November 20, 2014

Still Making Things Up at the New Republic

Timothy Birdnow

Does anyone remember the name Stephen Glass? Glass was a former writer at the New Republic caught faking stories back in the late '90's. Forbes Online discovered that Glass had faked a story about hackers, and once that came out it became clear that virtually nothing the man wrote was true; 31 of his 42 NR stories were shown to be fraudulent. The New Republic fired Glass as a result - and the State of California denied him a licence to practice law for his lack of ethics. (Why? He would have made an outstanding trial lawyer with such ethics.)

Glass joined such luminaries as Jayson Blair of the New York Times, who was caught lying in more than 35 of his articles.

But the firing of Glass was not the end of the lies coming out of the New Republic. Here is just the latest

From the dishonest desk of Brian Beutler:

"By contrast, the right’s bid for control over the narrative is based on mythos and false piety and, now, the idea that the law itself lacks legitimacy. The challengers’ claims about the ACA’s meaning and intent are fabrications. Their appeals to humility are unctuous. And the law itself was hotly debated, passed by wide margins, signed, upheld by the Supreme Court, and ratified once again in a presidential election. It’s also working as intended. If Congress held every significant bill to the standards of openness that it applied to Obamacare, it would amount to a massive, massive increase in legislative transparency. That’s incontestable. And it makes the law as legitimate as laws get."

End excerpt.

This may as well be Stephen Glass writing these words; Congress barely passed the Affordable Care Act, and on a strict party-line votes. It passed 220 to 215 in the House and was passed in the Senate on Christmas Eve. It was passed illegally, too; the Senate took the House version and substituted their own bill, keeping the name only, then passed that. The House should have killed it by issuing what is known as a blue slip, killing the Senate version (since the House never actually voted on that bill) but Nancy Pelosi slammed the door shut on that. Bear in mind, all revenue bills must originate in the House, and Obamacare did not do that. Harry Reid originated the bill by substituting his own version then having the Senate vote. The House members never voted on this particular bill.

Andrew McCarthy explains:

"Contrary to Obama’s latest dissembling, the Supreme Court’s decision is far from an imprimatur. The president insisted that Obamacare was not a tax, famously upbraiding George Stephanopoulos of the Democratic-Media Complex for insolently suggesting otherwise. Yet, the narrow Court majority held that the mammoth statute could be upheld only as an exercise of Congress’s power to tax — i.e., contrary to Obama’s conscriptive theory, it was not within Congress’s commerce power to coerce Americans, as a condition of living in this country, to purchase a commodity, including health insurance.

Note the crucial qualifier: Obamacare could be upheld only as a tax. Not that Obamacare is necessarily a legitimate tax. To be a legitimate tax measure, Obamacare would have to have complied with all the Constitution’s conditions for the imposition of taxes. Because Democrats stubbornly maintained that their unilateral handiwork was not a tax, its legitimacy vel non as a tax has not been explored. Indeed, it is because Obamacare’s enactment was induced by fraud — a massive confiscation masquerading as ordinary regulatory legislation so Democrats could pretend not to be raising taxes — that the chief justice was wrong to rebrand it post facto and thus become a participant in the fraud.

We now know Obamacare was tax legislation. Consequently, it was undeniably a "bill for raising revenue,” for which the Constitution mandates compliance with the Origination Clause (Art. I, Sec. 7). The Clause requires that tax bills must originate in the House of Representatives. Obamacare did not."

End excerpt.

Which also puts the lie to Beutler's claim of transparency; Obama's people claimed this was a regulatory act, something authorized by the authority of Congress to promote the general welfare and was not a tax increase. Yet, when facing the Supreme Court, they said it was a tax, meaning that it should have been struck down by SCOTUS since it was a revenue bill and did not originate in the House of Representatives.

So much for transparency. So much for passing by a wide margin. It NEVER PASSED AT ALL in the House.

Beutler continues:

"Whatever the law’s supporters and authors claim about the intent and meaning of the statute, the right no longer needs a fact-based response. They can instead deny the existence of a basic truth about the law because as Gruber suggests, the law was designed to hide the truth about itself. The scheme to compel states to set up their own exchanges was just another crude mechanism hidden within the text—and when it failed, the Obama administration pretended it never existed. "

End excerpt.

Who is ignoring a fact-based response? There is nothing but fact here. The fact is the text of the law states unequivocally that the states, and the states alone, could set up the exchanges. Period. That is why so many states banned the exchanges in the first place (my home state of Missouri did, for example.) Without the exchanges there was no Obamacare. Yet Mr. Obama simply altered the law to suit himself. Beutler is engaged in as large a flight of fancy as Glass in Hacker Heaven.

Apparently Beutler doesn't remember the Cornhusker Kickback, or the Louisiana Purchase; Obama had to buy the votes of fence straddling Democrats to get this thing passed.

Beutler continues:

"to explain away a hugely controversial ruling.

That doesn’t mean the Court will reach that ruling. And it doesn’t mean the right alone is working the refs ahead of this case. But the claims the law’s supporters make about King—that it’s flimsy, that it’s a naked solicitation of judicial activism, that the stakes include the lives of people who have made irreversible treatment decisions based on a shared belief that their benefits were durable—are all true. For the most critical patients, the proposed bait and switch is akin to granting public land to worthy recipients without telling them the water supply's been poisoned."

End excerpt.

Judicial activism? When has that bothered a liberal like Beutler? And how is it activism for the court to strike down a law passed illegally and illegally modified when it did not comport with the President? Presidents do not have the right to change laws; only Congress can do that. They are Executives, the guys who implement and uphold the laws passed by Congress. Beutler seems mystified by this concept.

And he's making the appeal we knew was coming; this is a fait-accompli, move along! This is exactly what was said when Bill Clinton was impeached; his staunchest defender on the internet was actually named Move On, and they are still a major force in the Progressive blogosphere. The Left is ever gleeful to break down long-standing traditions but rage when someone tries to roll back their novelties.

If Beutler doesn't like that, then he and his chums should stop pressing for gay marriage, for transgendered bathrooms, for forcing the catholic Church to pay for birth control, any of these. Note that we never hear that this is established law and should be upheld.

Obamacare is helping few at the expense of the many, and Beutler has to know this. I myself lost my insurance thanks to the Affordable Care Act, and the Obamacare insurance is substandard, to say the least. I will probably lose THAT as well, and my health is poor. But I want to lose it, because I do not matter as much as the nation. I'll find a way to pay for my healthcare needs - the nation will ultimately crash from this.

They may call themselves new, but the New Republic is the same old tired liberal lies. Stephen Glass was a piker at this rag.

Hat tip: Jammie Wearing Fools

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:20 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1367 words, total size 9 kb.

The Bright Side to Amnesty

By Selwyn Duke

To many, the above title may seem much like speaking of the bright side to malignant cancer. And did it really come out of this writer’s pen? Long a staunch immigration critic, I’ve written many articles on the subject; Pat Buchanan used one of my lines in his book Death of the West; and Congressman John Conyers quoted me in the House on May 16, 2007,  HYPERLINK "" saying, "onservative commentator Selwyn Duke just yesterday inveighed against any immigration (legal or not). He warned, ‘eplace our population with a Mexican or Moslem one and you no longer have a Western civilization, you no longer have America. You have Mexico North or Iran West.’” (Conyers wasn’t exactly in agreement.) And, no, it’s not that a pod from outer space has taken over my body or, worse yet, that I’ve become a liberal. I inveigh against all immigration still. I still oppose amnesty in all forms and under all guises. Nonetheless, the latter would have, perhaps, a small bright side.

This cannot be understood without grasping that illegal migration is not the problem.
It is an exacerbation of the problem.

What does this mean? Aren’t the only problems posed by migration ones unique to the illegal variety, such as an uncontrolled entry into our country that can allow diseases, terrorists and WMDs to cross our borders?
The real problem — the only one that really matters over the long term — is that we are importing socialist-oriented voters with mindsets contrary to Western ideals. This is because of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (INA65), which created a situation wherein 85 percent of our new immigrants hail from the Third World and Asia. Moreover, the legislation has led to an increase in overall immigration from a historic average of 250,000 a year to approximately 1,000,000.

If you’re Obama and his fellow travelers and believe in "fundamentally” changing America, you love this because, upon being naturalized, approximately 80 percent of these newcomers will vote for you. You know Republicans get close to 90 percent of their votes from whites, so the formula for ideological conquest is simple: reduce the percentage of whites in America as much and as fast as possible. And INA65 certainly fits that bill. Non-Hispanic whites were close to 90 percent of the population in 1965.
Now they’re just under 63 percent.

And California is the model for the leftist hegemony in question. Once a solidly Republican state that launched Ronald Reagan to national prominence, it would not be carried by him in a presidential election today. The last time the state went Republican was 1988, when George H.W. Bush edged Michael Dukakis by four points. Since then no Democrat has carried the state by less than a double-digit margin; the best showing the GOP had was when it held Lurch-like John Kerry to 10 points. Obama won the state by 24 points in 2008 and 23 points in ’12. And in this year’s Republican wave election, it was considered an accomplishment that the GOP  HYPERLINK "" denied the Democrats supermajorities in CA’s legislative chambers.
Oh, did I mention that whites in CA are no longer even a plurality?

And here’s the reality:

Once the rest of the country looks like CA demographically, it will look like it politically.
This isn’t to say Republicans would disappear. They’d reinvent themselves as parties and politicians do, winning some elections by moving, to use our provisional terminology, "left.” It also must be mentioned that immigration isn’t the only factor in our decline; the media, academia and entertainment arena do a superb job fashioning leftist foot soldiers. And we should also note that with a world generally to the "left” of the US, it’s hard to imagine where we could find traditionalist immigrants; importing socialist Swedes, Germans and French is problematic as well. (A notable difference, however, is that while the latter assimilate into our more conservative white population, Hispanics often operate within America’s Hispanic milieu, which reinforces their socialist beliefs.)

Yet this is simply another reason why I adamantly oppose all (im)migration. When Ben Franklin famously answered the question of whether the 1787 Constitutional Convention had given us a republic or a monarchy by saying "A republic, if you can keep it,” there would have been no "ifs” about it if our nation had comprised mainly monarchical Englishmen. So the message here is simply a statement of the obvious: foreigners cannot be relied upon to preserve authentic Americanism because they’re not American. Full stop.

This is especially true when they harbor deep-seated un-American ideologies, hail from non-Western cultures and enter a multiculturalism-infected land that tells them "When in Rome…feel free to do as Ostrogoths would do.”

Despite this, most conservatives don’t get it. Imbued with what I’ve termed " HYPERLINK "" immigrationism” and Proposition Nation pap, they’re very diligent about conserving the Immigration and Nationality Act status quo. An example that will shock many is Senator Ted Cruz, who last year  HYPERLINK "" proposed not only increasing the number of "high-skilled temporary workers fivefold” — as if there aren’t high-skilled Americans looking for jobs — but, unbelievably, also the doubling of legal immigration (the relevant portion of the  HYPERLINK "" video starts at 3:27).

Given that Cruz seems like a good man, I’ll just assume he’s out to lunch (in Tijuana) on this issue. But let’s be clear: if you had to pick your poison and choose just one culture-rending policy, a giant amnesty one year would be preferable to a giant legal-immigration increase applicable every year.

So what’s the bright side to amnesty? The well-known metaphor about a frog in a frying pan of water tells us that since frogs can’t sense incremental temperature changes, a very low flame under that pan may mean the creature will remain fixed in his position until he boils to death. In contrast, turn the burner up high enough and he’ll jump out and save himself.

Along with our many other problems, "Americans” (insofar as they still exist) are enduring the slow boil of cultural and demographic genocide. And executive amnesty, as with other kinds of leftist overreach, just may serve to turn that flame up high and rouse people from their torpor.
Yet this is the dimmest of bright sides, a 1-in-50 shot whose mention is mainly valuable in service to a larger point: we do need fundamental change. We need a revolution of mind, heart and spirit in which we return to our Christian foundation and dispense with moral relativism and all its corollaries — of which cultural relativism is one. Related to this, John Jay wrote in Federalist No. 2:

Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people — a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs….

The "American experiment” was never meant to be one in which we could learn if, for the first time in history, a nation could intensely balkanize itself and — by rebranding it "diversity” — survive.

I do not believe the US will survive long in its present form. And when chroniclers finally write The Rise and Fall of the American Republic, they may record that the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 was the most destructive legislation in her history, a turning point from which there was no turning back.

HYPERLINK "" Contact Selwyn Duke,  HYPERLINK "" follow him on Twitter or log on to  HYPERLINK ""

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:39 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1275 words, total size 9 kb.

Impeach Obama

Joseph Dalton Leatherwood

The purpose of Congress is to oust a lawless president; it is their duty because such action is central to the Framers’ design of our governing system.

Abuse of the executive’s power over immigration enforcement now belongs in this category of maladministration that impeachment alone can counter.

...short of credibly threatening impeachment, Congress and the courts can neither compel a president to enforce the laws nor stop him from using his plenary pardon authority to grant a sweeping amnesty.

...(a) impeachment is not a criminal-law process but a political one; (b) ... the constitutional problem was not Obama’s policies ... but his unconstitutional manner of imposing them, with which everyone should disagree; and (c) ... the goal of highlighting presidential lawlessness should not be to impeach the president but to revive impeachment as the credible threat that the Framers intended it to be — the idea is to try to bend Obama into honoring his oath to execute the laws faithfully, such that the political case for impeachment would become viable but resorted to only if Obama remained defiant.

... the best thing for the country would be for Obama to finish his term as a law-abiding president but that the country would be endangered if he chose to remain obstinately lawless — something that could not be ignored without grave consequences.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:37 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 227 words, total size 1 kb.

November 19, 2014

Hal Rogers Trick to Let Obama do Amnesty

Timothy Birdnow

Some conservatives are getting on-board with the GOP's House Appropriations boss hog, Hal Rogers, who is proposing passing an omnibus spending bill and then, after the new Congress settles in, rescinding funding for agencies designed to implement Obama's executive amnesty.

In other words, give him what he wants now and take it back.

Quinn Hillyer demolishes this sophistry at The Corner.

From the article:

"Several reports are emerging that appropriations chairman Hal Rogers and others are floating the possibility of passing a clean omnibus appropriations bill now and then later "rescinding” the funds that could be used by Obama to implement his amnesty plans. This is sheer and utter nonsense. Balderdash. Tommyrot. And Rogers darn well knows it. Whereas withholding funds for a particular purpose in a larger approps bill at least in theory puts the onus on the president to decide whether it’s worth vetoing the whole bill in order to save the one part, rescissions do just the opposite — and they play entirely into the president’s hands.

In a rescission, Congress is trying to withdraw funds that already have been signed into law. All it takes to block the rescission is a presidential veto — which, it must be noted, is an easy call for him. Absent some pressing motive, his easy answer is to veto it in two seconds flat. After all, he would no longer be needing to choose between that program and all the others in the bill; instead, he would already have his program in hand — so why should he sign the bill taking away what he already has?

It’s sheer lunacy.

What’s astonishing is that some members seen not to understand this basic, obvious, simple fact of lawmaking."

End excerpt.

Hillyer points out that, yes, the GOP pushed this off on Bill Clinton in the '90's, but only because Clinton was in such political trouble that he had no choice but to sign the recscission.

A President MUST sign the rescission or be overriden; Rogers is lying when he says the bill does not require the Prez signiature.

The Heritage Foundation agrees.

This is really idiotic; it means giving Obama the money to fund amnesty and then trying to take it away after the fact. A fait-accompli is always extremely difficult to overturn, especially in politics. This is like trying to get the money back after a bank has been robbed.

Rogers is a staunch amnesty advocate. His donors also stand to make an enormous profit from amnesty.

And why must we have an omnibus spending bill? Why should Congress hand over their power of the purse, when the Democrats relied on continuing resolutions?

This thing stinks.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 03:39 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 459 words, total size 4 kb.

Fishy Cosby Rape Story

Jack Kemp

Websites have speculated that the Cosby rape stories are liberal payback for his "learn the language and get a job" remarks. This woman's accusation reinforces that opinion. Cosby was already a big star (a deep pockets easy target if it were true) and feminism was a significant force when she claims this happened.

Here's her quote from the NY Post, followed by my questions:

The former "America’s Next Top Model” judge is the latest woman to come forward with allegations of being attacked by Cosby years ago.
Dickinson told "Entertainment Tonight”Tuesday she was summoned by Cosby to Lake Tahoe to discuss a role on "The Cosby Show” and so he could advise her on "a singing career.”

But the meeting took a disturbing turn, she claims, after the comic legend offered her a glass of wine and a pill. "The next morning I woke up, and I wasn’t wearing my pajamas,” she told "ET.”


Do you know any woman, particularly a beautiful model, who would unskeptically take an offer of a pill from some guy she just met? Most of the real stories of date rape drugs involve the pill being dissolved into a drink and the woman not knowing about it beforehand. Here is a woman saying that she KNOWINGLY took this date rape drug pill. Either that she is assuming she was slipped a drug without going to a hospital the next day to have her blood contents tested - so she had and has no proof now. She mentioned she was going through drug detox at the time, so how does she know THAT didn't make her sleepy? If there were any truth to this, since Cosby was then a wealthy man, she could have gone to a hospital to get her blood tested and later sued him.

The model says they had dinner in her room. What woman would invite a millionaire to her room to discuss business. Couldn't she had suggested that Cosby buy her lunch or a cup of coffee in a public place? What exactly did she think was the message she was sending by inviting him to her room (her words on "Entertainment Tonight")? This story has more holes than a Swiss cheese.

As is, the model's story could be entirely made up. But for the sake of argument let's briefly assume it has some truth. Can you imagine her on a witness stand? What's her defense when cross examined? From the linked-to Entertainment Tonight story, it states:

"Dickinson says they had dinner in Lake Tahoe, and claims that he gave her a glass of red wine and a pill, which she asked for because she was menstruating and had stomach pains."


Some story. Did she now think that Cosby was, in fact, REALLY Dr. Huxtable - a character he played on tv - and carried pills on him to relieve menstrual cramps? If she asked him to take a pill out of her purse, wouldn't she recognize a pill different from the ones prescribed to her? Or was she claiming Cosby carried various shape and size rape drug pills on him in case some woman would ask him for a pill? You've heard of the "Reasonable Man Defense" in law. How about the "Reasonable Woman" argument used BY Cosby AGAINST her? Do you know any 21 year old - your sister or cousin at that age, for example - who would just trust some strange man to gave them an unknown pill? No wonder this accusation never went to trail. Even Gloria Allred didn't take this case decades ago. This case is thinner than the dubious accusations against Herman Cain. This story has legs as a rumor for the "Dumb and Dumber" crowd, but it has no basis as a court case.

To quote Justice Clarence Thomas, this is a high tech lynching.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 02:41 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 654 words, total size 5 kb.

Senate Rejects Bill to Rein in NSA Surveillance

Timothy Birdnow

After a cloture vote in the U.S. Senate, the USA Freedom Act went down in flames.

This act was intended to curb the abuses of the intelligence community, particularly to end the PRISM metadata collection practices of the NSA. The vote on this bill went largely along party lines, with just a few Republicans supporting it. (Sen. Ted Cruz was one.) Here is the roll call vote.

Our Progressive friends at Communist, er, Common Dreams have made much hay over this, and yet they conveniently ignore the fact that this bill originated in the House of Representatives, a body controlled by the GOP. Its author was James Sensebrenner, the author of the Patriot Act. This is hardly a Republican plot to subvert the Constitution.

Many of the original supporters of the act bailed on it after the Democrats got through amending it. One of the major amendments to this bill was to not end the collection of data but to shift it from the government to a mandate placed on the service providers. This would have greatly increased costs to consumers.

Another amendment made it possible for the NSA and other agencies to collect data on "reasonable articulable suspicion" set before a judge, meaning that if they want it they can get it - up to two degrees of seperation, meaning they can tap someone who has been speaking to someone who has been speaking to a suspicious character.

The House bill was highly criticized by the Senate Democrats, and Patrick Leahy offered his own bill. The Democrats certainly had a point; the bill did little to end mass surveillance.

Here is the bill that was just defeated.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 291 words, total size 2 kb.

Russia and the Trans-Caspian Gas Pipeline

Vashakmadze 01
Image courtesy of Democracy and Freedom Watch.

Timothy Birdnow

The Russian foreign minister is warning Western countries that they may take action to stop the trans-Caspian natural gas pipeline to the Ukraine.

From Itar-Tass:

"The project of delivering Turkmen natural gas to Ukraine falls into the category of economic undertakings that affect Russia’s interests, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on Wednesday.
© ITAR-TASS/Mikhail Metzel

Real breakthrough reached at 4th Caspian summit — Putin

"We proceed from the fact that each country has the right to choose economic partners, given the understanding that this process does not violate the legitimate interests of its neighbors,” the foreign minister said in the lower house of Russia’s parliament.

"The project of the trans-Caspian gas pipeline falls into the category of projects that affect the interests of the countries that do not participate in the talks on its creation,” Lavrov said."

End excerpt.

Given that Vladimir Putin has already attacked a sovereign nation over a natural gas and oil pipelines (Georgia) and has been willing to invade the eastern part of Ukraine, one wonders what action is hinted at here?

Russia's propsperity is tied to it's production of oil and gas, and dominating the flow of oil and gas to the West has been the cornerstone of Russian geopolitical strategy. Fracking is catastrophic from the Russian perspective as is any new source of energy that bipasses Russia or her allies. It CANNOT be permitted. They can't stop Fracking in the U.S. except through diplomacy (which means they will support and likely even finance opposition to it on environmental grounds) but they can stop a pipeline running along their southern border.

Keep an eye on this; it could become a major issue in the near future.

Turkmenistan has one of the richest gas reserves in the world, but has trouble getting that gas to viable markets. China is too far, India and Pakistan require a pipeline throught the Himalayas, through a war-torn region. Their only option is to get it to Turkey and Europe, and the Russians are adamant this not occur.

This from the center for energy economics:;_ylu=X3oDMTEzMThkOG9kBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNwRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dGlkA1ZJUDUwNF8x/RV=2/RE=1416431993/RO=10/

The Trans-Caspian Gas Pipeline (TCGP) project was initiated in 1997. It is a 750-mile
pipeline system that was planned to transport natural gas from Turkmenistan to markets in
Turkey at first and Europe eventually. It was planned to be developed by a consortium of
Amoco and a new pipeline joint venture owned by affiliates of GE Capital and Bechtel
Enterprises (PSG), and later joined by Shell. The estimated cost of developing the pipelines
was around $2.4 billion and the term of construction was 3 years. The TCGP was to include
engineering, design, procurement and construction of a gas pipeline from Western
Turkmenistan, going across the Caspian Sea and ending at a point near Baku in Azerbaijan.
It will then continue across Azerbaijan and Georgia to Erzurum in Turkey, where it will be
linked into the principal Turkish gas transportation grid, a route similar to that of the Baku-
Ceyhan oil pipeline into northeastern Turkey. The planned capacity was to be 30 billion
cubic feet (840 million cubic meters) a year. The legal grounds for the project were laid
down by a Framework Declaration signed by the presidents of Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan,
Georgia and Turkey in November 1999. The Declaration was also signed as a witness by
U.S. President Bill Clinton to demonstrate the U.S. commitment to support the pipeline
construction. Working with BOTAŞ, the Turkish national pipeline company, Bechtel has
completed technical and economic feasibility studies for the project.

Russia and Iran opposed the TCGP for the same reason – building the pipeline would divert
Turkmenistan from using their pipelines systems, thus the dependence will be decreased.
Turkey favored this pipeline just as much as any other pipeline that could be built sooner
and could start transmission of gas to its market.

End excerpt.

Russia went to war against Georgia before. How long wil they tolerate this attempt to bipass them?

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:34 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 672 words, total size 5 kb.

Stl. Mayor Slay Surrenders to Rioter Demands over Ferguson

Ferguson Protesters Give Police List of Pre-Riot Demands | The ...
Timothy Birdnow

According to the Gateway Pundit, the Hon. Francis Slay, Mayor of St. Louis and the man who flipped the Missouri Constitution and the Missouri People the bird by authorizing the marriage of homosexuals in the city despite a Constitutional ban, has surrendered to the demands of the mob of Street Thugs for Vengence for Michael Brown.

According to Jim Hoft:!

"Posted by Jim Hoft on Tuesday, November 18, 2014, 7:56 PM

St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay released a letter tonight regarding preparations for the grand jury decision in St. Louis County.

Mayor Slay's letter to aldermanic Public Safety Committee re preparations for grand jury decision in St. Louis

— Chris King (@chriskingstl) November 18, 2014


Mayor Slay was happy to announce that local police agreed to half of the proposed rules put forth by the protesters.

The Mayor also said local police would honor safe houses and will consider churches to be sanctuaries.

End excerpt.

Here are those "rules":

1. A swift and impartial investigation by the Department of Justice into the Mike Brown shooting, and expanded DOJ investigation into civil rights violations across North St. Louis County.
2. The immediate arrest of Officer Darren Wilson
3. County prosecutor Bob McCulloch to stand down and allow special prosecutor to be appointed.
4. The firing of Ferguson Police Chief Tom Jackson.
5. Accountability for police practices and policies, including effective civilian review of shootings and allegations of misconduct.
6. The immediate de-escalation of militarized policing of protestors to protect constitutional rights.
7. The immediate release of individuals who have been arrested while attending a protest.

The fastest way to energize a revolutionary movement - or a riot - is to cave to demands under pressure. Slay shows he is beyond ignorant by trying to give these people what they want. Didn't he ever read about Hitler?

Safe houses and church sanctuaries are breaking the law, and to make this promise as does our dear Mayor is to encourage further lawbreaking. I ask, wouuld I be given sanctuary if I burned a bag of dog poop on the Mayor's lawn? Somehow I doubt he'd accept my claim to sanctuary, and yet he will offer it to rioters.

It's time for a challenge to our good Mayor here.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:53 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 389 words, total size 5 kb.

November 18, 2014

Refutation of Global Warming

Wil Wirtanen forwards this outstanding refutation of Global Warming:

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 11:23 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.

High Legal Immigration Makes Second Class Citizens of Native Born Americans

Timothy Birdnow

Writing in American Thinker Thomas Lifson argues for streamlined legal immigration.

Mr. Lifson argues:

"In this position, I differ from the views of my colleague Selwyn Duke, whose article today argues that immigration weakens the United States, and despairs of the problems inherent to the Nationality Act of 1965, as if no fundamental restructuring along the lines currently followed by Canada and Australia is conceivable. Those two Anglosphere siblings of the United States give preferences to educated and prosperous immigrants who can add value to their economies, and are the most receptive to immigration among Western nations precisely because they are benefiting from the immigrants they let in.

A member of Congress recently told a group I was in that he spoke with an official in the Canadian embassy who only half-jokingly pleaded with him to not allow the United States to change its immigration policy, because if we did something rational along Canada’s lines, we would lure away the sort of immigrants Canadians so powerfully benefit from. The United States is unquestionably the most attractive nation for strivers to seek to enter. While both Canada and Australia are fine places with wonderful people, neither offers the scope and variety that America can offer.

A cursory look at the Silicon Valley workforce makes the point that highly educated immigrants are vital to the success of the high tech sector that currently powers America’s economy. Those who claim that jobs are merely being taken away from qualified American tech workers by low-paid temporary workers are mistaken. A study fifteen years ago found that one quarter of the firms in the Silicon Valley area were run by CEOs of Chinese or Indian origin, and the portion today likely is even higher.

There is a phenomenon that has proven a serious harm to many of the countries of Western Europe and to Japan: what some people call the "rich country disease.” Children who grow up in affluence, or who are raised with a sense of entitlement, tend to lose their edge, their energy, and their aggressive pursuit of success in dismaying numbers. Social welfare programs only aggravate this problem.

Immigrants who come here for the opportunity we offer suffer from no such ailment, and they provide a bracing dose of competition for Americans who might be tempted to slack off."

End excerpt.

I beg to differ. My own life experiences contradict this claim.

I started college in 1983 at St. Louis University, not an ivy league school by any stretch but a solid Jesuit-run institution with a solid pedigree. Not sure of what I wanted to do I drifted into the history program (I took enough courses simply out of interest and decided it was worth majoring in) and in the Russian Program. It occured to me that, given the Cold War, a guy who knew Russian history and who had at least an ability to read the language would be highly desirable in the job market at that time. I majored in history and received a certificate in Russian Scientific Translation, and was just short of getting a double major with an Eastern Area Studies certificate (I needed a course in the philosophy of Marxism and Leninism, but the professor went on sabbatical and I didn't want to re-enroll just for that one class.) I graduated with what should have been a very marketable degree.

But history was not on my side; where in 1983 Ronald Reagan was building up our military in response to the Soviets, and the Cold War was as hot as it ever had been by 1987 the U.S. was at the point of victory. The U.S.S.R. had been around since 1917 and it chose to collapse right when I got out of school.

That was my classic luck.

So here I was, a young man with a degree that offered little promise. I began sending out resumes, hoping to find some sort of a job.

It never happened. I worked for years in dead-end jobs at nominal wages; grocery store clerk, bill collector, bread truck driver. I finally was hired to work for a property management company, a small family affair who hired me because, while I was overqualified, I was also willing to work for the pay they offered. They were looking for someone with a brain, at any rate.

But what galled me through the years was the fact that I rarely got a second look from most employers of any note; they were more interested in women, in minorities, in immigrants. A white man with a more classically-oriented education and a somewhat obscure linguistics training was not worthy of a rejection letter, much less an interview.

I wasn't alone in this; my brother Brian pursued his Ph.D. in American history, and he hoped to be a professor - something he was born to do. He had considerable teaching experience and was given superlative marks by his students. He has written several books. But he cannot get past adjunct, because he teaches AMERICAN history and academia wants feminist studies or lesbian follklore or some other such imbecilic nonsense. After years of pursuing the chimera of academia, Brian remains a field hand in the scholastic plantation, ever laboring to just survive despite being far more qualified than the people who wind up getting the jobs he applies to fill. Many of the winners are immigrants.

So no, I do not think it necessary to go outside of the American People to find willing and capable employees.

There's a reason why a quarter of the firms in Silicone Valley are run by Chinese or Indians, and that is the same reason why Silicon Valley is a huge supporter of the Democrats and the welfare state. The two are interlinked.

There is a bias against American workers in this country, and it is compounded by an unwillingness on the part of corporate America to train people for the top jobs. They want to hire someone who already knows how to do the job, someone who will just walk in and take over. This is understandable but it is ultimately not in America's interest nor in the interest of the company; what happens when the Chinese boss leaves (and possibly steals secrets in the process?) American firms aren't building a bench, prefering to simply import help as a quick and easy solution. But is a company served by hiring a competent manager to supervise incompetent underlings? Is it not better to train people who can step in whenever the need may arise?

This mindset has come about because of political correctness. Companies know they will have to hire and promote incompetents because of race or sex or ethnicity or religion or sexual orientation, and they don't want to be in a position where they have to promote some guy who is well above his competency level even higher. So they make a practice of hiring the top management from outside, the further the better, and thus create a ceiling that stops the affirmative action hires from getting into a position where they can do real harm. Of course, this means that for people such as myself or my brother competent people can never get their foot in the door to begin with.

And this internationalizing of corporations means they lose their "American" character, become more concerned with profits and with their world citizenship than with the country that created and fostered them. America becomes, well, a liability to a company run by foreigners. If the chance comes to move out of the U.S. to a better deal they will take it, where an American CEO may think twice because he would be leaving the homeland.

Bringing in skilled foreigners may seem like a good idea, but in the end it hurts America, makes us second-class citizens in our own country.

America is full, no vacancy. How many people are we going to bring in? When a motel has rented all it's rooms it turns on the no vacancy sign. America, on the other hand, keeps making people double up.

There is a point where cheap foreign labor, be it high tech or picking grapes, becomes a liability. We have passed that point.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:09 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1387 words, total size 8 kb.

Ultimate Schadenfreude: Democrat is Twice Bitten, Not Shy

By Selwyn Duke

There’s stupid. There’s really stupid. There’s really, really stupid.
Then there’s Democrat stupid.

A prime example is a Friday Wall Street Journal article titled "This Democrat Is Giving Up on ObamaCare.” It’s  HYPERLINK "" penned by one Burke Beu, someone I describe as "ethnically Democrat,” as he says "I grew up in a Democratic family. I have been a registered Democrat since age 18.” He also tells us, " a Democratic candidate for statewide office in Colorado and a party precinct captain in that caucus state. I’ve volunteered for numerous Democratic candidates and contributed to party causes and campaigns. The 2014 election results were extremely disappointing for me….”

And, of course, Mr. Beu has soured on ObamaCare. In fact, he wants it repealed. All good so far. Except that he doesn’t have any explicitly harsh words for Obama, hasn’t given up on his party, wants a single-payer system and seems to believe Hillary Clinton is the solution in 2016. (Note: In fairness, Clinton is different from Obama — she has two X chromosomes.) But here are the money lines:
I voted for  HYPERLINK "" Barack Obama in 2008, then lost my job in the Great Recession. I was lucky; my brother lost his job and his house. I survived on part-time jobs while paying out-of-pocket for my health insurance.

I voted for President Obama again in 2012, then received a cancellation notice for my health insurance. This was due to ObamaCare, the so-called Affordable Care Act. However, I couldn’t afford anything else.
Does this guy wear a "Kick me” sign?

He wears a "Kick me harder” sign.

There’s a saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.” What do you say about a guy whose life consists of being fooled?

Beu believes Medicare should be "a model for health-care reform” and says "We Democrats need to get over ourselves, start anew on a national health-care policy, and return to our progressive principles.”
Actually, sir, you need to get over your party.
First, "progressive principles” is an oxymoron; liberals don’t have principles, but provisional positions. This is because they’re governed by emotion, which changes with the wind. As G.K. Chesterton put it, "Progress is a comparative of which we have not settled the superlative.” No, I won’t explain that, Mr. Beu. You figure it out.

Beu also mentions the "stupidity of the American voter” remark by ObamaCare designer Jonathan Gruber, taking umbrage and saying "Such comments…are insults to every citizen regardless of party.” So Goober is offended by Gruber.

And Beu is one of those very "useful” people. He doesn’t get that elitist snobbery and superciliousness define the left. Just think of the revelations about socialist French president François Hollande, who is "a cold, cynical cheat and a Socialist who ‘doesn’t like the poor,’”  HYPERLINK "" writes National Post about insights provided by the leftist’s ex-girlfriend Valérie Trierweiler. "He presents himself as the man who doesn’t like the rich. In reality, the president doesn’t like the poor” and in private calls them "the toothless ones,” reports Trierweiler. Oh, too anecdotal? "Hell hath no fury like that of a woman scorned”? Then read the 2008  HYPERLINK "" \l "ixzz3J0qLYU00" piece "Don't listen to the liberals — Right-wingers really are nicer people, latest research shows.” It relates what some of us without "Kick me” signs figured out for ourselves long ago.

Beu also says, when pointing out that Democrats need to exhibit humility and admit error on ObamaCare, "We resent Republicans who act morally superior and pretend to have a monopoly on patriotism, but….”
It’s not pretense, Bucko. As  HYPERLINK "" this Pew poll from this summer shows, while 72 percent of "steadfast conservatives” and 81 percent of "business conservatives” "often feel proud to be American,” only 40 percent of "solid liberals” do. That, Mr. Beu, is by liberals’ own admission. (Pew also has a category in the poll called "Faith and Family Left.” I’ve never heard of such a thing — unless it refers to faith in government and the family of the person the liberal is cheating on his spouse with.)

Note also that when liberals and conservatives don’t feel proud to be American, it’s for very different reasons. Liberals don’t like what America was, was meant to be, and what they often imagine it to be ("We’re so Puritan!”); conservatives don’t like the cesspool the liberals are turning it into.

I know schadenfreude isn’t a feeling reflective of a charitable spirit, but the best I can say about the Beus of the world is that they need tough love. Mr. Beu reminds me of a guy who’s being held by the back of the neck, is being repeatedly and violently kicked, and complains about how something needs to be done about the foot. Tend to the foot. Regulate the foot. Repeal the foot.
Mr. Beu, that foot happens to be attached to a man, a being with intellect and free will. And he is not your friend.

 HYPERLINK "" Contact Selwyn Duke,  HYPERLINK "" follow him on Twitter or log on to  HYPERLINK ""

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:57 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 870 words, total size 6 kb.

EPA’s next regulatory tsunami

Paul Driessen

President Obama and his EPA appear to be thoroughly un-chastened by the midterm elections – and more determined than ever to impose their executive and regulatory agendas, from immigration to climate change and ozone. As my article points out, the much lower ground-level ozone standards that EPA is about to propose could cost the US economy a whopping $1 trillion per year and kill 7.3 million jobs by 2020, for what many experts say would be no measurable health benefits … and many adverse health effects.

Just as bad, the proposed standards are the product of yet another collusive sue-and-settle lawsuit – this one involving the American Lung Association, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club and EPA. That’s the clever but sleazy tactic in which agitator groups meet with government officials behind closed doors and agree on new rules or standards. The agency then conveniently misses a deadline, "forcing” the activists to sue. That leads to a court hearing (from which impacted parties are excluded), and a judgment "forcing” the agency to issue new regulations – and even pay the agitators’ attorney fees!

My article examines this practice and its harmful results in detail – and offers solutions that the new Republican Congress might want to consider.

EPA’s next regulatory tsunami

Trillions of dollars in ozone compliance and economic stagnation costs, for fabricated benefits

Paul Driessen

Looming Environmental Protection Agency ozone regulations personify the Obama administration’s secrecy, collusion, fraud, and disdain for concerns about the effects that its tsunami of regulations is having on the livelihoods, living standards, health and welfare of millions of American families.

Virtually every EPA announcement of new regulations asserts that they will improve human health. Draconian carbon dioxide standards, for example, won’t just prevent climate change, even if rapidly developing countries continue emitting vast volumes of this plant-fertilizing gas. The rules will somehow reduce the spread of ticks and Lyme disease, and protect "our most vulnerable citizens.” It’s hogwash.

But Americans naturally worry about pollution harming children and the poor. That makes it easy for EPA to promulgate regulations based on false assumptions and linkages, black-box computer models, secretive collusion with activist groups, outright deception, and supposedly "scientific” reports whose shady data and methodologies the agency refuses to share with industries, citizens or even Congress.

It was only in May 2012 that EPA decided which US counties met new 2008 ozone standards that cut allowable ground-level ozone levels from 80 parts per billion to 75 ppb. Now EPA wants to slash allowable levels even further: to 70 or even 60 ppb, equivalent to 70 or 60 seconds in 32 years.

The lower limits are essential, it claims, to reduce smog, human respiratory problems and damage to vegetation. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy says a 600-page agency staff report strongly recommends this reduction, and her Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee agrees. They all say the lower limits are vital for protecting public health, especially "at-risk populations and life stages.” Her decision will ultimately involve "a scientific judgment” and will "keep people safe,” Ms. McCarthy assures us.

Under terms of a convenient federal court settlement, EPA must issue its proposed new standards by December 1 of this year, and make a final decision by October 2015. The process will be "open and transparent,” with "multiple opportunities” for public hearings and comment throughout, she promised.

EPA has offered little transparency, honesty or opportunity for fair hearings and input by impacted parties thus far, and we should expect none here. But other problems with this proposal are much more serious.

If the 60 ppb standard is adopted, 85% of all US counties would likely become "non-attainment” areas, making it difficult to establish new industrial facilities or expand existing plants. Even in Big Sky, clean-air Wyoming, Teton County could be out of compliance – mostly due to emissions from pine trees!

A Manufacturers’ Alliance/MAPI study calculated that a 60 ppb ozone standard would cost the US economy a whopping $1 trillion per year and kill 7.3 million jobs by 2020. A Louisiana Association of Business and Industry and National Association of Manufacturers study concluded that a 60 ppb rule would penalize the state $189 billion for compliance and $53 billion in lost gross domestic product between 2017 and 2040. That’s $10 billion per year in just one state.

But the standard would save lives, EPA predictably claimed, citing 2009 research directed by University of California-Berkeley School of Public Health Professor Michael Jerrett. The study purportedly tracked 448,000 people and claimed to find a connection between long-term ozone exposure and death.

Other researchers sharply criticized Jerrett’s work. His study made questionable assumptions about ozone concentrations, did not rely on clinical tests, ignored the findings of other studies that found no significant link between ground-level ozone and health effects, and failed to gather critically important information on the subjects’ smoking patterns, they pointed out. When they asked to examine his data, Jerrett refused.

Michael Honeycutt, chief toxicologist for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, says Jerrett and EPA exaggerate health risks from ozone. The Texas Public Policy Foundation told EPA the agency needs to consider "the totality of studies on this issue, rather than giving exclusive weight to a single study,” the foundation emphasized. Unfortunately, EPA almost always focuses on one or two analyses that support its regulatory agenda – and ignores any that might slow or derail its onrushing freight train.

Even worse, those lost jobs and GDP result in major impacts on the lives, livelihoods, liberties, living standards, health, welfare and life spans of millions of Americans. And yet, EPA steadfastly refuses to consider these regulatory impacts: for ozone, carbon dioxide, soot, mercury and other rules.

Then there is the matter of outright deception, collusion and fraud at EPA, via these and other tactics.

One such tactic is sue-and-settle lawsuits. Agitator groups meet with EPA officials behind closed doors and agree on new rules or standards. The agency then conveniently misses a deadline, "forcing” the activists to sue. That leads to a court hearing (from which impacted parties are excluded), and a judgment "forcing” the agency to issue new regulations – and even pay the agitators’ attorney fees! American Lung Association, NRDC, Sierra Club and EPA sue-and-settle collusion resulted in the new ozone proposal.

This clever sue-and-settle tactic was devised by none other than John Beale – the con artist who’s now in prison for bilking taxpayers out of $1 million in salary and travel expenses for his mythical second job as a CIA agent. It defies belief to assume his fraudulent propensities did not extend to his official EPA duties as senior policy advisor with his boss and buddy Robert Brenner, helping Ms. McCarthy and her Office of Air and Radiation develop and implement oppressive regulations. Indeed, his own attorney says he had a "dysfunctional need to engage in excessively reckless, risky behavior” and "manipulate those around him through the fabrication of grandiose narratives.” A US Senate report details the sleazy practice.

As to the "experts” who claim lower ozone limits are vital for protecting public health, there’s this.

The American Lung Association supports the EPA health claims – but neglects to mention that EPA has given the ALA $24.7 million over the past 15 years. Overall, during this period, the ALA received $43 million via 591 federal grants, and Big Green foundations bankrolled it with an additional $76 million. But no one is supposed to question the ALA’s credibility, integrity or support for EPA "science.”

EPA also channels vast sums to its "independent” Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, which likewise rubberstamps the agency’s pollution claims and regulations. Fifteen CASAC members received over $181 million since 2000. CASAC excludes from its ranks industry and other experts who might question EPA findings. Both EPA and CASAC stonewall and slow-walk FOIA requests and deny requests for correction and reconsideration. Even congressional committees get nowhere.

As Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), Chairman of the House on Science, Space and Technology Committee, noted in a letter, 16 of the 20 CASAC members who "peer-reviewed” the ozone studies also helped to write the studies. That makes it even less likely that their reviews were "independent.”

That Senate report, The Chains of Environmental Command, also notes that the Obama EPA has been deliberately packed with far-left environmental activists who work with their former Big Green colleagues to shape policy. They give radical groups critical insider access and also funnel millions of taxpayer dollars through grants to their former organizations, often in violation of agency ethics rules.

These arrogant, unelected, unaccountable, deceitful, dictatorial elites think they have a right to impose ozone, carbon dioxide, ObamaCare and other diktats on us, "for our own good.” They are a primary reason American businesses and families are already paying $1.9 trillion per year to comply with mountains of federal regulations – $353 billion of these costs from EPA alone. The damage to jobs, livelihoods, liberties, living standards, health and welfare is incalculable.

The next Congress should review all EPA data, documents and decisions, root out the fraud and collusion, and defund and ultimately reverse all regulations that do not pass muster. The principle is simple: No data, honesty, transparency or integrity – no regulation, and no taxpayer money to impose it.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (, author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death, and coauthor of Cracking Big Green: To save the world from the Save-the-Earth money machine.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:54 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1583 words, total size 11 kb.

November 17, 2014

Deriding the Wave? The 2014 Election & the St. Louis Post-Dispatch

"If you liked the Gilded Age you’re going to love what comes out of the U.S. Congress in the next two years.” These were the exact words churlishly penned by Mr. Tony Messenger, the editor of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, a formerly great American daily newspaper, on Thursday morning, November 6, 2014. The Post-Dispatch, like most of the liberal mainstream media, was stunned at the breadth and depth of the Republican victory last week and did not know how to comment on this development. After a full thirty-six hours of silence, the PD managed to cobble together a messy editorial entitled, "The Big Red Wave: Republicans Ride Fear and Grumpiness to Historic Victories.” In this wide-ranging piece the PD editors claim that the Republicans won because:

1. "They suppress Democratic votes whenever possible.” This charge ignores verified cases of Democratic vote tampering in Florida in 2000, St. Louis in 2000, South Dakota in 2002, and Minnesota and Wisconsin in 2008.
2."They gerrymander congressional districts to minimize the impact of Democratic voters.” The Post-Dispatch turned a blind eye to such shenanigans when the Democratic hold on most state legislatures seemed unbreakable.
3."They outspend Democrats”. This overused and gratuitous repetition of half-truth is rarely challenged, but the Democrats raised and spent much more than the GOP in the last two general elections, and does not take into account the massive amounts of soft money poured into the Democratic coffers by the labor unions, the teachers’ organizations, and the trial lawyers. It also does not consider the essentially free advertising the Democrats benefit from on commercial television and at college campuses nationwide.
4.Finally the editorial claimed that, "Fear was on the Republican Side”. If that means that people were looking for the adults again now that the world scene is darkening quickly, maybe the Post-Dispatch is on to something.
So, the GOP won the election with a blatant appeal to fear? There is, however, a lot more: The Republicans lied about the wonderful economy, they got out their vote, and they benefitted from favorable demographical and geographical factors. The end result, as predicted by the Post-Dispatch, will be a national return to the political and economic policies of the 1880s.

When the PD goes a bit deeper into the analysis, beneath the hyperbole, they claim that this election was bound to be a tough slog for the Democrats. They point out, reasonably, that many of the open senate seats were in reliable Red States, and that of the eight retiring Senators, six were Democrats. Still, this ignores the fact that Republican challengers knocked off Democratic incumbents in Alaska, Arkansas, and most likely in Louisiana, and came within an eyelash of turning the trick in New Hampshire and Virginia. It also discounts the possibility that six Democratic Senators retired because they saw dim electoral prospects ahead in this upcoming election. The PD also notes, reluctantly, that the Administration has been plagued by stumbles, fumbles and bumbles since 2012 that reminds the public of Jimmy Carter at his unlamented best. The Post does not, however, theorize that the people are reacting against incompetence and non-existent leadership.

When the PD accuses the Republicans of lying about the booming economy they move into loony-land. They claim that Wall Street is at record levels, without mentioning that the wild gyrations of the markets since June have cost many investors, at least temporarily, a significant amount of money. The Post says that unemployment is down, but it is still higher than it was through almost all of the two Bush Administrations, and considerably above the figures regularly recorded in the good old days of the 1980s and 90s. Naturally, the PD did not mention the fact that many who have lost positions have been hired for part-time work, and that labor force participation, as a percentage of those of working age, is at Depression-era levels. Similarly, Obama’s claim that income inequality is now the main problem ignores the fact that this has increased faster under his leadership than in any other Presidential administration. These simple statements of fact are dismissed as "…lying about the economic boom…” by the Post-Dispatch.

On the subject of getting out the vote, the Post-Dispatch declared "The Republicans deserve their victories. They got their people to the polls. The Democrats didn’t.” Once again, the Post-Dispatch, like the Democratic Party, is deluding itself. They argue that a few "scattered victories for progressive causes” prove that the country is, in fact, largely center-left, and that simple motivation by the Republicans led to victory. If that is the case how does the Post-Dispatch explain the toppling of Democratic governors in deep Blue States like Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland and the near defeats of sitting Democratic Senators in similarly safe country like Virginia, and New Hampshire? The PD can’t really argue that successful get-out-the-vote-drives really made the difference in those states.

The Post-Dispatch had to admit, glumly, that the Republicans won a big victory on Tuesday night. The next step, of course, is to predict what we will see in the next few months, leading up to the 2016 election, which, heaven help us, is already beginning. In a diatribe of class hatred, the PD announced we will get, in no particular order, tax cuts for the rich, lax gun laws, restrictions on women’s rights, and a country bogged down in ideological divisions. This is PD propaganda at its worst. The tax cuts for the rich nonsense never gets old from a stoking the furnace of envy strategy, so the Post-Dispatch and other liberal newspapers will continue to beat that dead horse. Passing lax gun laws might be better characterized as respecting the 2nd Amendment, and yammering on about non-existent restrictions on women’s rights might lead citizens to suspect that the PD editors have stepped through the looking glass.

What we should get with a GOP legislative branch might well be an approval of the Keystone Pipeline, which would underscore the oil and natural gas boomlet that began around 2006. This would also help restore America to energy independence, put us back at the top of the world’s oil and natural gas producers, and would ensure that OPEC’s quiet efforts to kill the American oil boom would, itself, die a quick death. We should also get legislation reducing the corporate tax from the nearly confiscatory rate of 35 percent, and would make America the best place in the world to do business, once again. We should hear a cessation of the amnesty talk coming from Washington, and possibly hear talk about enforcement of our immigration laws, which are among the most liberal in the world. A new immigration bill is not necessary; we need to enforce the laws that exist before we begin changing them. We should see an effort to restrain an increasingly imperious and unaccountable executive branch, and remind the President that we are a constitutional republic, not a dictatorship. The Post-Dispatch cannot handle the fact that this all may be coming, so they engage in obfuscation, propagandizing, and outright falsehoods.

The Post-Dispatch did get a few things right in their piece on the election. The race for the St. Louis County Executive, normally a matter of no national interest, took on a great deal of significance this year, due largely to the disorders, and the still simmering racial tension in Ferguson, Missouri. St. Louis County, which had been solidly Republican as late as 1989, morphed into a "purple” county during the 1990s, became a Democratic-leaning district during the last decade, and is now considered safe Democratic territory. The county voted nearly 57 percent for Obama in 2012. Charlie Dooley, the first African-American county executive had been at the helm of county government since 2003, and had run an administration plagued by incompetence, cronyism, and corruption. A St. Louis County Councilman, Democratic Party member Steve Stenger, defeated Dooley in a primary challenge in early August. Five days after that primary election, which left very hard feelings in the Missouri Democratic Party, especially among Black politicians and voters, the Ferguson situation erupted.

Steve Stenger has borne the brunt of the criticism that still roils St. Louis area politics. Many Black politicians and voters have vowed that they will never vote for Stenger for any office. The hapless Stenger seems mystified by the venomous hatred directed at him from certain circles, and he has pandered throughout the campaign, and the last week. His opponent, a low-key Republican state legislator named Rick Stream chose, for the most part, to eschew the identity politics that lurked beneath the surface of the entire Missouri political scene during the campaign. On election night, what had opened up as a sure Democratic win turned into an old fashioned nail biter, as Steam led from the outset. With 93 percent of the ballots counted Mr. Stream clung to a 2500 vote lead, although that lead had been dropping slowly. The last ballots were counted around midnight, and Stenger pulled out the narrowest of victories, winning by 1768 votes, and a plurality of 47.7 percent, to 47.1 percent for Rick Stream. Very interestingly, the ballots that put Stenger over the top, and spelled defeat for the gracious Mr. Stream, came from the Ferguson area, and surrounding townships.

The Post-Dispatch pointed out, to their credit, that this was quite remarkable. The politicians who capitalized on the Ferguson disorders toyed with the idea of abandoning the Democratic ticket, and many Black voters stayed at home during the election. The Ferguson vote, however, put Stenger over the top and into the winners’ column. The PD also pointed out that not all was forgiven. Stenger’s victory celebration was disrupted by protestors, and fights broke out on the sidewalk outside the hotel where Stenger and his people gathered to imbibe and congratulate each other. The Grand Jury investigating the Michael Brown affair is expected to deliver their findings within the month, and the protest crowd is busy warning the area that a resumption of rioting will commence if charges are not recommended against the police officer involved. This is ominous to say the least.

The mood at the Post-Dispatch brightened considerably on Thursday when a state judge declared that the Missouri constitutional provision mandating that marriage can only legally exist between one man, and one woman , was a violation of the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution, and was, therefore, invalid. The state has appealed the ruling, but did not request a restraining order in the meantime. So, the Post-Dispatch has achieved a long-sought goal in this instance. It may not be enough, however, to dry the crocodile tears that they have been shedding since Tuesday, as their cherished liberal myths have been rejected again, and their folk hero President has been roundly rejected by the voters, nationwide.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 12:29 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1810 words, total size 12 kb.

The Cooling Earth

Dana Mathewson

It ain't getting warmer, it's getting colder! Don't suppose our oh-so-smart president would get the news. Climatologist: 30-Year Cold Spell Strikes Earth.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:43 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 28 words, total size 1 kb.

Obama Calls on Ferguson Rioters to "Stay the Course"

From Pravda, a paper which, having been the mouthpiece of the USSR ...

Timothy Birdnow

Barack Hussein Obama met with Ferguson protesters the day after the midterm elections and worried that they "stay the course".

Jim Hoft gives us the details:!

"President Obama met with Ferguson protest leaders on November 5th, the day after the midterm elections. The meeting was not on his daily schedule. He was concerned that the protesters "stay on course.”


"The New York Times hid this in the 21st paragraph of their report:

'But leaders here say that is the nature of a movement that has taken place, in part, on social media and that does not match an earlier-era protest structure where a single, outspoken leader might have led the way. "This is not your momma’s civil rights movement,” said Ashley Yates, a leader of Millennial Activists United. "This is a movement where you have several difference voices, different people. The person in charge is really — the people. But the message from everyone is the same: Stop killing us.”

At times, there has been a split between national civil rights leaders and the younger leaders on the ground here, who see their efforts as more immediate, less passive than an older generation’s. But some here said relations have improved in recent weeks.

Some of the national leaders met with President Obama on Nov. 5 for a gathering that included a conversation about Ferguson.

According to the Rev. Al Sharpton, who has appeared frequently in St. Louis with the Brown family and delivered a speech at Mr. Brown’s funeral, Mr. Obama "was concerned about Ferguson staying on course in terms of pursuing what it was that he knew we were advocating. He said he hopes that we’re doing all we can to keep peace'.”

End excerpt.

Did I not say that this is being ginned up by the Chicago Way and Washington? Here we have had no Grand Jury decision yet and Obama is encouraging the rioters/protesters to "stay the course". What? Riot again?

Mr. Obama could bring peace any time he wishes; a few strong words would put an end to this. His silence on rioting is deafening, and shows quite plainly he WANTS the violence and chaos that is being threatened. But then, isn't that what a community organizer does?

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:00 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 384 words, total size 4 kb.

November 16, 2014

GOP Leaders Fear Mexican Standoff with Obama over Amnesty

Timothy Birdnow

Would someone please explain to me what just happened in the last election; I seemed to have missed something.

Conservative House members are agitating for a bill that would defund agencies that implement an Obama executive order granting amnesty to illegal aliens, and the GOP is cowering in terror lest the governmenent be shut down by the BHO.

Rick Moran discusses the matter at American Thinker.

"The divide appears to be between the realists and the ideologues. The realist position, as stated by Rep. Cole:

"I don’t blame people for being mad and proposing ideas,” Cole said. "I personally think it’s just a losing strategy. It didn’t work for ObamaCare. There’s no way it’s going to work here… My view is shutting down the government is never the appropriate remedy.”

The ideologues don't care if it can be done, or what the politics of the tactic would be. They want the GOP on record saying that the executive orders are unconstitutional.

End excerpt.

To Rick and his RINO champions in the GOP leadership I ask one simple question; what just happened? You guys are going at this like you lost the last election, not mopped the floor with the Democrats. You are still frightened of victory.

Yes, Ted Cruz and the GOP were blamed in the media for the last shutdown. So what? Did it dampen their electoral success? No, and neither did the government shutdown under Bill Clinton. In both instances the GOP took blame BY THE MEDIA but in the end benefitted politically. This is what Saul Alinsky meant when he said if you push a negative long enough it can break through and become a positive; initially the GOP gets blamed thanks to a dishonest media that paints doom caused by government shutting down (a fraction of itself). Essentially the government employees will get a paid holiday at worst.

This is a matter of principle. The People did not elect Republicans to work with the President or to back down in any way, or they would have elected Democrats. This was not anti-incumbency; no Republicans lost (except the Governor of Pennsylvania, because of Jerry Sanduski and his flapping genitalia). The GOp was clearly not elected to end gridlock - they ARE gridlock. They were elected to stop this juggernaut of socialism. If they fail to stand firm now they will fail to stand firm tomorrow.

How can they act against this President when, freed momentarily from the shackles of electoral politics, they refuse to take action? It's not going to change when they take the Senate because Obama will simply veto anything they send him. They have to grow a spine eventually. The Constitution offers two remedies for what Obama is planning - impeachment or defunding. The GOP has said they will not impeach, so they must defund, and to defund they have to be prepared to play chicken with him over the budget. It really is that simple.

These guys weren't elected just to get re-elected.

So what alternatives do the "realists" propose? Moran quotes the Hill article:

"Senior GOP aides said the Republican response could be a combination of blocking executive-branch nominees when Republicans take over the Senate next year and expanding a GOP lawsuit against Obama to cover his immigration action"

End excerpt.

That great thud you heard was my palm striking my forehead.

In other words, the GOP elites have NO plan whatsoever. Blocking executive nominees? They've never even tried to do that under Reid, and it is what they are expected to do anyway. These guys weren't put there to give Obama anything he wants, and that especially includes nominees. Obama doesn't govern through the approved channels anyway; he uses his "Czars" to bipass Congressional advice-and-consent. Obama shouldn't be getting his nominees approved, and he doesn't give a flying frig if they are. The only nominees he wants are judges, and for the next two years Obama should be allowed to appoint no judges at all, zero, zip, the null set. This is the function of the GOP anyway.

And the lawsuit is nothing but a publicity stunt; everyone is in agreement on that. Congress has the authority to stop the President, but turning to the Courts (and Obama has appointed much of the Judiciary at this point) is a cop-out. The Courts will do exactly nothing over this; it is a political question.

The GOP leadership wants Obama to take this step; that is why they aren't going to fight him on it. They would love to be the ones to "take credit" for amnesty, but if not they will at least share in the glory if they don't stop Obama.

Doubt me on this? Despite a lot of tough talk by John Boehner, he has stated publicly AFTER THE ELECTION that he supports amnesty:

"After a White House meeting last week, Republicans described Speaker John Boehner aggressively confronting President Obama over the president's planned executive amnesty, prompting an extended period of a defensive Obama attempting to justify his actions. But a key moment of the meeting, left out from those accounts, was unveiled by Boehner himself, when according to Horowitz, in an exuberant moment of boasting in a closed-door meeting with GOP colleagues minutes ago. Boehner recalled telling Obama, "Mr. President, just give us one more chance to do this the right way. If we can't, then do what you gotta do.”

End excerpt.

Of course, they are complete idiots in believing that the GOP are going to pick up the Hispanic Vote. Ronald Reagan actually lost a share of Hispanics after HE did amnesty, and there is no reason to believe Hispanics who have broken our laws and come here illegally will suddenly support law and order types. They are here for the money, and who offers a better deal? The GOP talks about sel-reliance while the Democrats give free stuff.

Amnesty would be suicide for the Republicans, a guaranteed half century (and probably permanent) minority status. Why do these fools think the Democrats are so gung-ho on getting it? Do they think the donkeys are just nice guys?

Naturally, Obama wants to GOP to do the amnesty, so they can take the political blame. Average Americans do not want it, do not want this nation being turned into a part of Latin America, be overrun by people who do not see themselves as Americans and do not want to become Americans. Polls show Hispanics do not want amnesty any more than do Anglo Americans or African Americans. This is only popular with the ruling class and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

And it will solve nothing; the newly amnetized will simply be better positioned to negotiate better pay and be ripe for union organization, to further fund the Democrats. They will be replaced by a new crop of illegals working for low wages, and will take away jobs from Americans, particularly blacks and blue collar whites.

Everybody loses except the Democrats, Labor, the Robber Baron plutocrats, and Mexico.

America is disgusted with politics because of the lack of honesty. Obama's appeal was he seemed to be an honest man, and so people flocked to him. His lies being found out, America has turned against him, and are hoping the GOP can give them at least one unforked tongue. IF the GOP fails to act they will show they are liars on a par with the BHO, and perhaps worse because theirs is not even the noble causes Mr. Obama claimed to support, but merely a mean craving for political power. The GOP is toast if they follow this path.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 11:20 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1284 words, total size 8 kb.

Appropriations Chair “You should not take a hostage that you can’t shoot.”

Dana Mathewson

Good article, but whether anything comes of it remains to be seen, of course.
I wasn't going to post it, but then I saw the jackpot line and just had to: "I don’t want a shutdown,” House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R., KY) said. "You should not take a hostage that you can’t shoot.” [emphasis mine]

Once again, Obama doesn't get it -- or at least, talks like he doesn't. The following paragraph proves it.

"Mr. Obama’s legal rationale is likely to be that the government doesn’t have the resources to deport all 11 million illegal immigrants, so those with deep ties to the U.S., and who are unlikely to be deported, should be allowed to live and work openly in the country."

However, we have seen many times that if we just make conditions "unfriendly" for illegal immigrants, there is a large tendency for them to "self-deport."

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:33 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 162 words, total size 1 kb.

Obama Declares an Amnesty War

By Alan Caruba

The same mindset that could conspire to foist ObamaCare on Americans by deception is at work to do the same thing with an unconstitutional, unilateral announcement of amnesty for millions of illegal—oops, "undocumented”—aliens living in America.

What is amazing about this is that it was announced the day after the midterm election when Obama and the Democratic Party hadsuffered a huge rejection. I suppose when you believe, as Obama apparently does, that he is right when everyone else is telling him he’s wrong, moving ahead on amnesty now rather than waiting to work on legislation with the new Congress makes sense to him.

Only it does not make sense. Causing a constitutional crisis never makes sense.

At this point I think it is useless to try to get inside Obama’s mind regarding his actions. It’s like trying to understand the logic of a six-year-old. He does what he wants to do simply because he wants to do it. He ignores reality if it disagrees with his opinion about anything.
We all have two more years of this arrogance.

The voters have spoken and rather dramatically. As we get closer to Obama’s executive orderit's good to see that Republican leadersare sounding more combative.

What exactly can orwill the presumptive Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, do? What will John Boehner, House Majority Leader, do? They have, in fact, relatively few options. They dare not and do not want to shut down the government. They will not impeach Obama. They can, we’re told, defund aspects of an amnesty executive order. Ultimately, they are likely to fall back on a law suit against the White House based on the constitutional division of powers.

The midterrm elections showedus that the lies the Democrats toldfailed.

The effort to paint the Republican Party as obstructionists failed. The real obstructionist was and is Harry Reid who blocked more than three hundred bi-partisan and Republican pieces of House legislation from being debated or voted upon in the Senate. Neither he, nor any other Majority Leader should have that muchpower. The Senate needs its role for debate restored.

The claim that the Republican Party was waging "a war on women” or was racist was absurd. The midterms saw any number of Republican women elected to office and African-American GOP candidates made history when they won. It’s no longer the Party of "old white men”, but a largely white component of all ages voted heavily in the midterms for those younger, diverse winners.

The Republican Party could not be in a stronger, better position than currently. Rarely mentioned is that what put them there is the Tea Party movement; a number ofCongressional members elected by the movement are driving the response to Obama’s amnesty idiocy.

Six members, Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Pat Roberts (R-Kansas), Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama) and David Vitter (R-Louisiana) made it clear to Sen. Reid that "This will create a constitutional crisis that demands action by Congress to restore the separation of powers.” The only thing Republican Senators are amenable to at this pointis strengthening border security. They will not put forth any immigration legislation until afterthey take power in the Senate in January.

So, naturally, Obama wants them to do something now.

Only an idiot would say, as he did, that he "heard” what the voters said and then add he also heard what those "who did not vote” had to say. The only thing that matters in an election is who got elected and why. Hearing what voters who stayed home had to say is delusional.

Voters were so angered by the sheer incompetence of Obama and Sen. Harry Reid’s gridlock in Congress that they voted in a whole batch of new Senators and House members. Those they chose were predominantly conservative Republicans and that tells you a lot about the next two years until Obama is gone.

Obama has never liked Congress. He seems to resent having to share governing power with it. He about to launch an amnesty war as a way of acting out his resentment.

At this point, the Republicans in Congress know who they are dealing with and are in no mood for a compromise, nor expect one. Remember, though, it is the Republicans who are the grownups and what we are likely to see in the months ahead will be a number of reform measures and amnesty will be among them. Obama will be blocked on any number of other efforts that will harm the nation and the world.

After we celebrate New Year’s day the beginning of the presidential campaigns will begin in earnest. The first straw vote in Ames, Iowa will take place in nine months!

Let Barack Obama have his amnesty war.

There is no lamer duck than the President. Whenever he speaks these days all you can hear is quack, quack, quack.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 823 words, total size 10 kb.

Better Hide your Kid Goat

7lb. Dave forwards this:

And yet so many Muslims think WOMEN are unclean...

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:57 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.

November 15, 2014

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotted Kind; Uranus in for Stormy Weather

uranus true color image of uranus made by voyager 2 in january 1986 ...

uranus true color image of uranus made by voyager 2 in january 1986 ...

Timothy Birdnow

Here are two apparently unrelated stories that piqued my interest because they suggest a common root.

First, Uranus, the normally placid, bland, Bob Newhart of the gas giant planets, has suddenly gotten testy.

From the article:

"The normally bland face of Uranus has become increasingly stormy, with enormous cloud systems so bright that for the first time ever, amateur astronomers are able to see details in the planet's hazy blue-green atmosphere.

"The weather on Uranus is incredibly active," said Imke de Pater, professor and chair of astronomy at the University of California, Berkeley, and leader of the team that first noticed the activity when observing the planet with adaptive optics on the W. M. Keck II Telescope in Hawaii.

"This type of activity would have been expected in 2007, when Uranus's once every 42-year equinox occurred and the sun shined directly on the equator," noted co-investigator Heidi Hammel of the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy. "But we predicted that such activity would have died down by now. Why we see these incredible storms now is beyond anybody's guess."

End excerpt.

Why is Uranus so tempetuous? (Please hold the frijole jokes, please.)

Perhaps this is the reason:

"Last month, the solar active region known as AR12192 (also known as AR2192 to some of its friends) entertained the world with the sunspot clearly visible with the naked eye (with some appropriate and approved solar-watch or eclipse dark glasses, of course), and produced a series of large flares."Th

End excerpt.

We are reaching the peak of solar cycle 24, an unusually quiet cycle.

Is this uptick in solar activity the cause of the storms on Uranus? If so, how are they causing them?

Space weather affects the Earth. It is also true that the gas giants - with stronger lines of magnetic force connecting them to the solar magnetic field - are likewise influenced. Are these storms on Uranus tied to this big sunspot?

There is much we do not understand about space weather, or our solar system. We really do not understand the role played by the Sun on Earth, much less on other worlds.

That is why I find it ludicrous that some climate scientists claim "case closed" and ascribe all atmospheric warming to carbon dioxide while ignoring solar activity. Not that there aren't scientists who think the Sun is the primary driver; see Dr. Willie Soon, for instance.

The alarmist scientists are like children who just learned to count to ten on their fingers and think they can do advanced calculus.

Giant Sunspot Erupts on October 24, 2014 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!Giant Sunspot Erupts on Octob

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 11:35 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 459 words, total size 6 kb.

<< Page 1 of 491 >>
139kb generated in CPU 0.04, elapsed 0.1274 seconds.
29 queries taking 0.0885 seconds, 169 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.