Archive for the 'Politics' Category

I haven’t watched much of the republican debates, but I have occasionally passed through while my wife was watching.  Tonight was one such time.  I heard Trump say something like, “You aren’t endorsed by a single Senator …  You should be ashamed of yourself!”

I heard that and thought, “You have got to be kidding?  Did you just say that?  Seriously?  Seriously?”  The one who has claimed that he will bring everyone into the Oval office and cut deals, but who has previously sworn to burn it all down according to his bot followers, has hurled the insult at Cruz that he isn’t loved in Washington.  Reality is more bizarre than fiction.  I couldn’t have made this up if I tried.

A couple of days before the primary in South Carolina, I heard the following men speak: Ted Cruz, Louie Gohmert, Mike Lee, and Dave Brat (Congressman Jeff Duncan of South Carolina was there and praised by Ted Cruz, although he didn’t speak), and others (Mark Levin, etc.).  I listened intently to Louie Gohmert describe the events leading up to the death of the “gang of eight bill.”  I am a political wonk, and I keep up with these things.  Even I didn’t know some of what he told us.  I cannot give you all of the details, but I can provide a summary.

Gohmert described the intense strategic meetings to plot the death of the bill.  The meetings were held between Cruz, Lee, Brat, Gohmert, Duncan and others.  When the bill hit the House, it was all but a done deal because the gang had a pretty new face to put with it, i.e., Rubio.  It was very hard to turn it back.  America doesn’t know how close we were to having the gang of eight bill as law.

One of the tactics was a poison pill by Ted Cruz placed into the bill during deliberations between the House and Senate, but it also required much work in the House proper.  And all of this was led by whom, you asked?  Why, it was led by Ted Cruz, with all the meetings in Ted’s office.  If Louie Gohmert was lying, Mike Lee, or Congressman Brat or Duncan could have stopped Gohmert.  None did, because Gohmert was telling the truth.  You don’t have a gang of eight law because Ted Cruz led the effort to kill it.  Why doesn’t America know this?  Well, Ted is trying ever so hard to tell them, but they can’t hear it for the confusion of the mob of monkeys as they screech and bark and howl and sling their feces everywhere.

That’s why Ted Cruz is hated in Washington.  And I’ve thought about my own life this evening in terms of being hated.  In a way, a man’s measure is found in his enemies.  I drifted off this evening to what my grave marker might read.  If it reads something like this: “Herschel was an objectionable and loathsome man but for the sovereign grace of God.  He led a nondescript life.  In fact, he wasn’t worth much even after God saved him … except that he was hated in Washington,”  I would die a happy man.

How do I do that?  How do I make it to 33rd degree blogger-hated-in-Washington?  I so want to be hated in Washington.  Good heavens.  If someone hurled that insult at me, I would wear it as a badge of honor.

Marco Rubio is a robot.  Well, actually I think of him more like a windup doll who in this case got stuck on the same line, over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

Trump: “What the hell is a caucus … no one even knows what a caucus is?”  Well, I think I know what a caucus is.  And I think I’m someone.

Trump: “What the hell is he talking about?”  Well, this, Donald, where you said:

AL: I’d like to talk about public land. Seventy percent of hunters in the West hunt on public lands managed by the federal government. Right now, there’s a lot of discussion about the federal government transferring those lands to states and the divesting of that land. Is that something you would support as President?

DT: I don’t like the idea because I want to keep the lands great, and you don’t know what the state is going to do. I mean, are they going to sell if they get into a little bit of trouble? And I don’t think it’s something that should be sold. We have to be great stewards of this land. This is magnificent land. And we have to be great stewards of this land. And the hunters do such a great job—I mean, the hunters and the fishermen and all of the different people that use that land. So I’ve been hearing more and more about that. And it’s just like the erosion of the Second Amendment. I mean, every day you hear Hillary Clinton wants to essentially wipe out the Second Amendment. We have to protect the Second Amendment, and we have to protect our lands.

You likened federal ownership of land to protection of the second amendment, remember Donald?

Who said it, Trump or Kanye?  I confess that I didn’t even get close to 100%.

Who tweeted it, Trump or Kanye?  I confess that I didn’t even get close to 100%.

Perhaps Trump could pick Kanye as his running mate.  They go together just fine.

Vicente Fox: “We’re not paying for that f***ing wall!”  Hey, you sound like a carnival barker.  Our carnival barker is louder and more obnoxious than you are.

See how much fun this can be?  As the republican field winnows to a single candidate very soon, this should become easier with a veritable smorgasbord of things to discuss.

NYT:

Donald J. Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Fla., describes itself as “one of the most highly regarded private clubs in the world,” and it is not just the very-well-to-do who want to get in.

Since 2010, nearly 300 United States residents have applied or been referred for jobs as waiters, waitresses, cooks and housekeepers there. But according to federal records, only 17 have been hired.

In all but a handful of cases, Mar-a-Lago sought to fill the jobs with hundreds of foreign guest workers from Romania and other countries.

In his quest for the Republican presidential nomination, Mr. Trump has stoked his crowds by promising to bring back jobs that have been snatched by illegal immigrants or outsourced by corporations, and voters worried about immigration have been his strongest backers.

But he has also pursued more than 500 visas for foreign workers at Mar-a-Lago since 2010, according to the United States Department of Labor, while hundreds of domestic applicants failed to get the same jobs.

Charles C.W. Cooke comments:

Or, put another way, Trump has deliberately chosen to hire foreign workers to fill those jobs that “Americans just won’t do.” 17 out of 300? That’s 5.6 percent. 17 out of 500? That’s 3.4 percent. Bad! So what’s Trump’s excuse? That’s he’s a businessman and that these are the realities on the ground? That, I’m afraid, won’t wash. When Disney behaved like this, there was a loud and sustained outcry from . . . well, no less than Donald Trump himself. In an interview with Breitbart, Trump argued that Disney should be forced to rehire any Americans it had overlooked or replaced. Trump also said this: If I am President, I will not issue any H-1B visas to companies that replace American workers and my Department of Justice will pursue action against them. And he offered this critique of expanding the “H” program: It would allow any company in America to replace any worker with cheaper foreign labor. It legalizes job theft. It gives companies the legal right to pass over Americans, displace Americans, or directly replace Americans for good-paying middle class jobs.

Oh dear.  You mean to tell me that Donald Trump is a charlatan, hypocrite and liar?  Remember boys and girls.  Noise, light and magic.  Noise, lights and magic.

At Zero Hedge, from user barkingcat:

“General populace is dumber than a box of rocks.

They are mesmerized by whores and pimps and charlatans with shinny trinkets.

They do not care about anything but numbing their brains and stuffing their bellies with factory manufactured GMO crap.”

News about boy-billionaire:

One booming business in Silicon Valley is security — but not the digital kind.

Insiders tell Page Six that the young tech billionaires are forced to hire armies of guards after threats from unstable users.

Sources told us that Facebook mogul Mark Zuckerberg has 16 bodyguards now working at his home.

“He has guards over at his place,” said a Palo Alto, Calif., insider, adding that tech moguls around town are all quietly upping security.

We hear that Zuckerberg’s 16-person detail are not all on the scene at the same time, but work in shifts.

Pro immigration, anti-gun nut Mark Zuckerberg wants to curtail your liberties, buy he wants his.  Because he is more special than you.  He has the money to hire 16 bodyguards, and you don’t.  And he doesn’t care that you don’t.  Just like when he conned his partner out of his share of Facebook.  His only statement to his partner was something like “you should have gotten a better lawyer.”  Oh, and if you have a Facebook account, Zuckerberg thinks you dumb.  Well, that’s not exactly the way he put it.

The Washington Post:

Senate Republicans clashed Wednesday over how to battle President Obama’s expected Supreme Court nomination as the White House left open the remote possibility that the president might sidestep a confirmation fight by making a rare recess appointment.

Obama has the option, while the Senate is in recess, of naming a replacement for Justice Antonin Scalia, who died Saturday. A recess appointee would serve until the end of the current Congress in January 2017. White House officials did not dismiss the idea that the president could use the recess maneuver if the Senate fails to hold hearings and a vote on the nomination Obama has promised to send to the Senate.

“Our intent is to nominate an indisputably qualified individual to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Wednesday. “And our expectation is that the United States Senate will fulfill their constitutional responsibility to give that individual a fair hearing in a timely up-or-down vote.”

[ … ]

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) declared in the hours after Scalia’s death that his seat “should not be filled until we have a new President.” But since his statement Saturday, his Republican colleagues have not agreed on where precisely they ought to make their stand: Should they refuse to take any action whatsoever, responding to the demands of the conservative base? Or should they at least schedule hearings and procedural votes in order to blunt political attacks from Democrats?

The hand wringing is so dramatic, yes?  “Blunt political attacks from Democrats.”  Attacks.  Okay folks, listen up.  Relax.  Take a deep breath.  These aren’t attacks.  Attacks are what my son sustained in Fallujah.  Attacks are what happens when someone comes at you with a knife attempting to disembowel you.  Attacks are what happens when someone shoots a gun at you, and attack is when black thugs gang up on a notable and decorated Marine Corps veteran within six blocks of the White House and beat the hell out of him while they scream, “do black lives matter?”

You are not under attack.  You sit in comfortable chairs every day, rub shoulders with colleagues, go to the Congressional cafeteria and gym, and have your aids do all of the heavy lifting.  Your job is a cake walk.  Your strategy is this: You do nothing.

You don’t have hearings, you ignore overtures from the White House, you don’t give them the time of day, and you don’t respond to reporters when they harass you for not kowtowing to the communists in the executive branch.  There.  I’m glad I could be of help.

And all of these hand-wringing articles written by propagandists about “heavens, what are we to do,” yea, those, they are just so much end of the world propaganda.  Don’t waste you time with them, and don’t give them quotes to use against you.  Grow up, and don’t act like pansy-ass little girls.

NRO:

The Washington Post:

On the livestream, Fry was rambling almost incoherently about the government, abortion, the Middle East, nuclear power plants, drone strikes in Pakistan and his belief in UFOs. He railed against “monopolies” and “chemical castration” by the government. He was angry that he couldn’t “find a way to make an income without paying taxes for atrocities.” He complained that nobody would bring him any marijuana. He spoke about killing himself and said he had his weapon at his side.

[ … ]

“David, this is Ammon Bundy,” he said on the 96-second clip. “I want you to know that there is a future out here. You have a future. . . . Your actions here really mattered and we love you. Please come out of there.”

After several silent minutes, Fry lit a cigarette and said, “Well, alrighty then.”

He shouted that he wanted everyone there to say “Hallelujah.”

The FBI agents yelled “Hallelujah!”

Thirty miles away, at an FBI command post in an old schoolhouse in Burns where top state and federal officials were watching a live video feed, everyone shouted “Hallelujah!”

And Fry walked out of the tent.

Oh dear.  So there are a number of tactical, logistical and strategic lessons learned in this set of events.  According to Robert ‘LaVoy’ Finicum, Bundy started this occupation on the spur of the moment, rather unplanned.  Whimsical, ad hoc outings perhaps have a place in romantic relationships, but not in military operations.  They had no logistical support, they had no means of egress, escape and evasion, they didn’t know if they would have the support and agreement of anyone else, and they carried guns with them on what they apparently intended to be a peaceful protest.

Don’t ever carry a gun you don’t intend to use.**  This group wasn’t prepared to pull their triggers, so the guns should have been left at home.  It should have been a old fashioned sit-in like the hippies who protested the Vietnam war.  If they were intent on taking guns and using them, they should have planned this set of events much differently.

Their communications was a disaster, and sadly, the presentation of the issues was so bad that it harmed the cause of reducing the size and influence of an out-of-control federal government.  Many of us can agree over the offensiveness of forcing us to fund planned parenthood and other progressive causes with our taxes, as well as socialized medicine for people who choose not to work.

But nuclear power plants are a great contribution to the clean, cheap electrification of America, and very few of us believe in UFOs.  At least, I don’t.  I’m surprised that Fry didn’t bring up notions of the American government taking down the WTC, and fake moon landings.  None of this, by the way, is related to the mistreatment of ranchers, the horrible prosecution of the Hammonds, and the ownership of land by the federal government.  They didn’t stay on point because they apparently didn’t have a point.

Finally, if you’re armed and occupying a federal building, demanding that the fedgov bring you marijuana is probably bad press.  You know what I mean?

UPDATE: ** To address idiotic comments I’ve seen about this remark on Mike’s web site, this remark has nothing to do with concealed carry, and you know it.  Carry a rifle, pistol, ammunition and tactical gear if you intend to conduct close quarters battle or small unit maneuver warfare.  Do not bring an AR-15 or a scoped rifle to a sit-in.  If you do, you’ll be charged with obstructing a federal officer in the performance of his duties and spend the next three decades in federal prison, while other men have to work to support your wife and children.  And nothing good will have come of it.

AP:

Right fight; wrong strategy.

That’s what many ranchers and sympathizers opposing federal control of public lands in the West concluded after the armed occupation of a national wildlife refuge in Oregon.

[ … ]

“We’re not backing off,” said Greg Whalen, a military veteran from Las Vegas who supports the Bundy ranching family that led the occupation. “We’re actually going to fight harder – peacefully.”

Whalen and others say protests must remain a key part of the strategy – but they must be civil to avoid giving a reason for arrests.

Others suggest the battle should shift to the courts to pry authority over open space from the federal government. State lawmakers, notably in Utah, are considering a legal way to take control of U.S. lands that account for a majority of the West, including most of Nevada; about two-thirds of Utah, Idaho and Alaska; and half of Oregon.

Oh how sad.  They may as well read nursery rhymes and fairly tales to themselves.  I’ve done my share of criticizing the tactics employed by the occupiers at Malheur, but relying on the black robed tyrants to protect you from the beltway tyrants is a bad strategy.  No one has shown any proclivity for stopping anything this president has done, and they won’t start now.  Just to show you how bad it is, consider this.

President Obama declared three national monuments in Southern California on Friday, creating the world’s second-largest desert preserve and nearly doubling the amount of land he has unilaterally protected while in office.

The new Mojave Trails, Sand to Snow and Castle Mountains national monuments cover more than 1.8 million acres of land and include sand dunes, Native American petroglyphs and one of the continent’s youngest volcanoes. The designations under the 1906 Antiquities Act connect an array of existing protected areas, including Joshua Tree National Park, Mojave National Preserve and 15 wilderness areas, creating a nearly 10 million-acre arid land reserve that is surpassed only by Namibia’s Namib-Naukluft National Park.

[ … ]

Obama has now conserved more than 265 million acres through the Antiquities Act, which allows him to put federal lands and waters off limits to development without congressional approval.

This is breathtaking.  Consider this again.  Obama has unilaterally confiscated 414,000 square miles of land for use of the elitists, rich, and corporate robber barons who make the deals with the politicians.  414,000 square miles.  This is equivalent to a square block of land 644 miles on each side.  By one man.  With no one objecting, no one with the backbone or moral fiber to stop him.

Too bad for those who think politics considers the common man.

The Washington Post:

The Oregon State Sheriffs’ Association, which has publicly supported Ward, said Thursday that it did not stand by people who it described as arming themselves, breaking into publicly owned buildings and intimidating and harassing local residents and officials.

“These men and women are asking for change, and we support their right to challenge our government to make change,” the association said in a statement. “However, we do not agree with or support any citizen or elected official who would advocate for change in a manner that includes illegal action, threats of violence, or violence against any citizen of the United States.”

You can read it all for yourself, but I don’t need to know any more than this in order to form an opinion and make a judgment.  This is a terrible position statement, and it would have been better for them never to have spoken of the matter than to say something like that.

Take that statement as it is, because it doesn’t need context in order to understand it.  ” … we do not agree with or support any citizen or elected official who would advocate for change in a manner that includes illegal action, threats of violence, or violence against any citizen of the United States.”

Ever, under any circumstances, for any reason.  Or so we may conclude, since they provided no qualifiers, stipulations, conditions or caveats.  Unfortunately, we live in a democracy rather than a constitutional republic, where 51% of the people can vote to impoverish the other 49% for their own benefit.

So what if it was worse than mere wealth redistribution (which is theft)?  Suppose America voted to sacrifice every fourth male child born on the final day of each month in a bloody sacrifice to the gods of football?  And what if it was commonly accepted practice to appease the sports heroes in our broken society?  Would it be okay with these Sheriffs to opposes such actions with violence, or should it be only with protests?  What would the Sheriffs do?  Would they actively engaged in baby confiscation, or protection of the baby confiscators because that was the law?

But we would never do something like that in America, you say.  Or would we?  Do we?