Thursday, December 31, 2015

Hillary before the Senate

H/T Kevin Bonner on Facebook:

If you're under 50 you really need to read this. If you’re over 50, you lived through it, so share it with those under 50. Amazing to me how much I had forgotten!
When Bill Clinton was president, he allowed Hillary to assume authority over a health care reform. Even after threats and intimidation, she couldn’t even get a vote in a democratic controlled congress. This fiasco cost the American taxpayers about $13 million in cost for studies, promotion, and other efforts.
Then President Clinton gave Hillary authority over selecting a female attorney general. Her first two selections were Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood – both were forced to withdraw their names from consideration. Next she chose Janet Reno – husband Bill described her selection as “my worst mistake.” Some may not remember that Reno made the decision to gas David Koresh and the Branch Davidian religious sect in Waco, Texas resulting in dozens of deaths of women and children.
Husband Bill allowed Hillary to make recommendations for the head of the Civil Rights Commission. Lani Guanier was her selection. When a little probing led to the discovery of Ms. Guanier’s radical views, her name had to be withdrawn from consideration.
Apparently a slow learner, husband Bill allowed Hillary to make some more recommendations. She chose former law partners Web Hubbel for the Justice Department, Vince Foster for the White House staff, and William Kennedy for the Treasury Department. Her selections went well: Hubbel went to prison, Foster (presumably) committed suicide, and Kennedy was forced to resign.
Many younger votes will have no knowledge of “Travelgate.” Hillary wanted to award unfettered travel contracts to Clinton friend Harry Thompson – and the White House Travel Office refused to comply. She managed to have them reported to the FBI and fired. This ruined their reputations, cost them their jobs, and caused a thirty-six month investigation. Only one employee, Billy Dale was charged with a crime, and that of the enormous crime of mixing personal and White House funds. A jury acquitted him of any crime in less than two hours.
Still not convinced of her ineptness, Hillary was allowed to recommend a close Clinton friend, Craig Livingstone, for the position of Director of White House security. When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of about 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (Filegate) and the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, suddenly Hillary and the president denied even knowing Livingstone, and of course, denied knowledge of drug use in the White House.
Following this debacle, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office after more than thirty years of service to seven presidents.
Next, when women started coming forward with allegations of sexual harassment and rape by Bill Clinton, Hillary was put in charge of the #$%$ eruption” and scandal defense. Some of her more notable decisions in the debacle were:
She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit. After the Starr investigation they settled with Ms. Jones.
She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor.
After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr's investigation led to Monica Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs.
Hillary’s devious game plan resulted in Bill losing his license to practice law for 'lying under oath' to a grand jury and then his subsequent impeachment by the House of Representatives.
Hillary avoided indictment for perjury and obstruction of justice during the Starr investigation by repeating, “I do not recall,” “I have no recollection,” and “I don’t know” a total of 56 times while under oath.
After leaving the White House, Hillary was forced to return an estimated $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork that she had stolen.
What a swell party – ready for another four or eight year of this type of low-life mess?
Now we are exposed to the destruction of possibly incriminating emails while Hillary was Secretary of State and the “pay to play” schemes of the Clinton Foundation – we have no idea what shoe will fall next.
But to her loyal fans (supporters) - I guess in her own words “what difference does it make?”

GamerGate explained by ClarkHat

Three Stages to Orbit, on Popehat

And explanation via Albion's Seed, again at Popehat

Eat shit and die. All I ever asked was to be left alone. SJW Smackdown

Sunday, November 8, 2015

predicted coverage of paris climate talks

the near-certain climate agreement will be a substantive farce, but will be hailed as a planet-saving breakthrough. It will follow the familiar script we’ve seen in every previous UN climate summit stretching all the way back to Kyoto: hard bargaining, deadlock, all-night talks, the conference going into sudden death “overtime,” and then a “breakthrough” codified in a meaningless communique with vague targets and timetables that really amounts to saying we’ll all keep meeting and talking and flying private jets from place to place to make ourselves feel good.

Powerline

investigation of cbs news coverage of election 2000

CBS

Thursday, October 15, 2015

if you desire peace, prepare for war

"There is a rank due to the United States, among nations, which will be withheld, if not absolutely lost, by the reputation of weakness. If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known that we are at all times ready for war." —George Washington, 1793

Tuesday, October 13, 2015

Goals must be SMART

In my world where decisions must be taken and outcomes matter, the goals are SMART:
Specific – target a specific area for improvement.
Measurable – quantify or at least suggest an indicator of progress.
Assignable – specify who will do it.
Realistic – state what results can realistically be achieved, given available resources.
Time-related – specify when the result(s) can be achieved.

Sunday, October 11, 2015

The 25 Best Quotes About Liberals

Townhall

O'Sullivans First Law

O’Sullivan’s First Law, named for John O’Sullivan, former editor of National Review, speechwriter for Margaret Thatcher, and author of the fine book The President, The Pope, and the Prime Minister, goes as follows: Any institution that is not explicitly right wing will become left wing over time.  Good example include such seemingly anodyne institutions like the League of Women Voters, PTAs, National Public Radio, most professional associations like the American Bar Association, the Pew Charitable Trust (which actually was intended to be explicitly conservative, and still got captured by the left), and so forth. 

Powerline Steve Hayward

Friday, October 9, 2015

Michael Crichton's Murray Gell-Mann Effect

Media carries with it a credibility that is totally undeserved. You have all experienced this, in what I call the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. (I call it by this name because I once discussed it with Murray Gell-Mann, and by dropping a famous name I imply greater importance to myself, and to the effect, than it would otherwise have.)
Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.

Friday, September 4, 2015

Gay Mafia Jails Ky County Clerk

So, a federal judge has jailed Rowan County (Ky) Clerk Kim Davis for refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples (or any couples, for that matter). It's been all over the news for the last couple of weeks, and my Facebook and Twitter feeds indicate it has generated a lot of interest. The intolerant left, of course, has simply demonized the clerk and called for her (metaphorical) head. The right, defenders of tradition and true marriage but also defenders of the rule of law, is disorganized and arguing over the proper response. Some "Stand with Kim" while others say the law requires her to issue licenses. But, she's in jail, marriage licenses are being issued, and 'tis altogether another great victory for the left. In this case, I do think she should issue licenses or resign her position. If she will not resign, then there are procedures to impeach her and remove her from office. (This is obviously not a quick enough solution for some.) A government functionary must obey the law, and not pick and choose the laws with which to comply. In that regard, this case is different than the baker, the florist, or the photographer, who should all be allowed to run their own business as they see fit, without the government compelling them to serve what they consider immoral ceremonies. To that extent, the left wins this one on points. However, there are still many aspects of this controversy that disturb me:
  • The media hoorah is interesting but not surprising. This is a case that perfectly fits their preferred Narrative. Here is a backwards, Appalachian, county clerk who can easily be portrayed as a redneck, toothless, Bible thumping hick by all the coastal sophisticates. And they certainly seem to be enjoying the smack down, researching her past and portraying her in the worst light. Not an ounce of sympathy can be seen for the woman accused of Crimethink. Although obvious, this tactic is nevertheless effective in swaying those whose beliefs are determined by what the cool kids believe. I have Kentucky cousins who are mortified that their region is once again being portrayed in such a negative light; they are insistent that not all Kentuckians are so backward and unsophisticated; they're using the rallying cry of "Not My Kentucky." By now, they should realize that there is no end to this sort of pressure, and that they should resign themselves to suffering name calling and taunting for continuing to hold any moral principles. 
  • It's funny (not) how quickly the attacks on Kim Davis became personal. As the second wave feminists said, The Personal is the Political. As Alinsky preached (Rule 12), Pick a target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Not only was her personal denomination of Apostolic Christianity held up for ridicule; they made fun of her clothes (a belief in Christian modesty), her hair (women should grow their hair long), and most especially, her marital record. It's called slut shaming, and it's a grievous sin when applied to libertines of no morals, but obviously a perfectly acceptable weapon to be used against a Christian conservative.
  • They charged her with hypocrisy for calling herself a Christian with her marital record, but (my understanding is) those previous marriages occurred before she became a Christian. In other words, she repented and changed her ways, just as Jesus said. ("Go and sin no more.") But sexual immorality is the only sin that cannot be repented in the modern world. A drug addict who gets clean and then encourages others to avoid the life is heroic, a sex addict who gets clean is a hypocrite.
  • And there is another way in which the charge of hypocrisy is false. There are indeed hypocrites who adopt a false facade in order to fool and cheat others, but most who set high standards and then fail to meet them should be honored for their striving attempt, not laughed at for failing. After all, the usual case of failure is more a matter of "The Spirit is Willing, but the Flesh is Weak." As Christians, we know better than most that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." We should rather encourage one another in striving. Only One has ever met the standard of being sinless, and the World hated Him too.
  • But, please, spare me the self-righteous sanctimonious bullshit of the "rule of law." This gay marriage requirement was not imposed in any lawful way. The Constitution is silent on marriage, leaving it to the States. (Although if the Founders had foreseen the degradation in marital standards of our generation, they might have enshrined it in the Constitution.) The XIVth Amendment does not compel homosexual marriages; the country that ratified it would have been horrified at the suggestion. If gays and their supporters wanted a Constitutional right to marriage, the only honorable way would have been to submit an amendment under Article V; but this would have been hard and likely to fail, so instead they got five justices to "interpret" the Constitution the "right" way. This may have the color of law, but it is lawless nonetheless. It is not "substantial due process," to co-op a phrase. 
  • And those same people who now beat down that poor Kentucky clerk with "It's the LAW" never seemed to object when San Francisco mayor Harvey Newsom (and others) issued marriage licenses in defiance of what was then California law. And the governor and attorneys general of six states refused to defend their state laws in court. (Normally, when an attorney deliberately sabotages his client's case, it would call for sanctions if not disbarment.) Jonathan Adler quoted Scalia from 2002 in support of the contention that the only honorable thing for the clerk to do is resign. (Scalia was speaking of Blackmun, Brennan, and Marshall's opposition to the death penalty.) But THEY didn't resign. Apparently, this honorable course only applies to one side in the cultural war; when the law is on the left's side, it's "the rule of law;" when the law is against them (immigration, drugs, or what have you) civil disobedience is the honorable course. As a conservative who values the civic order, I strongly favor the rule of law and not of men. As Thomas More is quoted as saying in A Man for All Seasons, "And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you--where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast--man's laws, not God's--and if you cut them down--and you're just the man to do it--d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?" (Act One, scene seven) But the laws are being cut down by one side, which considers their goals higher than the law.
  • I swore an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. But if the rule of law only applies to one side in the struggle, then it no longer commands my support. As Jack Winthrop asks in The Last of the Mohicans, "Does the rule of English law no longer govern? Has it been replaced by absolutism?" If the law is only a weapon to be imposed on one side, and ignored at will by the other (whether it's Obama, Holder, Clinton, or Lois Lerner), then I am absolved of my obligation of obedience. And I'm getting closer and closer to the point of crying havoc, and loosing the dogs of war. 
  • I would have liked to seen a coordinated action, among hundreds of clerks all across the country, challenging the imposition of a faux Constitutional requirement. Standing alone, Kim Davis has no chance of winning. And her supporters are disoriented, not knowing whether it has yet come the time to defy the government openly. (Even during the American Revolution, only one third of the people supported the revolution, while one third supported the British.)   But, although I think, as a prudential matter she is wrong in this case, Kim Davis has my admiration for her principled stand. As Thomas More also said in A Man for All Seasons, "Well, I believe when statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the sake of their public duties they lead their country by a short route to chaos." (Act One, scene two) Now she is in jail, but as Thoreau said, "Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison."

Sunday, July 12, 2015

things Obama sacrificed to bring Iran in out of the cold

– China expansionism: Last week the NYT reported that the Obama administration has been loath to pressure China on a range of issues because they need the Chinese on Iran.
– Russia expansionism: Articles have been circulating since 2014 suggesting the same thing is going on with Russia, and that Obama has taken a soft line on Ukraine because he needs the Russians on Iran (even Roger Cohen (!) rushed last November to editorialize against what he called the Iran-Ukraine tradeoff).
– Middle East alliances: Differences over the Iran deal have badly undermined Washington’s traditional alliances with Jerusalem and Riyadh.
– Syria/U.S. WMD credibility: The President declined to enforce his Syria red line against the reintroduction of weapons of mass destruction to modern battlefields, shredding the U.S.’s nonproliferation credibility and leaving the French seething in the process. Administration spokespeople have been left trying to convince reporters that chlorine bombs don’t count.
– IAEA credibility: The IAEA has been kneecapped as the P5+1 global powers moved to conclude a deal with Iran, a country that still owes the agency answers on a dozen unresolved questions.
– UN sanctions credibility: The U.S. has looked the other way while the Iranians busted through binding U.N. sanctions and has ceased providing information to a U.N. panel charged with monitoring the integrity of the U.N.’s sanction regime.
– Iranian human rights: Obama administration officials kept the Green Revolution at arm’s length so as not to inflame Tehran’s paranoia about regime change.
– Congress/Democrats: The President and his allies have repeatedly clashed with Congress, including with Congressional Democrats, over Iran diplomacy. There have been two full-blown media campaigns, each lasting several weeks, in which sitting Democratic lawmakers were accused of being warmongers beholden to Jewish money. Versions of those accusations came from administration spokespeople talking to reporters from White House and State Department podiums.

source: Powerline

Friday, June 5, 2015

Thursday, June 4, 2015

Wednesday, May 6, 2015

NOAA warns Arctic will be ice-free in 25 years

Daily Caller

2 contradictory claims the left urges on us

Ace.mu.nu 6 May 2015

1. To speak of Islamist violence, or to suggest there is a problem in Islam, is racist, and hateful, and irrational, and "islamophobic."
2. It is so predictable that Islamists will kill you if you say something "anti-Islamic" that victims of murder attempts can be said to have brought their attacks on themselves.

Two other hard-to-reconcile claims:
1. Islam is compatible with Western values.
2. We're going to have to change some core Western values to avoid violence from our new Muslim friends.

Friday, April 24, 2015

churchill on munich

[The British people] should know that there has been gross neglect and deficiency in our defences; they should know that we have sustained a defeat without a war, the consequences of which will travel far with us along our road. And do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.

Friday, April 10, 2015

ocean blob in pacific affecting weather

nature

tim ellmore predicts Hillary will win (4/10/2015)

FB Comment on 2014 house district map

 Mark my words... Hillary is highly qualified, and she will win. She will gain stamina and support. If a blithering idiot such as Bush can win, it's any bodies game.

philip terzian on lincoln chaffee



To adapt Alice Roosevelt Longworth's observation about Wendell Willkie, herewith a presidential candidacy that has 'sprung from the grassroots of a thousand country clubs'

Friday, April 3, 2015

Little Red Hen

Evading Sharing

The Little Red Hen

Little Red Hen Activities

More Stories

Once upon a time, there was a little red hen  who lived on a farm . She was friends with a lazy dog , a sleepy cat , and a noisy yellow duck 



One day the little red hen  found some seeds  on the ground. The little red hen  had an idea. She would plant the seeds .
The little red hen  asked her friends, "Who will help me plant the seeds ?"
"Not I," barked the lazy dog .
"Not I," purred the sleepy cat .
"Not I," quacked the noisy yellow duck .
"Then I will," said the little red hen . So the little red hen  planted the seeds  all by herself.


When the seeds  had grown, the little red hen asked her friends, "Who will help me cut the wheat ?"
"Not I," barked the lazy dog .
"Not I," purred the sleepy cat .
"Not I," quacked the noisy yellow duck .
"Then I will," said the little red hen . So the little red hen  cut the wheat  all by herself.


When all the wheat  was cut, the little red hen asked her friends, "Who will help me take the wheat  to the mill  to be ground into flour ?"
"Not I," barked the lazy dog .
"Not I," purred the sleepy cat .
"Not I," quacked the noisy yellow duck .
"Then I will," said the little red hen . So the little red hen  brought the wheat  to the mill  all by herself, ground the wheat  into flour , and carried the heavy sack  of flour  back to the farm .


The tired little red hen asked her friends, "Who will help me bake  the bread ?"
"Not I," barked the lazy dog .
"Not I," purred the sleepy cat .
"Not I," quacked the noisy yellow duck .
"Then I will," said the little red hen . So the little red hen  baked  the bread  all by herself.


When the bread  was finished, the tired little red hen asked her friends, "Who will help me eat  the bread ?"
"I will," barked the lazy dog .
"I will," purred the sleepy cat .
"I will," quacked the noisy yellow duck .
"No!" said the little red hen . "I will." And the little red hen  ate  the bread  all by herself.