Archive for politics

Integrity loss

No, both sides aren’t the same.

The American left has come to condone and accept untruth as an appropriate way to conduct their affairs. They are abetted by a media that actively covers up their scandals, while exaggerating the faults of their opposition.

A preacher recently observed in a sermon about lying that “accepting the notion that the ends justify the means leads to a climate where lying becomes the norm.” According to sociologist Robert Nisbet, “What sociologists are prone to call social disintegration is really nothing more than the spectacle of a rising number of individuals playing fast and loose with other individuals in relationships of trust and responsibility.” Our culture’s embrace of lying indicates moral breakdown on a profound level, in which people have begun to satisfy their selfish impulses without regard for the consequences inflicted on others.

Kenneth Blackwell: The lying game — “Liberals operate on the notion that the ends justify the means.” We are finding meaning in the old saying “there will be hell to pay.”

Leave a Comment

Thought patrols and oppression supression

“The basis for this was the campaign-finance reform movement, which sees money in politics as a greater evil than a government empowered to shut down political speech. The John Doe law in Wisconsin shows exactly why government intervention in political speech is worse than any corruption it attempts to prevent. The use of force in Wisconsin got applied to one side exclusively, and intended to shut down conservatives before they could exercise their legitimate political power. It’s even more egregious than the IRS targeting of conservatives between 2009-2013, but it’s the same kind of abuse of power, and it leverages the same kind of campaign-finance reform statutes that give government at state and federal levels entrée to control political speech.”

Ed Morrissey on the Wisconsin efforts to silence certain political critics: “I thought it was a home invasion” — and it was

Leave a Comment

Giving away the hard earned prize: Vietnam

It is a favorite meme on the left that is bent to fit its anti-military desires. The problem is that the loss wasn’t military, it was political and the loss sits squarely on their shoulders. Bruce Walker describes When We Lost the Winnable War, why were in it, and the disingenuous opposition.

The whole faux “moral argument” waged by draft-dodgers and communist sympathizers during the 1960s and 1970s against the Vietnam War was wrong. America had a treaty obligation and a moral duty to save South Vietnam and its neighbors from the horrors and poverty of communism. The only real argument that remains is whether we could have “won” this war or not.

As sickening as it seems, craven politicians in Washington and communist sympathizers on American campuses, safe and comfortable in America, bartered away the courage of better Americans who fought and bled in Vietnam and condemned tens of millions of innocents in Southeast Asia to genocide and slavery.

There is, of course, a lesson for us today. The same sort of spoiled and selfish political class in Washington today surrenders the willing sacrifices of all those good Americans who have fought in this, our longest war, so that Obama or his flacks can gain a few polling points or bask for a moment in false glory. We are, today, losing another winnable war.

Of course, for the left, it is American atrocity that matters no matter how small or how isolated. What is forgotten is “The conduct of the war by the communists in South Vietnam was calculated and sadistic terrorism, particularly focusing on threats to members of the family or the local village, who had no political views at all.” The SEATO alliance gets short shrift. The moral outrage was not in trying to defend South Vietnam but in a politically restrained effort that tied the hands of the military and undermined public understanding of the nature of the conflict. The result was that many suffered. It is those that stimulated and promoted that suffering that are preening their moral purity. They did not learn and, it appears, have not yet come to grips with their denial.

Leave a Comment

Adding up the numbers

This is a textbook example of projection, but not the type produced by the Urban Institute or the CBO. The irony is that Krugman’s own lies, combined with the clumsy misrepresentations of math-challenged people like Cohn, have contributed heavily to the skepticism that most Americans feel about Obamacare. Most voters intuitively understand that the numbers don’t add up. Sadly, the same cannot be said about most of the law’s media cheerleaders.

There are those who just can’t handle numbers and then there are those who can but only in ways to support their foregone conclusions. See David Catron: The Right Prescription – Math Is Hard For Obamacarians – The numbers are not their friends.

Leave a Comment

Trafficking in fear

Net neutrality backers traffic in fear. Pushing a suite of suggested interventions, they warn of rapacious cable operators who seek to control online media and other content by “picking winners and losers” on the Internet. They proclaim that regulation is the only way to stave off “fast lanes” that would render your favorite website “invisible” unless it’s one of the corporate-favored. They declare that it will shelter startups, guarantee free expression, and preserve the great, egalitarian “openness” of the Internet.

No decent person, in other words, could be against net neutrality.

In truth, this latest campaign to regulate the Internet is an apt illustration of F.A. Hayek’s famous observation that “the curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.” Egged on by a bootleggers-and-Baptists coalition of rent-seeking industry groups and corporation-hating progressives (and bolstered by a highly unusual proclamation from the White House), Chairman Wheeler and his staff are attempting to design something they know very little about-not just the sprawling Internet of today, but also the unknowable Internet of tomorrow.

Promoting fear of what might be is a common tactic used in pushing many ideological ideas. You can see it with climate change, with vaccines, with alternative energy, … “alternative” anything, it seems. In this case, it’s the pipeline becoming critical to the masses for communications and entertainment and business. Geoffrey A. Manne & R. Ben Sperry suggest that The biggest threat to the Net isn’t cable companies. It’s government. The politics driving governmental control of the I’net is clear:

Generally speaking, neutrality advocates don’t spend much time in the weeds of boring traffic-flow engineering and network prioritization. What has animated everyone from HBO comedian/anchor John Oliver to millions of irate FCC commenters has been an angry suspicion that somewhere, some rich corporations are on the verge of hijacking the Internet’s architecture to profit themselves while excluding others.

Suspicion. Fear. Envy. And persistence.

One would think that after 10 years of political teeth-gnashing, regulatory rule making, and relentless litigating, there would by now be a strong economic case for net neutrality—a clear record of harmful practices and agreements embodying the types of behavior that only regulation can pre-empt. But there isn’t.

All of this goes along with the certitude and arrogance that substitutes for rationality, intellectual integrity, and actual, solid factual basis in reality of those advocating for governmental control. The pattern of behavior is a first clue about the quality of what is advocated.

Leave a Comment

The chickens will come to roost – but it’s not those of the President’s pastor

Two essays on morals in the country today:

Americans are now at the mercy of a bankrupt society where the crime of sexually assaulting a child is minimized by a judge who measures the “wrongful act” of sodomy against whether or not the offender stalked his victim or felt remorse after murdering a little girl’s soul in the pursuit of sexual satisfaction. Moreover, it’s where, in a game of political tit-for-tat, elected politicians who have already justified murdering 60 million unborn babies are now publicly joking that sometimes fiscal prudence excuses terminating the disabled.

So, sadly, in place of virtuous standards, a viewpoint that reeks of self-serving arrogance is currently in the process of institutionally degrading America’s legal and political systems and systematically progressing to a point where the indefensible is now being defended.

The credibility of moral relativism is shaky, because even for the most ardent relativist there’s always a limit to what principled sensibilities can endure. That’s why every relativist should exercise extreme caution when reacting to the unthinkable, lest a code of ethics be established that even skeptics might be forced to acknowledge.

And as twisted as that may sound to those who subscribe to archaic standards like Biblical doctrine, natural law and universal principles, America is now sliding into further decline because without fear of rebuke, moral equivocators are dismissing despicable behavior and publicly verbalizing vile sentiments. [Moral Relativism and the Normalization of the Indefensible, American Thinker

The other is from Rev. Michael Bresciani.

Apostate churches abound in these last days, but not all have lost their spine. Some of the best known ministries and ministers have sent warning to the Supreme Court justices of the United States that the scriptures attest that same sex marriage and homosexuality are perversions that violate the laws of God, man and nature.

The Bible clearly warns that the practice and promulgation of homosexuality and other perversions will draw God’s disfavor and in time his severe judgement on this and any nation. Those who take their bibles seriously cannot wait until others take them seriously—it will be too late by then.

Regardless of which way these legal battles turn out one thing is clear the only thing real Christians hate about the gays is the fact that more creatures created in the image of God will be cast into an eternal hell.

Concern and sadness about the loss of their lives and futures is something that compassionate believers all share because it is not the will of God that anyone should perish. If it is not God’s will then it is not our will.

“The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” (2Pet 3: 9) [Pop Culture Trends are not Morality—What Christians Actually Hate will Surprise You]

Perhaps the foundation of this is the matter of false witness. When one is willing to deceive one’s self with a false reality, then anything goes.

Leave a Comment

Maybe the steaming pile is getting a bit more notice?

Naomi Schaefer Riley notes that Facts matter: Left sticks to ‘narratives,’ evidence be damned. There are some indications that this particular observation is becoming a bit more widespread than it used to be. We can hope.

The stimulus on this one is the campus rape epidemic hoax. The reporting still asserts that the claimant was a traumatic rape victim despite a lack of any support for the claim. That doesn’t matter (the reality, that is). What matters is the message. And that isn’t the only item on the list.

But who cares about the facts as long as awareness has been raised? Take the case of Ellen Pao, who filed suit against her former employer, venture capital group Kleiner Perkins, for gender ­discrimination. … Two weeks ago, a jury decided her claims were completely without merit. And yet from the media coverage, you’d think Ellen Pao successfully exposed a Silicon Valley rife with discrimination. … There was no merit to her claims. If Silicon Valley is so filled with sexist pigs acting illegally, perhaps we could find a case where they actually did that.

and another case related only in correlation to the leanings of the ideologues making allegations:

This is not unlike what happened after the Justice Department released its report on the shooting of Michael Brown last summer.

The only “lesson” that could really be drawn from the DOJ report and the grand jury’s non-indictment was that you shouldn’t knock over convenience stores, but if you do and a police officer catches you, it’s probably not a good idea to ­resist arrest.

But that was not the lesson that others wanted to emphasize. Which is why the Ferguson police now have to try to change the composition of their staff and ticketing policies — though they have no bearing on the case at hand.

as to the message?

Actually, yes, it does diminish the importance because it calls into question whether those were real issues at all. … Not everything has to be a teachable moment. And if we do need a moral to every story, it would be useful to find one based on the facts.

That teachable moment is for the other guy since those trying to do the teaching know it all already. The uncomfortable part is that they are trying to teach the masses that that stinking pile is really good eats when anyone with a sense of smell and some level of intellectual integrity can see it for what it really is. Some things are best for fertilizing the fields and buried in the topsoil.

Leave a Comment

Double Down: propagating the propaganda to the bitter end

Two stories illustrate how deep the delusion runs. Clarice Feldman describes how New revelation helps exonerate Scooter Libby and Jack Cashill goes into What Columbia Missed In Its Review of Rolling Stone.

In a book just released, The Story: A Reporter’s Journey, Judith Miller, a key witness in the Libby prosecution, states that Patrick Fitzgerald had offered repeatedly to drop all charges against Lewis Libby if he would “deliver” Vice President Cheney to him.

That’s one victim. The other case attempted to smear a fraternity but the news reporting became a celebrity case itself so a journalism school was tasked to find out what went wrong.

With much ado, Columbia responded. Its 13,000-word report identified problems in “reporting, editing, editorial supervision and fact-checking.” This was all true enough, but Columbia missed the real problem. As I document in my forthcoming book, Scarlet Letters, cases like the Rolling Stone’s have become so common because those perpetrating a given fraud almost inevitably advance causes that the cultural establishment, the Columbia faculty included, wants to see advanced.

In both these cases, political ideology has swept aside truth, reality, and anyone in the way. When that happens, people get sacrificed for the cause. No wonder there have been reports about how the Russians are trying to put Stalin back on a pedestal by rationalizing what he did to so many of their fellow countrymen. It almost seems like the old medical practice of blood letting to cure anemia.

Leave a Comment

A call to account: EPA on climate alarmism

Robert Bradley Jr: Dear Gina (and Jerry): Where’s the Climate Science Behind Your Plan (Carbon Tax)?. – An exchange between Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) and Gina McCarthy (U.S. EPA), March 4, 2015 raised the question. It appears that the Congressional Committee wants hard answers supported by proper citation rather than evasion or hand waving.

During the March 4, 2015, Committee on Environment and Public Works hearing on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Fiscal Year 2016 budget, several important questions regarding current climate science and data were raised. Although questions regarding the impacts of climate change were clear and straightforward, none of the questions received direct answers, and many responses contained caveats and conditions.

We write today to emphasize that these questions were not posed lightly or in passing. In fact, questions related to whether projected climate impacts are actually occurring are critical to verifying EPA’s commitment to the best science and data, especially as the agency proposes costly carbon dioxide emissions reductions throughout the United States. Stated differently, given that the Administration’s proposal to fundamentally change the nature of domestic electricity generation is based on the apparent need to avoid “devastating” climate impacts to the United States and the planet, it is imperative that the agency be candid and forthright in assessing the reality of this projection.

EPA must demonstrate its commitment to sound science and data by providing prompt and thorough responses to questions from Congress.

The problem, of course, is that business of “providing prompt and thorough responses to questions from Congress” as the current administration seems to hold contempt of Congress as a higher honor than openness or integrity.

Leave a Comment

Be afraid, very afraid. A false god demands worship

Timothy Carney describes how The Left wages total war; and then plays victim.

On one side is the CEO of the world’s largest company, the president of the United States and a growing chunk of the Fortune 500. On the other side is a solo wedding photographer in New Mexico, a 70-year-old grandma florist in Washington and a few bakers.

One side wants the state to conscript the religious businesswomen and men into participating in ceremonies that violate their beliefs. The other side wants to make it possible for religious people to live their own lives according to their consciences.

Yet somehow, the Left and most of the mainstream press paint the current skirmishes over religious liberty as conservative offensives.When Indiana decided to follow the Clinton administration and 19 states in passing a version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Left let loose a cacophonous chorus of cries about a dangerous flood of homophobia spreading out from the Hoosier state.

The misrepresentation would be laughable if not for the awesome power wielded by the anti-religious freedom side.

How is it that the State Propaganda Machine is able to make such a lie stick? Why is it that CEO’s of several major corporations reiterate the lie?

Slippery-slope arguments are often valid — but not coming from the cultural Left, about marriage in the United States, in 2015.

After millennia of marriage being uncontroversially a union between one man and one woman, and after a decade of electorates in most states (and President Obama in 2008) upholding that traditional definition, the Left has used the courts to redefine the institution. People are fired for having taken the losing side. On college campuses, the current fights are about banning even the articulation of traditional views.

But no. Tolerance isn’t the goal. Religious conservatives must atone for their heretical views with acts of contrition: Bake me a cake, photograph my wedding, pay for my abortion and my contraception.

It is the thought police mandating that you condone and support the PC by your actions and tithes. This demand is the essence of the reason for the first three of the Ten Commandments in the Bible. What is a Christian, a Jew, or even a Muslim to do when the government insists he worship at the alter of a false god? Do you do as many of the businesses seem to have done and kneel as ordered. Or do you stand with your belief and take the consequences?

Leave a Comment

Fear mongering despite reality: the right to self defense

There is something about guns:

“What if someone who spies you walking down the street thinks you look suspicious? What if you become a target for would-be George Zimmermans? Or what if the man you argue with, or potentially insult or offend, even unintentionally, is armed and irascible—and the argument escalates?”

“The gun-rights movement claims it is a staunch defender of the peace, contributing to and bolstering law and order. As gun rights are currently advanced, nothing could be further from the truth.”

“LaPierre’s argument for being armed boils down to this: Americans are on the verge of—or already sinking into—a state of anarchy, where it is each man for himself. In that state, “the government can’t—or won’t—protect you…Only you can protect you,” he warns.”

“The cumulative effect of these efforts is a society where security must be upheld or enforced by individual gun owners, who could misperceive what justice demands in any given situation. Our police have a hard enough time with this task. Consider the controversies in Ferguson, Missouri, and Staten Island last year, where unarmed black men, implicated in minor crimes, died because police used excessive force.”

“A common feature of the many police shootings perpetrated over the last year, and highlighted in the media during and after Ferguson, is that police now assume their suspects to be armed. Given the state of affairs the NRA has fostered, this may be a prudent and understandable assumption. But it also means police are instinctively cautious, hostile, and all too ready to use their weapons against ordinary citizens. In an over-armed society, we may also expect to see a steady uptick in the number of cases involving police brutality or excessive force. And then, as the NRA would have it, the government is most fully and clearly the people’s enemy, too.”

How Gun Rights Harm the Rule of Law – “Second Amendment activists are redefining the public sphere, and with it, American democracy” by Firman Debrander provides an illustration of how modern debate is often not much more than irrational argument. In terms of the quote above, consider that the assertions about the Zimmerman and other cases are contrary to fact and that the assertion about the “gun-rights movement claims” is an ad hominem straw man. There is no substance in the essay. There is only fear about what is imagined might be that hasn’t any historical basis to support it. 

The facts are that the increase in legal gun ownership has resulted in a decrease in crime and that gun control laws have not been show to have any influence on whether or not the police will encounter armed criminals. The redefinition of American democracy lies at the feet of those who insist on redefining the second amendment and impugn the character of the American citizen by asserting that they will become violent criminals unless restrained by a benevolent government. 

Just how can you debate anything with someone who wants his own reality no matter how distant it is from the truth on the ground?

Leave a Comment

Don’t debate. Demonize!

It’s Ed Feulner on Muzzling the marketplace of ideas — “Leftists pounce on those who question their worldview” with a few examples.

““Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.” The words of the First Amendment couldn’t be plainer. Yet more than two centuries after the Bill of Rights was written, they remain the subject of fierce debate.

Actually, I should amend that (no pun intended). These words would be the subject of debate — if debate were permitted. But these days, apparently, we’re all so thin-skinned that we can’t bear to hear an opinion that challenges our worldview.”

“Part of the problem, surely, is rooted in basic ignorance of American history and our founding documents. That’s why I opened by quoting the First Amendment. It may strike some readers as too basic to even mention, but numerous surveys show an alarming degree of ignorance and illiteracy.”

“More and more, this is our world. We don’t debate, we demonize. ”

“You don’t communicate with anyone purely on the rational facts or ethics of an issue,” wrote Saul Alinsky in “Rules for Radicals,” the bible of the so-called progressive left. “Pick a target, freeze it, personalize it, and popularize it.”

Some will try to tell you ‘both sides do it’ but that only gets interesting in seeing what they can offer to support the conclusion. Trying to be nice by pretending such things is a part of the problem, not a step towards a solution. It’s kinda’ like pretending the alcoholic doesn’t really drink any more than anyone else.

Leave a Comment

Public servants or public masters?

James Rust says Barack Goes Berserk on Climate ‘Deniers’ (gold stars for fed alarmists?) but the real story is that so many government employees have forsaken their primary duty and become a political arm.

“Organizing For Action (OFA) is a non-profit and community organizing project formed after President Obama’s 2012 re-election to promote his agenda. On March 5, 2015, OFA sent out a letter under President Obama’s signature reporting certain elected officials were climate change deniers with the following statement:

“You’re part of an important team with OFA, with a mission of holding climate change deniers’ feet to the fire.“

“Recent actions of intimidating letters sent to university presidents by Congressman Raul Gripalva February 24 and letters sent February 25 to 100 pro-energy organizations by Senators Markey, Boxer, and Whitehouse protesting alleged conflicts of interest due to compensation received by those who question carbon dioxide from fossil fuels causes catastrophic climate change.”

“Using the Freedom of Information Act, attorney Chris Horner uncovered a March 3, 2009 internal EPA memo to Richard Windsor (EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson’s cover-up name) that recommended a different approach be used to generate public support for EPA’s policies. ”

“Another example is shown by activities of the Department of Interior’s U. S. Geological Survey (USGS).”

“On February 10, 2015, the Department of Agriculture issued a press release “USDA Announces Funding for Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Projects” which described the availability of $280 million from the 2014 Farm Bill for their Rural Energy for Americans Program (REAP)”

So many agencies with so many governmental employees: you’d think there would be some pushback on the effort to force an ideological fantasy on the public. So far, it seems, it’s just crickets chirping.

Leave a Comment

Fact Checking

Some media outlets started ‘fact checking’ columns to determine whether statements of politicians were true or false. In part, this effort was an outcome of the Left being caught in so many lies and distortions of fact that ‘balance’ was needed by ‘proving’ both sides do it. David Rutz illustrates just how this fact checking effort is severely biased by describing 5 Times the Washington Post Failed At Fact-Checking. What makes the field ripe for ‘interpretation’ is that the expression of opinion can use allegory, example, satire, and other rhetorical methods to make a point. Trying to determine the veracity of this expression can be a matter of opinion and interpretation about what is critical to the argument and what is not and even what the argument really is.

“Goldfarb got super-serious and dissected such details as executive orders versus executive actions and the constitutionality of Obama’s endeavor. He didn’t get into how Obama had said for years that his executive amnesty actions were outside his authority.

Also, it doesn’t appear the Washington Post ever checked for sure that Will Ferrell’s Bush wanted to put Germany, the economy and math into his “Axis of Evil.” That, of course, would have been absurd since this was a silly comedy show. They did get around, four years later, to debunking the idea that Sarah Palin had actually said “I can see Russia from my house,” as made famous by Tina Fey’s impersonation.

We give these blunders double double Pinocchios.”

There are many ways to avoid intellectual integrity. Sometimes, observing behavior yields better results – if intellectual integrity has any value – in determining veracity and truthfulness.

Leave a Comment

For the greater good

There was a letter sent to several universities inquiring about research funding from several members of the minority party in Congress. That created a backlash that has resulted in a number of FOIA requests to provide insight into the “Climate Empire.” Paul Driessen describes how The Climate Empire Gets Nasty (‘crony science’ for funding, power).

“As the pressure for debate and reform mounts, the Climate Empire insists that its actions serve “the greater good” – preventing catastrophic climate changes. But aside from the absence of evidence clearly linking fossil fuel emissions to significant climate events (or even to phenomena that are simply different in frequency or intensity to what mankind and planet have endured since time immemorial), there are two insurmountable problems with this alarmist tautology.

“The “Greater Good”?

“First, it requires depriving billions of people of reliable, affordable energy today – to prevent hypothetical crises decades from now. And that means causing thousands of deaths each winter in Britain and Europe in households where families cannot afford proper heat – and millions of deaths annually in Third World countries, from lung, intestinal and other diseases that modern energy and living standards would prevent.

“Should the Climate Empire have such life-or-death powers? And who has the moral or legal authority to grant it such powers? Perhaps there was a reincarnation of Moses’ burning bush?”

“a recent analysis by economists William Butos and Thomas McQuade on how “Big Players” can distort climate research and other scientific endeavors” provided topics for a more fruitful discussion than the efforts of the Congressmen.

“Will the lies and other outrages ever stop? Probably not anytime soon. But those of us who believe in the scientific method, evidence instead of models and proclamations, and modern living standards for all who want them must not cease our efforts.

For as Rabbi Tarfon said five centuries ago, “You are not obligated to complete the task, but neither are you free to abandon it.””

Much as Ferguson is revealing the outcome of catering to thugs and criminals due to race by senior government officials, The Mann court case and the assault on Professor Soon are revealing the tactics and that result in changes such as responsible researchers avoiding climate research altogether. The costs, as the economists note, are horrific. To those on the left, those who worship Marx and communism in any form, those costs are of no concern because it is all for the greater good.

Leave a Comment

Does not compute

Some things don’t make sense, don’t ‘compute’ and become the source of dissonance. Christopher Chantrill describes to of these things for him as The Democrats’ Thugocracy.

“There are a couple things about the Obama years that have registered “does not compute” for me. The first was the complete powder taken by the media. Yes, I know that they are all ruling-class liberals that believe in all the received liberal notions and still swoon today at the thought of a First Black President. But you would have thought that, here and there, a liberal journalist would have popped his head above the parapet to take a potshot at the president. Because fame and celebrity. But really there was nothing for six long years until after the 2014 midterms.

“The other thing that did not compute has been the extraordinary discipline of the Democrats in Congress. … You tell me that none of them saw the 2014 wave coming, and none of them had the self-preservation instinct to break out of the pack and save themselves from the GOP onslaught?”

Trying to resolve this cognitive dissonance leads to hypothesis formation or the attempt to propose different views of reality to one’s self in order to make some sense of the world.

“I think we are coming to understand the other “does not compute” now that the Justice Department has decided to prosecute Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ). The Dem officeholders have been kept in line because someone is keeping a little list of all their little foibles. It’s a delightful system. The Obama administration does nothing about corrupt acts by its supporters until the day that a supporter breaks ranks. Then it’s: Nice little political career you got here. Pity that something should happen to it.”

“I wonder what the Democratic Party would look like if everyone weren’t looking over their shoulder wondering what California Nance or Bugsy Harry or Big Ears Barry had got on them?”

Of course, there are two ways to go with this reconstruction of reality perceptions. One is illustrated by the climate alarmists who remain in stubborn denial. The other is to accept testing of the new hypothesis and adaptation of perceptions yielding to intellectual growth. 

Leave a Comment

Just what happened? Filibuster in solid partisan block won out in leaving the issue to the oligarchy

Hinderaker explains at Powerline:

The bottom line here is that the Democrats’ Senate filibuster succeeded. The House funded DHS through the end of the fiscal year, and Mitch McConnell tried repeatedly to bring the House bill up for a vote, but was stymied by the Democratic filibuster each time. It was the filibuster that prevented DHS from being funded, yet the press generally blamed Republicans for the impending shutdown. This makes no sense, but if those are the rules, Republicans should remember them next time they are in the minority. In the meantime, this episode has added steam to the “abolish the filibuster” sentiment now growing among Republicans.

In anticipation of the House vote yesterday, Jeff Sessions released this statement. I find what he says to be pretty much inarguable:

The Democratic Party has been completely unified in its defense of the President’s amnesty in the face of overwhelming public opposition—and in the face of the President’s own repeated declaration that his conduct was illegal.

They voted in unison, messaged in unison, and their outside allies have launched third-party attacks against Republicans.

As a result, our Constitution continues to be eroded, our immigration system continues to slide into anarchy, and our constituents continue to suffer the debilitating loss of their jobs and wages.

Essential to any sovereign nation is the enforcement of its borders, the application of uniform rules for entry and exit, and the delivery of consequences for individuals who violate our laws. President Obama has nullified those laws, rules, and borders, and replaced those consequences with rewards.

The President’s decree provides illegal immigrants with work permits, trillions in Social Security and Medicare payments, and billions in free cash tax credits—all benefits explicitly rejected by Congress. This takes jobs, benefits, and work opportunities directly from struggling and forgotten workers.

The will of the American people cannot be forever denied. Republicans will have to come to realize that it falls on their shoulders to give voice to the just demands of the American people for a lawful system of immigration that serves their interests, defends their jobs, protects their security.

Nor can we allow the President to dismantle the constitutional powers of Congress, ceding our status as a coequal branch, on the hope the Judiciary intervenes to restore some fraction of that lost authority. When it comes to defending our sovereignty there is no “moving on.” Now is not the time for recrimination; now is the time for renewed determination. What motivates and excites a small group of open-borders billionaires has no connection to the hearts and lives of the working people of this country. They have been silenced for too long. Those who think this fight is over could not be more mistaken; it is only beginning. When the power of the American people is finally leveraged, people will be astonished by the results.<b/lockquote>

Behavior as seen on this issue ups the ante and that requires a response. Tyranny of the minority is bad enough but when both law and precedent are tossed aside in the process, outcomes are foreboding. 

Leave a Comment

Psychodrama to farce – will anyone notice?

It’s Professor Hanson on The Liberal Circus. Here’s a sampler:

“Take Barack Obama. He has gone from mild displeasure with Israel to downright antipathy. …”

“Hillary Clinton likewise has gone from a rather run-of-the-mill liberal grandee to a political grafter. She apparently solicited donations from foreign government officials and wealthy foreign nationals to contribute to the Clinton Foundation — and this was while she was secretary of State conducting the foreign policy of the United States …”

“Inequality and fairness? …”

“Women’s issues? …”

“Transparency? …”

“We no longer live in an age of debate over global warming. It has now transmogrified well beyond Al Gore’s hysterics, periodic disclosures about warmists’ use of faked data, embarrassing email vendettas, vindictive lawsuits, crony green capitalism, and flawed computer models. Now Congressman Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), the ranking Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, has taken the psychodrama to the level of farce in a two-bit McCarthyesque effort to demand from universities information about scientists who do not embrace his notions of manmade global warming. …”

“Attorney General Eric Holder came into office alleging racism and calling the American people cowards, and six years later is exiting, still blaming racism for his own self-inflicted failures. …”

“The IRS scandal likewise went from melodrama to farce. …”

“Debt? Barack Obama stated out in 2008 calling George W. Bush unpatriotic for piling up nearly $5 trillion in eight years; he may be on target to double that amount …”

“The debate over illegal immigration has gone from arguments over closing the border to Social Security cash rebates to illegals and presidential threats to punish Border Patrol officers who enforce existing law. …”

“The Trayvon Martin controversy descends from the purportedly preteen of released photos who was shot down in cold blood by a white vigilante into doctored NBC tapes, airbrushed photos, the New York Times’ invented rubric …”

“Michael Brown goes from the icon of a “gentle giant” in vain calling out “hands up, don’t shoot” only to be gunned down by a white racist cop — to a thug who strong-armed a store clerk, walked out into the middle of the road under the influence and then attacked a police officer. …”

“The answer to these failures has not been introspection, humility, or reevaluation why the liberal agenda proved unpopular and unworkable, but in paranoid fashion to double-down on it, convinced that its exalted aims must allow any means necessary — however farcical — to achieve them. …”

and he didn’t mention the I’net regulation repeat of the health care foisting … The party still acts as a solid block. It is a blind minority. The old rules of civility, respect, and procedure no longer apply. That leaves their opposition perplexed as it is difficult to understand such in-your-face delusion.

Leave a Comment

Those not celebrating secret legislation vs the ‘But this time it will be different’ crowd

At Breitbart Big Government: ‘Net Neutrality’ is a problem, not a solution.

“The oldest trick in the collectivist playbook is to create a problem through government regulations, let it stew for a while, and then propose even bigger government as the only possible solution to the “crisis” it planted, nourished, and harvested.

“We watched government tinkering in health care make it more expensive and complicated, year after year… until the time was ripe to stuff the biggest, sloppiest, most poorly-thought-out Big Government power grab of the modern era down our throats. Are we really going to fall for that again with the FCC’s new Net Neutrality regulations?”

“For the mid-range companies pushing Net Neutrality, this is all about bringing the government Goliath into the market to stop the telecom giants flat. It’s a crony capitalist arrangement, and like most other cronies who have used coercive government power to control the free market, they’re going to learn that Big Government makes a far less friendly and cooperative business partner than they anticipate. Political agendas will be forced down the tubes of compulsion our Net Neutrality boosters want to implant in the Internet; it won’t be long before baffled supporters are wondering why websites with dissident political views are having such a hard time obtaining government licenses. They’ll be absolutely astounded at how much web content suddenly runs afoul of the “decency standards” Cuban warns about.

“But most of all, they’re underestimating how energetically Big Government will use its control over the Internet to deliberately create crisis that only Even Bigger Government is allegedly capable of resolving.”

“You can already see some Net Neutrality advocates short-circuiting when confronted with extremely sensible questions about why companies would be more eager to make titanic investments in a marketplace frozen by government regulations and chopped into pieces by redistributionist ideology.”

But what can you do? The propaganda machine is out in full force but, it seems, very few listen to more than the emotional appear to consider questions or be skeptical about assumptions and interpretations. Meanwhile the debt rises and the freedom level lowers. The frog is cooking and seems quite content with the warming waters.

Leave a Comment

Secret massive governmental industry takeover: Internet edition

It is just like the previous, massive, partisan forced, regulation of an industry where you are told you won’t know what is in it until after it gets past. The Register has two items on the topic: Net neutrality secrecy: No one knows what the FCC approved (but Google has a good idea) and Net neutrality: The world speaks its brains on secret ‘open’ ‘net rules. On the secrecy:

“Analysis US watchdog the FCC formally approved new net neutrality rules on Thursday for America. But you’re out of luck if you want to know exactly how your access to the internet will be now be governed.

Despite getting the green light, the exact rules have not been revealed and will remain a mystery for some unspecified length of time.”

“In fact, the chairs of both Congressional committees that deal with telecoms issues requested that the rules be put out for public review, as did two of Wheeler’s four commissioners, who complained they wanted to publish the documents but were barred from doing so.”

“But that’s not all. Both commissioners expect changes to be made to the document after it has been formally approved by them, with the “OGC” – office of general counsel – given extraordinary leeway to edit and revise the rules even following formal approval.”

The second item is a bit whimsical

“Comment Look at this photo of FCC chairman Tom Wheeler holding hands and smiling with the two Democrat commissioners who backed his “open internet” regulations, the pair wearing vivid blue outfits. It sums all that was both good and worrying about the decisions today to pass secretive net neutrality rules.

Here, we see a historic debate on internet access in America, a crucial complex technology, jump the tracks and career into a quagmire of politics. Jubilant Dems on one side, the Republican commissioners who voted against the net neutrality rules on the other.”

“What do mean “once it’s released”? This is all done and dusted. We’ve got net neutrality, baby! The internet is free again! Rejoice!”

deja vu all over again.

Leave a Comment