Saturday, October 26, 2014

INFLUENCE, CRONY CAPITALISM, CORRUPTION:This story has it all and says it all.

NEXT STEP BAN THIS CULT FROM US?:Obviously banning Islam from US would be difficult, however…surveilling Mosques and monitoring ex-cons, etc would be prudent, if not enough.

THE WALKER CAMPAIGN IS TELLING:When George Will gets on the case, it's a biggie.What we're seeing here is the corruption of the prosecutors office, probably countrywide, and the criminality of the unions at work.

THIS IS A CAMPAIGN TO WATCH CAREFULLY:What we see here is voter suppression, much like Lois Lerhner and the IR

WHAT IT FEELS LIKE TO BE A STUDENT:I think I remember days like the student/teacher. Takeaway: the learning learning environment is critical, unless you're an Asian.

Friday, October 24, 2014

THE LINES ARE DRAWN ONCE AND FOR ALL: It's going to be a very difficult battle but it has to be won by the forces of freedom.

AN IMPORTANT OBSCURE CONSERVATIVE VOICE: Haven't heard too much about this obscure professor but need to.

A DEBATE ON UNEMPLOYMENT NUMBERS:The key lies in the Labor participation numbers.

THIS RANT IS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW FRUSTRATED CONSERVATIVE:It is true we are in real trouble and it will probably take major action/activities to change things.  There are remedies, like term limits, like making it a crime to become a lobbyist after serving in the Congress, like calling out lies in campaigns by a nonpartisan, functioning media.  Franlky, professional politicians of all stripes are at the root of the problem 50 can run for Congress..

A PARTICULARLY THOUGHTFUL COLUMN FROM JONAH GOLDBERG:

The other day I wrote this short piece on Israel’s Independence Day over at the Enterprise Blog. In it I covered a theme familiar to longtime G-File readers. That theme? The tendency to assume that the future will unfold as a straight-line projection of today.

Specifically, I noted that Israel’s existence is a blip on the radar, historically speaking, and the idea that it will be around forever is actually a pretty debatable assumption based upon a granite-like faith that tomorrow will look a lot like today.

But what got me revisiting the topic was actually a conversation I had with an AEI colleague about libertarians and family policy (those of you who bet that my getting out of the basement and into an office would make me less dorky, well, you’re going to have to pay up).

I don’t follow libertarian family policy (never mind conservative family policy, liberal family policy, or even Shining Path Maoist family policy) too closely, though I know some very smart people who’re involved in it. Anyway, the conversation turned to the claim made by many libertarians, as well as folks like Al Gore (wolfsbane to libertarians), that modern society has changed so much that it is only right and rational that family structure change, too.

Here’s my problem with this sort of thinking, which I don’t think is unreasonable on its face. Some institutions endure because they are, well, enduring.

The whole point of certain institutions is that they are insurance policies against the unknown future (picture G. Gordon Liddy talking about gold, only replace it with “the family”). The phrase “you can always count on family” may not be literally true, but it is more true than “you can always count on your old college roommate.” When times are great, the demands of family (or religion, or good manners, or thriftiness, or a thousand other institutions, customs, and habits of the heart that we can throw under the bulwark of “tradition”) might often seem like too much unnecessary baggage to carry around. But when things hit the fan, family is there in a way that other people aren’t. Not because those other people are bad, but because your family is your family.

But it’s important to keep in mind that the family – or the Bill of Rights, or good manners, whatever – isn’t a catastrophic insurance policy. The value of these institutions is best understood during a time of crisis, but the influence of these institutions is constant, even in times of calm luxury. The fact that these institutions exist forecloses certain options and avenues for reformers who yearn for a blanker social slate.

The family, like marriage, is an institution that predates our Constitution and the very concept of democracy, never mind modernity. That is not to say that it hasn’t evolved and changed or that conservatives should never, ever contemplate further changes and greater evolution. It is simply to say that we should do so carefully, reservedly, humbly, in full knowledge that tomorrow may look as little like today as yesterday did.

What National Review is Reading Order Today!  The Tyranny of Clichés: How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas By Jonah Goldberg

Keep It Simple, Keep It Loaded

A simple way of grasping this is to think of guns. There are lots of good arguments about gun rights. But it amazes me how often these debates boil down to whether you can imagine thattomorrow will look a lot different than today. So many liberals dismiss the “right to revolution” arguments on the grounds that they can’t imagine its ever being necessary. Nor can they imagine a military invasion or a collapse of the social order sufficiently chaotic to justify the laws of self-preservation.

And don’t even get me started on zombies.

I hope these unimaginative liberals are right. But I can tell you this: When the zombies rise, I won’t be racing to the homes of friends who happened to be lifetime members of Handgun Control Inc. I will be heading North to Alaska, where I have family and they have guns, lots and lots of guns. And, more to the point, while the prevalence of guns in our society will do little to nothing to prevent the zombie menace from ever arising, those guns go a long way toward circumscribing the menu of available policy options for the state. In other words, the existence of gun rights makes the “need” for gun rights seem less apparent.

Quote of the Day

I would be remiss if I didn’t make this the quote of the day:

“In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, ‘I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.’ To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: ‘If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.’”

– G.K. Chesterton, The Thing

Thursday, October 23, 2014

GLAD JONAH'S ON OUR SIDE:Numbers don't lie until used by the likes of the NYTimes.

A CHRISTIAN VIEW OF THE OBAMA WORLD:If this doesn't resonate then your a Democrat.

AND BILL CLINTON WAS A GREAT PRESIDENT?:Hard to believe this scumag was POTUS and that his equally scumbag wife may become POTUS. It is truly grating that this couple has been the face of America for so many years.  He is an indecent man and she is his accomplice.  As for Bill. besides pandering to minority elements of our society for votes, using any means including lies and distortions, he also is a man of no character, a serial rapist and possibly involved in more than one murder of staff people.  What's more he managed to put in place and support a Secretary of HUD, Andrew Cuomo, who was the official most responsible for the '07/'08 financial meltdown that has led to the fractured economy we have had since Obama took office.  Still this very destructive, divisive politician is the apple of his party's voters and somehow manages to pull down hundreds of thousands for speeches and by the way, is lionized on college campuses.  What kind of country elects and respects leaders of this caliber.

THE NON-SOLUTION TO A BIG PROBLEM:Fornier is a liberal, at heart, and he's suggesting, basically, the rearranging of chairs on the Titanic.Really!  Leon Panetta as CoS for Obama.  Not gonna happen.  Panetta, much admired, loved and respected by Washington insiders like Fournier, is n solution th Obama's inherent inability to lead and comet grips with major issues.  Obama is an ideologue who's not about to change his stripes.  Besides, if Panetta was really a great advisor and/or patriot, why didn't he force Obama's hand over the Benghazi issue by threatening resignation.  Panetta is a political animal and let's not forget was a leader in the HoR while government was growing and funding ever more liberal programs designed to enslave ever more Americans.  Panetta is no solution to big government bloat and inefficiency, he's one of the problems.  If one is looking for a solution to all the problems not being addressed by this administration, it surely is not a reshuffling of chairs and people.  Finally, want to effect change, don't take advice from Washington insiders.  Frankly, there are no liberals inside or outside of Washington capable of helping this administration or our problems with the economy or with foreign affairs.  What's needed is reform of the political class and the government bureaucracies.  Where's that person?

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

CREEPY PEOPLE DO CREEPY THINGS:This administration sets new standards (lower) for abject corruption.

THIS IS INTERESTING STUFF: The chart and "comment" are quite revealing. The Liberal Mindset is truly pathetic.


THE DATES OF THESE REMARKS AND COMMENTS ARE SIGNIFICANT:

The Voice in My Head

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Goldman Sachs Loves Obama

[UPDATE 10/6/2011: Well whaddya know...an Instalanche! One interesting note - Sharyl Attkisson who filed the report for CBS quoted below from October of 2008 is the CBS reporter who recently came under fire from the Obama administration for her reporting on Fast and Furious in which officials at the White House and DOJ screamed and yelled at her (I unintentionally misspelled her name as Cheryl Atkisson at the time because I was transcribing the video, but have now fixed it). Let's just say that Attkisson has been doing good work for years against the tide of the media in general - I have seen some blogs and commenters suggest that a willingness to report something negative about Obama must be something new to her. It's not.]



And Obama loves them back.
Hot Air points us to a CBS report on Obama's fundraising. Ed Morrissey notes:

However, they did a good job in reporting the fact that Obama likes to rail about Wall Street greed but uses bundlers right out of Goldman Sachs. The disparity in fundraising between McCain and Obama with these well-connected Wall Street firms is eye-opening.

Indeed.
Let's go to the effort to do a little transcription work on that CBS video at Hot Air:

Sharyl Attkisson, CBS Correspondent: Like McCain, Obama's corporate donor list reads like a who's who of the Wall Street collapse, only some are giving more to Obama. Lots more.
Sheila Krumholz, Center for Responsive Politics: The Obama campaign has just vacuumed up the money in this cycle. Specifically from Goldman Sachs, Obama has received over $740,000 as compared to McCain's $220,000.
Attkisson: Not to mention that the former head of Goldman Sachs, Robert Rubin, is Obama's chief economic adviser, and two current executives are bundling for him. Bundlers are mega-fundraisers who critics say get special access.

Well. Here we are again. First we had Obama railing about McCain being in the pocket of Big Oil -- and then found out about Obama taking in more campaign donations from Exxon employees than McCain. So wemade the logo.
You know where this is heading, right?
Of course you do. It's not a trick question.

Obama has been a model of transparency.
He's transparently phony.