Category: Left Wing Idiocy

I told you so….

Back in the old days of the antichrist Boosh, the left loved to tell us how evil his administration was for all sorts of things, but especially the cloak and dagger shit that the left always projects on their enemies. Of course, those of us that know the left better and realize that projection happens because the left is assuming others do whatever they do, are not surprised to find out, that in the age of Obama, the abuse of power is always directed at your allies and political enemies:

President Barack Obama announced two years ago he would curtail eavesdropping on friendly heads of state after the world learned the reach of long-secret U.S. surveillance programs.

Hah! Is this yet another Obama broken promise? As Glenn H. Reynolds so avidly points out: Obama’s promises all come with expiration dates and usually reflect exactly the opposite of what he plans to do. You pick the promise, and you will find that it was a boldfaced lie or only was kept unitl it became inconvenient for this administration to do so. Here is some juice shit that follows:

But behind the scenes, the White House decided to keep certain allies under close watch, current and former U.S. officials said. Topping the list was Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The U.S., pursuing a nuclear arms agreement with Iran at the time, captured communications between Mr. Netanyahu and his aides that inflamed mistrust between the two countries and planted a political minefield at home when Mr. Netanyahu later took his campaign against the deal to Capitol Hill.

How much do we want to bet that Iran – the bad guy in this stupid deal that is assured to cause us so much more pain in the future – never had anything compared to the level of scrutiny that this administration put on what they labeled a political enemy. And let us not forget, as the left constantly reminds us through word and deed, that the real enemy according to them never is the people that want to kill Americans or Jews and destroy the west in the process, but the political enemies of the left. And Nethanyahu sure as hell is a “grade A” enemy in the eyes if this pro-Islamic fundamentalism administration. With information like this coming out, what more proof do you need that to these scumbags it never really is about the interests of the American people, but always that of the political left? After all, it isn’t like Iran has read anything but acquiescence from this idiotic deal either.

The National Security Agency’s targeting of Israeli leaders and officials also swept up the contents of some of their private conversations with U.S. lawmakers and American-Jewish groups. That raised fears—an “Oh-s— moment,” one senior U.S. official said—that the executive branch would be accused of spying on Congress.

White House officials believed the intercepted information could be valuable to counter Mr. Netanyahu’s campaign. They also recognized that asking for it was politically risky. So, wary of a paper trail stemming from a request, the White House let the NSA decide what to share and what to withhold, officials said. “We didn’t say, ‘Do it,’ ” a senior U.S. official said. “We didn’t say, ‘Don’t do it.’ ”

Yeah, the bad guy according to the WH was that evil Netanyahu guy because he had the temerity to refuse to go along with an absolutely insane and stupid deal that clearly allows Iran to build nuclear weapons and continue to pursue the agenda of genocide against the Jews and the Great Satan, and not the Iranian madmen or the fucking idiots in the WH that conjured up this terrible deal. And am I alone in getting a whiff of the old Clintoneseque lawyerese? “We didn’t tell them to do it, but didn’t tell them not to do it and then share it with us either”, wink wink. Par for the course. From the whole sicking the IRS on political enemies scandal that they have been trying so hard, to squash to the now all but forgotten gun running scam into Mexico run by the DEA that they hoped would allow the massacre that would follow to be used to piss on the second amendment, to the plethora of insane foreign policy debacles that make the Carter years look awesome in contrast (the Arab Spring, Benghazi, Syria, ISIS, Turkey, the Russians, China, Iran, and so fucking on and on). this administration has been about profit for the left’s political machine at the expense of not just the American people, but the world at large. And they don’t even worry much that this agenda shines through, because after all, with the DOJ owned and doing their bidding and Congress neutered, who is going to really stand against them and their criminal and down right evil agenda?

Stepped-up NSA eavesdropping revealed to the White House how Mr. Netanyahu and his advisers had leaked details of the U.S.-Iran negotiations—learned through Israeli spying operations—to undermine the talks; coordinated talking points with Jewish-American groups against the deal; and asked undecided lawmakers what it would take to win their votes, according to current and former officials familiar with the intercepts.

Before former NSA contractor Edward Snowden exposed much of the agency’s spying operations in 2013, there was little worry in the administration about the monitoring of friendly heads of state because it was such a closely held secret. After the revelations and a White House review, Mr. Obama announced in a January 2014 speech he would curb such eavesdropping.

Anyone still doubt that Snowden is a fucking hero even if you disagree with how he did what he did? And ask yourself who paid for this absolutely egregious abuse of power. Has anyone in this administration been held accountable? Shit, Nixon wants to retract his resignation. After all, he got run out of town for what amounts to a joke compared to the laundry list of criminal activity engaged in and gotten away with by this administration. A complicit and cowed media goes a long way. Now if they had only managed to get their lie about Benghazi being about out of control social media to stick so they could control the internet as well, they would really be rocking the Kasbah.

In closed-door debate, the Obama administration weighed which allied leaders belonged on a so-called protected list, shielding them from NSA snooping. French President François Hollande, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and other North Atlantic Treaty Organization leaders made the list, but the administration permitted the NSA to target the leaders’ top advisers, current and former U.S. officials said. Other allies were excluded from the protected list, including Recep Tayyip Erdogan, president of NATO ally Turkey, which allowed the NSA to spy on their communications at the discretion of top officials.

I think the WSJ is not being accurate here, because I remember how part of the Snowden release showed massive spying by the NSA on the Europeans, and especially the French and Germans, targeting the leadership specifically (google it, it is out there). I am betting the only people not eavesdropped on are the Iranians, Russians, and the Chinese, probably because all the assets where too busy looking at the political enemies of the administration and those radical right wing fanatics that won’t just let team Obama do their thing. Now for the doozy in the story:

Privately, Mr. Obama maintained the monitoring of Mr. Netanyahu on the grounds that it served a “compelling national security purpose,” according to current and former U.S. officials. Mr. Obama mentioned the exception in his speech but kept secret the leaders it would apply to.

Are we talking about that monitoring that they never really told the NSA to do, or not to do, here? Yeah, I thought so. It is quite obvious to me that Netanyahu was a threat to the security of the Obama Administration and its plans to fundamentally change America as promised, too. Of course I doubt that many people in America, including so many Jews that are bought and owned by the democratic party, realize what this revelation shows this administration really is about. Can you imagine Boosh or another republican doing something like this and getting away with it? Think hard on that people. That’s the litmus test really, and the proof that we are all being had by these crooks. Let’s put Hillary in the WH so this party can go on. On steroids.

They are all crooks

Just look at this and you will know what I mean..

This is another of the reasons why Trump has appeal as well..

A Scalia Smear

The Supreme Court, earlier this week, heard arguments in a case of whether affirmative action should be allowed in Texas Law schools. You may have heard about this because the entire Left Wing exploded into outrage over Scalia’s alleged racism:

Demonstrating once again that his reputation for cheap demagoguery has been well-earned, Senator Harry Reid this morning took a wild shot at Justice Antonin Scalia. “It is deeply disturbing,” Reid suggested, “to hear a Supreme Court justice endorse racist ideas from the bench of the nation’s highest court.”

What did Scalia say, precisely?

“There are those who contend that it does not benefit African Americans to get them into the University of Texas where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less­ advanced school, a slower-track school where they do well,” he said. “One of the briefs pointed out that most of the black scientists in this country don’t come from schools like the University of Texas.”

That’s it. Scalia didn’t even advance the theory that admitting blacks to schools they are underqualified for only makes them struggle. He threw it out there as a discussion point to hear what the lawyers thought about it. You wouldn’t know this from the screaming headlines (the New York Daily News, which has completed its descent into pure Left Wing hysteria, had a screaming headline branding Scalia a racist).

Now there are reason to think that this theory is wrong. Recent studies have shown that black students admitted on affirmative action catch up quickly and have graduation rates similar to white students. However, others have argued that it keeps black students out of the more difficult subjects like science, where catching up is particularly difficult. This theory — not Scalia’s, but a common theory — is not far out of the mainstream at all. It’s been mentioned in prior SCOTUS decisions on this matter.

But this is a bit more dangerous than calling Scalia a racist. Alex Griswold

First of all, it’s worth noting that oral arguments are not an avenue for justices to share their views on the case at hand; it’s an opportunity to suss out any holes in the arguments of both parties. To that end, justices often advance arguments and theories they do not necessarily hold. Take for example Chief Justice John Roberts‘ extremely harsh questioning of government lawyers in NFIB v. Burwell, even though he eventually voted to uphold the individual mandate anyways.

Arguing before the Supreme Court is a notoriously nerve-wracking experience, since justices try to find arguments and lines of attack attorneys would never consider. In this case, the transcript make it clear that Scalia was asking a question about a theory put forward by others, not himself:

Scalia, in particular, has a tendency to play devil’s advocate. During the flag burning case, he asked if burning the flag could be banned by being considered fighting words. But he eventually decided with the majority to strike down the flag burning laws.

Charles Cooke, linked above, brings this home:

If we are to have a functioning justice system, we cannot hold lawyers personally responsible for the unpleasant parts of their designated roles. When a defense attorney successfully demonstrates that the prosecution’s case is too weak for a conviction, he is not betraying a preference for murder or rape or grievous bodily harm, he is ensuring that his client gets a fair shake. When a corporate counselor illustrates that a given statute is so badly written that it cannot be used to secure guilt, he is not endorsing whatever misconduct yielded the case in the first instance but upholding the rule of law. And when a Supreme Court justice pushes those before him to respond to the countervailing briefs — or offers whatever devil’s advocacy occurs to him on the spot — he is not pitching his own ideas but mediating a dispute. The day that we fail to understand this will be the day we give in to barbarism.

All too often these days we conflate principles with outcomes. Thus, to defend the free-speech rights of neo-Nazis is to be accused of endorsing their words. Thus, to protect the right to keep and bear arms is to be charged with complicity in its abuse. Thus, to oppose further government surveillance is to be lumped in with terrorists and hackers. During the 2013 Texas gubernatorial race, the Republican nominee offered the uncontroversial observation that, as attorney general, he was obliged to defend laws he personally opposed, and that this would have been the case during the 1960s, too. For this accurate appraisal of his professional responsibilities, his opponent labeled him a foe of interracial marriage. If this approach to government were to become quotidian, we would soon find ourselves living in a country ruled by men and not by law.

Raising points of law and discussion is Justice Scalia’s job. And … apparently … taking cheap shots at him is now the Democrat’s job.

This is how the left thinks healthcare and the country should be run

Unless you have experience with the VA shit, you are left to a reluctant media for information of how bad things have gotten there. Queue the WaPo piece that tries to defend a statement by the moron now running the VA saying how “You can’t fire your way to excellence“. From the article:

A Veterans Affairs official on Wednesday defended the department’s decision to demote but not fire two senior executives who collected $400,000 in a relocation scheme, and pushed back sharply against lawmakers for pressing for punishment rather than accountability for the VA workforce.

“In my many years in the private sector, I’ve never encountered an organization where leadership was measured by how many people you fired,” Deputy Secretary Sloan Gibson told the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee.

“You can’t fire your way to excellence.”

What a crock of fucking shit. Unfortunately, these failures and this sort of horribly stupid thinking are a clear and natural consequence of the left’s dominance of the bureaucratic machine. For those that are ignorant of the facts, the VA is managed the same way the left thinks healthcare in general, and for that matter, the country as a whole, should be managed: without any accountability except for those that betray the system. Amongst the long list of criminal behavior – Google VA scandals and avoid the usual lefty LSM stooges trying to provide the crooks in charge cover – and you will find that the people at the VA are putting vets on long waiting lists hoping that a good percentage of them die before they can get any treatment, amongst a long list of unbelievably horrible things. Worse yet is the fact that anyone that dares question or point out these scandals – both externally, but especially the internal whistleblowers – are getting derided and outright punished for daring to point out how bad things are. The collectivist machine’s worst enemy is those that point out how broken it is, and they save the worst of their ire for those that do this.

The fact of the matter is that you can too “fire your way to excellence”, especially when you are firing people engaged in criminal activity and fleecing the US tax payer and the vets under their care. I worked at GE a long time ago, and I remember Jack Welsh doing just that back then. He instituted a program that quickly and efficiently pointed out the dead weight and the people abusing the system while adding no value, and while he was there doing this, GE as a company thrived. I also saw people that were engaging in illegal activity – and I surmise the people that this idiot Gibson feels shouldn’t be fired were doing just that – not only were fired, but had charges filed against them. Can you imagine people working at private healthcare entities doing the shit that VA employees are doing, being protected by their employer from consequences by only getting what amounts to a slap on the wrist, and the crooks in government not making political hay about it and demanding scalps? This doesn’t happen in unionized government entities more so and not just because these places are dens of ineptitude and mediocrity, but because the people involved practically always can expose skeletons that would cause the net to widen and often snare those higher up for similar illegal activity and callous behavior.

I suspect that these criminals were not fired because leadership was likely worried about what they could divulge on the way out. Hence the need to posture about how criminal behavior that would have resulted in the heavy hand of government coming down on anyone involved in the private sector isn’t really criminal behavior that requires firing. That’s the fundamental change Obama promised and delivered for us.

Corrupt, incompetent, stupid, and evil liars, will just keep lying

At least some in the media are still pointing out how big of despicable entity Hilary Clinton is, but the majority of the DNC sycophants seem to be doing their best to ignore this umpteenth indication of how morally bankrupt, psychologically corrupt, and just down right despicable this woman is. Hillary, in an propaganda piece staged with her top media disciple, emphatically denied that she lied:

Liar, liar, pantsuit on fire: Hillary Clinton still insists she didn’t tell the grieving families of the Benghazi victims that an anti-Islam video was to blame.

Yet family members say she said just that, three days after the attack, at the Sept. 14, 2012, ceremony at Andrews Air Force Base.

George Stephanopoulos asked her Sunday if she’d told the victims it was about the film. Clinton gave a flat “no.”

She added: “I said very clearly there had been a terrorist group, uh, that had taken responsibility on Facebook, um . . .”

At least four family members disagree.

Tyrone Woods’ father said he hugged Clinton and shook her hand. Then “she said we are going to have the filmmaker arrested who was responsible for the death of my son . . . She said ‘the filmmaker who was responsible for the death of your son.’ ”

Sean Smith’s mother said Hillary is “absolutely lying . . . She said it was because of the video.” Smith’s uncle backs her up.

This woman, like practically every fucking leftist, is a fucking ghoul. Just like Obama , whom can’t wait to dance on the corpses of victims of insane killers or terrorists – including the corpses of children – and use those left grieving after every tragedy to push the left’s agenda to shit all over the second amendment and to disarm the populous so the left can do evil the shit it really wants to do without fear of serious reprisal, Hillary has no problem lying to victims of tragedy either. And then she also has the balls to compound on the lies by publically calling these people liars for pointing out she lied.

Glen Doherty’s sister agreed: “When I think back now to that day and what she knew, it shows me a lot about her character that she would choose in that moment to basically perpetuate what she knew was untrue.”

“What she knew” refers to Clinton’s words to daughter Chelsea the night of the assault and the next day to Egypt’s prime minister, which made it plain the secretary of state knew full well that a terror group had long planned the attack.

The lie’s even in her words at the Sept. 14 ceremony: “We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with.”

Just why the administration united around this lie is another editorial. The disgrace here is Clinton’s refusal to admit her role — even pushing the fib to “comfort” the bereaved.

This administration, and the then Secretary of State, Clinton, lie. That’s what they do best. They won the election in 2008 telling lies. They then proceeded to fuck us all over to the tune of over $1 trillion for a proculous package that helped nobody but the connected few, big democrat donors, and the campaign coffers of democrats. That was followed by government bailouts of entities too-big to fail to the tune of another $1 trillion dollars, which included amongst so many insane things screwing over everyone to pay back their union buddies or doubling down on the tax payer money pissed away keeping too-big-to-fail special interests that donate to democrats alive, all while acting though and blaming the previous guy for a crisis of their making.

But they didn’t stop there, oh no. They then straddled the American people with the most horrible piece of legislation ever passed – Obamacare – which required so much favor buying from party members, since they could only pass this horrendous “we must pass it first so you can see what is in it “ bill by any other means but a straight party line vote, that will cost us trillions as it destroys the most competent and effective healthcare system on this planet in record time (fuck you leftists that pretend the measure of a good healthcare system depends on it being peddled as being free, because only idiots ever thing government mismanaged bullshit passes as anything close to free).

And the list of other lies goes on and on. They have failed at everything. Fucking over the economy and lying about it, while pretending the recovery is just around the corner or has happened? Check. Pretending they were the superior statesmen and would fix everything that cowboy Boosh had done, only to then piss away victories, piss on and piss off our friends and allies, and then suck the cock of our enemies? Double check! Making a mockery of our laws and government by enforcing only the laws they like while committing crime after crime (IRS scandal, out of control DOJ, abuses of power on a scale that would make tyrants feel envy, and much more) to cover up their failures and nefarious activities? Triple check!

Benghazi was just one in the many chain of acts of incompetence and downright stupidity, practically every one of them done to line the pocket of a select few on the left, so we shouldn’t be surprised how bad it was handled. Shit, Obama had an election to win – at all costs –and he had just told the American people not 2 weeks before that he had al-Qaida on the run, so there was no way these hyenas were going to admit they were lying about al-Qaida and got caught with their pants down. Another lie, especially one that would allow them to justify a move to control and censor the alternative media that was constantly undermining the job so well done by their DNC agents in the LSM that were protecting these scumbags from themselves, seemed like the logical course of action. After all, you never let a crisis go by without using it to push something otherwise unpalatable and vile if you are a collectivist.

If we lived in a country of laws and had real leaders in power, this shit wouldn’t be allowed. Instead we have criminals running the show and their lackeys in the media covering for them. So the left now has staked their claim to the WH on another Obama: an immoral narcissist liar that feels they are owed the seat and that the ungrateful and unwashed masses should feel lucky to get the chance to vote for her.

Fuck the lot of you leftists. Especially those of you pretending that the people that are real problematic are the lightweights running from the opposite party. When it comes to being crooked, vile, and evil, you leftists make the fucking devil feel like he should be taking notes. A Clinton administration would be a continuation of the same abuses, lies, and despicable and conniving behaviors that have been the hallmark of the Obama administration, so I can see why the left thinks she is owed this job.

Rethinking Wilson

Students at what Amy Alkon aptly describes as “nursery schools with beer” continue to issue demands. Walter Olson compiles the most outrageous ones and John McWhorter, who has some experience with racism, address the broader issue. But one weird thing that’s come up at Princeton is the demand to acknowledge the racist legacy of Woodrow Wilson and remove his name from some buildings.

This may seem odd to some of you. Wilson is frequently rated as one of our greatest Presidents by historians. And just a few years ago, beating up on Wilson was regarded as right wing lunacy by no less than the New York Times. This, despite, as Radley Balko points out, Wilson having an awful awful record on race, civil liberties and executive power:

He dishonestly led us into a pointless, costly, destructive war, and assumed control over huge sectors of the economy to wage it. He seized railroads, food and energy production, and implemented price controls.

He suppressed dissent and imprisoned war critics. Said Wilson, “Conformity will be the only virtue. And every man who refuses to conform will have to pay the penalty.” He signed the Espionage and Sedition Acts, the latter of which made it a criminal offense to “oppose the cause of the United States.” He retaliated against critical newspapers, and directed the U.S. Postal Service to stop delivering mail determined to be critical of the war effort.

Wilson not only continued existing racial segregation of federal government workers, he extended it.

He instituted the first military draft since the Civil War.

He signed the first federal drug prohibition.

He reinstituted the federal income tax.

A few more, from Gene Healy’s book, The Cult of the Presidency:

Wilson believed in an activist, imperialist presidency. In his 1909 book Constitutional Government, he made the case against checks and balances and the separation of powers. The government, Wilson argued, is a living organism, and “no living thing can have its organs offset against each other as checks, and live.”

He ordered unconstitutional, unilateral military interventions into Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and Mexico. (He also oversaw military interventions in Panama and Cuba, and instituted American-favored dictators throughout Latin America.)

Wilson believed God ordained him to be president, and acted accordingly, boasting to one friend in 1913 that “I have been smashing precedents almost daily every since I got here.” Every president since Jefferson had given the State of the Union in writing. Wilson reinstituted what Jefferson derided as the “speech from the Throne,” and ordered Congress assembled to hear him speak, giving rise to the embarrassing spectacle the SOTU has become today.

He oversaw a massive domestic spying program, and encouraged American citizens to report one another for subversion.

Healy’s book is very good, incidentally. Wilson is a central figure, with a detailed analysis of his early writings wherein Wilson detailed exactly what he through the President should be and exactly what he tried to make him: a monarch.

And the students are right on thing: Woodrow Wilson was racist, even by the standards of his time. He praised the Klan. He made numerous racist statements. He refused to do anything about lynching. He re-segregated the government, which meant black federal employees got demotions, pay cuts and, in at least one case, were put in literal cages so they wouldn’t interact with white people.

And yet … historians still talk about how great he was because he was progressive and “lead” us through World War I and tried to broker a reasonable peace after the war. That’s all fine and dandy. No President is uniformly awful. But, when you include everything, Wilson was a bad President. A really bad one.

I’ve talked before about the tendency of historians to love Presidents who start wars and crush liberty and look down on Presidents who provide simple competent leadership:

As Boaz notes, the historians favor guys who make for interesting history books. Roosevelt, who turned his back on the plight of European Jews, interred the Japanese, ignored race issues and prolonged the Depression, ranks his usual #1. Teddy Roosevelt, a “progressive” who abused his power, expanded government and slimed the nation of Panama into existence, ranks #2. I have no quibble with some of the others. But ranking the racist, free-speech crushing Woodrow Wilson at #8 is ridiculous. Andrew Jackson was a lunatic who defied the Court to send thousands of Indians to die on the Trail of Tears. But he’s ranked 14th.

The list of Presidents historians regard as great includes the over-rated Harry Truman, the racist Woodrow Wilson, the murderous Andrew Jackson and the “OK, but what did he actually do?” JFK. Meanwhile, Presidents who expanded freedom, kept us out of wars and basically did their jobs are regard as, at beast, mediocre. Cleveland, Clinton, Harding, Coolidge, Bush I … these guys have generally been regarded as “meh” (although Reagan and Clinton have moved up in recent years). I had issues with Clinton and his accomplishments were mainly a result of having a Republican Congress. But ranking him below Wilson and Jackson is ridiculous. Say what you want about Clinton. He wasn’t a genocidal maniac or an unapologetic racist.

Returning to Wilson, let’s contrast him with his successor, Warren Harding, generally rated as one of the worst Presidents of all time. Warren G. Harding cleaned up much of the mess Wilson had left after the end of World War I, presided over an important arms reduction treaty, repaired some of the diplomatic damage Wilson had done in South America, cut taxes, embraced aviation and radio, promoted anti-lynching legislation and racial equality, released Wilson’s political prisoners and made solid SCOTUS appointments. The result was one of the most peaceful and prosperous decades in American history. He also increased tariffs, restricted immigration and had huge problems with corruption, so it wasn’t all roses. But, on balance, that’s a decent record and way better than Wilson or Jackson. He was very popular when he was in office and mourned around the world when he died. But historians literally regard him as the worst President of all time because of the corruption and his infidelities, problems that don’t seem to bother historians when they consider Clinton or Kennedy or Johnson.

In the end, I think historians tend to rate President by how interesting the books about them are. This goes double for any power-hungry President that Doris Kearns Goodwin has written an overlong (and possibly plagiarized) slavering hagiography of. This is one of the reasons I expect historians to start regarding Bush II in a better light one day. Historically, he’s the kind of liberty-crushing incompetent bumbler they like to write books about.

As for the Princeton business … I’m reluctant to whitewash history. However awful a President Wilson was, he was still a President and still played a huge role in making Princeton a premier institution. I’m fine with acknowledging his awful racist legacy. I’m less fine with pretending he never existed.

Clearing out the Tabs

A few things I don’t have time for a full post on:

Talking Turkey

Query: am I the only person in American who doesn’t have shouting political discussions at Thanksgiving? Passover, sure. When I was a kid, it wasn’t a real Passover until my Reagan Republican dad and his Roosevelt Democrat parents started talking about whether Walter Mondale was an idiot, a kook or a kooky idiot. But Thanksgiving?

The reason I ask this is that every liberal outlet on the planet is putting up some thinkpiece about “how to argue with your conservative relatives at Thanksgiving”. I’ve got news for liberals. If you’re constantly arguing politics over turkey, the problem is not them; it’s you.

Talking Turkeyshit

As you know, I’m in favor of admitting Syrian refugees, given proper vetting. But my own side is beginning to annoy the crap out of me with ever more ridiculous arguments. Viz:

Guns, Guns, Guns:

The Democrats have proposed that we ban gun sales to people who are on the terror watch list. Charles CW Cooke responds, pointing out that the terror list is an ad-hoc conglomeration of data, rumor and myth. No less than the ACLU oppose using it for … anything. There are hundreds of thousands of people on it for arbitrary or unknown reasons. And it’s hard to get off of it. And now the Democrats want to deprive citizens of a constitutional right based one it.

In times past, officials advocating the simultaneous undermining of a range of constitutional rights would have been tarred, feathered, and dumped into the sea, along with their staff, their press agents, and anyone else who saw fit to acquiesce in the scheme. A little of that spirit might be welcome here.

However the press might cast it, there are not in fact “two sides” to this issue. It is not a “tricky question.” It is not a “thorny one” or a “gray area” or a “difficult choice.” It is tyranny. Somewhere, deep down, its advocates must know this. Presumably, Chuck Schumer would not submit that those on a terror watch list should be deprived of their right to speak? Presumably, Harry Reid would not contend that they must be kept away from their mosques? Presumably, Diane Feinstein would not argue that they should be subjected to warrantless searches and seizures? Such proposals would properly be considered disgraceful — perhaps, even, as an overture to American fascism. Alas, there is something about guns that causes otherwise reasonable people to lose their minds.

As Cooke points out, people would go ape if we talked about suspending first Amendment rights for a million people because their name is on a list. The problem is that Democrats don’t see the Second Amendment as a fundamental civil liberty.

You should read the whole thing. It’a an awesome rant.

(And I’m working on Turkeys and Drumsticks post. A lot of Turkeys this year. Hard to sort them out.)

The Food Stamp Gambit

Recently, at one of Sal 11000 Beta’s events, we were asked to engage in an activity. We were told that the average food stamp benefit was about $150 per person per month, which works out to about $6 per meal for a family of four. We were then given a newspaper ad for a grocery store and asked if we could feed a family of four on a food stamp benefit. This is apparently a big thing now in social justice circles.

Of course, the food stamp benefit is supposed to be supplementary. You’re not usually required to feed a family on just that. For most of the poor, they have some additional cash they can devote to food.

But even with that, the exercise completely backfired. It didn’t persuade me that you couldn’t feed a family on food stamps; it persuaded me that you could. It became immediately obvious that if you bought food in bulk and concentrated on staples that $6 per meal was adequate. Granted, you couldn’t afford luxuries like deserts or soda. But, to paraphrase O’Rourke, the biblical injunction is to feed the hungry, not wine and dine them.

This shouldn’t have surprised me. We feed my family of four for about $800 a month and that’s with only some basic economization and a few luxuries. And one of the biggest problems the poor have right now is obesity, not hunger.

(The latter problem has been a problem for people saying we need to increase anti-poverty spending. It’s becoming increasingly difficult to argue that tens of millions of Americans are going hungry when obesity rates are highest among the poor. What they talk about now is “food insecurity”, or the stress of not being sure that they’ll have enough money/benefits to go around. That’s shifting the goal posts a bit.)

When faced with this, the social justice crowd turns the tables and says that, since luxury foods are a rare treat for food stamp families (as they should be) the real problem is “shaming” of people who buy them on food stamps.

Look, I think the current efforts to restrict food stamps so people can’t buy things like soda are a bit misguided. But it’s not ridiculous for the public to get a little up in arms about what is being bought on their dime. Food stamps are intended to keep people from going hungry, not to replace the food budget or create the kind of “food security” that comes with working. And while poor people shouldn’t be humiliated, being on the public’s dime should be associate with at least a little bit of shame. Shame is not a bad thing; it’s often what motivates people to do better. I know people who’ve spent some time on food stamps … middle class people who lost jobs or had some other crisis like a divorce. They did what was necessary but they also got off them as soon as they could. Why is that a bad thing?

Telling people there’s nothing wrong with being on food stamps or any other form of welfare has been a growing emphasis on the Left. But this doesn’t “empower” the poor; it disempowers them by asserting that they have no control over their life and no choice but to be on the dole.

If you are wondering how bad our country has become

Then you are not alone. Personally, as someone that has lived in many different countries and cultures, what I am seeing is America adapting the very things that I saw were so fucked up in these other countries and cultures that held them back. This country once was the place where success, hard work, character, and especially a dream that everyone, if they applied these things to themselves had a chance, defined us as a people. People in charge, even the people in politics, which tended to never really be the cream of the crop, accomplished things. Progress was not just a word, but the way of things.

Now the country is run by an unholy alliance of a bunch of credentialed scumbags – our new American aristocracy, with all the trappings and frailties of that very system our forefathers, now abhorred because they were white men, tried to hard to make sure could never come about here and fuck things up like they had in Europe – that feel we serfs don’t deserve them because we dare to resist their massive stupidity and idiotic ideas, and the select few ultra-rich people or giant corporate entities that these credentialed scumbags have decided to favor with monopolistic powers over others. That’s how we get them pissing away tax payer dollars enriching the special interests that push ludicrous and counter productive agendas like “green whateverthecuck” or trying to sell us serves on giving up our freedoms to save Gaia from a wholly manufactured global crisis. These select ultra-rich people and corporate entities have become richer than ever, while the rest of us are barely hanging on or even heading in the other direction. And that’s by design. These people want a 2 class society with them on top and the rest of us controlled by them, like the people they admired did back in the good ole USSR, China, Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, and other such hotbeds of collectivist delusion.

Things have gotten so bad since the collectivists took over the executive and legislative branches of government in the major campaign of delusion that happened in 2008, that we now have lived in a perpetual depression that the left pretends really is just about to end or ended, while those of us that work for a living see nothing of the sort. Through a long implemented indoctrination system that took over control of the education system, they have managed to brainwash way too many into tapping into envy and greed, allowing them to produce a class of people that feel empowered to suck at the government’s teat, allowing them to use the electoral process to buy votes with the very money they steal from the productive, and giving themselves a patina of legitimacy. And they despise the productive for not just going along .

Our government is now in the business of choosing winners & losers, and they make a pretty lucrative living doing that. It is time to go back to smaller, less intrusive, and definitely less of an elitist crowd that actually understands their job is to serve the people, not to fleece them like this criminal bunch does.