New Rule for Dealing With Liberal Stories

Mark Noonan82 Comments

Recently we had a story claiming that a gay server was denied a tip because the family was a pack of homophobic bigots as well as a story about an alleged poor woman who essentially had to live like an idiot because of the bad, mean, nasty way America treats poor people.  There were two commonalities in these stories:

1.  They supported the liberal narrative about the United States (we’re just bad, bad people) and so were embraced and spread widely by liberals.

2.  They were complete nonsense.

The people who did the actual perpetration of the stories were likely just con artists who knew their target audiences.  For the first story (the gay server denied a tip) it was probably an attempted replay of an earlier story claimed by a black woman of being denied a tip by racists, and she picked up a pack of money from sympathetic people. For the poor woman, it appears a more straight-forward scam: she was asking for people to help her out financially and appears to have succeeded (at least temporarily) in picking up a bucket of money.  The con artists aside, what this tells us about the left is that they will readily believe anything as long as it confirms them in their world view.  There is no bit of nonsense too absurd for them – think about it: they actually believed that someone would (a) find out what sexual orientation their server was and then (b) go out of their way to insult the server.  The left bought it because it confirmed their view that Christians are just hateful bigots who go out of their way to insult people of different views.

The left will never cease to be suckers about this sort of thing.  There seems to be some sort of malfunction in the liberal brain – while some can start to think (and thus wind up as Libertarians or Conservatives), most of them never seem to form a single, independent thought in their lives.  But there is a lesson for us on the right:  whenever you hear a story which tends to confirm the liberal narrative about life in the United States, our first and best course of action is to presume it is a lie.  Don’t go out on a limb and definitely call it a lie, but you’ll be safe if you immediately search for holes in the story and start pointing them out.  As for the gay server thing, I saw that on a liberal website some weeks ago and immediately pointed out that it is highly unlikely that a group of patrons would know the sexual orientation of their server – so even if they were a pack of hideous homophobes, they would not likely have opportunity to give vent to their all-consuming hatred.  The story seemed false from day one for me – but the comments from the liberals were all shocked and hurt about how this hateful thing had happened and applause for the “courage” of the gay server (with no explanation of how it is courageous to be untipped).

It could be, from time to time, that in a nation of 317 million people that a set of circumstances will occur which confirms some part of the liberal narrative.  The law of averages does work that way – but the plain facts are that the United States is not a racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-immigrant nation.  We are not cruel to the poor, nor indifferent to the plight of those who suffer.  We are tolerant and mostly very polite about things and don’t give vent to our feelings for the most part (and in some cases, it would be better if we did).  We’re pretty nice people, all in all.  And, so, the chances of there being a true story confirming liberalism are very, very small.  When confronted with such stories – demand proof; independent verification and always keep a few links of liberal BS stories handy to slam back liberals who claim that this story is sure to be true.

Global Warming Hoax Update

Mark Noonan2 Comments

Interesting:

Critics of those who claim that man-made global warming is a serious threat to the planet and settled science frequently point to the fickleness of scientists on the issue, noting that in the 60s and 70s scientists were warning of just the opposite. It now appears the critic’s claims may have merit as a new consensus is beginning to once again return to the global cooling model…

Of course, this won’t stop our liberals – they’ll just say  its “climate change” and that it’s still all the fault of humans, especially Americans.

The bottom line of all this, however, is what I’ve been saying for years:  we don’t know what is exactly happening with the climate because our data are insufficient; if the world is warming (or, as it turns out, cooling) we simply do not know the primary culprit; finally, if it is changing and even if it is our fault, there’s not much we can do to stop it at this point so we’re just going to have to adapt to changing conditions…as life on this Earth has done again and again over the ages.

The reason I’ve called it a hoax is not because it is impossible for our climate to be changing, but because a hoax is a con…and people are trying to con us out of or wealth and our liberty.  This is, bottom line, a mere attempt by self-selected “leaders” to take charge of all aspects of our lives…and for these leaders to live very well while dictating to the rest of us.  It is just one in a very, very long line of scams.

How Liberal Is Obama?

Matt Margolis64 Comments

Anyone who is familiar with Obama’s record the past 5 years knows he’s a partisan liberal. Obama claims not to be ideological, but then again, he said we could keep our insurance plans if we liked them.

A piece today from the Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza looks at the question on how liberal Obama is, looking at analyses of both his absurdly short time in the U.S. Senate, and his horrible failure tenure in the White House.

The analysis of Obama’s presidential record comes from VoteView, a website you’ve never heard of, and probably won’t ever look at again. It comes this bizarre conclusion about Obama:

We find that President Obama is the most ideologically moderate Democratic president in the post-war period, with a first dimension DW-NOMINATE Common Space score of -0.329. President Lyndon Johnson, the second-most moderate Democratic president in this period, has a score of -0.345. President Obama’s ideological position is estimated from his “votes” (statements of support or opposition) on 282 congressional roll call votes. This amount is somewhat low; for example, President George W. Bush “voted” 453 times during his last term in office. However, it is adequate to recover his latent ideological score.

The following graph paints a visual picture of the ideological bents of each president since Truman:

presidential_square_waveSo, according to this analysis, we have to believe the following:

  • That Obama is more moderate than the tax-cutting, anti-Communist, strong on defense, “Ask not what your country can do for you,” JFK.
  • That Obama is more moderate than Bill Clinton, who actually worked with Republicans, even signed the balanced budget the Republican Congress passed.
  • That George W. Bush was actually more conservative than Ronald Reagan.
  • That Democrat presidents have remained roughly consistent ideologically, while Republican presidents have generally become more partisan

Yes, you would have to believe all of those things to swallow Voteview’s analysis. It would be easier for an adult to believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. I’m not really sure why there’s such a strong effort to paint Obama as a more moderate than he really is in spite of his real record.

I’m reminded of an oft repeated claim by liberal Democrats that Obamacare, as it is, is in fact, a conservative alternative to a truly left-wing single-payer healthcare system. Would they have similarly argued that Bush’s tax cuts were the liberal alternative to the bigger tax cuts signed by John F. Kennedy? I would highly doubt that.

Filibuster Follies

Mark Noonan31 Comments

As for the filibuster, itself, I am just not that concerned.  After all, the real mutilation of the Senate came when we started to elect Senators by poplar vote instead of through the State legislators. The Senate is supposed to be the representative of the States, as sovereign institutions – by making the election of Senators direct, we simply turned the Senate in to a smaller, more exclusive House of Representatives.  If anyone wants to restore the Senate to its ancient glory, I’m all with you and let’s set about repealing the 17th Amendment.  But, still, this is a change – and a permanent one.  While the filibuster still technically exists in certain cases, it is in fact a dead letter…any time a Senate minority attempts to use it, the Senate majority will just do away with it, as Harry Reid’s majority just did.

The only thing I can find as a reason for this end of the filibuster is a desire on the part of Democrats to pack the courts with as little fuss as possible – especially the DC Court as it is in charge of dealing with regulatory matters.  Democrats want smooth sailing for whatever Obama and minions say in regulating our lives in to the ground, and this is their way to get it.  Seems a bit short-sighted, though – not a very good reason for giving up the filibuster, especially as Democrats are in grave danger of losing their majority in the 2014 mid-terms (I figure its 50/50 the GOP will win the necessary 6 seats…but even if we don’t in 2014, we will eventually have a Senate majority again, and Democrats will be rather backs against the wall).

And when we have a full Congressional majority and control of the White House, then the Democrats will feel the full force of their mistake.  No longer will the basic premises of Big Government reign supreme because it takes 60 votes to close off debate.  No longer will one or two RINOs be able to ensure that the legislative desires of the GOP are blocked.  All it will take, with a GOP President, is a mere 50 GOP Senators to agree, and our will is law…end of the Department of Education; end of the Department of Energy; and so on.  218 House members, 50 Senators, one President with a Vice President to break the tie in the Senate.  That is not a very high bar.  100 years of Progressive politics can now be undone in a few months.  To be sure, a returned Democrat majority can attempt to re-cobble it all together again…but after four or five years without it, it might not be politically possible to do.  And the certainty is that whatever is done can be easily undone.  And if Progressive politics are in bad odor then a non-Progressive campaign reminding the people that a victory for the left means mere re-imposition of the things we just got rid of, then the non-Progressive side will win.

It could be that when the history of our times are written, it will be revealed that Obama and Reid did away with the filibuster simply because they were frustrated they couldn’t immediately get 100% of their way…that they gutted their own protection because they simply didn’t want to get 90% of their desires.  If so, then it will be just another bit of proof that whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.

The Knockout Game

Mark Noonan30 Comments

I’ve seen reports on this sort of activity for some time, but I guess it is getting rather widespread as even the MSM is starting to report on it.  For those still unaware, the “Knockout Game” appears to be something which mostly involves groups of young African-Americans who set out to “knock out” a victim with a punch – and it appears to be that you “win” by doing it in one punch.  While we cannot say for certain that there hasn’t been a group of white, Latino or Asian kids doing it, I’ve seen no reports of such.  Additionally, most of what I’ve seen is that the victims are non-black (whites, Jews, Asians, etc). 

The activity neatly encapsulates the entirety of our civilization’s collapse: it is almost a certainty that these young people have no fathers worthy of the name; it is almost a certainty that all of them have been heavily exposed to the glorified violence of popular culture; it is almost a certainty that none of them have been instructed in any religious faith, let alone the Christianity which is in the ancestry of nearly all of them; given that they are minority youth, it is almost a certainty that they have been fed a pack of lies about how white America is out to get them; it is almost a certainty that a very large number of them – and perhaps a majority – have never lived in a household where one or both parents work for a living on a regular basis; it is almost a certainty that whatever education they have is via the public schools and thus there is a high probability they are functionally illiterate and almost entirely ignorant of history.  These kids simply know no better – still responsible for their actions, but where was their instruction on how to live a decent life?

Now it is time to be very blunt:  these kids are the product of liberalism.  Yes, they are filled with rage and hopelessness and our liberals will tell us that is because of racism…but they are actually so filled by liberalism, itself.  The liberalism which broke down the family, ruined the education system, denigrated religious faith, preaches hatred of the United States, and so forth. These are the children of liberalism.

But aside from that, I find something very odd and very worrying – you would expect kids who have had their lives ruined to, well, be bad…but why such a cowardly and cruel activity?  I’ve seen some of the videos and its not like they are challenging someone to a fight and then winning.  They are sneaking up on people and whacking them in a cowardly, underhanded attack.  Where did that particularly nasty aspect of it come from?  Who is teaching them to be cruel and cowardly?  That is something I would look in to: where did this come from?

Other than that, the only fix for this is to entirely defeat liberalism – destroy it and remove every last liberal from any position of power and influence.  Only then can we start to fix our society and slowly build back towards a place where a young kid simply wouldn’t dream of doing something like the Knockout Game.

 

Cooking the Books?

Mark Noonan9 Comments

John Crudele at the New York Post reports an astounding accusation:

In the home stretch of the 2012 presidential campaign, from August to September, the unemployment rate fell sharply — raising eyebrows from Wall Street to Washington.

The decline — from 8.1 percent in August to 7.8 percent in September — might not have been all it seemed. The numbers, according to a reliable source, were manipulated.

And the Census Bureau, which does the unemployment survey, knew it…

It is, at the moment, an unsubstantiated allegation – but it is a credible allegation, as well.  The next, logical step is to bring those named later in the report before Congress to testify – under oath – as to what happened.  We can’t rely upon internal investigators, nor investigators of the Justice Department.  The accusation here is that data was faked in the service of the Administration – specifically to help Obama get re-elected last year.  Because of the nature of the accusation, absolutely no one in the Obama Administration can be trusted to investigate.

To make myself clear – I don’t know if this accusation is true.  It needs to be completely investigated.  Fearlessly investigated – and that is our problem: does the Congressional GOP have the sheer guts to look in to this?  I don’t know.  For the sake of peace, maybe they’ll let it slide, as they’ve let so much else slide.  Hopefully there will be some courage.

After Obama: Some Proposed Reforms

Mark Noonan30 Comments

I’ve pointed out over the past few years to many that the only thing stopping a President from acting like a king is his own character.  There are a mere three limitations on the President’s power:

1.  His term of office.  It ends at a date certain – no matter what else happens, after 4 or 8 years, on a certain January 20th, he’s no longer President and can’t order a White House orderly to so much as pick up a piece of paper.

2.  He cannot spend money without Congressional authorization.

3.  He may be impeached.

When our Founders gathered in 1787, they had in their collective memory the forms and ways of lots of different government systems – monarchy, republic and democracy.  While a lot of my fellow TEA Parties argue the Founder created a Republic, that is not quite true.  The Founders created a hybrid combining what they figured was best about a monarchy, a democracy and a republic.  The House is Democracy; the Senate is Republic; the Presidency is Monarchy.  Elective monarchy, to be sure – but monarch none the less.  Back in the 1920’s when Winston Churchill was writing his stupendous The World Crisis about the First World War, he described to what was mostly a foreign audience the American system of government – and he noted that the President of the United States had, in practical terms, more power than any other potentate on earth.  Keep in mind that Churchill was writing about a time when there was a Czar in Russia and a Kaiser in Berlin.  He was not at all wrong – even a theoretical autocrat like the Czar was hemmed in and limited in the exercise of his power by more systems of law and custom than was – or is – the President of the United States.  The United States was lucky first in having the magnificent character of George Washington as our first President, and then in the fact that even his most flawed successors – until just recently (ie, 2009) – tried to in some manner mold themselves in to the example provided by Washington.  Washington never abused his overwhelming authority and his successors until Obama refrained, from the most part, from so doing (and, no, Nixon wasn’t the most abusive – it is actually rather a three way tie between Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and FDR).  But now that the monarchist cat is, so to speak, out of the bag, I think we need some reforms.

We must, of course, have an executive who can act – and act independently of Congress and the Courts, especially during a time of national emergency.  But with that, we must curb the power of the presidency to ensure it more closely conforms to the ideals of the Founders and the example of George Washington.  Given this, I propose the following:

1.  Conviction in an impeachment trial to require 57 votes in the Senate rather than 67.  Its still a high bar, but not nearly as high as 67, which is just about impossible to attain (as is seen by the fact that in more than 200 years, no President has been removed via impeachment – though it is true that Nixon resigned because he was told there would be 67 votes to convict…but, still, we should have removed four or five presidents by now).

2.  Employees of the executive branch agencies – from highest to lowest – are all to serve at the pleasure of the President.  This does, in a very real way, increase Presidential power – but it also lets everyone working in the executive branch agencies know that come four to eight years hence (at the latest) there will be a new President in town who can fire them at will.  This, I think, will induce a measure of caution in to bureaucrats – make them less likely to just blindly follow the commands – direct or indirect – of a President to, say, break the law as the IRS did recently in its attacks on TEA Party groups.

3.  No money shall be drawn from the Treasury for offensive military action save upon an official declaration of war against an identified nation or nations.  No more going to war with “Congressional authorization” (Iraq) or without (Libya).  If a President wants to war on someone, he has to go down to Congress and request a declaration of war.  No more half wars; no more quasi-wars; no more police actions.  War is war, period.

4.  Limit the power of pardon to only those convicted of a crime prior to the President’s term.  In other words, no more January 19th pardons of political cronies as a President exits.

5.  Annually, Congress shall vote on the issue “Resolved: the President has in the previous 12 months faithfully executed all of the laws of the United States”.  If it passes, then nothing happens.  If it is defeated, then articles of impeachment are to be voted on in the House.  Congressmen are to be held legally responsible for this vote: if it is found at any time that they voted in favor of the resolution when they knew it was not correct, they can be sent to jail for 20 years.  This is an annual “impeachment jeopardy” for the President – and a massive risk for the Congressmen.  Better think carefully, Mr. President, about not enforcing laws you don’t like…and Congresscritter, how’s about 20 years in jail if you’re just being a partisan hack and backing the President because he’s in your party?

Anyways, those are some of my ideas – please bring forward any you can think of.

UPDATE:  Congressional Republicans are looking in to curbing Presidential power:

Congressional Republicans are considering various options to curb President Obama’s use of executive powers, which they say are excessive.

GOP officials have long claimed that the president has violated the law and the Constitution through administrative actions on issues ranging from immigration to nominations to the U.S. military involvement in Libya.

But the president’s recent move to change ObamaCare through an administrative fix has sparked a new round of discussions within the conservative base and Republicans on Capitol Hill…

It is, in a sense, a shame we have to do this – but given that Democrats will continue to nominate people like Obama who have no sense of what a law is, we have to make certain that future President are not able to do the illegal acts Obama has done.

Obama’s Obamacare Mandate Delay

Matt Margolis18 Comments

So, let’s momentarily forget the fact Obama’s “fix” for Obamacare is essentially exempting folks from it for a year, I’d like to point out a tweet from Senator Harry Reid:

According to Harry Reid, this move by Obama (the legality of which is questionable) is “working to fix and improve” Obamacare.

Really? Last month, when Republicans offered the exact same proposal as a compromise to end the shutdown, Obama and Reid refused, and chose not to negotiate.

Obama’s Approval Rating: Lower Than Nixon’s During Watergate

Matt Margolis6 Comments

Am I surprised? Not really, Obama overall has done far worse than Nixon, and frankly, the fact Obama’s approval ratings, as dismal as they might be, are as high as they are, is shocking to me.

The latest Gallup Daily Tracking Poll, released Nov. 6, shows President Obama’s job approval rating at 42%. The poll shows 51% disapprove of the president’s performance. That is a slight increase from the 39% approval rating in a Gallup poll released earlier this week, but it indicates Americans are growing increasingly concerned with the scandals surrounding President Obama.

The low approval numbers have largely been attributed to the Healthcare.gov fiasco, and President Obama’s insistence on doubling down on unequivocal statements he made to the American people promising they could keep their current health insurance if they liked it when he was selling Obamacare to the nation.

[…]

To put the numbers in historical context, compare Obama’s approval rating to that of former-President Richard Nixon. In June of 1972, when the Watergate story first broke, Nixon had an approval rating in the high 50s, and six months later it was even higher, rising to 67% in Jan. of 1973. Nixon denied any knowledge of the scandal, a strategy President Obama has employed each time a new scandal has arisen. Nixon was seen as “above the fray” and blameless by his supporters, much like Obama seems to be now.

Seriously, do any of our liberal readers here truly approve of the job this guy is doing?

Veteran’s Day Open Thread

Mark Noonan1 Comment

Just got to thinking about my father and grandfather for a moment.

I learned not too long back that my grandfather, all seven of his brothers and two of his sisters served in France during World War One (the sisters as nurses – as back in that uncivilized time those barbarians wouldn’t think of allowing a woman to go to the front lines to be blown to pieces by heavy artillery or eviscerated by a machine gun…they had some silly notion that it was precisely the duty of men to spare women from that.  I know; freakishly strange!).  One of his brothers had actually joined early – in contrast to the cowardice 50 years later, he had gone to Canada not to avoid service, but to join the Royal Flying Corps before the United States even entered the war (the cousin has a picture – all dressed up in scarf and leather helmet, ready to fly away in his Sopwith Camel, for all the world to see).  From what I understand, all 8 of the brothers were wounded in action – some of them severely, though all survived the war.  I think that explains the run of bad luck in the family for the past 100 years…Grandpa and his brothers used it all up in one shot.

My father’s tale is different – one of three brothers, but only dad was old enough to fight.  If 17 is “old enough”.  Talked grandma in to letting him go shortly after his 17th birthday in January of 1944.  Amazing that these days a 26 year old is considered a little kid who still needs mommy’s health insurance…at 17 my dad put his life in hock to the most fearsome of American military forces:  the United States Marine Corps.  No mommy to look after him on Saipan.  Wonder how he managed to take it?  His younger brother’s turn came in Korea.  My late uncle Mike said that he got his VA benefits at a little ridge called “Heartbreak”.

Take some time to remember our veterans today – and say a prayer for those still out there in harm’s way.