LEFTIST RACISTS: Herman Cain, America were violated by stereotyping

The lies about criminal behavior of HERMAN CAIN hurt him, and America, in 2011, in the 2012 election cycle. This educated guy, this business leader, this free thinker, this open book, this conservative American, is owed more than an apology (which has yet to be given) from the attention-craving Gloria Allred and the two lying women who made headlines claiming that Cain sexually harassed them (link: http://ow.ly/qF0QX).

Americans are owed better than this lowest of political tactics in the age of social media and in-the-moment news reporting. If leading Democrats had any lack of cynicism among them, they'd have discouraged the effect of these unfounded claims during the campaign. I know some pundits on either side were frustrated by this bad showing, but I heard not a leader among Democrats say a thing against it certainly not the first black in the White House.

This was, in a way, the tale of two black men: the Conservative Black Man and the Liberal Black Man. It allows a comparison of the behavior of media and the supposed spokespeople for black people -- Democrats and black "liberal" pundits. The way they treat Cain, and other non-leftist thinkers such as Ben Carson, Allen West, Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, is not compatible with their pandering habits toward blacks and other "special label" groups (minorities of whatever kind) in general. Yet, they give extra room to Barack Obama and ninnies such as former New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin (with a federal indictment on corruption charges and soon to be in court for it) and former Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick (convicted to 26 years for his office's bribery practices). Democrats and most of the mainstream media looked the other way in the midst of corruption by these last two fellows, until the story was essentially over.

Ruining the campaign of Herman Cain bolstered the left's authority and dominion over blacks in America. The great majority of our black community, it seems, were fine with it, too. Or, they simply didn't speak out against it. Too many are too happy to resent those who have known success to the extent of cheering even unreasonable attacks on the successful, black or not. Sadly, that's another thing that the rhetoric of the Democrats feeds.

Today's "liberals" (modern American leftists, really, sparsely liberals in any true sense) need some of those who are successful on their side, but can only win elections, as I see it, by pandering to the less-informed unsuccessful with promises of... ease without effort. The rhetoric of Barack Obama, especially during 2008 and since his presidency, have only made this cynical tactic of the Democrats more familiar. Not less. Not less, as Obama pledged the divisiveness would be. (He pledged a lot of things that proved to be nothing, didn't he?)

The minority pandering, low-information voter wholesaling, diversity rejecting (they accept diversity only on their terms, after all), status quo adoring, big government, control-addicted Democrats and their media pledges want to keep minority conservatives down, and that hurts America.

Their habit to passionately reject traditionalist, Constitutionalist, limited government, conservative thinkers, and especially those who think this way who are not old white men, hurt America's ability to get beyond the wrongs of racism and social and economic ruts that plague groups of people, black or not. Democrats claim to be the party of caring. Yet they have been proven to be the party of lies, spying, control, monetary abuse, budgetary disregard, growth in bureaucracy, and intolerance toward individualism.

Democrats and others of such thinking are, intentionally or not, pigeonholing people in certain special groups - race, sexuality, sex, regions, etc. - into easy stereotypes that suit them. In an official way. Everyone deserves the sense of liberty that America was founded upon. That's inconvenient for relativist leftists.

They are convinced it is their duty, as folks such as Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Al Sharpton, prove again and again, to be the spokespeople for these groups, to take from others and give to those groups, to coddle them for the sake of the great statist plan. That's not American. That's utopian. It's absurd. It's anti-American.

Black conservatives have for a long time felt they needed to be quiet because Borg-like neighbors who are long entrenched in the pandering, Democratic race machine would think they were betraying race for their affinity for traditional American ideals. So much misinformation about conservatism persists that it's as if being a conservative was equivalent to being a slave salesman in Africa in the 1700s.

Modern Democrats, this current, bureaucracy-loving, conceited, elitist leadership of theirs, seek a  wholesale plan to buy votes to take more and more liberties away from Americans in the name of helping everyone reach an equal playing field, with welfare politics, driving the poor to their side in a cynical effort to hold power by mob, rather than by principle or love of the citizen and the individual. They love the idea of the state being the leader of society in every way, it seems, not the servant of a free people.

People like Herman Cain certainly get in the way of that.

- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Obama's decision on Syria: just a pragmatic coward's choice?

It shows that Obama wanted the job of president really bad, but he didn't want the WHOLE job. Perhaps he should have hired a stand-in Commander in Chief?

I don't know who talked Obama into facing the Syrian chemical attacks like a leader, but they must be silver-tongued advisers who aren't the peacenik hippy-bred types like Obama and most of those surrounding him.

I cannot imagine he'd have even brought up this idea of a missile attack himself, seeing how painfully long it took him to make his "decision" to act. Such magnificent drama must be going on in that self-adoring head of his: cowardly, academic, hippy-raised, political animal that he is!

It's a rare sight to see him forced to put on "big boy pants" and make some tactical decisions as a leader of a country of great military importance and substance. That's why he should never have been made CiC, but we don't elect presidents to be leaders of our military anymore, do we? We've enjoyed a relative freedom from ominous threats in the U.S. since WW II -- no matter what you think of Sept, 11, 2001. And it seems, even despite any concerns over terrorists, the impact has been so indirect that we are electing overzealous camp counselors (or professional campaigners, if you prefer), rather than experienced leaders of substance. Or, so the election of Obama twice would suggest.

This Syrian decision, slow-roasted as it was, suggests something at a broader level. It shows what a comparatively spoiled, entitled, isolated, coddled, misinformed, blissfully ignorant population can do to muddle up, through elections, a very free country, despite having options otherwise. It appears that, in the U.S., the slight majority of active voters are mainly interested in yet even greater domestic comforts (read: petty, selfish interests) compared to the citizens of much of the world. Consider such delusions in the US as a "fairness" doctrine or the silly notion that safety can be guaranteed by "gun-free zones." People who uphold such ideas are not interested in choosing leaders who wish to deal with the planet as it is, which is a "law of the wild" place. This world can be cruelly hierarchical (far worse in other countries than in the US), ruled by a specific pack of elites, with many peoples without basic liberty, many governments of tyrants, nations packed with populations who have deeply broken and haggard lives. People who dream of even being among the poor in America are all over the world.

This Syrian chemical weapons attack response decision-making drama shows that we elected a president who is only a political animal, and who is a mere government bureaucrat at heart, and a coward (where leadership is concerned, not where campaigning is concerned). This Syrian response shows that Obama wanted the job of president really bad, but he didn't want the WHOLE job. Perhaps he should have hired a stand-in Commander in Chief?

We elected Obama twice to be Commander in Chief. But, not really, because the duty of CiC doesn't really matter to his voters, it seems. The Coddler in Chief is more their style, maybe. Whoever is the star of the news and gets on magazine covers matters. To hell with substance, right? Well, no, actually, but it is what's important to the uninformed problem children of society. It seems they are topping the voter rolls.

It is stunning to me how the majority of voters would prefer to choose the lying rhetoric that feeds their delusions about domestic bliss rather than taking ownership of themselves and letting this robust nation be the caretaker that fights the tyrants of the planet. What's worse, the domestic bliss Obama has been peddling isn't working out either, is it? Unemployment, race relations and other issues are not improving under him.

Don't let anyone give you killing bin Laden as an example of Obama's brass. He just signed the paper and then shamelessly used the epic military covert action for himself, politically, like any coward would use others' heroism to prop themselves up. Some were even impressed by Obama's swagger after bin Laden's death. Fellow cowards.

Obama will likely use the missile action against Syria the same way he used SEAL Team Six. He will use it the way someone unaccustomed to being a leader would use such an action: for political advantage.

- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Elite-led media resents a hero they don't understand: Ben Carson and the real world

Dr. Ben Carson dared to suggest that gay couples deserve to be treated equally, but to stop short of giving that the word "marriage." He mentioned NAMBLA and beastiality in the same sentence as gays, upsetting some folks. He apologized and clarified what he meant. More than once. On televison. But that's not good enough for the bigotos of the left, in this drippy, no-detractors echo chamber pep rally that is most of the mainstream media.

From the article, NBC News on Dr. Ben Carson: 'Blinded by the White', on Breitbart.com:

Carson ... said he was in favor of giving same-sex couples the same rights as married couples, short of marriage. 

NBC News obviously wants to destroy the threat of any independent-thinking black man as quickly as possible. So it should come as no surprise that, by the time Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart filled in for MSNBC's Martin Bashir, Carson's apology was treated as far from sufficient. In short, Capehart and his guests, Toure' and Krystal Ball, treated the apology as a lie.

This is all par for the course at NBC News.

Sadly, so is the chryron pictured above -- "Blinded by the White" --  which was used as the clip of Dr. Carson played during the segment.

NBC News is notorious for using this kind of race-baiting to further its left-wing agenda, including fraud

Indeed.

While it's easy to pass it off as a given that media is left-leaning, that's not enough to indict the media. And it doesn't have to be. 

The leaders of our media are part of the most insular, closed-quarter, often the most highfalutin, parts of this country and the world. If they aren't humble enough to recognize that, and if they don't instill such humility in writers (not opinion writers, journalists!) and demand that they work against their own biases, then these media leaders and their writers are part of the problem. As it happens, these leaders are dragging newbies panting and eager to please, every year, into that same highrise with a limited perspective. Arrogance begets arrogance. 
It encourages an ignorance of the great outside: the real world. The world in which Dr. Ben Carson grew up. 

There's NBC, The Washington Post (often, not decisively), TIME, Huffinton Post (madhouse filled with nut-job leftist commenters, to boot), GQ, CBS, CNN, etc., etc., all seeming to be trying to be the big man on the left. It's a tone deafness of those who live in certain quarters believing they have the answers for the whole. 

And they will treat those who aren't on their side not with curiosity or even cynicism, but snide disregard and putrid insults, like MSNBC treats Dr. Carson.  

They need some humility. 

- jR, aka AirFarceOne

Cry dog! Florida's Rick Scott abused by Democrats and loony left over his return of rescue dog

I Google searched the madness over Reagan the, uhh, mistreated governor's dog today, about a month after (Jan. 16. 2013) the story apparently went wild (I didn't know). See the search here.

Stunning: The joyful hate and spastic outrage against Florida governor Rick Scott upon the revelation, by his admin., that his family gave back his first rescue dog because it was too nervous in the mansion. And, as a result, the big dog made people nervous. So, he returned the dog, it's said, and it may or may not live on a ranch.
Oh, yes... horrible man! Just horrible! Bad governor! Baaad! The poor doggie has to live on a ranch! Oh my Goooood!
That must seem so cruel, to leftist sheep who live around almost nothing but concrete and steel, in the city, I guess, making anyone or anything live on a ranch like, eww, like George W. Bush does. Ahh, city liberals. (Kidding. As if there's any rationalizing the response as anything but blind partisan sniping.)
Obviously, folks like the Daily Kos are leading the misleading: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/16/1179352/-Gov-Rick-Scott-Bad-Reagan-T...
Others are rational about the story, because reality-challenged leftists aren't completely ruling the news media yet. For instance, Politico, and doubtless many others. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/rick-scott-shelter-dog-reagan-86245.html
Miraculously, those who aren't unhinged at the brain stem wind up well below the Daily Kos links on the search engine. I wonder why that is?
I can see a new ad from some leftist operator of dog adoption operation:
"Must loved dogs. Must hate Rick Scott!"
- jR

Posted via email from Like, Totally Political Dude! - posterous

WOW they are crazy

Chris Matthews is half the fool he was many years ago, and he can only manage the same-minded, and kiss-ups from the NBCs, on his Sunday show, I notice. He is unfunny, yet insists on being "funny" and has his own fawning pals, like some has-been comic who still somehow garners big paychecks. Stunning just how far NBC and MSNBC have plummeted into so much of the one-sided commentary and misleading so-called "journalism".

I guess they THINK they are the anti-Fox News, but that's such a joke, and I despise bias on either side, take it personally that the self-centered liberals ruined (for me) what I had once hoped would be and considered to be my career industry.

Fox News is red with embarrassment for MSNBC, due to how clear their bias is on discussion and commentary shows. Janeane Garofalo was on Olbermann weeks ago, was the most offensive I've caught (on YouTube or somewhere) any of these horrendous soap-box Hollywood liberals ever be in a highly public stage (word gets around about the crazy talk, but this was there on the show itself, not an anecdote). (She was thrashing Tea Parties as being purely, simply full of anti-black racists, that the whole thing was not at all about taxes, gov't spending, or anything, just an excuse for rednecks to be racist in public. Stunning, horrible, offensive, miserably out of her element idiot, she is.)

After that humorless tirade, I eagerly wanted to see her whiney little computer geek character on "24" this season die -- just for some joyous make-believe comeuppance. (I was disappointed.) I'm sure she is dead ... on the inside. Sure seems like it. Certainly, mentally, she's thoroughly contorted.

I don't have cable now, thanks to some tough months, and I don't think I want it back. Just limits me to a few channels and HULU, etc., online, and keeps me away from the moodily pontificating boobs on news programs. I can live with that. Did that while I lived elsewhere, for most of the years. Healthy!

So... Newsweek. Gag! They had that truly lame effort to sell magazines, "We are all Socailists now". It was a nothing article. I read it online. Like a fart in church, and not even a loud one. Har!

TIME is another great example of a pack of fawning roadies doing magazines. I had subscription for a year -- got it sorta free (NWA flight miles were to expire, so we got lots of magazines). I was eager to see it end after all the stupid adoration this year! You;d think it was exaggerating, but I was seeing it in every issue, just about. Amusing, were it not for so many go-along sheep believing what these drunken shepherds tell them to believe.

You should catch, online somewhere, the McLaughlin Group show of this past week, and the way Eleanor Clift of NEWSWEEK was going with both fists in favor of Obama and his apology tour of Arab nations and such. Simply stunning, how cozy it seems so many are in MSM -- with a utopian myopia.

My decision of late is to avoid the news as much as possible. I know what I know, let the loud mouths ruin someone else's day, not mine. Local news, I read some stuff online, and otherwise, the world can rot. For now. I needed a loooong breather from the divisiveness that the election and the economic crisis has brought out. It is too much about amateur pontificating on subjects, rather than interviews with true experts.

Saw rerun of the March 2009 interview with Federal Reserve Bank Chairman Ben Bernanke on 60 Minutes (also can catch that online), which I avoided first time it aired. Was the most plainspoken, fact-involving, emotions involved but not hysterical thing on the economy I've seen in a long, long time. It made sense, and he seemed sincere. Stunning, seeing what he is and what he's up against. For me, with a view from business education and long interest in economic things, it was a very good perspective to hear. He is THE MAN on economic matters, and far more "safe" than blowhards like Obama, etc.

We need more professionals, like Bernanke, and less blowhards, in every walk of life. Especially as essential leaders.

Just some of my thoughts of late.

- jR, aka AirFarceOne (on Twitter)

Crist no likee gogo juice wastee, say Sun-Sentinel

Charlie Crist is not being up front about spending for private flights, in full. He is also being tight-lipped about it. Unfortunately, while my guv jetting around on my tax dollars (everyone's, whatever) I find foul, I suspect we're simply going to discover that it is GOPers funding these quick trips, thus making this a bit of a distraction, and a bit of a NON-STORY. Time will tell!

Who pays the bill when Florida Governor Charlie Crist flies? -- South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com

Crist's office would not reveal who paid for specific flights or answer questions about them, despite the governor's vow of transparency when he took office. "Our constitution requires that our government be open and transparent," Crist said in his January 2007 inaugural address. "And under my administration it will be like never before."

Years ago, as a state senator, Crist took aim at then-Gov. Lawton Chiles for accepting about 30 flights on private jets to watch football games or go turkey hunting. Chiles later reimbursed the planes' owners more than $7,000. "The whole thing smells," Crist said at the time, calling for elected officials to fully disclose private flights.

Now, as governor, Crist is mum about his own extensive use of private planes.

The Sun-Sentinel is, of course, quite good at their jobs, so this must mean something. This related story, however, means one thing while the headline, well, I don't know what it means....

Gov. Crist promotes polices to curb gases but trips leave big carbon footprint -- South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com

What kind of headline is "Gov. Crist promotes polices to curb gases but trips leave big carbon footprint," the headline I found for the second article as part of the "print edition" version of the article? Was that translated, poorly, from the Spanish or something? Was this originally an El Sentinel article? Perhaps they meant any of the following:

• Gov. Crist promotes police who curb gases from trips that leave big carbon footprint
• Gov. Crist promotes police's curbing of gases, then trips leaving a big imprint
• Gov. Crist promotes police, is to curb gases, trips and has to leave, offers big carbon footprint

I don't know understand how governor promotes polices to curb gases, but I am sure it for to mean somethings!

"We cannot afford to ignore that carbon emissions are contributing to global climate change that may put Florida's residents and 1,200 miles of coastline at risk," Crist said that day.While Crist has promoted policies to curb global warming, his own air travel has left a considerable carbon footprint. The governor has flown extensively on state and private planes since he took office two years ago.

Oh, so it was meant to be "policies" not "polices". I understands nows. Except for "gases". What did they mean there? Should that be "emissions", perhaps?

The Sun-Sentinel is not exactly a company that one can be proud of. The Sun-Sentinel Company refused, in a practice that they apparently were never castigated for -- for quite some time, according to people I know -- to pay underpaid salaried employees overtime. They did something so, foul, so greedily elitist, yet insist on accusing the governor of anything untoward regarding mere travel? That's rich!

The media hacks and that swath of willing managerial crooks at Tribune care about as much about anything but their own bottom line as Pelosi cares about getting average Americans jobs (if it costs her her precious "patriotic" illegals). Still, I want to know what Crist has to say about these expenses. And, historically, just how much tax money that could be going to schools, for instance, is spent on jet-setting by him and other state officials.


- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Powered by ScribeFire.

McCain's health plan is now that of some Democrats, sorta

Tennessee's Cooper and Oregon's Wyden are leading an effort to remove employers from the health coverage process.

Two Dems Want to Scrap Employer-Based Health Care - TIME

...though during the election campaign Obama criticized John McCain for proposing a plan that, like Wyden's, would make employer-provided health benefits taxable, the Administration has suggested in recent weeks that it is open to such an approach.

Still, Wyden and Cooper's plan is considered a long shot. The political wisdom in Washington suggests that for any proposal to actually stand a chance, it would have to build on the existing employer-based system.

One can whine about the hypocrisy of it, but I would rather see something CONCRETE done about the cost, burden and economic division of modern health care.

- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.

If I had a dime for every time a socialist said this over the years...

If you think this is bad, wait till next year, says Russian scholar.

Russian scholar says US will collapse --next year (AP via Breitbart)

It wasn't clear how persuasive the 20-minute lecture was. One instructor asked Panarin whether his predictions more accurately describe Russia, which is undergoing its worst economic crisis in a decade as well as a demographic collapse that has led some scholars to predict the country's demise.

Panarin dismissed that idea: "The collapse of Russia will not occur."

But Alexei Malashenko, a scholar-in-residence at the Carnegie Moscow Center who did not attend the lecture, sided with the skeptical instructor, saying Russia is the country that is on the verge of disintegration.

"I can't imagine at all how the United States could ever fall apart," Malashenko told the AP.

It's pretty sad when, by contrast to the topic at hand, a contrary view after a Russian speech on the collapse of the U.S. gives me more confidence than my president!


- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.

So-called progressives' cry against AM radio: anti-free market rules are pro-free speech

The recent assault on talk radio by progressives (so-called) has also produced comments that moderate reporting, or non-biased to non-media people, is boring. That's just one of the little offshoots of this odd agenda being taken up right now.

I have a serious problem with this. This is the worst of what liberalism, or progressivism, or whatever you call it, has to offer. It shows the broader goal they look toward: to run things without a care of free markets or consumer and market guided business. It's called overregulating. They are for it. I am against underregulating, but this is no better. Nooo better!

The playground rules of equal time at bat is now being pushed for radio. Have you ever listened to AirAmerica? I once listened to a ten-minute assault on Barbara Bush, back in January 2009, calling her mean and vicious and alleging all sorts of profane things about her. I think they actually referred to her as fat at one point. I mean, it was foul and just mean. Why? How appealing is it that these "radio personalities" go after the MOTHER of the current president! Little wonder this stuff dies in the free market! Crude, and more ironically juvenile than Pee Wee's Playhouse (or, for that matter, more juvenile than Glenn Beck's radio show some days, when he does the cynical, half-funny "America's favorite game show" segments)!

Since the free market does not exist for these pro-overregulation clowns, there's ongoing debate of 'conservative' radio vs. fairness doctrine for radio. Not papers & TV, but just radio! Would force far left liberal - oh wait, 'progressive' - radio on radio stations. For what? Their future economic success?!!

They call it a 'system' of companies. Bull. Air America not a company, then? It ignores the biz law of what sells ads, which certainly TRUMPS any 'BALANCE' LAW. Ask any struggling paper just how much ads determine their life or death! Or, any radio station! This smacks of collectivism, where the media would be controlled by the all-knowing, all-controlling hand of government. Period.

I would welcome more successful liberal radio, because the so-called progressives are being so oddly anti-business, anti-free market, and inferring communist ideals in their hassling of radio stations and their owners that it smacks of outright shameless envy and jealousy. They will apparently stop only short of cutting power sources to radio stations with this assault on AM radio. (I should avoid mentioning that some areas, such as Nashville, Tenn., have excellent FM talk stations.)

Think Progress » Dear Rush Limbaugh, Why Are You Hell-Bent On Protecting A Radio Market That Limits Free Speech?
(First of all, HAAA! What a headline! Can you guess where that's going? Duh!)

ThinkProgress asked the authors of the original report to respond to Limbaugh. Two co-authors, CAP’s John Halpin and Free Press’s Josh Silver, gave us this response:

Dear Rush Limbaugh:

We have a straightforward question, which we hope you will answer in a straightforward way: When a handful of major media companies control who and what is allowed to be broadcast on the commercial dial, how is that not regulation of radio content? When these same companies then push out one-sided, right-wing information 90 percent of the time, how does that uphold freedom of expression?

Those of us at CAP, Free Press and other public interest organizations do not want to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine and we definitely do not want to limit free speech. We want more of it. You and other conservatives seem more interested in protecting a system that does the exact opposite.

If Limbaugh wants a debate, let’s have it.

Go ahead and call him, debate it! Please! There's only a few of you who could manage to handle it! But debate? Good luck with that. Rhetoric as what comes from ThinkProgess will not play for success on this issue. I think it would bore his listeners if he waited until these closeted big govt freaks had the nerve to call him and offer something remotely close to a civil, topical argument about this subject.

In the piece they at once call these "commercial stations", yet bluntly claim that they "push" an agenda? How is it that they are making any money, then? Somebody must be advertising on the stations! So all the advertisers are conservatives, too, and there's some secret handshake of advertisers and listeners who support those businesses?

Their presumption falls on its face, it seems, and they surely must know it. How can dashing free market ideals for their version of a "free" (wink) media possibly pass muster under authentic public debate? These pro-controlled airwaves (oh, but ONLY radio!) people are tossing rocks, and keeping their distance, they are not offering a debate.

Liberals have most of TV in their back pockets. Viewership of news on TV is lowering, for them. MSNBC is the laughed-at geek among all TV news entities, and steeply liberal. It is rising generally, we learned recently from viewership reports, but MSNBC is comparably rising far less than FOX News. Fox News is of course another media outlet despised by liberals. This one is disliked for simply not being liberal rather than for its being rampantly conservative -- but don't try to tell any of them that, they're too busy calling it racist, fascist and owned by "the Man". These same liberals pan PBS and NPR for being too moderate, too. Shame. I like both of those, and appreciate their reporting. Funny, I thought reporting was meant to be objective as possible, but plenty of progressives -- and a few blow-hard counterparts on the far right -- call objectivity boring. So much for news reporting and "boring" old journalism!

Liberals lay claim to the majority of large newspapers in the nation, and seem to be doing just fine with not forcing "balance" on those media. So, what gives? Not debate, that's for sure! Can you imagine if conservative talk radio hosts started insisting that such action be taken to level the playing field on television, or in major newspapers, what would happen? Can you imagine if someone allegedly legitimate tried -- seriously, not as a joke -- to petition HBO to have a counterbalance to the Bill Maher show?

How is it that AM radio, which is for some the mocked poster child for old technology, gets so much attention from these folks for abuse of free markets? Isn't this a bit like hilariously odd, like a liberal faction of our government demanding that we invade the Phillipines?

Perhaps they are doing this since they simply want to win the ubiquitous debate, not actually have one. You know, like Chavez holds elections, and supporters take control of gov't buildings while the election happens to show their support. They'll debate it, but only on their terms. "I'll debate you any time! Just submit the questions three days ahead of time, please!"

I really wish I could resist reacting to any particularly stupid fringe ideas for control, at either edge, but I cannot help it when they are conceptually bizarre and insincere as this is. Who'd have thought that AM radio was the chief threat to the First Amendment!


- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.

(rev. Feb. 24, 2009)

Dashing through the snow-job: Daschle left something out

(From the NY Times, but here via a Texas daily paper)

Now nominee Daschle has tax explaining to do | Dallas Morning News

Senate Democrats rushed Saturday to save the nomination of their former leader, Tom Daschle, as President Obama's health and human services secretary, while the White House sought to explain how Daschle survived its vaunted vetting despite his failure to pay $128,000 in taxes.

Senior administration officials said that although Daschle was aware as early as June 2008 that he might have to pay back taxes for the use of a car and driver provided by a private equity firm, he did not inform the president's transition team until mid-December, several days after Obama announced Daschle as his pick for health secretary.

A normal person would feel guilty for owing that much in taxes. This was a US senator. Should it kill his chances? I should hope not, seeing an outright tax evader is our Treasury head now. Still, owing $128,00 in taxes and gaining a sweet position of influence don't really impress me. It kinda makes me think he's more about himself than average Americans.

As for it being from the Times, it looks like they are making some effort to show the honeymoon is over for Obama. That, or they do not like longtime headliners Daschle.

- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.

GOP selects black dude, 'what?' moment courtesy of NY Times

The Mexican-sponsored, conservative-bashing, often deceptively liberal clarion (OK, The Nation and TIME do it as much, so perhaps "clarion" is harsh) publication, the NY Times, continued its jab and run efforts to brazenly distort the ranks and reach of the biggest party for conservatives and political right of America upon the selection of the new Republican Nat'l Committee chairman.

While reporting on the election of the new, -- take a breath in order to state some "obvious," "bigoted" reasons why they did it, lefties -- black (!!!) RNC chairman, they might as well have belabored the fact that the guy is not a black space alien, thus the RNC is still -- as they see it -- the small-minded party of bigots. After all, they took Al Gore from the White House, the bad people.

Republicans Choose First Black Party Chairman - NYTimes.com

From the start, Mr. [Katon] Dawson, while well-liked in the party, was hampered by worries that his selection would reinforce the notion that Republicans are increasingly becoming a Southern regional party.

What? The GOP is risking being considered a regional party. Seriously? Notion, huh? Of whom? And barbecue-lovin', drawlin', Democratic Party paragons Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, are what, exactly? Too far into the past, are they? Not sure they would agree.

Is that quote the dumbest sentence in the NY Times for the day? I want to hope so, but I can only guess. It is a poorly written sentence (but since I note it in a hastily written blog, I will only point that out in passing, adding that the NYT piece was not from a blog).

I suppose around the NY Times offices, GOP chairman Michael Steele might be nicknamed Uncle, uhh, Mike, for being in with the slave owners of the GOP, too. Next there'll be a cartoon on their opinion page with Uncle Mike being denied service at the GOP's HQ cafeteria.

The paper also mentioned this, before bothering to go into Steele's win any further:

Mr. Dawson also withdrew from an all-white country club he belonged before he started running for office, a point that was raised by Republicans concerned that it would provide a bad contrast in a year when the country elected its first African-American president.

Now, the fact that there exists clubs that are intentionally (I don't care what they claim, I mean a presumed intent) all-white anywhere is disgusting to me (unless, of course, there are nothing but white people in the general area). But, to me, such clubs simply remind us that there are more white snobs than other types of snobs in the country. I wish they'd spend more time in those clubs, and less time ruining the fight for scraps of the rest of us.

Democrats should really beat this one to death, even though this Dawson dude didn't get the chairmanship. You know there's never, ever been a white Democrat member of an all-white country club, that's simply unimaginable. And never were any of the important members of the Democratic Party ever in any groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, or some all-white frat or anything, or directing hoses to be fired in the direction of blacks, or anything like that. Nope! Never!

Mr. Steele made no mention of his race in his acceptance speech, and members said that was not a major factor in their decision. Nonetheless, it was clearly a force, playing out at a time when the nation has just inaugurated its first black president.

In addition to Mr. Duncan’s experience with a white country club, another candidate for candidate — Chip Saltsman of Tennessee — came under fire after distributing a Christmas CD with a song parody entitled, “Barack the Magic Negro.”

The song was a parody, and it actually was a response, meant in humor, to a LA Times article from which that phrase came. But don't confuse anyone with the facts, just poop out propaganda for sucker liberals to step onto -- and walk it around.

As usual, the liberal obsession is with things such as race, sexual interests, and how to ban dodge ball and God from playgrounds. Let's hope at least one knows how to save the world from the bums that hate America. A JFK-type of Democrat. In other words, not a rabid, bellowing liberal.

Ron Brown was the first and only black chairman of the DNC, from 1989 to 1992.

- jR

2010 elections: Time for change we can believe in is still to come

In reflecting on the pathetic, awkwardly funny disappearance of the age Florida hedge fund manager Arthur Nadel, I realize that the change is not yet complete. After all, Congress has the same horrific, at times supremely arrogant, leaders that it had for the past two very decisively bad years for our economy. What did they all do, almost to a person? They blamed Bush and his Administration for all of this. Excuses, excuses.

It started with Clinton's era, and the Dem, then GOP, Congresses of the time. It continued into Bush's terms, and for some mad reason even the supposed fiscally conservative GOP let the crazy mortgages survive when they could have stopped them -- obviously, since their friends in finance were getting rich off the crooked concept of CRA loans. Then, even when it was OBVIOUS that the economy was broadly slowing down, this robbery thrived while Barney Frank insultingly balked -- like a mean grammar school teacher -- at those who told him, in public meetings, that we needed a tightening on CRA mortgages and other financial matters.

So, thanks to all of our leaders who could have gotten some control over the financial meltdown up to two years ago, or could have ended the illogical CRA mortgage "plan" ages ago. You've failed us. So stop pretending you're going to fix it now. You're too comfortable or too foolish to truly manage to fix it, I fear.

Time for the "Obamatized" change is not yet active. There's the 2010 election in our sights. Some will never change: too bad Connecticut and Massachusetts, to name a few, can't help but elect the same blowhards over and over again. Too bad the Dems couldn't pick a real leader for either half of Congress (they couldn't even if they did it behind closed doors in a secret ballot, I suspect) -- they appear too happy with average people who are elitist dullards, like Pelosi and Reid, as leaders. After all, Pelosi was selected leader once again, just recently, though her Congress is the least popular of all time. Its popularity plummetted concurrent with her reign. No coincidence, in my estimation. She's simply too beauty queen populist to believe that any of it is her fault -- it must be merely a sign of the times, after all, since Bush is the terror in all of this. Hypocrisy is alive and well in Washington, folks.

It is they who created and let thrive the pathetic old monsters such as Madoff and Nadel, and the CRA mortgage companies, and all the Wall Street greedmongers who robbed while the robbing was easy (and quite legal, by accident, seeing the lack of actual regulatory effort by our government). It is you who are now letting them all simply step away from the card table quite wealthy, cards still stuffed in their sleeves, for fear of the house of cards falling. It is the government wave of irresponsibility that has let them leave Wall Street for their cozy winter homes, except for the rare imprisonment or the recent, and the future, suicides and "disappearances" (I wonder if these last ones are at all out of guilt, or simply out of mad selfishness?).

We have yet to address the full weight of our anger. There is still 2010 to finish the job, and to motivate any good leaders to find a way -- through the dull flow of political maneuvering or by going around it -- to put out for the night the ferile cats who screwed us all. There is still an election in 2010 in which to remove more garbage from the Capitol steps.

- jR

Chavez not dropping oil program, but the way to pay was questionable

Chavez says US heating oil program never suspended - Americas AP - MiamiHerald.com

At a news conference, however, Kennedy said Citgo made it clear the decision was not a cancellation of the program. "But at the end of the day, the tankers are not going to be in front of this building," he said.

Citgo Chief Executive Alejandro Granado later said in Boston that the company had found a way to continue paying for oil shipments.

On Saturday, Chavez poked fun at analysts who said he was cutting the assistance to make relations difficult with President-elect Barack Obama, saying they made him laugh.

"They build this analysis on a lie," he said.

I still hold to my anger that a U.S. oil company, and a nonprofit, and our country, cannot buck up and cover this and tell Chavez "thanks, but no thanks." As I wrote a few days ago in this post: Like, Totally Political, Dude!: Chavez dropping oil program for U.S. poor, who's to blame?

It seems rather unbelievable that the same thing was not possible through anyone else, that this was even an option for Chavez to use -- ironically, it did some good. I don't like the power-happy guy, as he's religiously self-lauding and stunningly arrogant, but I cannot dislike his doing as he did.

You should recognize that the oil for poor program is a perfect, and self-serving, way for Chavez to appear to be a benefactor to U.S. poor. It is only honorable on the face of it. If I rna everyone's lives, this is the least I would do. But I do not, fundamentally and wholeheartedly, believe in any system where one-party, one dictator rule serves the greater good. On the whole, it does not. It is a simple truth. Those who wish to live in such a system are welcome to. Don't even address it in this country -- this country is and God-willing will always be about ridding the world of stupid people with stupid ideas like dictatorships, fascism, communism, and socialism. People will still try, and it might make for insteresting reading (Karl Marx did well with it) but it isn't a system that can properly fix itself. Our is dangerously close to being an elitist-ruled country that cheats the poor for the good fo the rich, we can't fix that with socialism. Not the answer.

There has never been any good consistently carried through in a country that was ruled over by one person or one party. The USSR was a disaster. China is still, more than not, a screwy, impoverished backwater. Europe is full of nations that are struggling under the weight of their too-generous welfare-type programs, leaving not enough room for helping when a crisis hits. Why do we want more of that in the world?

One ruler nations run the great risk that individuals are limited throughout. Ass-kissers excel in dictatorships. I hate ass-kissers. We have lots of little dictatorships -- companies -- in America. I don't like that kind of company, or even one office of any company, and I don't like that kind of nation. Such systems are effective for killing inventiveness -- thus why many sectors in the U.S. lack ingenuity these days. It is that simple.

As for nations, any socialist leaders ever came to power through manipulation and exploitation of the poor. They pulled down the educated and many highly effective people, ultimately making the country, on the whole, less than it would be under a free society sort of leadership. Look at Cuba, for crying out loud.


Chavez is an ultimate arrogant politician. That is a simple fact. I am glad he is not the ever-loving-the-killing Pinochet or similar autocratic South American socialist-communist. He's only politically dangerous to a free, liberty-loving, democratic society. For now, at least.

But this shows the gritting teeth underneath the smile of the supposedly concerned oil and other wealthy leaderships of the U.S. They all ought to be put to task for leaving such a basic and obvious hole opened for Chavez to serve our poor.

I can't fault Chavez for this -- I fault us for being to uncreative to squash his ability to do this BY DOING IT OURSELVES.

Shame on the rhetorically wealthy oilmen in the U.S. who, along with their snob friends, choose to argue that the poor, uneducated, struggling and fundamentally overlooked in this country ought to just get off their duff or they deserve to freeze throughout the winter. Social conservatism fails completely when it enters the realm of choosing to not create a clever way to afford to help the tragically poor to get through the cold winters that half the nation faces


- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.

Chavez dropping oil program for U.S. poor, who's to blame?

Hugo Chávez shuts off discounted heating oil to U.S. poor - MiamiHerald.com

Chávez instituted the low-income heating oil assistance program in 2005 through the help of Joseph P. Kennedy II, a former congressman and a son of the late Sen. Robert F. Kennedy. Kennedy heads Citizens Energy.

Chávez won cheers when he announced during a 2006 visit to a Harlem church that he planned to expand the program.

Critics have lambasted Kennedy for taking Chávez's oil. However, he has always been unrepentant.

''Some people say it's bad politics to do this,'' Kennedy says in a video on Citizens Energy's Web page. "I say it's a crime against humanity not to. Because no one, no one should be left out in the cold.''

Cannot argue with the logic of Joe Kennedy's comments, because, dammit, it's not right to let folks freeze. It seems rather unbelievable that the same thing was not possible through anyone else, that this was even an option for Chavez to use -- ironically, it did some good. I don't like the power-happy guy, as he's religiously self-lauding and stunningly arrogant, but I cannot dislike his doing as he did. That makes every other oil provider, including the U.S. ones, culpable for low ethical standards. If Chavez can do this, what the hell, other oil men? Get off your bloated asses and provide some act of good, however cynical it may be, to the world.

Chavez? He's simply bad news for anyone who even suspects that capitalism, when properly and ethically dealt, works, especially in the U.S.

But the bottom line is, the rest of the industry is to blame for Chavez using this to his very political advantage. Using the poor. Ahh, what a common theme among politicians. Disgusting. Who's going to help now? Not Exxon Mobil, huh? You are all a bunch of "oil-holes." You know what I mean.

- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.

Crazed 'Blago' got tough against the Tribune, got FBI visit in return

Was it simply "kill or be killed" for the Chi Trib against this crazed Democratic governor? CNN and others are getting further into the story -- more will surely come. How Obama fits into this ugly picture is yet to be made comfortable for the fresh prince of the Beltway. Stories do suggest that Obama is tied to this "Blago" kook through his buddy Tony Rezko. That's not good. Not good at all. What a year 2009 is going to be -- gag.

U.S. attorney: Blagojevich has taken us to 'new low' - CNN.com

The Obama transition team is aware that Blagojevich is in federal custody, but has no comment, according to a senior Democratic source.

The government also accuses Blagojevich and Harris of threatening to withhold state assistance to the Tribune Company -- the company that owns the Chicago Tribune -- in connection with the sale of Wrigley Field baseball stadium. The company also owns the Chicago Cubs and Wrigley Field.

In exchange for assistance, the governor and his chief of staff wanted the newspaper to fire Chicago Tribune editorial board members who were sharply critical of the governor, the government said.

I guess the Tribune won that one. Will they win the business operations war? Bankruptcy was a second shoe dropping. Only time, and lots of turnover in management, will tell.

- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.

Liberal Senility: Political amnesia and a financial powder keg

This is the stuff that gets me going, really cheeses me off. The following quoted piece reminded me of the awfully regular tactic of what I call liberal senility: if we were involved, it didn't happen; next, blame the Republicans (i.e., moderates and conservatives who aren't Democrats), and especially the president when Republican, for what never happened.

There's only one thing to keep telling yourself, and others, throughout this financial crisis, if you are a closed-minded liberal: the Democratic, and quite liberal, leader of the U.S. House, Nancy Pelosi, flat out rejected that the House had ANY responsibility in the financial climate that led to the current situation with a $700 billion bailout on the table. No blame at all. None. Zip. Dilch. Nada.

Now, that is real leadership, is it not? Blame others, all others, the end. Next! Pelosi would be ashamed of herself, but it would appear her self-respect went away with her ascent to the throne where she sits, doing nothing.

Anyone care to explain this supposed leader denying ANY burden in this mess? Show me a way to believe what Nancy Pelosi stated all too clear on NPR and probably lots of other places, and I will owe you. I mean that the House TRULY had no part in this at all. It makes no sense to me at all, and this artfully absurd denial is about as becoming on a leader as the "Emperor's New Clothes" would be on Ted Kennedy. (Yeesh!)

I was amazed -- and amused -- to hear, on a PBS program (you can likely watch it on their Web site) about Obama and McCain, that Obama was someone the Dem party wanted to keep away from ANYTHING controversial, to build him up. In other words, Obama, well-spoken and cocky, was coddled. His own supporters stated this in a documentary, from his early days. We are about to elect, to the delight of the most liberal of liberals like Pelosi and Reid (the worst leaders of the Congress ever, I think, certainly in my lifetime) the first president who evaded not just military service, but evaded concrete liability for anything aside from playing the part of a politician. He has enjoyed the greatest fake career in the history of American politics.

Before you toss this, read the following snippet of an article, as the New York Times eats their own words, as they so often do, by a bit of colorful blaming. (The media would be so much more useful if it had a memory and once in a while used it without partisan eagerness, one way or the other. And let's face it, it is all too often leaning in the direction of where most journalists stand: left-leaning, liberal ideals.)

Monday, September 22, 2008

By John R. Lott, Jr.

The mortgage crisis has produced a massive case of political amnesia. That happens when one is trying to redirect blame for something that could cost up to $700 billion. Some who now claim that the mortgage crisis is the result of too little regulation saw things more clearly when so much wasn’t at stake.

The New York Times editorialized on Saturday that “This crisis is the result of a willful and systematic failure by the government to regulate and monitor the activities of bankers, lenders, hedge funds, insurers and other market players.” If you believe the Times or the Obama campaign, everything but government regulation is to blame for the crisis.

Yet, it is not just economists who were predicting these problems.

For example, a September 30, 1999, article in the New York Times predicted exactly what has happened [the following is taken from the article]:

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people . . . ''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.'' . . .

Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

Indeed, during the late 1990s, the Clinton administration and Fannie Mae bragged about how they had lowered the standards required to borrow money for homes to increase borrowing by groups that otherwise wouldn’t qualify. Their goal of increasing minority ownership was surely a laudable one, but making others pay for the voters’ altruism has real costs.

As even the New York Times understood in 1999, as long as housing prices kept on going up there was no problem with this system. If someone couldn’t pay their mortgages, they could sell their property. There was no threat of default. However, a lack of down payments meant that people defaulted on their mortgages.

Unfortunately, these insights don’t fit the current political template. With just 43 days to the election, the New York Times and others want to be in sync with the Obama campaign’s attack on the Bush administration not having enough regulation. It particularly doesn’t fit the fact that McCain was criticizing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for years along the lines of the New York Times 1999 article. Ironically, in other articles, the New York Times described the Democrats as “important political allies” of these two government-sponsored enterprises [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac].

The New York Times is right that “Taxpayers have every right to be alarmed and angry.” But they should read their old news articles to see whom they should get angry at.

It is a shame if, upon this election, we go from an estate-baby-in-chief to a coddled-egotist-in-chief. At least Bush could make a decision. Obama needs to try his ideas out, change them three times, then makes a decision. Obama leads by waiting for the other guy to do something first. Is this going to work in the White House?

Powered by ScribeFire.