowledge you need to lead this country at a dangerous time."
McCaskill has a point. Mrs. Bill's interest in sharing state secrets with foreign intelligence agencies is well documented, and we are in a dangerous time.

Thanks, in no small part, to Mrs. Bill.

If only she'd shown a lack of interest in foreign policy, our national security wouldn't be compromised, Libya wouldn't be breeding ISIS, four Americans might not have died in Benghazi and she wouldn't be on the verge of indictment.

Monday, February 01, 2016

Law and Orders

Trump tells fans to ‘knock the crap out of’ any protesters with tomatoes

That's not "throw tomatoes at protestors," it's "punch them out if they have tomatoes." Donald offers to pay legal costs for those who follow his incitement.

Doesn't say how he'd negate the possible jail time. I guess we'll have to wait until he's president to see how he would suspend the law regarding assault committed by those he considers his nascent brownshirts.

No more deals


The Democrats will make a series of short videos and post them to Facebook, Google, Twitter, You Tube and Instagram. The videos will be microtargeted to the right demographic. Big Data makes it easy to target voters. My view is that the mother lode is on immigration and that the MSM will attack Trump’s (or his subcontractors) use of illegal alien labor in the hotel, golf course, restaurant and construction industries. Social media will amplify this MSM attack. The MSM ignore social media and the use of Big Data because Facebook and Google are eating their lunch on ad dollars. That’s why you don’t read much about how the campaigns use it to win elections.

Trump’s coarse and at times outlandish language and behavior can only drive his unfavorable numbers even higher. Jean Kaufman, for example, has written about Trump and eminent domain here. Kelo is practically a litmus test for conservatives and Trump is on the other side.

Think about what the Dems did to that fine man who is Mitt Romney. When the Dems got finished with Mitt, many thought he was a heartless murderer. A false accusation, to be sure, but it worked. In my opinion, the anti-Trump social media videos will result in a landslide loss for the GOP.

Saturday, January 30, 2016

At this point

Official: Some Clinton emails 'too damaging' to release
The intelligence community has deemed some of Hillary Clinton’s emails “too damaging" to national security to release under any circumstances, according to a U.S. government official close to the ongoing review. A second source, who was not authorized to speak on the record, backed up the finding.
I find it hard to believe that emails intelligence experts declare "“too damaging" to national security to release under any circumstances" can possibly be evidence of mere internecine bureaucratic catfights.

Mrs. Bill says I'm mistaken: Hillary Campaign: Withholding of Emails Just 'Over-Classification Run Amok'
Hillary Clinton's campaign insisted today that the former secretary of State wants the release of more than 20 emails determined to have contained top-secret information, calling the withholding "over-classification run amok."
Indeed: What difference, at this point, does it make? Any interested foreign intelligence services already read them.

It's a vast intelligence agency conspiracy.

Friday, January 29, 2016


Watched both debates last night.

I know. I know. Still, here's my report.

Florina. Best of the pack.
She replaces Trump's faux outsider mythology with a true disdain for DC Dealing. Replaces Trump's bluster with intelligence, articulateness, specificity and credibility. Would destroy Hillary or Bernie (or Bloomberg, Biden or Warren). Electable. Few care.

Christie-Cruz-Rubio. Tie for second.
Focus group apparently thought Rubio was awesome. I didn’t see that, but 75% of them switched their allegiance to Marco.

Many focus group people really didn't like Trump skipping the debate. It's possible they desperately want an alternative to Trump, and Cruz didn't do well enough - thus Rubio. If the sample applies generally, Monday will be quite surprising.

Carson. Surgeon General.

Paul. The conscience of the debate. Should be on stage no matter his poll numbers.

Kasich. Should be on the Democrat undercard by himself. Or somewhere by himself.

Bush. His best performance. The bar is set below sea level, of course.

Gilmore. Who?

Huckabee-Santorum. Scurried over to carry Trump’s coat (as Gilmore said) after their typical performances.

Trump. Best debate performance yet.

Two other notes.

1- Having watched some old video of Trump, I wonder what happened to the far more articulate (relatively speaking) and polite guy in them.

He’s assumed his Apprentice persona. Or maybe I should say it has assumed him. We can be thankful he stayed away from the Honey Boo Boo show, I guess.

The election has morphed completely into a 'reality' show.

Next: Real Housewives of Chappaqua and Authentic Old Socialists of Somewhere that should be in Sweden.

2- Anybody starting to react to the sound of Trump's voice they way they do to Hillary's or Obama's? I'm probably much more susceptible to Trump fatigue than most, but you gotta wonder how long even his acolytes can tolerate Trump 24/7. TV shows do get cancelled on short notice, and I'm disinclined to attribute persistent attention spans to the politically suddenly interested.

Thursday, January 28, 2016


Liberals Still Say Austerity Poisoned the Water in Flint, Damn the Evidence -Reason Magazine.
An excerpt:
... Far from impugning limited government principles, the Flint water crisis is a quintessential example of the failures of government planning and Keynesian economic stimulus...

But Flint’s principal problem—one that pre-dates the water crisis by decades—is that its economically-underprivileged taxpayers can’t afford to pay the pensions of retired city workers. Excess government spending landed Flint in its current, sorry state, not austerity. Likewise, the disastrous decision to go with a more expensive water option was not austerity, but government-sponsored stimulus gone (predictably) wrong.
But, RTWT.

Wednesday, January 27, 2016

Dear Mr. Speaker,

Paul Ryan
Speaker of the House

Just received your “Personal Request” asking for my contribution to the NRCC. You say, “We must have every conservative step up…”

Since 2000, what did conservative voters get from “our conservative candidates?” Let me make a partial list.

Another huge, ineffective alphabet bureaucracy - DHS. A near quadrupling of the national debt. John Roberts. No Child Left Behind. Mortgages for the credit-challenged, leading to the financial collapse of the Western world in 2008.

The largest entitlement expansion since 1965. Hundreds of thousands of earmarks.

The nomination for president of John McCain, the ideal bipartisan statist. The self-styled Maverick who enjoys sticking it to conservatives.

McCain-Feingold. TARP. Cash for Clunkers. Sarbanes-Oxley.

Barack Obama. Obamacare.

In 2010, tea party conservatives gave Republicans control of the House and +7 seats in the Senate. Did the tea party get a thank you? No, they got blamed for not taking the Senate after the Republican Party abandoned Christine O'Donnell, Sharron Angle, and John Raese.

Mitt Romney. Barack Obama.

Common Core. A weaponized EPA.

Skipping ahead to 2014… You’re welcome.

What do I get next? - Your promises: “fixing a broken tax code, replacing Obamacare, strengthening our military, reducing our soaring debt. However, NONE of that is possible without your support.” Ha. None of it’s apparently possible with my support, either. (Oh, and you misspelled "repealing.")

So last year, on your watch, we pass an Omnibus budget bill giving the Democrats everything they want. Right now, Majority Leader McConnell is preparing a perpetual AUMF, unrestricted by geography, our Constitution-busting president didn’t think to ask for.

Iowa Gov. Terry Bran­stad is demanding to be allowed to continue looting for ethanol. Bob Dole says he’ll forget to vote if the conservative who enjoys sticking it to self-styled Mavericks is nominated. Orrin Hatch predicts “we’ll” lose if Cruz is the nominee, "For us to win, we have to appeal to the moderates and independents.” Who’s us? What’s win? You keep using those words. It’s being amply demonstrated they don’t mean what you think they mean.

We have “conservatives” threatening to vote Clinton/Sanders if Cruz is nominated. Who’s us? What’s win?

These same fine conservatives are stepping up to support a crony capitalist friend of Nancy Pelosi. A Progressive until the last 2 years, who never uses the words “liberty” or “freedom” in a speech, but does tell us what he’s going to force a lot of other people/countries/businesses to do. With him, “conservatives” can “deal.”

Just how stupid do you have to be to think conservatism matters to the Republican party? Pretty stupid. I’ll bet that’s why the word “Republican” appears nowhere in your letter.

Tuesday, January 26, 2016

Put a shiny gold TRUMP sign on it

From Field & Stream magazine:
Q&A: Donald Trump on Guns, Hunting, and Conservation
Anthony Licata: I’d like to talk about public land. Seventy percent of hunters in the West hunt on public lands managed by the federal government. Right now, there’s a lot of discussion about the federal government transferring those lands to states and the divesting of that land. Is that something you would support as President?

Donald Trump: I don’t like the idea because I want to keep the lands great, and you don’t know what the state is going to do. I mean, are they going to sell if they get into a little bit of trouble? And I don’t think it’s something that should be sold. We have to be great stewards of this land. This is magnificent land. And we have to be great stewards of this land. And the hunters do such a great job—I mean, the hunters and the fishermen and all of the different people that use that land. So I’ve been hearing more and more about that. And it’s just like the erosion of the Second Amendment. I mean, every day you hear Hillary Clinton wants to essentially wipe out the Second Amendment. We have to protect the Second Amendment, and we have to protect our lands.
Substitute "K-12 education" for "the land." Substitute "health care" for "the land." It's like essentially wiping out the 9th and 10th Amendments.

The question I'm raising isn't about the merits or historical arguments for vast Federal Land ownership, the question is how Mr. Trump would govern.

His vague policies are not clarified by his simple repetitions of "great," "very," "huge" and "really, really." When pressed as to how he would actually accomplish his promises, he falls back on his great management skills, another phrase for command-and-control. Combine command-and-control governance with Mr. Trump's belief the 2nd Amendment is just as important as Federal land ownership, and you may have a problem.

When he makes outrageous guarantees for his ability to apply executive fiat, he is not often challenged. Can anyone explain how he will force Mexico to pay for the wall he wants to build? Does anyone think it would be a lawful order if, as he has said he would, he orders our military to kill the families of terrorists? Can you describe Trump's logistics for deporting 11 million people in a matter of months?

Those who support Trump and believe they can predict what he will do, are confident he will be able to do what he says he will do, and who trust him and want to give him power, should mull it over one more time.

Monday, January 25, 2016

Trump: Obnoxious blowhards using the First Amendment just cause trouble

Donald Trump spoke with Neil Cavuto in May 2015, just after the Muslim terrorist attack on Pam Geller's "Draw Mohammed" contest in Garland, Texas, and on the eve of a Charlie Hebdo Memorial ceremony.

Trump on Geller: “[T]he last thing we need is an obnoxious blowhard like Geller to go out and start trouble, when there's no reason for it... This has nothing do with free speech. This is taunting. And all it does is cause trouble...

Cavuto asked how Trump felt about the memorial for Charlie Hebdo: “Now, I have had satirical magazines over the years go after me. And what they do is use satire in order to not to tell the truth. They make it satirical. And this way, they can say anything they want about you. So, they were taunting, and they really taunted, and guess where they are right now?,” Trump continued, taunting the Charlie Hebdo dead.

His mother was a self-satirizing hamster and his father smelt of elderberries.


“[U]nless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return” and “a true planetary emergency.”
-Al Gore, January 25, 2006

Al? That tipping point? It's today.

The emergency is New York and D.C. digging out.

Friday, January 22, 2016

Eight No Trump

A large and growing portion of American voters are eager to shake the foundations of the electoral process in order to dramatically alter how we are governed. They are fed up with establishment politics, government waste and endemic bureaucratic corruption. Five candidates clearly agree.

Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump believe further empowering government is the solution.

Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina and Rand Paul believe government already has too much power, and want to aggressively shrink it.

At one time, this difference in preference for government intervention would have defined Progressivism vs. Conservativism. Not any more.

Donald Trump is allowed to reverse any of his positions when they become inconvenient:

  • Trump was for invading Libya when Clinton, Powers and Rice talked the beta-male in the White House into it. He's against it in retrospect.
  • He supported single payer health care. Now he doesn’t.
  • He approved of partial birth abortion. Not any more.
  • He disliked the Tea Party and loved Barack Obama. He’s changed on both those ideas.
  • He’s flip-flopped on gay marriage and funding Planned Parenthood.
  • Sometimes he’ll move our embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. Sometimes he won’t.
  • Sometimes he wants the Russians to fight ISIS for us, other times he’s not so sure that works.
  • In November he said we couldn’t afford to raise the minimum wage. By December he said American wages were too low.
  • In his book The America We Deserve, Trump wrote that he supported a ban on “assault weapons.” Not until last year did he apparently reverse his position.
  • He says he’s for free trade in the same sentence where he suggests a massive tariff on Chinese manufacture.
  • He says he's going to force Mexico to pay to build a wall to keep illegal immigrants out of the U. S., and that he will quickly deport 11 million already here. In 2012 he said Mitt Romney’s mildly restrictive immigration proposals were “crazy”, and that the GOP lost the election because they didn’t “take care of this incredible problem that we have with respect to immigration, with respect to people wanting to be wonderful productive citizens of this country.”
  • He brags about his financial independence and bribing politicians in the same breath. That's just peachy on K-Street.
To be fair, Trump has been consistent on one thing – promoting big government corporatism. He loves abusing the laws covering eminent domain for his own benefit. He thinks TARP was a “great idea.” He supported Obama’s ‘stimulus’ program. He wants to expand ethanol subsidies. He told Sean Hannity, as recently as 2015, that a wealth tax is a “very conservative thing.”

None of those are remotely “conservative things,” but the point isn't whether he's a conservative. Of course he's not. The point is that he'll say anything to close the deal. And his supporters don't care. They just want somebody's ass kicked. They don’t see in the policy chaos of a Trump Administration that there’s a very good, and random, chance it’ll turn out to be their asses.

So called “Conservatives” have consistently betrayed them, so why worry about Trump's principles? It didn’t matter that the vast majority of GOP Senators and Congressmen whom conservative voters gave majorities weren’t the principled conservatives they claimed to be, why should it matter if Trump isn’t?

Nonetheless, National Review feels compelled to tell us why Donald Trump is not a conservative. Since many people who support Trump still believe they are conservative, debating the definition of this word is not just futile, it is capitulation. The Trump supporters who don’t identify as conservatives are glad to hear he isn’t. The question isn't conservatism.

The question both cohorts (should) care about is: Whose positions are consistent with the reform you want, rather than electoral expedients on the way to the next Imperial Presidency?

Fundamentally transform the GOP, or have the GOP modify its activities to fit the rules set forth in The Art of the Deal? Trump is big business, his policies demand even bigger government and he is a creature created by big media. Think that means reform?

I'm arguing here that a choice between Sanders/Clinton and Trump is no choice at all. In each case we get big government and big spending and paternalistic federal intervention characterized by crony capitalism and tribal zealotry.

There is a one party system sharing the spoils of corruption, but the implication that Trump will fix it is ludicrous. Establishment Republicans prefer him over Cruz because they know Trump can be co-opted.

Donald Trump or Ted Cruz? Republicans Argue Over Who Is Greater Threat
Arguably, based on the fears of the GOP establishment, voters disaffected by politics as usual and looking for a shake up in the Republican party are better served by a Cruz presidency than a Trump presidency. See also.

GOPe preference for Trump over Cruz indicates, if forced, they’d rather have the party gently stirred than soundly shaken. Trump has no brief against the unholy dynamics among big government, big business, and big media, he lives there and revels in it.

The creative destruction of the Republican Party now seems possible through Cruz, Fiorina or Paul. This a necessary first step to restoring choice. If you want to temporarily remake GOP participation in DC corruption in the vision of The Art of the Deal - on the way to its total destruction - Trump's your man.

Wednesday, January 13, 2016

Thank you, sir, may I have another?

Ten United States Navy sailors are abducted by Iran and then released. The Obama Administration claims the Iranians were helping our boats in distress. That doesn't explain why our sailors were forced to surrender on their knees, blindfolded and given sparse accommodation; why no actual distress call was received by the Navy; or how two boats with dual engines simultaneously lost power. Did someone put sugar in the gas?

Nonetheless, our gratitude is heartfelt:
Secretary of State John Kerry expressed "gratitude to Iranian authorities for their cooperation ‎in swiftly resolving this matter," in a statement Wednesday…

[A]dding later, "That this issue was resolved peacefully and efficiently is a testament to the critical role diplomacy plays in keeping our country safe, secure, and strong…”
If not a testament to the right of passage in international waters.

The Secretary might have mentioned that the swiftest way to resolve this matter would have been not to seize our military personnel in the first place and not to even think about it again or we'll keep our $150 billion, but that would have been politically incorrect undiplomatic.
There is nothing to indicate the capture was a hostile act on the part of Iran, a senior Obama administration official said.
That statement is an admission by our government that our sailors were in Iranian waters, even though the US Navy is still investigating. That's the only explanation for the abduction not having been a hostile act.

Tuesday, January 12, 2016


The WSJ reports on the attempted murder of a police officer in Philadelphia:

Philadelphia Police Commissioner Richard Ross Jr. commented on the attempted murder of Officer Jesse Hartnett by Edward Archer. Archer told police he had shot Officer Hartnett in the name of Islam, because he (Archer) believes that “the police defend laws that are contrary to Islam.”

He’s right. In the United States, they do. So far.

Capt. James Clark, homicide unit commander, reported that Archer repeatedly said, “[T]he reason I did what I did,” is that he (Archer) had pledged fealty to the Islamic State and is a follower of Allah.

In the same press conference Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney (D) took guidance (though he didn’t go so far as to blame Officer Harnett) from the Mayor of Cologne, and the Stockholm police. Mayor Kenney said, “In no way, shape or form does anybody in this room believe that Islam or the teaching of Islam” had anything to do with the attack. Apparently, Commissioner Ross, homicide unit commander Clark - and everyone else - had moved to a different room, and Edward Archer wasn't there either.

Maybe the Mayor was telling a Clinton-truth: The attack hadn’t anything to do with the teaching of Islam, it had to do with the learning of Islam. Or maybe the study of Facebook.

Mayor Kenny claims to better know the perp's mind than the perp himself: Archer may have said over and over that he did it because of Islam, but he’s wrong.

Now, if the perp had claimed he was upset because of Planned Parenthood, that would be different.

Thursday, January 07, 2016

The vast Clinton co-conspiracy

On January 7th, 1999, the United States Senate began the impeachment trial of President William J. Clinton. The President had been impeached by the House for lying under oath and obstructing justice.

His semantic gymnastics over the meaning of the word "is," and his contention that while performing cunnilingus might have constituted "having sex," being fellated by a twenty-something intern in the Oval Office didn't, secured his acquittal by the Senate. But his troubles with women weren't over.

In April 1999, President Clinton was held in contempt of court by Judge Susan Webber Wright for “intentionally false” testimony in (Paula) Jones v. Clinton. He was fined $90,000 for giving false testimony. Jones' suit was eventually settled and included an $850,000 payment from Clinton.

In April 2000, the Arkansas Supreme Court suspended his law license. In order to avoid disbarment, he agreed to a five-year suspension and a $25,000 fine (January, 2001). In October 2001, Clinton’s U.S. Supreme Court law license was suspended.

Bill Clinton's lies weren't about sex, they were about what he'd done to women. This couldn't possibly have been news to Mrs. Bill, since it had been going on since at least his 1974 Arkansas Congressional campaign.

A discussion of Bill Clinton's behavior from a February, 2012 PBS documentary, Clinton:
Narrator: To make matters worse, Hillary had to deal with Bill's constant womanizing.

Paul Fray, [1974 Arkansas Congressional] Campaign Manager: I mean you got to understand at one time there was at least 25 women per day coming through there trying to find him, and I'd tell them he's out on the road, you know and they'd get out the door, but lord it was bad. Bad, bad, bad, bad, bad.

Marla Crider, [who claims to have had an affair with Clinton] Campaign Aide: He draws women in and they are literally mesmerized by this man. It was absolutely like fly to honey. And he needed that. He needed that kind of adoration. I don't think there's any question that Hillary was hurt, whether it was me or anyone else.

Narrator: Despite Bill's infidelities, Hillary decided to stay in Arkansas and dedicate herself to their mutual goals.
Emphasis mine.

Any later sympathy for Hillary would seem misplaced, since Bill Clinton's predations didn't end there, and she enabled them:
Narrator: In 1987, during his fourth term as Arkansas governor, Bill Clinton was finally ready to leap onto the national stage with a long-shot run for the presidency. In July, he summoned the national media to Little Rock for the big announcement.

Then, abruptly, he sent them home with hardly an explanation.

Bill Clinton (archival): I need some family time, I need some personal time.

Narrator: Behind the scenes, an old weakness had come back to haunt him.

Gail Sheehy, Writer: Just the day before the press conference when he was going to announce that he was going to run, Betsey Wright, his ferociously protective campaign manager, sat him down with a list of names of women and went through one after the other: how many times, where did you meet her, how likely is she to talk?

Nigel Hamilton, Writer: For each name he said, 'Oh, she'll never say anything.' And Betsey Wright said, 'But you don't know that. You don't understand on a national scale, people will investigate -- your opponents will investigate it. The media will investigate it. And the problem is, we're not just talking about you. We're talking about your wife, Hillary; we're talking about your child, Chelsea.' She said, 'I don't think you can run.'

Betsey Wright, Chief of Staff: I mean, it just became clear that night it was not the time for him to do it. It just was not the time. He felt for quite a while that, that probably was the last real chance he would ever have to run for president. That was it, it was over. You know, where would he go now that he wasn't gonna run for president? What could he do in the future? I think that over the next few months that became a tough time for them.
Mrs. Bill was Mr. Bill's co-vilifier of women and co-conspirator. The difference is, she wasn't under oath when she lied.

Wednesday, January 06, 2016


Mayor Henriette Reker (Cologne, Germany) tells women to behave.
The Mayor of Cologne said today that women should adopt a “code of conduct” to prevent future assault at a crisis meeting following the sexual attack of women by 1000 men on New Year’s eve...

The suggested code of conduct includes maintaining an arm’s length distance from strangers, to stick within your own group, to ask bystanders for help or to intervene as a witness, or to inform the police if you are the victim of such an assault...

The attackers were described as North African and Arab appearance by the police. The Mayor has said that not all of the attackers were newly-arrived refugees and had already been known to the police.
Basically, then, don't do anything to inflame the potential perps.

Whatever you do, don't carry a mattress around. Also missing from the list are not taking candy from strangers, staying out of dark alleys, avoiding drinking, and dressing modestly - burqas optional for now.

Cologne's code of female conduct is a message to women that they aren't safe, and can't expect State protection: The cultural values of misogynist thugs count more than their own. Mayor Reker's bottom line is women are "asking for it" if they don't conform to the preferences of a rape culture, because the thugs can't be made to follow a code of civilized conduct.

I look forward to comments from Take Back the Night supporters and SlutWalk participants.

"Similar incidents as the ones in Cologne took place in Stuttgart and Hamburg". Fortunately, Chancellor Angela Merkel is on it:
Chancellor Angela Merkel condemned the attacks, but said that refugees should not be judged for the events.

“It’s completely improper… to link a group that appeared to come from North Africa with the refugees,” Merkel said Tuesday.

A police spokesman told DW that “the recent hints go significantly toward police known offenders, refugees have nothing to do with it.”
I'm sure the women who were attacked are comforted to know the Government that covered this up for two days says it's likely their assailants weren't refugees, but what do the refugees and the "known offenders" have in common?

Monday, January 04, 2016

Obama's definition of "local" depends on something other than geography

The administration position on the Oregon occupation:
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest on Monday said President Obama is aware of the occupation at the refuge, but avoided speaking at length about it, calling it “a local law enforcement matter.”
So was Trayvon Martin's death, but apparently no one who looks like he could be Obama's son lives in the Harney Basin.

So was Professor Henry Gates' arrest, but no "beer summit" for the Hammonds.

Sunday, January 03, 2016

Trump and Oregon and property rights

I'm waiting with interest for what Donald Trump has to say about the Federal attempt to force ranchers in Oregon off their land. See: The Full Story about what's going on in Oregon.

To summarize: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) have harassed ranchers in Oregon's Harney Basin since the 1970s, changing grazing rules, denying legal water rights and trying to buy up ranches to add to the Malheur Wildlife Refuge. Two of those ranchers, Dwight Hammond, Jr., and his son, Steven Hammond, have been targets of this harassment. They were arrested in 2006 for lighting fires to burn grassland. The "Harney County District Attorney reviewed the accusation, evidence and charges, and determined that the accusations against Dwight & Steven Hammond did not warrant prosecution and dropped all the charges."

There were also accusations of attempting to cover up poaching with the fires, but they were neither charged nor convicted of this.

In 2011 the Feds charged them as terrorists. Yes, terrorists. In 2012 they were convicted of setting the fires in Federal Court, but with that came a conviction for terrorism. They served 3 and 12 month sentences, respectively.

Unsatisfied, in 2014 the Feds appealed the sentences as not meeting a minumum sentencing requirement of 5 years. The Judge at the original trial had overruled the minimum terrorist sentence, commenting that if the full five years were required it would be a violation of the 8th amendment. The Fed's appeal succeeded.

The Hammonds have said they will report tomorrow to begin serving the increased sentences. The father will be 79 when he finishes his new sentence, the son 54. They have already paid $200,000 to the BLM, and another $200,000 was to have been paid before the end of 2015. They will be forced to sell to the BLM if the fine has not been paid.

On Saturday there was a peaceful protest of these sentences in Burns, Oregon, composed of about 300.

Since then, 100-150 people associated the Cliven Bundy family have peacefully occupied a Federal building in the refuge. Some are armed. The left is going nuts. The Hammond's have disassociated themselves from this group.

Now, to Trump.

I see no difference in principle here from what Donald Trump tried to do to Vera Coking, a old woman who owned a house near one of his Casinos where he wanted to build a parking lot.

Trump’s case could be considered worse. The government wasn’t taking Vera Coking's land for itself, it was taking it in order to give it to Trump, a man who said he supported the abominable SCOTUS Kelo decision 100%.

What's going on in Oregon?

This is a must read: Full Story on What’s Going on In Oregon.

Take your blood pressure medication first.

What's being done to the Hammonds demonstrates what happens when property rights are disregarded.

It's worth pointing out that presidential candidates Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton would both approve of this at-gun-point expropriation.

The Other Club noted the foundational nature of property rights just the other day: Property, morality and religion.

Tuesday, December 29, 2015

Microdefense Free Zones

UWM says 'politically correct' is no longer politically correct, "We decide what speech is permitted and you aren't allowed to talk about it."

Well, we already knew saying "Chicago" or "golf" was racist, so it's no surprise cretins at the University of California think saying "America is the land of opportunity," should be banned.

Applying UMW's and UC's logic to Harvard Law Dean Martha L. Minow, you must conclude saying someone is "politically correct" is like raping them. If you're accused, we must believe you're guilty: Harvard Law dean compares microaggressions to violence, sexual assault

And you thought a "Just Words Campaign" would be analogous to "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." Nope, that's not what the "J" in SJW is about.

Update 2:30PM
Forgot to add this recommendation for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education: 2015 Year in Review for Student and Faculty Rights on Campus

Sunday, December 27, 2015

Property, morality and religion

Just read Larry Arnn’s (President of Hillsdale College) Imprimis piece Property Rights and Religious Liberty.  It’s excellent, but ultimately uncompelling as an argument that property rights are insufficient to secure religious liberty and freedom of conscience. Some rambling reactions...

[R]ecognizing that property is at the heart of the political argument we are having these days, [there] are those who say that all that is needed is to protect property rights. Get money right and get property right, these people think, and leave it at that—leave morality and religion out of the political equation. But that way of thinking too is foolish.
Not sure it’s foolish.  I’d like to try it somewhere and see what eventuates.  My prediction would be that such a lucky civilization would follow the arc of history of the United States up until Woodrow Wilson… and then keep going.  

Morality and religion are different things, though they are both your property. Property rights do imply a moral code, but I can't see any particular philosophy of religion there.

I am inclined to think economic freedom is a prerequisite for “freedom of conscience and religious liberty."  Arnn seems to agree: "If private property is going to be abolished, everything will have to be abolished.”  

I will agree that an ethical system like Judeo-Christianity is necessary, if not sufficient, to establish the fundamental principle that you are your own property. Not the church's, not the State's.

I do not agree that we must have a supernatural underpinning for that.

Yet Churchill went against the advice of all his advisors, including his wife, to make the point publicly that the socialists would never realize their ultimate aims without the use of “some form of Gestapo.” They did not intend this, at least the better of them did not, he said; but this is what it would take for their aims to be successful—this is what it would take to produce an equality of outcomes.
And Hayek wrote The Road to Serfdom on precisely that theme.

Questions of "‘Why are we here? What is the purpose of life? Whither are we going?’” are answered differently by different supernatural interpreters.  Which Diety can bring “comfort to the soul” is a matter of long extra- and intramural contention.

How do you reconcile the G_d who cares about every sparrow's fall with your experience? A conversation between Yossarian and Lieutenant Scheisskopf's wife in Catch-22 explores this question:
"And don't tell me God works in mysterious ways," Yossarian continued... "There's nothing so mysterious about it. He's not working at all. He's playing. Or else he's forgotten all about us. That's the kind of God you people talk about -- a country bumpkin, a clumsy, bungling, brainless, conceited, uncouth hayseed. Good God, how much reverence can you have for a Supreme Being who finds it necessary to include such phenomena as phlegm and tooth decay in His divine system of creation? What in the world was running through that warped, evil, scatalogical mind of His when He robbed old people of the power to control their bowel movements? Why in the world did He ever create pain?”

"Pain?" Lieutenant Scheisskopf's wife pounced upon the word victoriously. "Pain is a useful symptom. Pain is a warning to us of bodily dangers.”

"And who created the dangers?" Yossarian demanded. He laughed caustically. "Oh, He was really being charitable to us when He gave us pain! Why couldn't He have used a doorbell instead to notify us, or one of his celestial choirs? Or a system of blue-and-red neon tubes right in the middle of each person's forehead. Any jukebox manufacturer worth his salt could have done that. Why couldn't He?"

"People would certainly look silly walking around with red neon tubes in the middle of their foreheads.”

"They certainly look beautiful now writhing in agony or stupified with morphine, don't they? What a colossal, immortal blunderer! When you consider the opportunity and power He had to really do a job, and then look at the stupid, ugly little mess He make of it instead, His sheer incompetence is almost staggering. It's obvious He never met a payroll. Why, no self-respecting businessman would hire a bungler like Him as even a shipping clerk!”

Lieutenant Scheisskopf's wife had turned ashen in disbelief and was ogling him with alarm. "You'd better not talk that way about Him, honey," she warned him reprovingly in a low and hostile voice. "He might punish you.”

"Isn't He punishing me enough?" Yossarian snorted resentfully. "You know, we certainly mustn't let Him get away with it. Oh, no, we certainly mustn't let Him get away scot free for all the sorrow He's caused us. Someday I'm going to make him pay. I know when. On the Judgement Day. Yes, that's the day I'll be close enough to reach out and grab that little yokel by His neck and —"

"Stop it! Stop it!" Lieutenant Scheisskopf's wife screamed suddenly, and began beating him ineffectually about the head with both fists. "Stop it!”

Yossarian ducked behind his arm for protection while she slammed away at him in feminine fury for a few seconds, and then he caught her determinedly by the wrists and forced her gently back down on the bed. "What the hell are you getting so upset about?" He asked her bewilderedly in a tone of contrite amusement. "I thought you didn't believe in God.”

"I don't," she sobbed, bursting violently into tears. "But the God I don't believe in is a good God, a just God, a merciful God. He's not the mean and stupid God you make Him out to be.”

Yossarian laughed and turned her arms loose. "Let's have a little more religious freedom between us," he proposed obligingly. "You don't believe in the God you want to, and I won't believe in the God I want to. Is that a deal?”
Another interpretation might be that G_d is just uninvolved. That’s not much in the way of comfort, but does answer the problem of evil and maybe of free will.

All in all, I think property rights protect, or at minimum provide the basis for, protection of religious liberty and freedom of conscience. As Arnn says, you can't really separate these things: It's not just a fight about property. But, without property rights, the fight is already lost.

Related: The foolish ‘theism’ of government enthusiasts

Tuesday, December 22, 2015

How we're governed; a Canadian view

Rex Murphy: Don’t blame Trump … blame America
I agree Trump is ridiculous — but he is an illustration of a problem and not its cause. Trump is not the swamp: he is the creature emerging from it. For however ridiculous and appalling his candidacy may be, it is no worse and no more ridiculous and appalling than the whole pattern of American politics at this time.

Is his candidacy more lunatic than the idea of a third President Bush or a second President Clinton? More despairing than the idea of an America so bereft of political talent that two families supply the major pool?

Is he more manipulative than President “you can keep you doctor, you can keep you plan” Obama? Is he less venal or arrogant than Hillary “it’s my server and it’s my State Department” Clinton?
There's much more at the link. RTWT

Sunday, December 20, 2015

Neither xenophilic nor oikophobic

From Reason Magazine:
The 'Isolationist' Smear Against Ted Cruz

I didn't realize Jennifer Rubin, one of the WaPo's pet conservatives, had trashed Senator Ted Cruz as a throwback isolationist from the 1930's. But then I seldom read the WaPo.
After the latest Republican presidential debate, the Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin argued that Sen. Ted Cruz had undone himself "courting" the "Trumpkin base," sinking "further into the far-right brew of isolationism and xenophobia."
Characterizing Cruz as a far-right xenophobe, though, certainly destroys Senator Marco Rubio's case that Cruz secretly, in his heart of hearts, favors a path to citizenship for illegal aliens. Then again, Rubin may have misremembered how much she did like the Rubio/Schumer Gang of 8 plan, "...the proposal is greatly encouraging on two fronts."

Count me as un-encouraged then, as was Senator Cruz. And count me even less encouraged now. I'm neither xenophilic nor oikophobic. Senator Rubio's defenders seem to have a touch of each.

This is unfortunate, since I would happily vote for Rubio in the general election, but I think he's picked a fight that emphasizes his greatest weakness while attempting to damage the candidate most likely to prevent a Trump nomination. Trump is the primary beneficiary of Rubio's attack.

Saturday, December 19, 2015

Clueless or condescending?

So. The New York Times published and then promptly removed this insight into the President's television viewing habits:
Mr. Obama indicated that he did not see enough cable television to fully appreciate the anxiety after the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, and made clear that he plans to step up his public arguments.
There are three ways to parse that. One, the President is cluelessly isolated, gets his information from "the shows" like Donald Trump, but doesn't watch the right shows. Two, he was making a condescending joke about the drumbeat of the news cycle and denigrating the intelligence of Americans. Three, both.

It's true that the media hyped the shootings in San Bernadino. Of course, so did the President in the service of gun control.

It's true that the media hyped the shootings in San Bernadino. Just as they did Obama's candidacy in 2008.