Sunday, January 31, 2010
What a lying liar (part three)
Last week, I damn-near choked to death on the hot dog I was eating when I heard President B. Hussein Obama say this during his Union-Statin' speech:
To close [the] credibility gap we must take action on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue to end the outsized influence of lobbyists; to do our work openly; and to give our people the government they deserve. ...
And that’s why we’ve excluded lobbyists from policy-making jobs or seats on federal boards and commissions.
The Obama Administration has no lobbyists working in policy-making jobs? Are you f'ing kidding me?!
Here's a list of high-level Obama officials who are former lobbyists
(list courtesy of the fine folks at Redstate.com):
Eric Holder, attorney general nominee, was registered to lobby until 2004 on behalf of clients including Global Crossing, a bankrupt telecommunications firm [now confirmed].
Tom Vilsack, secretary of agriculture nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year on behalf of the National Education Association.
William Lynn, deputy defense secretary nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for defense contractor Raytheon, where he was a top executive.
William Corr, deputy health and human services secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until last year for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a non-profit that pushes to limit tobacco use.
David Hayes, deputy interior secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until 2006 for clients, including the regional utility San Diego Gas & Electric.
Mark Patterson, chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for financial giant Goldman Sachs.
Ron Klain, chief of staff to Vice President Joe Biden, was registered to lobby until 2005 for clients, including the Coalition for Asbestos Resolution, U.S. Airways, Airborne Express and drug-maker ImClone.
Mona Sutphen, deputy White House chief of staff, was registered to lobby for clients, including Angliss International in 2003.
Melody Barnes, domestic policy council director, lobbied in 2003 and 2004 for liberal advocacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the American Constitution Society and the Center for Reproductive Rights.
Cecilia Munoz, White House director of intergovernmental affairs, was a lobbyist as recently as last year for the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group.
Patrick Gaspard, White House political affairs director, was a lobbyist for the Service Employees International Union.
Michael Strautmanis, chief of staff to the president’s assistant for intergovernmental relations, lobbied for the American Association of Justice from 2001 until 2005.
I don't know what's worse: that Obama can lie so readily and so shamefully, or that no one in the mainstream media has the guts to call him on all the lies he tells.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Sunday, January 31, 2010
A damn sorry episode, indeed
It didn't get a lot of attention because the nation was wrapped up in the debate over ObamaCare, but in December Democrats in Congress voted to kill funding for the District of Columbia's Opportunity Scholarship Program, which provides almost 2,000 disadvantaged students with $7,000 vouchers to attend private schools of their choosing.
The Opportunity program has been immensely popular with D.C. parents, with long waiting lists being the norm since it started. Furthermore, a federal study last year said the mostly black and Hispanic students in the program were making significant academic gains and were narrowing the achievement gap with white and Asian students. The program, however, was unpopular with the National Education Association, so the NEA directed its patrons in Congress voted to kill it ... which they shamefully did.
The biggest asshole in this shameful episode was Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL). Durbin, who heads the Senate subcommittee that oversees funding for Opportunity Scholarships, said early last year that he'd support reauthorizing the Opportunity program's funding if the D.C Council signed off on it, which it did. Then Durbin said participating schools had to administer the same tests as D.C.'s public school students take. Private schools agreed to do just that. Then Durbin voted to pull funding. See what I mean about Durbin being an asshole?
The Opportunity Scholarship Program is now closed to new students; and when those students who now have scholarships graduate, the program will cease to exist all together. Here's the lesson that can be learned from all this:
When it comes down to protecting the interests of poor black and Hispanic students, or protecting the interests of the National Education Association, Democrats in Congress will make sure the NEA wins out every time.
The Opportunity program has been immensely popular with D.C. parents, with long waiting lists being the norm since it started. Furthermore, a federal study last year said the mostly black and Hispanic students in the program were making significant academic gains and were narrowing the achievement gap with white and Asian students. The program, however, was unpopular with the National Education Association, so the NEA directed its patrons in Congress voted to kill it ... which they shamefully did.
The biggest asshole in this shameful episode was Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL). Durbin, who heads the Senate subcommittee that oversees funding for Opportunity Scholarships, said early last year that he'd support reauthorizing the Opportunity program's funding if the D.C Council signed off on it, which it did. Then Durbin said participating schools had to administer the same tests as D.C.'s public school students take. Private schools agreed to do just that. Then Durbin voted to pull funding. See what I mean about Durbin being an asshole?
The Opportunity Scholarship Program is now closed to new students; and when those students who now have scholarships graduate, the program will cease to exist all together. Here's the lesson that can be learned from all this:
When it comes down to protecting the interests of poor black and Hispanic students, or protecting the interests of the National Education Association, Democrats in Congress will make sure the NEA wins out every time.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Sunday, January 31, 2010
Saturday, January 30, 2010
What a lying liar (part two)
Remember President Obama's State of the Union lie about how the Supreme Court's opened the door for "foreign entities" to influence U.S. elections? Well, Randy Barnett does some truth-telling, and gives the president a rhetorical bitch-slap, in the Wall Street Journal:
Then there is the substance of the remark itself. It was factually wrong. The Court's ruling in Citizens United concerned the right of labor unions and domestic corporations, including nonprofits, to express their views about candidates in media such as books, films and TV within 60 days of an election. In short, it concerned freedom of speech; in particular, an independent film critical of Hillary Clinton funded by a nonprofit corporation.
While the Court reversed a 1990 decision allowing such a ban, it left standing current restrictions on foreign nationals and "entities." Also untouched was a 100-year-old ban on domestic corporate contributions to political campaigns to which the president was presumably referring erroneously.
That is a whole lot to get wrong in 72 sanctimonious words. Clearly, this statement had not been vetted by the president's legal counsel. Solicitor General Elena Kagan, for example, would never have signed off on such a claim. Never. [Emphasis mine]
As important as that rhetorical bitch-slapping is, Barnett also poses an important question. Immediately after telling his whoppers, Obama urged Congress to "pass a bill" that helps to "right" the Supreme Court's decision. Barnett asks:
[H]ow exactly is Congress supposed to override a constitutional ruling by the Supreme Court by enacting a statute? Or was the president merely urging Congress to evade it?
Think about that for a moment. Obama is either urging Congress to pass legislation which the Supreme Court has already ruled to be unconstitutional, or he's urging Congress to just ignore what the Supreme Court said in its ruling. You'd think that someone who once taught constitutional law would know better. You'd think.
That said, imagine if President Bush had ever used a portion of one of his State of the Union speeches to urge Congress to outlaw abortion outright. Liberal legislators would've gotten their panties in a major twist, and liberal constitutional scholars would've taken to the airwaves saying, "The Supreme Court's already said you can't do that!" And then the liberal twisted panties/schlolarly set would've questioned the president's mental fitness for trying to do what the Supreme Court had already said he couldn't do.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Saturday, January 30, 2010
Friday, January 29, 2010
Pic of the day
Thanks to Mr. Mordecai for sending us this pic from the Inglewood Kroger:
With snow storming across Nashville, I have to imagine that someone in need of milk took advantage of that bargain!
With snow storming across Nashville, I have to imagine that someone in need of milk took advantage of that bargain!
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Friday, January 29, 2010
Thursday, January 28, 2010
What a lying liar (part one)
Last night, the President of the United States lied through his teeth ...
In his State of the Union address, President Obama said the Supreme Court's recent Citizens United decision will allow "foreign corporations to spend without limits in our elections."
Justice Sam Alito mouthed his objection to that lie last night; Professor Bradley A. Smith -- author of the brilliant Unfree Speech: The Folly of Campaign Finance Reform -- has penned this "take that, liar" retort today:
(1) The Citizens United case dealt with a blanket ban on corporate expenditures. The Court struck down the ban, which is part of 2 USC 441b.
(2) A separate section of the law, 2 USC 441e, prohibits "foreign nationals" from making expenditures or contributions. "Foreign nationals" includes corporations that are not incorporated or headquartered in the United States. This is an extremely broad prohibition that applies to any U.S. election (including state and local elections) and to any activity "in connection with" an election. The Citizens United ruling doesn’t touch this prohibition and specifically notes that it makes no judgment about foreign corporations.
(3) This would allow a U.S. corporation, incorporated and headquartered in the United States, to make expenditures (Obama, remember, referred to "foreign corporations"). But . . .
(4) FEC regulations at 11 CFR 110.20 further delineate the prohibition:
A foreign national shall not direct, dictate, control, or directly or indirectly participate in the decision making process of any person, such as a corporation, labor organization, political committee, or political organization with regard to such person's Federal or non-Federal election-related activities, such as decisions concerning the making of contributions, donations, expenditures, or disbursements in connection with elections for any Federal, State, or local office or decisions concerning the administration of a political committee.
Additionally, the FEC requires that any funds so spent come from U.S.-generated income (in other words, the parent corporation cannot send capital to the U.S. subsidiary and then have the subsidiary spend that in connection with U.S. elections). Therefore ...
(5) You could have a foreign-owned but U.S.-incorporated-and-headquartered subsidiary, using U.S. funds, controlled solely by U.S. nationals, make expenditures. However, bear in mind that ...
(6) Such a corporation is already eligible to operate a PAC — which can make unlimited expenditures and also make contributions directly to candidates (under the same restrictions of U.S. funds managed by U.S. nationals) — and to spend unlimited sums from any source. Its executives and managers who are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents (i.e., the same people who would have to decide on any corporate spending) are already eligible to spend unlimited sums on U.S. elections.
So claiming that the Citizens United decision will allow "foreign corporations to spend without limits in our elections" is as misleading as saying that "Obama and the Democratic Congress have allowed foreign corporations to spend without limits in our elections." The corporate ban is not about foreign contributions, and the government never tried to defend it as such. To suggest that this ruling allows foreign expenditures in elections is wholly misleading.
We might say that the president’s statement is not a lie, because it contains a small kernel of truth. But that kernel of truth is what separates lies from demagoguery. The president’s statement was shameless demagoguery.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Thursday, January 28, 2010
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Re: The Obama Myth
The Obama Myth rests on three assumptions: (a) Obama is a nonideological pragmatist; (b) Obama is an uncommonly powerful communicator; and (c) Obama has a gut connection with the people. All three are wrong. Only the Democrats’ fantasy that opposition to their agenda is limited to a lunatic fringe has blinded them from seeing the president’s liabilities.
Read all of it here.
Read all of it here.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Can't piss a lick ...
If we're to believe many, many different new reports, President Obama's gonna come out as a super-serious deficit hawk in his State of the Union speech.
Obama, supposedly, is gonna propose a three-year freeze on federal discretionary spending. Funny, but Obama berated John McCain in '08 when McCain said he was in favor of doing just that. Lookit.
My problem with Obama's proposed spending freeze is this:
Entitlements are off the table, and anything education-related is also off the table. Oh, and Military/man-caused disaster-related stuff can't be touched.
So, what fuckin' federal spending can be frozen? Maybe a highway-building project here, and a university grant there; but, wait, ain't highway-building and university-granting hallmarks of Obama's "stimulus"? How can he, in good faith, cut any o' that?!
My Grandaddy Jack used to say this when he encountered a clueless shipdit: "[He/she] can't piss a lick." I hate to say it, but I fear that President Obama can't piss a lick ... indeed.
Obama, supposedly, is gonna propose a three-year freeze on federal discretionary spending. Funny, but Obama berated John McCain in '08 when McCain said he was in favor of doing just that. Lookit.
My problem with Obama's proposed spending freeze is this:
Entitlements are off the table, and anything education-related is also off the table. Oh, and Military/man-caused disaster-related stuff can't be touched.
So, what fuckin' federal spending can be frozen? Maybe a highway-building project here, and a university grant there; but, wait, ain't highway-building and university-granting hallmarks of Obama's "stimulus"? How can he, in good faith, cut any o' that?!
My Grandaddy Jack used to say this when he encountered a clueless shipdit: "[He/she] can't piss a lick." I hate to say it, but I fear that President Obama can't piss a lick ... indeed.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Monday, January 25, 2010
The gang that can't shoot straight
Here's further proof that the Obama Presidency is nothing but an ongoing comedy of political errors:
White House advisers appearing on the Sunday talk shows gave three different estimates of how many jobs could be credited to President Obama’s Recovery Act.
The discrepancy was pointed out by a Republican official in an email to reporters noting that "Three presidential advisers on three different programs [gave] three different descriptions of the trillion-dollar stimulus bill."
Somewhere, Ronald Reagan and Jack Kemp are tippin' drinks ... and laughing their asses off.
White House advisers appearing on the Sunday talk shows gave three different estimates of how many jobs could be credited to President Obama’s Recovery Act.
The discrepancy was pointed out by a Republican official in an email to reporters noting that "Three presidential advisers on three different programs [gave] three different descriptions of the trillion-dollar stimulus bill."
Somewhere, Ronald Reagan and Jack Kemp are tippin' drinks ... and laughing their asses off.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Monday, January 25, 2010
Liberal hypocrisy, part the second
Last week, President Obama signed an executive order banning the federal government from awarding contracts to companies that aren't up-to-date on payin' their taxes.
Obama's also encouraging Congress to pass legislation that would "permit the IRS to publicly disclose businesses that owe the government back taxes."
Kathleen Sebelius. Timothy Geithner. Tom Daschle. Hilda Solis. Nancy Killefer. Need I say more?!
Obama's also encouraging Congress to pass legislation that would "permit the IRS to publicly disclose businesses that owe the government back taxes."
Kathleen Sebelius. Timothy Geithner. Tom Daschle. Hilda Solis. Nancy Killefer. Need I say more?!
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Monday, January 25, 2010
Liberal hypocrisy, part the first
Apparently, being a liberal these days means never having to apologize for being a hypocrite. To wit:
Long time Anti-Gun Advocate State Senator R.C. Soles, 74, shot one of two intruders at his home just outside Tabor City, N.C. about 5 p.m. Sunday, the prosecutor for the politician's home county said. ...
The Senator, who has made a career of being against gun ownership for the general public, didn't hesitate to defend himself with his own gun when he believed he was in immediate danger and he was the victim. "I am a Senator, and I have a need to defend myself, so go away, dammit!" he said. "You people disgust me!"
Long time Anti-Gun Advocate State Senator R.C. Soles, 74, shot one of two intruders at his home just outside Tabor City, N.C. about 5 p.m. Sunday, the prosecutor for the politician's home county said. ...
The Senator, who has made a career of being against gun ownership for the general public, didn't hesitate to defend himself with his own gun when he believed he was in immediate danger and he was the victim. "I am a Senator, and I have a need to defend myself, so go away, dammit!" he said. "You people disgust me!"
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Monday, January 25, 2010
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Pic of the day
Coincidence? I think not
For the past several months, Obama supporters have pointed to the Dow Jones Industrial Average's steady rise to claim that (a) the recession is ending because of (b) the president's economic policies. Weeeeeeell ...
Last week, the DJIA suffered its worst week in nearly a year, pretty much wiping out 2010's gains. On Friday the DJIA dropped over 200 points.
The Dow's recent slide has coincided with President Obama's increasingly shrill populist rhetoric and news that he plans to enact a blatantly unconstitutional tax on banks that are finally starting to turn the financial corner, if you will. Is it any wonder that 77 percent of investors who were polled by Bloomberg see Obama as "anti-business"?
Looks like investors are passing judgement on Obama's policies with their money ... and the result ain't pretty.
Last week, the DJIA suffered its worst week in nearly a year, pretty much wiping out 2010's gains. On Friday the DJIA dropped over 200 points.
The Dow's recent slide has coincided with President Obama's increasingly shrill populist rhetoric and news that he plans to enact a blatantly unconstitutional tax on banks that are finally starting to turn the financial corner, if you will. Is it any wonder that 77 percent of investors who were polled by Bloomberg see Obama as "anti-business"?
Looks like investors are passing judgement on Obama's policies with their money ... and the result ain't pretty.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Sunday, January 24, 2010
Friday, January 22, 2010
Je ne le crois pas
On the day it was announced that B. Hussein Obama had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, I engaged in a rather heated discussion with a liberal colleague about whether or not Obama deserved said Peace Prize. I, of course, said he didn't; my left-wing friend said he did, without really being able to explain why he deserved it.
After several minutes of arguing, I was asked: "Well, who do you think should've gotten it?" It took me about one half of one second to respond: Morgan Tsvangirai. My response elicited a blank stare and several moments of silence. I then gave a quick tutorial on one Morgan Tsvangirai with this exclamation: "Now, tell me again that Obama deserves the Nobel Peace Prize!"
Don't know much about Mr. Tsvangirai? I wrote this about him back in 2008:
Right now, the person I admire most in this world is Morgan Tsvangirai. "Who's he?" you ask. Well, he's the guy who's stood in opposition to Robert Mugabe's quasi-dictatorship in the African nation of Zimbabwe for the past decade. Last month, his political party won a majority of the seats in Zimbabwe's parliament, and he won a plurality of votes in the presidential election. He announced that he would participate in a run-off election, and dozens of his followers were jailed and beaten by government authorities, and several were killed. Tsvangirai was forced to first flee his country, and upon his return he had to seek refuge in the Danish embassy.
Over the years, Morgan Tsvangirai has been jailed by the Zimbabwean government and beaten to a bloody pulp by pro-Mugabe goons. He's also endured painful and humiliating torture, and he's escaped numerous assassination attempts. But Mr. Tsvangirai has never once threatened to give up his effort to secure a democratic future for Zimbabwe. Before all is said and done (in large part due to Mr. Tsvangirai's heroic efforts), Zimbabwe might very well become a representative democracy one of these days ... and I just might shed a congratulatory tear for Mr. Morgan T. when it does.
Why am I mentioning all this? Well, Zimbabwe continues to be a poverty-stricken, Orwellian hellhole, and now-Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai continues to be marginalized by the despotic and corrupt President of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe. In another indication that President Obama and his foreign policy team don't know their asses from holes in the ground, the Obama Administration is moving to normalize relations with Zimbabwe. As the Weekly Standard's John Noonan writes:
Is it a surprise to anyone that the people of Zimbabwe, dying (literally) for good governance and sound economic management, are treated exactly like the democratic revolutionaries in Iran? Is it a surprise that protestors, desperate for some sort of leadership from the United States, are ignored in hopes that murderous regimes will be inspired by smart power and the radiant glow of hope and change? Add Zimbabwe to the long list of nations that Obama has, plainly, gotten wrong.
Now, tell me again that Obama deserved that Peace Prize ...
After several minutes of arguing, I was asked: "Well, who do you think should've gotten it?" It took me about one half of one second to respond: Morgan Tsvangirai. My response elicited a blank stare and several moments of silence. I then gave a quick tutorial on one Morgan Tsvangirai with this exclamation: "Now, tell me again that Obama deserves the Nobel Peace Prize!"
Don't know much about Mr. Tsvangirai? I wrote this about him back in 2008:
Right now, the person I admire most in this world is Morgan Tsvangirai. "Who's he?" you ask. Well, he's the guy who's stood in opposition to Robert Mugabe's quasi-dictatorship in the African nation of Zimbabwe for the past decade. Last month, his political party won a majority of the seats in Zimbabwe's parliament, and he won a plurality of votes in the presidential election. He announced that he would participate in a run-off election, and dozens of his followers were jailed and beaten by government authorities, and several were killed. Tsvangirai was forced to first flee his country, and upon his return he had to seek refuge in the Danish embassy.
Over the years, Morgan Tsvangirai has been jailed by the Zimbabwean government and beaten to a bloody pulp by pro-Mugabe goons. He's also endured painful and humiliating torture, and he's escaped numerous assassination attempts. But Mr. Tsvangirai has never once threatened to give up his effort to secure a democratic future for Zimbabwe. Before all is said and done (in large part due to Mr. Tsvangirai's heroic efforts), Zimbabwe might very well become a representative democracy one of these days ... and I just might shed a congratulatory tear for Mr. Morgan T. when it does.
Why am I mentioning all this? Well, Zimbabwe continues to be a poverty-stricken, Orwellian hellhole, and now-Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai continues to be marginalized by the despotic and corrupt President of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe. In another indication that President Obama and his foreign policy team don't know their asses from holes in the ground, the Obama Administration is moving to normalize relations with Zimbabwe. As the Weekly Standard's John Noonan writes:
Is it a surprise to anyone that the people of Zimbabwe, dying (literally) for good governance and sound economic management, are treated exactly like the democratic revolutionaries in Iran? Is it a surprise that protestors, desperate for some sort of leadership from the United States, are ignored in hopes that murderous regimes will be inspired by smart power and the radiant glow of hope and change? Add Zimbabwe to the long list of nations that Obama has, plainly, gotten wrong.
Now, tell me again that Obama deserved that Peace Prize ...
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Friday, January 22, 2010
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Unhinged
Ms. Cassy Fiano has a great roundup of left-wing reaction to Scott Brown's incredible victory. As you can imagine, what she rounded up ain't pretty. A sample:
BluDemocratGirl: F*ck the GOP, Ignorant Teabagging Fools, and the Independent Voters who stood up with that pathietic, porn star-wannabe bastard. Mrs. Coakley’s campaign could’ve been stronger, but she ran it down to the drain. I’m pissed ’cause now the health care reform is now in jeopardy!
Joe the Liberal: It absolutely sickens me… to see this solid blue state have some sleazeball, degenerate, scumbag filth republican as their “representative”. I’m even more sickened and disgusted to see Ted’s seat, that he held for decades on end go to this piece of garbage, cookie cutter, bottom feeding, dirtbag republican.
Odin2005: Another STOLEN election.
Akoto: Teddy must be rolling in his grave right now.
DainBramaged: All of you RePUKElican lurkers can go f*ck yourselves one race. F*ck you.You have NO F*CKING ONE to run against Obama in 2012 so go f*ck yourselves.
AndyA: If sanity is a right wing, bigoted, homophobic Nazi, well…yes I guess there will be sanity. Pretty faces often hide monsters within.
TwixVoy: They are chanting like Nazis at his victory rally. Chilling. A glimpse of things to come.
Read 'em all here.
One quick thought: If the folks who were chanting at Scott Brown's victory celebration were acting like Nazis, what does that make all the damn fools who chanted "Yes We Can!" and other such vapidity at each and every Obama rally during the '08 presidential campaign? Communists? Shipdits? Communist shipdits? I wanna know!
BluDemocratGirl: F*ck the GOP, Ignorant Teabagging Fools, and the Independent Voters who stood up with that pathietic, porn star-wannabe bastard. Mrs. Coakley’s campaign could’ve been stronger, but she ran it down to the drain. I’m pissed ’cause now the health care reform is now in jeopardy!
Joe the Liberal: It absolutely sickens me… to see this solid blue state have some sleazeball, degenerate, scumbag filth republican as their “representative”. I’m even more sickened and disgusted to see Ted’s seat, that he held for decades on end go to this piece of garbage, cookie cutter, bottom feeding, dirtbag republican.
Odin2005: Another STOLEN election.
Akoto: Teddy must be rolling in his grave right now.
DainBramaged: All of you RePUKElican lurkers can go f*ck yourselves one race. F*ck you.You have NO F*CKING ONE to run against Obama in 2012 so go f*ck yourselves.
AndyA: If sanity is a right wing, bigoted, homophobic Nazi, well…yes I guess there will be sanity. Pretty faces often hide monsters within.
TwixVoy: They are chanting like Nazis at his victory rally. Chilling. A glimpse of things to come.
Read 'em all here.
One quick thought: If the folks who were chanting at Scott Brown's victory celebration were acting like Nazis, what does that make all the damn fools who chanted "Yes We Can!" and other such vapidity at each and every Obama rally during the '08 presidential campaign? Communists? Shipdits? Communist shipdits? I wanna know!
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Thursday, January 21, 2010
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
"[H]ere's what Hope 'n' Change is doin' ..."
One year in, here's what Hope 'n' Change is doin' for us (HT: TN GOP) ...
RECORD DEBT - "With the national debt projected to soar by nearly $1.4 trillion this year, congressional Democrats are planning a year-end push to dramatically increase the legal debt limit so they don't have to revisit the politically uncomfortable issue before facing voters in November." ("Democrats to seek higher limit on the federal debt," Washington Post, 12/9/09)
RECORD UNEMPLOYMENT - "In another sign that workers are being left out of the budding economic recovery, the U.S. unemployment rate climbed to 10.2 percent in October, topping the 10 percent mark for the first time in 26 years." ("Unemployment rate hits 10.2%, a 26-year high," MarketWatch, 11/6/09)
"STIMULUS" FAILURE - "The government's economic stimulus spending has already had its biggest impact and probably won't contribute to significant growth next year, a top White House adviser said Thursday... Unemployment will remain high, at or above 9.6 percent, through the end of 2010, Romer predicted." ("Romer: Impact of stimulus will level off next year," Associated Press, 10/22/09)
CUTTING SWEETHEART DEALS TO RAM THROUGH A GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF HEALTH CARE - "While the Nebraska Democrat got a particularly juicy concession in exchange for a ‘yes' vote on the 10-year, $871 billion package - permanent and full federal aid for his state's expanded Medicaid population - support from a slew of other senators likewise came with a price." ("The Price Is Right? Payoffs for Senators Typical in Health Care Bill," Fox News, 12/21/09)
BROKEN TRANSPARENCY PROMISES - "'We'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies,' Obama said. That hasn't happened. Instead, Democrats in Congress and the White House have made multibillion-dollar deals with hospitals and pharmaceutical companies in private. C-SPAN asked to televise the negotiations between the House and Senate versions; the White House insists it hasn't seen the request." ("Promises, Promises: Many Obama Pledges Unkept," Associated Press, 1/14/10)
IMPORTING TERRORISTS INTO THE UNITED STATES - "President Obama's decision to transfer as many as 100 terror suspects from Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to a maximum security prison in rural Illinois potentially sets the stage for a new round of high-stakes legal battles over what additional rights, if any, Al Qaeda suspects are entitled to... from the moment the detainees set foot on US soil, their lawyers will have the ability to tap into the full array of constitutional and other legal protections enjoyed by every American citizen and resident." ("Guantanamo detainees on US soil: a legal minefield," Christian Science Monitor, 12/15/09)
NATIONAL ENERGY TAX THAT WILL RAISE COSTS ON FAMILIES - "The Obama administration has privately concluded that a cap and trade law would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent. A previously unreleased analysis prepared by the U.S. Department of Treasury says the total in new taxes would be between $100 billion to $200 billion a year. At the upper end of the administration's estimate, the cost per American household would be an extra $1,761 a year." ("Obama Admin: Cap And Trade Could Cost Families $1,761 A Year," CBS News, 9/15/09)
You're mad now, ain't ya?! I don't blame you.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Après le déluge ...
The blogosphere is alight with all kinds of commentary on the Massachusetts special election. Here's my two cents ...
It would appear that the Obama Experiment has hit a huge speed bump, if not a brick wall. What happened yesterday in Mass. - a state, let's not forget, that Obama won by 26 points just two years ago - represented a complete rejection of what Obama has done, and what he wants to do. Democratic day-aftering notwithstanding, the Massachusetts Senate race did not hinge on local issues; it was a referendum on Obama ... and Obama, through Martha Coakley, lost. Big time.
Barack Obama has now thrust his upturned chin into three major elections, and three times he's lost. The man is now, officially, a political toxic asset. Obama can redeem himself, he can become the post-partisan man o' the middle he claimed to be in 2008, but he'll have to reign in Nancy Pelosi and the liberal barons who're currently in charge of the U.S. House, and he'll have to jerk about three knots into Harry Reid's ass, to do so. I don't see that happening.
To borrow a line from Weird Science, I wouldn't give a squirt of piss to be a swing-district, swing-state Democrat candidate this year. Come November, Democrat candidates are going to have a lot to answer for -- ObamaCare (whether it passes or fails), closing Gitmo, budget-busting "stimulus" bills, 10% unemployment, etc. -- and the Hope 'N' Change Express of 2008 ain't gonna be around to save 'em. (That said, I can't fuckin' wait to watch Roy Herron squirm when he gets asked if he'll be inviting Obama to come down and campaign for him.)
It would appear that the Obama Experiment has hit a huge speed bump, if not a brick wall. What happened yesterday in Mass. - a state, let's not forget, that Obama won by 26 points just two years ago - represented a complete rejection of what Obama has done, and what he wants to do. Democratic day-aftering notwithstanding, the Massachusetts Senate race did not hinge on local issues; it was a referendum on Obama ... and Obama, through Martha Coakley, lost. Big time.
Barack Obama has now thrust his upturned chin into three major elections, and three times he's lost. The man is now, officially, a political toxic asset. Obama can redeem himself, he can become the post-partisan man o' the middle he claimed to be in 2008, but he'll have to reign in Nancy Pelosi and the liberal barons who're currently in charge of the U.S. House, and he'll have to jerk about three knots into Harry Reid's ass, to do so. I don't see that happening.
To borrow a line from Weird Science, I wouldn't give a squirt of piss to be a swing-district, swing-state Democrat candidate this year. Come November, Democrat candidates are going to have a lot to answer for -- ObamaCare (whether it passes or fails), closing Gitmo, budget-busting "stimulus" bills, 10% unemployment, etc. -- and the Hope 'N' Change Express of 2008 ain't gonna be around to save 'em. (That said, I can't fuckin' wait to watch Roy Herron squirm when he gets asked if he'll be inviting Obama to come down and campaign for him.)
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Best $100 I ever spent!
Over the weekend, I sent $100 to the Scott Brown for Senate campaign. Tonight, I consider it the best $100 I ever spent.
I'll have more to say about Scott Brown 'n' national politics in the next few days. Stay tuned ...
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Junior's at it again!
In case you haven't heard, former Tennessee Congressman/defeated U.S. Senate candidate Harold Ford, Jr., aka Junior, has taken a leave of absence from his high-paying gig at Bank of America-slash-Merrill Lynch to decide whether he wants to mount a primary challenge 'gainst New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand.
Over the weekend, I heard a Democrat talking head say on Fox News that Junior might face trouble in New York because he was "very conservative" when he was serving in the U.S. House of Representatives. The "Ford's a conservative" meme seems to be picking up speed as Junior inches closer to making his second run at the U.S. Senate; hell, the folks at The Nation are damn-near apoplectic at the thought of Senator Junior (D-NY). But how conservative is Junior, really?
In the heat of Tennessee's '06 U.S. Senate election, I took a hard look at Junior's supposed "conservatism," and here's what I came up with:
As the 2006 U.S. Senate race heats up, Harold Ford the Second, aka Junior, is going to perform a political cross-dressing routine the likes of which voters in this state have never seen.
Junior fancies himself a conservative - or, at the very least, a solid moderate - Democrat, and his amen corner is busy spreading palm leaves touting him as such. Last Sunday, the Tennessean's Larry Daughtrey mentioned Junior's "right of center" voting record. Daughtrey's comment comes fast on the heals of a statement released by Junior Spokeswoman Carol Andrews in which she not only calls her boss a "conservative Democrat," she says Republicans by God "know" he's a conservative, too.
The views of Junior's sycophants notwithstanding, Junior is not a conservative. Oh, sure, he's been talking like a conservative for the past year or so; however, a quick glance at his voting record and financial statements shows that the individuals who're cheerleading for Junior the Conservative are simply propagating a rather pernicious myth. To wit:
The members of the Club for Growth are a decidedly conservative lot who lend financial support to pro-growth candidates for state and federal offices. The Club for Growth's "policy goals" include the following:
Making the Bush tax cuts permanent
Death tax repeal
Cutting and limiting government spending
Social Security reform with personal retirement accounts
Expanding free trade
Legal reform to end abusive lawsuits
Replacing the current tax code
School choice
Regulatory reform and deregulation
The Club for Growth's most recent congressional rating gives Junior a lifetime score of 5 out of a possible 100. (Even left-wing nut-jobs like Jim "Baghdad" McDermott, Henry Waxman, and Cynthia McKinney fared better on their Club for Growth scorecards.)
Since 1971, the American Conservative Union's congressional rankings have been listed in all major political almanacs and reference guides. The ACU does a pretty good job of identifying who is and who ain't - and who's almost - a conservative. Junior's lifetime ACU score rests at 19. By comparison, Tennessee Congressman Lincoln Davis, another self-proclaimed conservative Democrat, has a lifetime 62 ACU score.
Finally, the National Journal, tagged recently by Newsday columnist James Pinkerton as a "prestigious and soberly low-key weekly," ranks Junior the eighth most liberal member of Tennessee's 9-man delegation in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Add to Junior's bad 'port cards the fact that he's taken money from Hollywood lefties Larry David, Rob Reiner and Norman Lear, and it's hard to make a convincing argument that Junior is indeed a conservative.
You know, Junior might fancy smoking cigars, and he might've filmed some campaign commericials in churches, but he ain't no damned conservative ... and anyone who says otherwise is a damned fool.
So there.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Monday, January 18, 2010
Je suis un bastard!
Last Friday, liberal radio-talker Ed Schultz proposed "a radical path to a Democratic win in the unexpectedly close Massachusetts Senate race for the late Ted Kennedy's seat: cheating." Said Schultz:
"If I lived in Massachusetts, I'd try to vote ten times," Schultz said on his radio show, The Ed Schultz Show.
"Yeah that's right," he went on. "I'd cheat to keep these bastards out. I would. Because that's exactly what they are."
Reckon what the reaction would be if Rush Limbaugh said such a thing?!
"If I lived in Massachusetts, I'd try to vote ten times," Schultz said on his radio show, The Ed Schultz Show.
"Yeah that's right," he went on. "I'd cheat to keep these bastards out. I would. Because that's exactly what they are."
Reckon what the reaction would be if Rush Limbaugh said such a thing?!
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Monday, January 18, 2010
"Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever."
The importance of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day cannot be overstated. Indeed, King's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail," which in many respects is more powerful than the famous "I have a dream" speech, is a good reminder to us all of the importance of fighting for our values and seeking justice and freedom in an unjust and increasingly unfree world.
I urge you to read "Letter from a Birminham Jail" in its entirety. A sample:
"How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an 'I it' relationship for an 'I thou' relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness?"
I urge you to read "Letter from a Birminham Jail" in its entirety. A sample:
"How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an 'I it' relationship for an 'I thou' relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness?"
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Monday, January 18, 2010
Sunday, January 17, 2010
11 minutes of action ...
Sometime last summer, a co-worker and I engaged in a rather heated discussion - okay, it was really an argument - about whether or not baseball is "boring." I won't, ahem, bore you with the details of our little tête-à-tête, but I will tell you about one chestnut he cracked when trying to make his case. He said, and I quote, "There's 10-times more action in an NFL game than a Major League Baseball game."
An old joke says that a baseball game is 10 minutes of action squeezed into 3 hours. But how much "action" is there, really, in an NFL game? If the joke 'bout baseball is true, well, there's about one minute more action in football game. To wit:
According to a Wall Street Journal study of four recent broadcasts, and similar estimates by researchers, the average amount of time the ball is in play on the field during an NFL game is about 11 minutes.
In other words, if you tally up everything that happens between the time the ball is snapped and the play is whistled dead by the officials, there's barely enough time to prepare a hard-boiled egg. In fact, the average telecast devotes 56% more time to showing replays.
So what do the networks do with the other 174 minutes in a typical broadcast? Not surprisingly, commercials take up about an hour. As many as 75 minutes, or about 60% of the total air time, excluding commercials, is spent on shots of players huddling, standing at the line of scrimmage or just generally milling about between snaps. ...
A regulation NFL game consists of four quarters of 15 minutes each, but because the typical play only lasts about four seconds, the ratio of inaction to action is approximately 10 to 1.
Ten-times more action?! Hardly.
An old joke says that a baseball game is 10 minutes of action squeezed into 3 hours. But how much "action" is there, really, in an NFL game? If the joke 'bout baseball is true, well, there's about one minute more action in football game. To wit:
According to a Wall Street Journal study of four recent broadcasts, and similar estimates by researchers, the average amount of time the ball is in play on the field during an NFL game is about 11 minutes.
In other words, if you tally up everything that happens between the time the ball is snapped and the play is whistled dead by the officials, there's barely enough time to prepare a hard-boiled egg. In fact, the average telecast devotes 56% more time to showing replays.
So what do the networks do with the other 174 minutes in a typical broadcast? Not surprisingly, commercials take up about an hour. As many as 75 minutes, or about 60% of the total air time, excluding commercials, is spent on shots of players huddling, standing at the line of scrimmage or just generally milling about between snaps. ...
A regulation NFL game consists of four quarters of 15 minutes each, but because the typical play only lasts about four seconds, the ratio of inaction to action is approximately 10 to 1.
Ten-times more action?! Hardly.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Sunday, January 17, 2010
What an idiot
If you haven't been paying attention to the Massachusetts U.S. Senate race, you should know this: Democrats are having to scramble - big time - to hold on to Ted Kennedy's seat ... in a state B. Hussein Obama carried by 26 points.
How bad are things getting for Dem candidate Martha Coakley? During a recent interview, she actually said former Red Sox pitcher Curt Shilling is a - GASP! - Yankees fan. Yes, she actually called Shilling, a member of the 2004 curse-breaking team, who played in the now-infamous bloody sock, a freakin' closet Yankees fan! See for yourself:
I think it's safe to say that Coakley has lost the Red Sox Nation vote, n'est-ce pas?
How bad are things getting for Dem candidate Martha Coakley? During a recent interview, she actually said former Red Sox pitcher Curt Shilling is a - GASP! - Yankees fan. Yes, she actually called Shilling, a member of the 2004 curse-breaking team, who played in the now-infamous bloody sock, a freakin' closet Yankees fan! See for yourself:
I think it's safe to say that Coakley has lost the Red Sox Nation vote, n'est-ce pas?
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Sunday, January 17, 2010
Saturday, January 16, 2010
"I'm gettin' real close ..."
I'm getting real close to officially endorsing Shelby County DA Bill Gibbons for gov'na.
Of all the GOP candidates who appeared at the SCORE education debate on Thursday, Bill Gibbons was the most impressive of the lot. (Nashville Post's Adam Kleinheider said much the same thing.)
To be fair, the SCORE debate - which I just watched today 'cause I was out of town when it "happened" live - wasn't really a debate. Each participant had only one minute to answer the questions asked of 'em, and there weren't any real rebuttals.
That said, Gibbons' responses were are focused on real reform -- i.e., making it easier for working professionals and retirees to enter the teaching profession, lifting the cap on charter schools and expand their presence statewide, developing standards of parental involvement, more "school choice," etc. -- and, for the most part, he avoided generalities. The same can't be said for his opponents. Indeed, Democrat Kim McMillan's quips were so vanilla, if you will, that she sounded like she was appealing to the Tennessee Education Association and militant school-voucher proponents simultaneously.
Education is a subject very near and dear to my heart. I didn't almost complete all the classes necessary to get a teaching license when I was in graduate school for nothing. When it comes to education, Bill Gibbons is sprinting ahead of the TN gubernatorial pack. If he keeps it up, I'll soon be affixing one of his bumper stickers to the back window of my car.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Saturday, January 16, 2010
Barry don't deserve no "B"
Remember when President Obama said he deserves a "solid B+" for his actions and endeavors since January '09? Well, 49 percent of his constituents - that is, 49 percent of the American people - say his presidency has been a "failure" thus far (47 percent say its been a "success"). At best, he deserves a solid "D."
For those who haven't been reading the papers and don't know why Obama's presidency has been mightily deficient to date, Bill Bennett has compiled one hell of a compelling bill of particulars 'gainst one B. Hussein Obama. To wit:
Last January unemployment was at 7.2 percent; today it’s at 10 percent. President Obama came to office criticizing the public debt, and continues to speak of the debt he inherited, but let’s get it right: According to the Heritage Foundation’s Brian Riedl, "President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Bush and Obama share responsibility), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of this year through 2016." In addition, there is now talk of a second stimulus, and a nearly trillion-dollar health-care plan is in the works.
There's more ...
On the international front, Iran is more threatening and dangerous than ever. President Obama campaigned on a new kind of policy toward Iran, but the only thing new is that the Iranian government has become more aggressive, more brutal, and more contemptuous toward our desire to curb its nuclear ambitions. North Korea has test-fired banned missiles and broken off accords. Russia is as aggressive as ever. We have spurned the Dalai Lama. We have upset Eastern European allies from Poland to the Czech Republic. Israel is more nervous than ever — both about its existence and about the pressure the U.S. is putting on it. Sudan has been appeased further than it was by either of the last two administrations but is no less of a threat to Darfur, where things are getting worse. And in Latin America, the president has received praise from Hugo Chávez and Fidel Castro. Meanwhile, he’s twice gone to Copenhagen and come back empty-handed: once to bring the Olympics to Chicago, once to formulate a climate policy. In neither visit did he get what he set out for.
And more ...
On Afghanistan, he has finally come out with a policy and committed to sending more troops. His administration’s spokesmen are unclear on what the exit or ramp-down procedures and timelines are, but for now, we can praise the ramp-up. But on the terrorism and war issue more generally, we have seen a backslide. Despite ringing statements that we will close Guantanamo, stop enhanced interrogation, and move detained terrorists like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed into our civil-justice system with a public trial, thus bestowing constitutional rights on those terrorists, an interesting statistic came out last week: More terrorist acts and attempts took place in the United States in 2009 than in any year since 2001. According to the Rand Corporation, there have been 33 terrorism-related events on these shores since 9/11, and 13 of them occurred in 2009. [Emphasis mine]
If you research this blog's archives, you'll find many posts in which I stated that prez-candidate B. Hussein Obama was not ready for prime time. After twelve months of Prez Obama, I stand straight on the pedestal of my assertions.
Indeed.
For those who haven't been reading the papers and don't know why Obama's presidency has been mightily deficient to date, Bill Bennett has compiled one hell of a compelling bill of particulars 'gainst one B. Hussein Obama. To wit:
Last January unemployment was at 7.2 percent; today it’s at 10 percent. President Obama came to office criticizing the public debt, and continues to speak of the debt he inherited, but let’s get it right: According to the Heritage Foundation’s Brian Riedl, "President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Bush and Obama share responsibility), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of this year through 2016." In addition, there is now talk of a second stimulus, and a nearly trillion-dollar health-care plan is in the works.
There's more ...
On the international front, Iran is more threatening and dangerous than ever. President Obama campaigned on a new kind of policy toward Iran, but the only thing new is that the Iranian government has become more aggressive, more brutal, and more contemptuous toward our desire to curb its nuclear ambitions. North Korea has test-fired banned missiles and broken off accords. Russia is as aggressive as ever. We have spurned the Dalai Lama. We have upset Eastern European allies from Poland to the Czech Republic. Israel is more nervous than ever — both about its existence and about the pressure the U.S. is putting on it. Sudan has been appeased further than it was by either of the last two administrations but is no less of a threat to Darfur, where things are getting worse. And in Latin America, the president has received praise from Hugo Chávez and Fidel Castro. Meanwhile, he’s twice gone to Copenhagen and come back empty-handed: once to bring the Olympics to Chicago, once to formulate a climate policy. In neither visit did he get what he set out for.
And more ...
On Afghanistan, he has finally come out with a policy and committed to sending more troops. His administration’s spokesmen are unclear on what the exit or ramp-down procedures and timelines are, but for now, we can praise the ramp-up. But on the terrorism and war issue more generally, we have seen a backslide. Despite ringing statements that we will close Guantanamo, stop enhanced interrogation, and move detained terrorists like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed into our civil-justice system with a public trial, thus bestowing constitutional rights on those terrorists, an interesting statistic came out last week: More terrorist acts and attempts took place in the United States in 2009 than in any year since 2001. According to the Rand Corporation, there have been 33 terrorism-related events on these shores since 9/11, and 13 of them occurred in 2009. [Emphasis mine]
If you research this blog's archives, you'll find many posts in which I stated that prez-candidate B. Hussein Obama was not ready for prime time. After twelve months of Prez Obama, I stand straight on the pedestal of my assertions.
Indeed.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Saturday, January 16, 2010
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Reckon what Al Gore thinks 'bout this?
From the Daily Mail (UK):
"The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists.
"Their predictions – based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans – challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in summer by 2013.
According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this."
Read the rest here.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Quote of the day
The central conviction which has dominated my mind ever since I began to write is the conviction that the society or culture which has lost its spiritual roots is a dying culture, however prosperous it may appear externally. Consequently the problem of social survival is not only a political or economic one; it is above all things religious, since it is in religion that the ultimate spiritual roots both of society and the individual are to be found.
-- Christopher Dawson, Enquiries Into Religion and Culture (1933)
-- Christopher Dawson, Enquiries Into Religion and Culture (1933)
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Monday, January 11, 2010
Achtung!
There'll be light blogging this week as I'm havin' to take care of some b'iness out of town. I'll be back on Friday, January 13.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Monday, January 11, 2010
Saturday, January 09, 2010
You read it here first ...
Harry Reid is going to be the third consecutive Democrat Senate Majority Leader to get his ass handed to him in an election. (I say "third" because Jim Sasser was poised to lead the U.S. Senate when Bill Frist stomped him, and Republicans stomped Democrats in general, in '94.) Check this out:
This was not the best of days for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid who found himself apologizing for having referred to candidate Barack Obama in private as a "light-skinned" black with no "Negro dialect," and then having to digest a new poll saying most Nevadans viewed him unfavorably and would elect any of his potential GOP opponents over him.
If an elected Republican used "Negro dialect" in a sentence, the mainstream media would work itself into the lather of all lathers; and the the elected Republican who uttered the offensive phrase would last about a week before he or she was hounded out of office.
That ain't gonna happen re: Harry Reid -- and by "that" I mean the lathering and the hounding out of office. What is going to happen, however, is that Harry Reid is going to lose his Senate seat in November. Bank it (apologies to George Plaster).
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Saturday, January 09, 2010
Brrrr Green Bay! No Green Bay!
Saturday scene from a South Nashville backyard:
Recent Drudge Report headlines (HT: Campaign for Working Families):
Winter Could Be Worst in 25 Years for USA ...
Vermont sets "all-time record for one snowstorm" ...
Historic ice build-up shuts down NJ nuclear power plant ...
Miami shivers from coldest weather in decade ...
Beijing -- coldest in 40 years ...
Death toll rises to 22 in UK's biggest freeze for 30 years ...
Seoul buried in heaviest snowfall in 70 years ...
Peru’s mountain people "face extinction because of increasingly cold conditions" ...
We've yet to hear an explanation from Al Gore and his global warming co-religionists 'bout why it's been so damn cold lately. Wait, I think I know why. The enviro-statists are no longer preaching the Gospel of Global Warming, they now speak of "climate change." Well, right now I'd like some freakin' climate change so's I don't have to waste water lettin' my faucets drip every night!
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Saturday, January 09, 2010
Friday, January 08, 2010
Hee-larious
Here're the "Top Twenty Liberal Pick-Up Lines," courtesy of Right Wing News (be sure to click the link to see the bloggers who came up with each of 'em).
20) Your Birkenstocks must stink, cause you've been nature-hiking through my mind all day.
19) You had me at "Mao."
18) We're both workers, of the world ......let's "Unite"
17) Hey honey, wanna come back to my place and test my emissions?
16) My pants need a bailout. can you help?
15) I'd love to to get you in a see-through dress. I'm a firm believer in transparency.
14) I'm a Women's Studies major, so if you would take off your clothes I'd appreciate it.
13) You are so hot. The science is settled.
12) Darlin' you stole my heart the same way George Bush stole the election in 2000.
11) Ooo, baby...I'd love to warm your globes.
10) You sure you're not Joy Behar? Cause I'm really digging the view.
9) The caribou are rapidly disappearing. Mind if I look for them under your skirt?
8) Mandate your coverage? I mandate you get uncovered.
7) Why don't you come back to my place and I'll show you my stimulus package.
6) I'm Pro-Choice, so you can choose to be on top or bottom.
5) Let's hop in my electric car and let the sparks fly.
4) I saw you across the room, and thought, "I'd like to have him help me get my first abortion."
3) You're so hot, you should be banned by the Kyoto Treaty.
2) Want to see my solo performance of the Vagina Monologues?
1) My wife just doesn't understand me. She's the Secretary of State, and travels all the time.
20) Your Birkenstocks must stink, cause you've been nature-hiking through my mind all day.
19) You had me at "Mao."
18) We're both workers, of the world ......let's "Unite"
17) Hey honey, wanna come back to my place and test my emissions?
16) My pants need a bailout. can you help?
15) I'd love to to get you in a see-through dress. I'm a firm believer in transparency.
14) I'm a Women's Studies major, so if you would take off your clothes I'd appreciate it.
13) You are so hot. The science is settled.
12) Darlin' you stole my heart the same way George Bush stole the election in 2000.
11) Ooo, baby...I'd love to warm your globes.
10) You sure you're not Joy Behar? Cause I'm really digging the view.
9) The caribou are rapidly disappearing. Mind if I look for them under your skirt?
8) Mandate your coverage? I mandate you get uncovered.
7) Why don't you come back to my place and I'll show you my stimulus package.
6) I'm Pro-Choice, so you can choose to be on top or bottom.
5) Let's hop in my electric car and let the sparks fly.
4) I saw you across the room, and thought, "I'd like to have him help me get my first abortion."
3) You're so hot, you should be banned by the Kyoto Treaty.
2) Want to see my solo performance of the Vagina Monologues?
1) My wife just doesn't understand me. She's the Secretary of State, and travels all the time.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Friday, January 08, 2010
Thursday, January 07, 2010
Depends on what the meaning of "disarray" is ...
Subject line from an e-mail I received from the Tennessee Democratic Party yesterday:
National Republicans in disarray
Headline from today's Wall Street Journal:
Departures shake Democrats; Exit of Dodd, Dorgan Weakens Party in Senate Races
RNC chairman Michael Steele has a new book in which he supposedly settles a few scores, including a candid assessment of the many opportunities John McCain missed during his 2008 presidential campaign (I can't argue with him there). That, according to Tennessee Democrats, is enough to say that the GOP is in "disarray." Let's talk about true disarray, shall we?
In the last two days, Michigan Lt. Governor John Cherry bailed out on his gubernatorial bid; Colorado Governor John Ritter announced he will not seek a second term; three-term North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan bailed out of his reelection bid; and scandal-plagued Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut Chris Dodd announced his retirement -- just a few weeks after Vice Prez Biden headlined a lavish fundraiser for Dodd in Hartford.
It is not hard to understand why Democrats are jumping ship faster than an Escolade driven by Tiger Woods: President B. Hussein Obama's hyper-leftist policy-making is driving their party off a cliff. Consider:
A new Rasmussen poll finds that likely voters prefer Republican control of Congress by nine percentage points. According to Rasmussen, "The latest generic ballot numbers highlight a remarkable change in the political environment during 2009. When President Obama was inaugurated, the Democrats enjoyed a seven-point advantage on the Generic Ballot. That means the GOP has made a net gain of 16 percentage points over the course of the year." [Emphasis mine]
Instead of issuing pressers about disarray in the Republican Party, the Tennessee Democratic Party needs to be explaining why it can't recruit credible candidates to run in open-seat races in the 3rd and 6th Congressional Districts.
So there.
National Republicans in disarray
Headline from today's Wall Street Journal:
Departures shake Democrats; Exit of Dodd, Dorgan Weakens Party in Senate Races
RNC chairman Michael Steele has a new book in which he supposedly settles a few scores, including a candid assessment of the many opportunities John McCain missed during his 2008 presidential campaign (I can't argue with him there). That, according to Tennessee Democrats, is enough to say that the GOP is in "disarray." Let's talk about true disarray, shall we?
In the last two days, Michigan Lt. Governor John Cherry bailed out on his gubernatorial bid; Colorado Governor John Ritter announced he will not seek a second term; three-term North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan bailed out of his reelection bid; and scandal-plagued Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut Chris Dodd announced his retirement -- just a few weeks after Vice Prez Biden headlined a lavish fundraiser for Dodd in Hartford.
It is not hard to understand why Democrats are jumping ship faster than an Escolade driven by Tiger Woods: President B. Hussein Obama's hyper-leftist policy-making is driving their party off a cliff. Consider:
A new Rasmussen poll finds that likely voters prefer Republican control of Congress by nine percentage points. According to Rasmussen, "The latest generic ballot numbers highlight a remarkable change in the political environment during 2009. When President Obama was inaugurated, the Democrats enjoyed a seven-point advantage on the Generic Ballot. That means the GOP has made a net gain of 16 percentage points over the course of the year." [Emphasis mine]
Instead of issuing pressers about disarray in the Republican Party, the Tennessee Democratic Party needs to be explaining why it can't recruit credible candidates to run in open-seat races in the 3rd and 6th Congressional Districts.
So there.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Thursday, January 07, 2010
Wednesday, January 06, 2010
Re: the Sisters Quebe
I recently had the opportunity to meet the members of the Quebe Sisters Band. I've never been a big fan of Western Swing music, but I was completely blown away by the Sisters Quebe. They not only sing like angels, they can play a fiddle like a devil out of Georgia. To wit:
The Quebe Sisters Band will be playing at Nashville's famous Station Inn on March 25, and they'll be appearing on the Grand Ole Opry stage on March 26. I urge you to go see 'em play live. Tell 'em Joltin' Django sent you.
The Quebe Sisters Band will be playing at Nashville's famous Station Inn on March 25, and they'll be appearing on the Grand Ole Opry stage on March 26. I urge you to go see 'em play live. Tell 'em Joltin' Django sent you.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Wednesday, January 06, 2010
Truth-telling from Newt
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich gives us the skinny on the monstrosity that is Senator Harry Reid's health care reform bill, which is currently being reconciled in secret by the Most Open Congress in history (from Human Events Online):
The American people didn't have much of a chance to get a good look at Senator Reid's corrupt Christmas present before it was passed. The legislation would dramatically expand the power and scope of the federal government – and fail to fix any of the problems we face.
That continues the course of action that Democrats have taken this entire year on health reform. Every bill that has been introduced, from the House Tri-Committee bill this summer to the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committee to Harry Reid's latest bill, the recipe is the same: More regulation, higher taxes, bigger government, less control for you.
Here are just a few of the Reid bill's details:
2,409 pages (by comparison, the legislation that created Social Security was just 82 pages long)
$518 billion in tax increases (Joint Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Budget Office)
$466 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid (CBO)
Many costs of the legislation won't begin until 2014, but taxes will be imposed immediately (CBO)
Federal outlays for health care would increase by about $200 billion between 2010-2019 (CBO)
$26 billion of unfunded mandates to states over the next 10 years that will likely result in higher taxes (CBO)
Would increase non-group premiums by $300 per individual and $2,100 per family (CBO)
Up to 10 million people will lose their current health insurance coverage under the bill (CBO)
The American people didn't have much of a chance to get a good look at Senator Reid's corrupt Christmas present before it was passed. The legislation would dramatically expand the power and scope of the federal government – and fail to fix any of the problems we face.
That continues the course of action that Democrats have taken this entire year on health reform. Every bill that has been introduced, from the House Tri-Committee bill this summer to the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committee to Harry Reid's latest bill, the recipe is the same: More regulation, higher taxes, bigger government, less control for you.
Here are just a few of the Reid bill's details:
2,409 pages (by comparison, the legislation that created Social Security was just 82 pages long)
$518 billion in tax increases (Joint Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Budget Office)
$466 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid (CBO)
Many costs of the legislation won't begin until 2014, but taxes will be imposed immediately (CBO)
Federal outlays for health care would increase by about $200 billion between 2010-2019 (CBO)
$26 billion of unfunded mandates to states over the next 10 years that will likely result in higher taxes (CBO)
Would increase non-group premiums by $300 per individual and $2,100 per family (CBO)
Up to 10 million people will lose their current health insurance coverage under the bill (CBO)
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Wednesday, January 06, 2010
Tuesday, January 05, 2010
Here in my car/I feel safest of all
I recently paid a visit to Nashville's Lane Motor Museum. In case you didn't know, the Lane Motor Museum, which occupies the old Sunbeam bakery, features the largest collection of European vehicles in the United States. It also has an impressive collection of motorcycles and military vehicles, including an enormous Vietnam War-era land/sea vehicle.
The first car you encounter in The Lane Museum is a 1938 Citroën that was modified to run on coal (gas was hard to come by in German-occupied France) ...
And it gets even more interesting after that ...
If you're looking for something to do on a lazy Saturday or Sunday afternoon, I urge you to head over to the Motor Museum. It only costs $7 to get in ($6 if you clip the coupon in the current Nashville Parent magazine).
Lane Motor Museum
702 Murfreesboro Pike
Nashville, TN 37210
615.742.7445
Update: 'Bout the Vietnam boat ...
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Tuesday, January 05, 2010
Re: A message from McMillan
I just got an e-mail from Democrat gov-candidate Kim McMillan - the only candidate in the contest, Democrat or GOP, whose hairstyle is 25 years out of date - in which she touts her endorsement by an outfit called the Women's Campaign Forum. What's the Women's Campaign Forum you ask? Well, here's the WCF's raison d'être:
WCF endorses qualified women candidates who support reproductive choices running for all levels of office, nationwide.
Oh, and then there's this pic from the front page of the WCF's Web site:
Back in September, a Rasmussen poll found that 48 percent of Americans want abortion coverage prohibited in any government-subsidized health care plans, compared to only 13 percent who would want it to be required (a Public Opinion Strategies poll found a clear majority opposing government-funding of abortions). I don't know it for a fact, but I'd be willing to wager that Tennesseans are agin' government-funding for abortion by upwards of 60 percent -- this is a pretty conservative state after all.
So, what does McMillan gain by accepting an endorsement from a vocally pro-abortion group like the Women's Campaign Forum? She gains a lot of points with the hard-core leftists who'll show up to vote in the Democratic primary, but it will be a major strike against her if'n she becomes the Dem nominee and she has to start courting votes from the whole of Tennessee's majority-center-right electorate.
WCF endorses qualified women candidates who support reproductive choices running for all levels of office, nationwide.
Oh, and then there's this pic from the front page of the WCF's Web site:
Back in September, a Rasmussen poll found that 48 percent of Americans want abortion coverage prohibited in any government-subsidized health care plans, compared to only 13 percent who would want it to be required (a Public Opinion Strategies poll found a clear majority opposing government-funding of abortions). I don't know it for a fact, but I'd be willing to wager that Tennesseans are agin' government-funding for abortion by upwards of 60 percent -- this is a pretty conservative state after all.
So, what does McMillan gain by accepting an endorsement from a vocally pro-abortion group like the Women's Campaign Forum? She gains a lot of points with the hard-core leftists who'll show up to vote in the Democratic primary, but it will be a major strike against her if'n she becomes the Dem nominee and she has to start courting votes from the whole of Tennessee's majority-center-right electorate.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Tuesday, January 05, 2010
Monday, January 04, 2010
Happy New Year!
From the Advocates for Self-Government:
Several years ago, Harry Browne -- 1996 and 2000 Libertarian Party presidential candidate, world-renowned libertarian speaker and writer, and very good friend of the Advocates -- made his [list of New Year's resolutions].
Here's one that caught my eye:
I resolve to speak, dress, and act in a respectable manner. I may be the first libertarian someone has encountered, and it's important that he get a good first impression. No one will hear the message if the messenger is unattractive.
When I was an undergrad, I and three fellow College Republicans strolled onto a stage to debate four College Democrats on issues of national and local import.
We were about five minutes into the debate when a - er, THE - member of the campus Libertarian group burst into the auditorium and started yelling about how it was unfair that he’d been excluded from the debate. "We’re the third-largest political party in America!" he shouted.
The moderator of the debate told Mr. Campus Libertarian that he’d better leave or security would be called. When he turned around to leave, we on the stage all got a good look at the big-ass patch that had been sewn/ironed onto the back of his denim jacket ...
An American flag with a pot leaf in the blue field.
I guess Mr. Campus Libertarian didn't agree with all of Harry Browne's resolutions.
Several years ago, Harry Browne -- 1996 and 2000 Libertarian Party presidential candidate, world-renowned libertarian speaker and writer, and very good friend of the Advocates -- made his [list of New Year's resolutions].
Here's one that caught my eye:
I resolve to speak, dress, and act in a respectable manner. I may be the first libertarian someone has encountered, and it's important that he get a good first impression. No one will hear the message if the messenger is unattractive.
When I was an undergrad, I and three fellow College Republicans strolled onto a stage to debate four College Democrats on issues of national and local import.
We were about five minutes into the debate when a - er, THE - member of the campus Libertarian group burst into the auditorium and started yelling about how it was unfair that he’d been excluded from the debate. "We’re the third-largest political party in America!" he shouted.
The moderator of the debate told Mr. Campus Libertarian that he’d better leave or security would be called. When he turned around to leave, we on the stage all got a good look at the big-ass patch that had been sewn/ironed onto the back of his denim jacket ...
An American flag with a pot leaf in the blue field.
I guess Mr. Campus Libertarian didn't agree with all of Harry Browne's resolutions.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Monday, January 04, 2010
Saturday, January 02, 2010
I'm out for blood!
Just so you know, Ms. Lita Ford is the world's finest female blues-scale guitarist, and then some. Check this if'n you don't belive me ...
After watchin' that, you'll wanna let go, indeed!
After watchin' that, you'll wanna let go, indeed!
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Saturday, January 02, 2010
Well, duh!!!
Sen. Orrin Hatch, Ken Blackwell, and Ken Klukowski opine in today's Wall Street Journal that ObamaCare is unconstitutional.
Hell, you'd have to be a dumbass community organizer -- or a Commie People's World-reader -- not to agree with Hatch et al.
In-fuckin'-deed:
Why the Health-Care Bills Are Unconstitutional
President Obama's health-care bill is now moving toward final passage. The policy issues may be coming to an end, but the legal issues are certain to continue because key provisions of this dangerous legislation are unconstitutional. Legally speaking, this legislation creates a target-rich environment. We will focus on three of its more glaring constitutional defects.
First, the Constitution does not give Congress the power to require that Americans purchase health insurance. Congress must be able to point to at least one of its powers listed in the Constitution as the basis of any legislation it passes. None of those powers justifies the individual insurance mandate. Congress's powers to tax and spend do not apply because the mandate neither taxes nor spends. The only other option is Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce.
Congress has many times stretched this power to the breaking point, exceeding even the expanded version of the commerce power established by the Supreme Court since the Great Depression. It is one thing, however, for Congress to regulate economic activity in which individuals choose to engage; it is another to require that individuals engage in such activity. That is not a difference in degree, but instead a difference in kind. It is a line that Congress has never crossed and the courts have never sanctioned.
In fact, the Supreme Court in United States v. Lopez (1995) rejected a version of the commerce power so expansive that it would leave virtually no activities by individuals that Congress could not regulate. By requiring Americans to use their own money to purchase a particular good or service, Congress would be doing exactly what the court said it could not do.
Some have argued that Congress may pass any legislation that it believes will serve the "general welfare." Those words appear in Article I of the Constitution, but they do not create a free-floating power for Congress simply to go forth and legislate well. Rather, the general welfare clause identifies the purpose for which Congress may spend money. The individual mandate tells Americans how they must spend the money Congress has not taken from them and has nothing to do with congressional spending.
A second constitutional defect of the Reid bill passed in the Senate involves the deals he cut to secure the votes of individual senators. Some of those deals do involve spending programs because they waive certain states' obligation to contribute to the Medicaid program. This selective spending targeted at certain states runs afoul of the general welfare clause. The welfare it serves is instead very specific and has been dubbed "cash for cloture" because it secured the 60 votes the majority needed to end debate and pass this legislation.
A third constitutional defect in this ObamaCare legislation is its command that states establish such things as benefit exchanges, which will require state legislation and regulations. This is not a condition for receiving federal funds, which would still leave some kind of choice to the states. No, this legislation requires states to establish these exchanges or says that the Secretary of Health and Human Services will step in and do it for them. It renders states little more than subdivisions of the federal government.
This violates the letter, the spirit, and the interpretation of our federal-state form of government. Some may have come to consider federalism an archaic annoyance, perhaps an amusing topic for law-school seminars but certainly not a substantive rule for structuring government. But in New York v. United States (1992) and Printz v. United States (1997), the Supreme Court struck down two laws on the grounds that the Constitution forbids the federal government from commandeering any branch of state government to administer a federal program. That is, by drafting and by deliberate design, exactly what this legislation would do.
The federal government may exercise only the powers granted to it or denied to the states. The states may do everything else. This is why, for example, states may have authority to require individuals to purchase health insurance but the federal government does not. It is also the reason states may require that individuals purchase car insurance before choosing to drive a car, but the federal government may not require all individuals to purchase health insurance.
This hardly exhausts the list of constitutional problems with this legislation, which would take the federal government into uncharted political and legal territory. Analysts, scholars and litigators are just beginning to examine the issues we have raised and other issues that may well lead to future litigation.
America's founders intended the federal government to have limited powers and that the states have an independent sovereign place in our system of government. The Obama/Reid/Pelosi legislation to take control of the American health-care system is the most sweeping and intrusive federal program ever devised. If the federal government can do this, then it can do anything, and the limits on government power that our liberty requires will be more myth than reality.
Hell, you'd have to be a dumbass community organizer -- or a Commie People's World-reader -- not to agree with Hatch et al.
In-fuckin'-deed:
Why the Health-Care Bills Are Unconstitutional
President Obama's health-care bill is now moving toward final passage. The policy issues may be coming to an end, but the legal issues are certain to continue because key provisions of this dangerous legislation are unconstitutional. Legally speaking, this legislation creates a target-rich environment. We will focus on three of its more glaring constitutional defects.
First, the Constitution does not give Congress the power to require that Americans purchase health insurance. Congress must be able to point to at least one of its powers listed in the Constitution as the basis of any legislation it passes. None of those powers justifies the individual insurance mandate. Congress's powers to tax and spend do not apply because the mandate neither taxes nor spends. The only other option is Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce.
Congress has many times stretched this power to the breaking point, exceeding even the expanded version of the commerce power established by the Supreme Court since the Great Depression. It is one thing, however, for Congress to regulate economic activity in which individuals choose to engage; it is another to require that individuals engage in such activity. That is not a difference in degree, but instead a difference in kind. It is a line that Congress has never crossed and the courts have never sanctioned.
In fact, the Supreme Court in United States v. Lopez (1995) rejected a version of the commerce power so expansive that it would leave virtually no activities by individuals that Congress could not regulate. By requiring Americans to use their own money to purchase a particular good or service, Congress would be doing exactly what the court said it could not do.
Some have argued that Congress may pass any legislation that it believes will serve the "general welfare." Those words appear in Article I of the Constitution, but they do not create a free-floating power for Congress simply to go forth and legislate well. Rather, the general welfare clause identifies the purpose for which Congress may spend money. The individual mandate tells Americans how they must spend the money Congress has not taken from them and has nothing to do with congressional spending.
A second constitutional defect of the Reid bill passed in the Senate involves the deals he cut to secure the votes of individual senators. Some of those deals do involve spending programs because they waive certain states' obligation to contribute to the Medicaid program. This selective spending targeted at certain states runs afoul of the general welfare clause. The welfare it serves is instead very specific and has been dubbed "cash for cloture" because it secured the 60 votes the majority needed to end debate and pass this legislation.
A third constitutional defect in this ObamaCare legislation is its command that states establish such things as benefit exchanges, which will require state legislation and regulations. This is not a condition for receiving federal funds, which would still leave some kind of choice to the states. No, this legislation requires states to establish these exchanges or says that the Secretary of Health and Human Services will step in and do it for them. It renders states little more than subdivisions of the federal government.
This violates the letter, the spirit, and the interpretation of our federal-state form of government. Some may have come to consider federalism an archaic annoyance, perhaps an amusing topic for law-school seminars but certainly not a substantive rule for structuring government. But in New York v. United States (1992) and Printz v. United States (1997), the Supreme Court struck down two laws on the grounds that the Constitution forbids the federal government from commandeering any branch of state government to administer a federal program. That is, by drafting and by deliberate design, exactly what this legislation would do.
The federal government may exercise only the powers granted to it or denied to the states. The states may do everything else. This is why, for example, states may have authority to require individuals to purchase health insurance but the federal government does not. It is also the reason states may require that individuals purchase car insurance before choosing to drive a car, but the federal government may not require all individuals to purchase health insurance.
This hardly exhausts the list of constitutional problems with this legislation, which would take the federal government into uncharted political and legal territory. Analysts, scholars and litigators are just beginning to examine the issues we have raised and other issues that may well lead to future litigation.
America's founders intended the federal government to have limited powers and that the states have an independent sovereign place in our system of government. The Obama/Reid/Pelosi legislation to take control of the American health-care system is the most sweeping and intrusive federal program ever devised. If the federal government can do this, then it can do anything, and the limits on government power that our liberty requires will be more myth than reality.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Saturday, January 02, 2010
