From the NY Daily News:

Escape from New York is not just a movie – it’s also a state of mind.

A new Marist College poll shows that 36% of New Yorkers under the age of 30 are planning to leave New York within the next five years – and more than a quarter of all adults are planning to bolt the Empire State.

The New York City suburbs, with their high property values and taxes, are leading the exodus, the poll found.

Of those preparing to leave, 62% cite economic reasons like cost of living, taxes – and a lack of jobs…

They’re voting with their feet – liberalism just doesn’t work and no one who isn’t poor enough to be on welfare or rich enough to not care can live under it. I dug in to census data yesterday and found this to be a nation-wide trend. States with the most liberalism gained the least population over the last ten years. Texas, for instance, gained population six times faster than New York between 2000 and 2009. And when you go in to those liberal States and look at the cities and counties, the areas of the liberal States which are most liberal (like, say, San Francisco in California and Detroit in Michigan) actually lost population.

Liberals these days puff themselves up because the most liberal areas of the country have the highest per-capita GDP…but what they are crowing about is leftovers…economic facts which were developed prior to the uber-liberalization of those areas, and the facts are now showing that those high GDP areas are soon to be outpaced by other, more conservative places. You can’t live on inherited wealth, welfare and a Culture of Death, people…you have to work, each generation, to build anew. And in doing that you can’t have too many people on the dole, nor can you set in place policies which positively discourage family formation and child rearing. The most liberal areas of America are pretty much the same as most of Europe…and Europe is dying; dying of liberalism.

The future belongs to those who wish to work and build – those who have hope and a desire to do; for themselves and for others. And, so, the future belongs to us…if nothing else, we’ll simply outlast these liberals.

From Gallup:

By a 47% to 19% margin, Americans say they would want their member of Congress to vote against raising the U.S. debt ceiling, while 34% don’t know enough to say. Republicans oppose raising the debt ceiling by 70% to 8% and independents by 46% to 15%. Democrats favor raising the ceiling by 33% to 26%.

My goodness, that is an astounding result. The American people have figured it out – raising the debt ceiling has nothing to do with whether or not the bills will be paid, but only with whether or not liberals will get to spend even more money. There does not need to be an increase in the debt ceiling unless your whole point is to shove America further in to debt. Democrats are trying to sell the notion that the world will come to an end if we don’t go further in debt – but the reality is that what Democrats really want is an endless supply of money to pay off cronies and buy votes.

Fight it out; right here and right now.

From the New York Times:

President Obama and his legal advisers are deliberating about how the United States military may lawfully continue participating in NATO’s bombing campaign in Libya after next week, when the air war will reach a legal deadline for terminating combat operations that have not been authorized by Congress.

Under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, a president must terminate such operations 60 days after he has formally notified lawmakers about the introduction of armed forces into actual or imminent hostilities. The Libya campaign will reach that mark on May 20…

Talk about things coming back to bite you. Liberals passed the War Powers Resolution – I believe over Nixon’s veto – to ensure that when North Vietnam was ready to conquer the South, the United States wouldn’t be able to stop it. It was, after all, a long-standing goal of American liberalism to ensure that South Vietnam was betrayed and crushed, and America defeated. A weakened Nixon couldn’t stop them, and so they got their way. But fast-forward 40 years and you’ve got a liberal President who wants to keep fighting a war without Congressional authorization – what to do?

The logical thing would be to seek such approval – Obama would get it. While some Republicans would vote again, most would vote in favor. Combined with Democrats similarly inclined, Obama would have his authorization. So, why not do it? Because Obama doesn’t want to demonstrate the rift which has built up in his party. Probably half the House Democrats would vote against. A divided party is not what Obama wants heading in to 2012…neither do any of the other Democrat leaders. They want everyone to pretend that all is well and everyone over in Democrat Land is one big, happy family with nary a word of censure between them. This is vital because if the economy tanks, Obama doesn’t want to draw a serious primary challenger.

But, on the other hand, Obama doesn’t want Gaddafi marching on Benghazi and winning the war. A humiliating loss in Libya would harm the President – it would be just the sort of hit to Obama’s executive ability which GOPers would be able to massively exploit. So, a bunch of liberals are forced to find some way around a law liberals wrote to prevent precisely what Obama now intends – fighting a war without Congressional approval.

The GOP should make an issue of this – after all, the law is the law. If liberals don’t like the War Powers Act, let them propose repeal and we’ll debate that. But right now that is where the law stands…and we should force Obama to seek Congressional authority for further military action. Put them on record; make them own the effort and the results. Don’t allow them to slip away, using their utter contempt for law to find an escape hatch.

From Zero Hedge:

…what (former Fed vice chairman) Blinder says makes one wonder just who is on the tenure committee at Princeton – when asked how we bring the deficit in without austerity, the Princetonian responds: “Unfortunately I think it is very subtle for most political processes especially for the political process in the US. What we should be doing is somewhat more fiscal expansion but at the same time legislating into law fiscal consolidation for the future. Starting 2 years from now, 3 years from now, 18 months from now. But not now.” Of course never now: why bite the bullet now when it can be kicked to some other administration in the indefinite future? Especially when tenure money and/or Wall Street bribes are at stake…

Basically, let’s just incur as much debt as possible now, and eventually it will get better. And this is happening now almost 2 years after the recession supposedly ended. Naturally, there will be no fiscal expansion: not with the current political set up. Which leaves just one option – monetary stimulus. And since Blinder is very close to the Fed, we are confident that the two-way dialog between academia and Federal Reserve is already under way, making it clear that if no fiscal stimulus will be forthcoming, then QE3 certainly will have to take its place. Especially now that the Economy has once again taken a turn for the worse…

Lost in all the discussion – but endlessly referred to at places like Zero Hedge – is the fact that the way “quantitative easing” has been executed is by the Federal Reserve printing up money and then buying US bonds. This has kept interest rates low, provided massive liquidity to the financial markets, boosted stock prices and bank profits…and caused inflation. It hasn’t done much to help the economy – though US manufacturing has got a boost because with our dollar collapsing in value, US exports have become much cheaper in the global market. If the money spigot is turned off – and the Fed says it will turn it off in June – then stock prices will fall, bank profits will dry up, the dollar will rise in value…and we, the people, will get a little easing in our cost of living. But where is the upside in that for the bankers, well-connected politicians and others in the Ruling Class? Especially as we’ll almost certainly drop in to officially recognized, full-blown recession just in front of Obama’s re-election effort?

No one really knows if the Federal Reserve will go for “QE3”. Officially, it is still a big, fat “NO”. But with the way things are trending – ie, a slow drift back in to recession – the pressure to do something to avert the worst possible outcome (the loss of the White House…possibly to someone who doesn’t give a darn about the banks) will become immense. I agree with Zero Hedge on this – this is a shot across the bow; a trial balloon to see if anyone is willing to try and stop it before it starts. They can’t get any more fiscal stimulus because the GOP controls the House…and if they don’t get some sort of stimulus to puff up a dead economy, then official recession looms. They’ve got to do something, right?

There is not much anyone can do in official terms to stop the Fed – our central bank is set up in such a manner as to preclude direct, prohibitive action on the part of government. But if the GOP starts calling hearings and starts putting out the word on what is involved in money printing, then we might be able to scare them off. It can be stopped – and it should be stopped. Yes, we’ll head back in to recession – or, more accurately, will just finish off the recession and get to the economic rock bottom, from which we can start to genuinely recover. But if we don’t stop them, then we might get even more bags of money printed, more banks living off of us, more inflation…and eventually an even worse recession than if we just let things take their course.

From Rasmussen:

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 64% of Likely GOP Primary Voters believe the gap between Americans who want to govern themselves and politicians who want to rule over them is now as big as it was between the American Colonies and Great Britain in the 18th century. Just 16% disagree with this sentiment, and 20% aren’t sure…

…Eighty-seven percent (87%) say the federal government has become a special interest group that looks out primarily for its own interests. Just six percent (6%) don’t share that view.

Two-out-of-three GOP voters (67%) think big business and the government often work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors…

Overall, 76% of likely voters trust the people more than the government – but the sentiment is clearly strongest among GOP voters. The bottom line is that we don’t trust them – and “them” is the political as well as economic Ruling Class. We really are ready for change we can believe in – we just know we won’t get it from the current crop of political leaders. It is time for a revolution.

A revolution, it must be said, at the ballot box. By a providential act, the men who set up this country turned out to be people of rare wisdom – they created a system which, in spite of a century of liberal efforts as subversion, is still ultimately responsive to the will of the people. If we rise up in 2012 and beyond, we can put in to power people in tune with our ideas – of small government, less corruption, no special dealing…a government of, by and for the people.

As an aside, I do think we’ve already got a ready-made theme song. Using it, in and of itself, will cause liberals to choke with rage…and that is a good thing, all the time.

From Politico:

Ron Paul says he would not have authorized the mission that led to the death of Osama bin Laden, and that President Barack Obama should have worked with the Pakistani government instead of authorizing a raid.

Continue Reading

“I think things could have been done somewhat differently,” Paul said this week. “I would suggest the way they got Khalid [Sheikh] Mohammed. We went and cooperated with Pakistan. They arrested him, actually, and turned him over to us, and he’s been in prison. Why can’t we work with the government?”…

Uh, Ron, old buddy – bin Laden was living right by the Pakistani version of West Point. If by some bizarre happenstance no one in the Pakistani government knew bin Laden was there, just as soon as we told them, his minions within the Pakistani government would have tipped him off. More than likely, however, the Paks did know he was there and gave at least some tacit approval for the mission…whatever forces had been protecting him for years decided that it was no longer worth it to keep it up.

This is the problem with most libertarian politicians when it comes to foreign and defense policy – a complete lack of understanding of how the world really works. It is dark, cruel and brutal out there – we are a sheltered people. Shielded by our supremely powerful military, living in a society of laws (in spite of relentless attempts by liberals to subvert the rule of law), Americans simply don’t know the thread we hang by…and how that thread is entirely missing in most of the world. Because of the way the world is, the United States both has to maintain a supreme military, and be willing to use it at times in a very ruthless manner…it is the only way we can ensure our survival, as well as offer some hope to the benighted areas of the world for a better future.

Ron Paul is great on a lot of things – most notably in currency and government finance matters – but he is positively naive when it comes to foreign affairs. This statement of his ensure that he simply will not be the GOP nominee. He’ll generate a lot of heat, raise bags of money…and in the end, won’t even win a single primary. He might as well pack it in now and save everyone a lot of trouble.

Because, you see, it didn’t fit the narrative. The Obama Story is that illegal immigrants are just 100% swell folks and only an evil, wicked, bad, raaaacist Republican could want something other than amnesty. This bit of nonsense, of course, is not actually directed at Texans or, indeed, at immigrants. It is for the consumption of (mostly white) liberals along the east and west coast who want to feel superior…and are quite willing to wreck everything except their own gated, carefully guarded, mostly white enclaves to do it (they really don’t care if emergency rooms are over-run with illegals; that welfare is drained by illegals; that schools are overburdened by illegals…these rich liberals don’t use the same hospitals and schools you do, and don’t need welfare…though, of course, a cushy, government job with a fat paycheck for no work is fine…).

Obama is just playing to his base – trying to make it seem like he’s doing the ultra-liberal thing when he knows that he can’t do it while the GOP holds the House (and a round dozen Democrat Senators are at risk of being defeated next year). Come January, you won’t hear much about this – maybe a mention at the Convention speech, but for Obama 2011 is for locking down the base, 2012 is for suckering the swing voters; and, so, no effort in the liberal cause that year.

The truth of what is going on is, however, in that picture…with the signs written in English and Spanish, all of them asserting the crisis we are in…and the crisis Obama is ignoring in favor of playing politics.

HAT TIP: PJ Tatler

From Fox News:

When liberal (financial shark) George Soros gave $1.8 million to National Public Radio , it became part of the firestorm of controversy that jeopardized NPR’s federal funding. But that gift only hints at the widespread influence the controversial billionaire has on the mainstream media. Soros, who spent $27 million trying to defeat President Bush in 2004, has ties to more than 30 mainstream news outlets – including The New York Times, Washington Post, the Associated Press, NBC and ABC.

Prominent journalists like ABC’s Christiane Amanpour and former Washington Post editor and now Vice President Len Downie serve on boards of operations that take Soros cash. This despite the Society of Professional Journalists’ ethical code stating: “avoid all conflicts real or perceived.”…

Ah, but that is just a misunderstanding on the part of Dan Gainor, the article’s author: There isn’t any conflict, real or perceived, between taking Soros’ money and being an MSMer. It is, indeed, the perfect fit: all sides agreeing that a socialist, amoral, weakened, impoverished America living in an increasingly global-government world is the ideal. There would be a conflict if they took money from, say, the Heritage Foundation…because Heritage is a patriotic organization in favor of freedom…two things the MSM is absolutely opposed to.

It has been decades since there was anything like “ethics” in journalism – if, indeed, there ever really was. The “yellow journalism” of the late 19th and early 20th century is held up as an object of scorn…by modern day yellow journalists who will, facts be darned, spread the most amazing lies in the service of an ideology. What, really, has changed in the past century? Where was honest service to the facts then, or now? To be sure, some journalists and a few media outlets do try hard to be honest – but the common run is made up of ideological, ignorant hacks who just regurgitate whatever they’re told.

And that is why the old media is dying, and the New Media is rising – in the 10,000 sources which make up the New Media (and that means left, right and center) the truth can squeeze through. Every blogger knows this – which is why we’re careful not to put out something we know to be false; for goodness sake, if we make the slightest mistake we’ve got 20 critics in minutes quoting chapter and verse where we got it wrong. When its opinion, we make it clear its opinion; when its theorizing based upon facts, we make it clear that its a theory…and if we assert a fact, we’d better darn well be able to back it up. None of this pretend objectivity masking rank partisanship for us…and even though we are of a certain view, I think we commonly get more respect than MSMers who try to lie about being impartial.

Soros is buying a dying entity – in a sense, he’s wasting his money. He hopes that by controlling the MSM he can control the narrative and force America ever leftwards. It won’t work. Oh, he’ll have some success – any propagandist knows how the Big Lie works – but the truth comes out, and comes out a lot faster than it ever used to.

Because the International Community is mulling over issuing an arrest warrant for him – from the AP:

Italy’s foreign minister says he expects the International Criminal Court to issue an arrest warrant for Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi at the end of the month.

Franco Frattini said Thursday that would be a “key moment” in the Libya crisis, suggesting that after the warrant is issued it would be impossible for Gadhafi to agree to an exile.

Frattini said “from that moment on an exit from power or from the country will no longer be imaginable” because “after the arrest warrant is issued all the international community would have legal obligations.”…

Meanwhile, no one is considering issuing an arrest warrant for Fidel Castro…because he’s a good guy, right? Free health care! Wait, Gadhafi has that, too…

Anyways, what a crock – what’s next? A parking ticket for the tanks he’s using to crush the opposition? Are there any men left in Europe, at all? Is there anyone who can say, “here’s an evil man, and I’ll kill him”?

No. Nothing like that. Pointless bombing. Half-assed intervention. Arrest warrants…I’ll lay money that Gadhafi is still in power a year from now.

I’m sure you’ve heard the story – a Toronto cop advised that one way to help protect against sexual assault is for women to not dress in an overtly sexual manner. In response to this, a lot of people have expressed outrage – at the cop for daring to even so much as suggest that the actions of a woman can make more possible a sexual assault. So far have we fallen away from basic, common sense. Monsignor Charles Pope, reviewing a Hannity segment on this matter, neatly encapsulates the issue:

A Central Problem – One of the women says, “In dressing provocatively a woman is saying, I am asking you to look at me as a sexual object, instead of a woman worthy of respect.” The other woman responds, “There is nothing wrong with looking like a sexual object.” And this pretty well spells out where many in our culture have gone. Intentionally provoking a purely sexual response not only tempts men, it also diminishes women by encouraging the notion that sex is the main thing…

If a woman dresses in an overtly sexual manner, all but a few men will respond – those few who have either risen entirely above sexual desires and those who sexual desires lead entirely elsewhere. Outside of these two, very tiny groups, most men will respond. To be sure, the response of most men will be silent – no overt word or action. But it will be there – all of us men know it; when we see a woman dressed in a manner suggestive of sexual possibility, the thought of sex does flash across our minds. We suppress it – we remember our wives, our vows and our responsibilities, and move on. But what of those men who either don’t have such vows, or don’t care much about them?

The success of advertising is not that it will move everyone to do a certain thing, but that it will move a small margin to do so. The endlessly repeated advertisement for toothpaste won’t make everyone buy that toothpaste, but it will make some do so…and that is why advertising is engaged in. Why it is such a gigantic, multi-billion dollar annual business. So, when a woman advertises sexual availability, it won’t move most men to want to have sex with her – but it will move some. Including some who are not inclined to take “no” for an answer. And, in fact, given the nature of things, it is precisely those who are least inclined to care about the woman, as a person, who are most likely to respond to the “advertisement”. A woman dressing in a sexually provocative manner is, in a sense, casting about for attention from the least desirable people from the woman’s point of view.

This is all just common sense – and no amount of “I, as a woman, should be able to dress as I please” will make the least bit of difference. Of course a woman can dress as she pleases – but each of our choices has consequences, and all of life is a matter of balancing risks. While dressing like a puritan won’t make a woman rape-proof, neither will ignoring reality. There are certain things which are proper and certain things which are not – and wearing spike heels, a short, tight skirt and a low-cut blouse is not necessarily the wisest choice of attire.

In addition to that, a woman should have more sense. Unless a woman really wants to be nothing more than an object to whatever man happens along, a certain degree of modesty is required. And, yes, it goes for men, too. Tell me ladies, if two men were to appear at your front door, asking you to dinner, which would you go with – the unshaved lout dressed in sweats, or the properly groomed man wearing slacks and a jacket? Clothes don’t determine the worth of a man – but if a man respects you, don’t you think he’d go to the trouble of sprucing up before asking you out? In a very real sense, women are treated more like dirt in 2011 than in 1911…mostly because all too many women have fallen for the idea that being trashy is a requirement; that some how a willingness to engage in sex – and be known immediately to be willing to have sex – is the only way to get a man. Trouble is that the sort of men who go along with this are going to be increasingly unlikely to treat a woman with any sense of chivalry, or even basic decency.

The social problems we experience – violence in the home; out of control illegitimacy; increasing abuse of women; the spread of pornography; the spread of sexual abuse of children; an underclass locked in poverty and ignorance – all stem from the break-down of standards. Because we have gone along with an “if it feels good, do it” mentality, we are suffering from societal break down. The biggest loud mouths, the most obscene people, the most depraved rule the roost. We allowed the foot in the door back in the 60’s, and now they’ve taken over the entire public square…until, in response to a cop offering a bit of wisdom, we have foolish women engaging in “slut walks” in protest. Yes, we’ve reached a point where we’re now supposed to applaud someone for acting like a slut – and condemn the person who so understands the worth of women that he’d rather they dressed like women, rather than like objects.

It is a strange, distressing condition, to be sure. And we have to get away from it – we have to wake up and become sane again. We’re going so far now that we’re about to be offering up our children to this – there are people out there arguing that the age of consent should be lowered so that ever younger girls can be objectified by ever older men. It is said we can’t turn the clock back – such a statement is nonsense. Akin to a man saying that once you’ve made a wrong turn, you have to keep going and never think of going back to where you turned wrong. We must go back – the life of our civilization depends on it.