All posts in Culture

This is INSANITY folks–

My grandfathers who fought in WWII would be rolling in their graves if they could see the pathetic vile embarrassingly obsequious nation of wimps we have become.  We have an ambassador murdered and the obsessing over…ROMNEY?  Even libs know it’s insanity:

This goes way beyond Obama and the November election.  Now our universities and schools are closing because Muslims are threatening violence?

Hello?  Hello?

The fillet-ing of liberty

Much has been written on the Chick-fil-A controversy and I don’t think I have too much to add at this point.  For a couple must read pieces I offer this one by Steyn and this one by Morrissey.  For those of you who don’t care or don’t see the relevance of this issue to your life, please, stop reading this post immediately and click on one or both of the above referenced articles.  In my opinion, this episode has been one of the most offensive assaults on our understanding of liberty I’ve ever witnessed.  Worse still, it shows an ignorance of and utter disregard for basic freedoms on the part of men who hold positions of high authority in this land.  Remember Rahm was only a step away from the President until a year ago.  In short, the sneering contempt that the mayors of great cities like Boston and Chicago (San Francisco has become too farcical to even complain) and the senior government official in New York City can openly exhibit towards a man whose crime seems to be that he’s a hard working decent charitable man who dared to run his company as he saw fit–and always in accordance with applicable laws–and who answered a politically charged question honestly based on his own personal belief and moral conviction (an answer which happens to coincide with the President’s views on the topic up until a couple months ago).

Of course the issue is gay marriage, but I can only imagine the ridicule Mr. Cathy (Chick-fil-A’s owner) receives behind the closed doors of Chicago’s city hall for his gall in keeping his stores closed on Sunday.  How quaint.  What’s remarkable to me is that a mere 20 years ago not only would the term gay marriage have been oxymoronic but for most Americans (I’m thinking of my grandparents) it would have been an undefinable and nonsensical term.  For that matter, 20 years ago shopping centers were usually closed on Sunday and you couldn’t buy liquor either.

Now you have Sheriff Rahm and the town elders warning Mr. Cathy he’d better not even think of stepping foot in their town.  You see, they don’t like his kind ’round these parts.  The speaker of New York City’s city council took it one step farther and wrote to the President of private New York University and advised him that he should kick to the curb New York City’s lone Chick-fil-A, which happens to be a tenant of the university (and I imagine a very popular one among cash strapped and its hungry students).  Of course it’s simply coincidence I’m sure that the speaker is a recent beneficiary of the gay marriage wave herself.  And oh yeah, isn’t there probably some kind of contractual arrangement between the University and Chick-fil-A the terms of which a city official shouldn’t be encouraging one of the parties to break?

So many issues are raised by this lightly seasoned thought tyranny but I’d like to raise a couple: consider Steyn’s mention of the radical Muslims who openly advocate death to homosexuals yet have no problem getting city permits to do business in Boston and New York; or what about the baba ghanoush street vendors across the city–did you hear what they said at the dinner table last night?  And then there’s Rahm and his recent cozy relationship with Louis Farrakhan, who not only openly opposes gay marriage but also advocates (loudly) against Jews for…well, for being born Jews.

So in one fell swoop you have the mob-like trampling on basic first amendment rights, the malevolent sneering at by all accounts a good man and law-abiding citizen and a heavy dose of puke-inducing hypocrisy.  To call it outrageous is an understatement.

But it’s even worse than that.

We have a friend who is an institutional money manager for a large firm in a big city.  He has an undergraduate degree from an Ivy League school and an MBA from a top 5 business school (also Ivy League).  He is married (to a woman) and has a child.  As I understand it, he works hard evaluating companies and buying and selling shares in large blocks for his firm’s customers.  Knowing what I know about his business he is narrowly focused on companies’ prospects and earnings and the viability of the companies he covers going forward.  Somehow the Chick-fil-A topic came up in conversation and without hesitation he called Mr. Cathy a “bigot,” he liked and supported that Rahm & Co stuck it to him and he declared that he didn’t want his money to go to bigoted fools like that and he wouldn’t be eating at Chick-fil-A.  When confronted with the idea that Mr. Cathy had every right under the 1st Amendment to express his views on the subject of gay marriage and that mayors, while also entitled to their own 1st Amendment rights, should not be using the levers of the state to intimidate a private citizen and his or her right to conduct business as long as that person is doing so within the laws of the relevant jurisdiction.  Our friend conceded partially but then he bowed up again and blindly said these mayors were speaking purely as private individuals expressing their opinions (not true) and then he reiterated that Mr. Cathy is a “bigot” and that if he’s done one thing to violate any kind of equal opportunity law they should crush him.


And by the way, in the next breath he talked about how excited he was to go see a well known (and old) heavy metal band.  I’m not sure if he’s aware that the stars of this band include one who’s been in and out of trouble for illegal drug use and another who went to prison for assaulting a woman.  Guess he’s got no trouble giving his money to them.

This is America in 2012.

PS.  I received a text from a friend this morning encouraging me to go eat at Chick-fil-A today to show my support.  Here’s my deal on that.  I eat a lot of Chick-fil-A and I will continue to do so.  But I don’t want to go eat a chicken sandwich as a political statement.  I simply want to eat it because it’s good.  While I fully support those who want to eat Chick-fil-A today, I think in some ways supporters of Mr. Cathy are doing a disservice to him, and our country’s principles of liberty, by being drawn in to this battle on Rahm’s terms.  The tragedy is that the left has so politicized a chicken joint that it makes it hard to “eat mor chikin” without thinking of the shrill voices denouncing it.  It is insanity pure and simple.

By the same token, I still love The Bourne Identity.

Neither Al Gore, nor the government, invented the internet?

Check out this story from the WSJ:

A telling moment in the presidential race came recently when Barack Obama said: “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.” He justified elevating bureaucrats over entrepreneurs by referring to bridges and roads, adding: “The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all companies could make money off the Internet.”

It’s an urban legend that the government launched the Internet. The myth is that the Pentagon created the Internet to keep its communications lines up even in a nuclear strike. The truth is a more interesting story about how innovation happens—and about how hard it is to build successful technology companies even once the government gets out of the way.

Rest of the story here.

Bloomberg is just another vapid talking head

Michael is in charge of one of the largest military units in the world–the New York Police Department.  He says cops should go on strike if civilians don’t hand over their guns.  Is he suggesting that his police officers go on strike without gun control?  I don’t think so.  It’s really unbelievable.

Read this from Reason:

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg told CNN’s Piers Morgan last night that he doesn’t “understand why police officers across this country don’t stand up collectively and say we’re going to go on strike, we’re not going to protect you unless you, the public, through your legislature, do what’s required to keep us safe.”

We’ve been hearing a lot of that recently. Earlier this year, The New York Times reprinted a Department of Justice press release and slapped this lede on top of it: “As violent crime has decreased across the country, a disturbing trend has emerged: Rising numbers of police officers are being killed.”

Bloomberg and The New York Times are both wrong:

Here’s the rest of the story.


Already an oldie but goodie

What I like about things like John Roberts’ decision and Obama’s “you didn’t build that” remarks is that it crystallizes the choice we have before us.  We will decide in November in a way we haven’t been able to do since possibly 1932 what direction we as a people want America to go.  Obama’s reelection may be mitigated by a Republican-controlled Congress but the vote for president is our ultimate nationwide choice of who we want to speak for us as a country.

With that in mind, I absolutely love Scott Brown’s recent video.  Watch:

Leaks are coming from the White House?

No less than Sen. Dianne Feinstein thinks so.

Say it isn’t so, Mrs. Obama

I have not confirmed the veracity of this report (then again ABC News doesn’t bother so why worry), but this is revolting if even partly true. And that doesn’t even get to the irony and hypocrisy in light of her husband’s shameless campaign tactics.

You decide:

Mychal Massie is chairman of the National Leadership Network of Black
Conservatives-Project 21 – a conservative black think tank located in
Washington, D.C. He was recognized as the 2008 Conservative Man of the Year
by the Conservative Party of Suffolk County, N.Y. He is a nationally
recognized political activist, pundit and columnist.

Here is his article about our current First Lady.

What on earth can Michelle Obama possibly be tired from? What has she done
since her husband was elected that gives her one reason to be tired? I know
that flying, for the proletariat such as myself, can be tiring and, more
times than not, a genuine pain – but she flies in presidential luxury, sans
the president. And the only checkin’ in and full-body scan she goes through
at an airport is when she looks at herself in a mirror.

We, the taxpayers of this great nation, demand to know just what it is that
has her royalness so worn out and tired, that after just enjoying a lavish
17-day Hawaiian Christmas vacation (that cost taxpayers $4 million), she
needs another vacation at one of the most exclusive (and anti-union) resorts
in the country.

It cannot be that she is overworked because, if the liberal Los Angeles
Times is to be believed, between them, the Obamas have 454 White House aides
at a cost to the taxpayers of more than $37 million annually – and that
doesn’t include recent pay raises. (See: “No Recession For Obama’s 454 White
House aides: They’ll make $37,121,463 this year”; Andrew Malcolm, July 5,
2011.) And before you ask – yes, that is more than President and Mrs. Bush
had, and I was one of the lone voices decrying the small size and cost of
Laura Bush’s staff.

Could Ms. Obama still be suffering fatigue from the weight of having kept
secret, for two years, her extravagant Halloween costume ball? Even though
they used military families as a cover in case it got out, the last thing
she wanted the public to know was that, while Americans were suffering in
the depths of recession, she had the biggest players in Hollywood doing an
exclusive costume party just for herself and her family.

Or perhaps it’s the lingering effects of taking her mother and daughters to
South Africa and Botswana, or the sheer exhaustion of rushing out of
Washington, four hours ahead of her husband, so she wouldn’t have to share
her presidential jet with him on the way to Martha’s Vineyard for their
annual beach break.

Then again, maybe she was exhausted from her personal $50,000 underwear
shopping spree with the queen of Qatar, at Agent Provocateur, the store that
bills itself as selling “the most erotic lingerie in the world. Realizing
that you’re responsible for closing down Madison Avenue can be tiring, and
watching staff carry all those bags back to her limousines … whew! – that
would sure wear me out. And after the tiring experience of picking out all
of those exotic undies, what better place to recover than an uber-posh Vail
resort and the private home owned by Paula and Jim Crown?

Or maybe she’s worn out from rolling around on the floor to the delight of
Ellen Degeneres, or making muscles on a daytime show, or pulling on a rope
on another show, or eating at all of the restaurants where she loves to pig
it up.
Then again, maybe Ms. Obama is just an arrogant, high-minded person who
doesn’t give a rat’s tail about propriety or how her behavior looks to a
suffering public because, after all, her husband claims the economy is
improving, and who are we going to believe – the reality of our financial
situation or her husband?

Michelle Obama can afford to live life large since every dime she’s spending
comes on the backs and sweat of others. Nothing, zip, nada that she spends
did she personally earn. And therein is the disgusting elitism of a woman
who forgets where she came from, and dares you to remind her.

We are responsible for the billionaire life she lives, and it’s time we
started demanding that she be accountable to us. It’s time we started
confronting Obama at every press conference and/or speaking venue about the
behavior of his wife. He is spending hundreds of millions of our money,
flying around the country to raise a billion dollars for his campaign war
chest, and we’re paying $4 per gallon for fuel. We’ve lost our homes, our
mortgages are upside-down, our property taxes aren’t enough to cover the
increasing cost of infrastructure because of the drain of resources by
illegal aliens, and all of this is happening as the price of putting milk
and cereal on our tables is rising dramatically.

But why shouldn’t she be smiling??? For the first time in her adult life,
she is proud of America – and why not? She has tens of millions of peons
paying for her very own private reparations – now that’s enough to put a
smile on any elitist’s face!

Weakness and outrage

The murder of innocents in that Aurora Colorado theater is a horror. I cannot imagine the pain of the families who lost loved ones as a result of such a senseless and evil crime. I feel deep sadness for them, and my heart breaks especially for the parents of the children who were murdered by that man.

ABC News and two of its employees, however, could not resist politicizing the crime as they tried to suggest a linkage between the murderer and the Tea Party. Excuse me, but are you kidding me? It pales in comparison to the crime itself of course but that too is outrageous.

The knee jerk reactions of politicians, actors and others that “guns must be taken away!” are offensive and stupid, but it is expected and when it comes, as it did from John Leguizamo, amidst the horror and shock and sympathy for those executed, it’s even understandable.

But the responses that bother me most of all are the most insidious, subtle and telling ones, namely, the hand wringingly effete proclamations of the pols whose primary job is to protect and defend US, the citizens. Frankly I want outrage. I want RAGE from our elected leaders at the injustice. I want vows that justice will be served and that the criminal will not get away with this. Yes it sounds quaint perhaps, but the fact that it does is evidence of how far we’re already gone.

Mona Charen addresses this in National Review.

I don’t want to hear all those hackneyed practiced lines about healing. I don’t want to hear about how life is fragile. Fragile is when you die in a car crash or some freak accident. Fragile is not when you are gunned down in cold blood in a movie theater with dozens of others by an evil madman.

Let our families grieve how they see fit. And let the government do its job and hang that worm.

The games we play

Obama knowingly lies (or misleads, you pick) about Romney’s Bain record.  Romney demands an apology.  Obama refuses to apologize.  Both sides run ads defending positions and lambasting the other side for his outrageousness.

Romney’s Republican critics criticize his demand for apology as weak.  Romney’s Democratic critics call him a felon and say he deserves it.

Rove weighs in on whether this is the nastiest campaign ever;  a Democratic comedienne offers sex to a Republican donor if he’ll switch sides; and Trump tweets in on what a loser the president is.

Meanwhile, Batman, dressed in black, is about to fight Bane, who is white.  And Spiderman’s sweet and gentle aunt and uncle–the uncle who is shot by a white criminal with a star on his wrist–are union members who no doubt vote Democrat.

CNN’s Erin Burnett, smoking hot but chapped she’ll never replace the Money Honey, darts to CNN, dropkicks the sentiments of CNBC and cloaks herself in the righteous but low rating politics of her new network as she tries to put a journalistic chokehold on Mitt Romney.  Judging from how she used to practically throw herself at private equity titans I’m sure the fact that Mitt is so 1999 (and married) must be somewhat offputting.  He’s got grandkids for crying out loud!

The twitter universe is abuzz that Obama just said you didn’t build what you’ve been getting up at 5:30 am to build since before the president was getting stoned.  And Luke Skywalker (Luke Skywalker!) has now come out to say that Romney isn’t human.  The trouble for Romney of course is that Luke of all people is somewhat of an expert on the matter.  Then again we’ve known for 30 years that he’s got some daddy issues.  Romney could appeal to the princess but after how she bailed on her Scientologist friend Mr. Travolta I can only imagine how she’d feel about Romney the Mormon.

Limbaugh says Obama hates America and Axelrod demands that Romney apologize for that one.  Meanwhile Jeremiah Wright in fact does hate America but John McCain and the New York Times say that’s absolutely off limits.  I want to know what Louis Farrakhan thinks about that.

And by the way, I still want to know what the president’s grades were in college.  Or better yet, can I read his ConLaw exam he wrote as a 1L at Harvard?  Bet he’s still got it in a box somewhere.

New Romney ad and Obama’s funny tweets

I’m really enjoying the twitter thing.  Our president’s tweets are downright comedic.  For example, a few minutes ago he said: “Ever since I came into office, one of my biggest priorities has been, ‘How do I support small businesses?’”

Really?  By telling business owners they didn’t build their business or by raising their tax burden or maybe by suffocating them with increased regulations?

Or this one:  POTUS: “When the auto industry was on the brink of collapse and Gov. Romney said, ‘Let Detroit go bankrupt,’ I said no.”

@BarackObama You said no. Think bigger. Let’s bankrupt America!

While Obama was talking Romney released a new ad.  Here it is:

Foul left

I’m in my 40s and I’ve lived and worked in New York and LA.  I now live in a million-plus city in middle America and I travel extensively.  I hear foul language and sexually explicit jokes on a regular basis.  It is a fact of life in modern America and there is no escaping it.  Even kids’ movies today usually have at a minimum plenty of innuendo.

But I’m still taken aback when the vulgar banter jumps off the big and small screens and the small setting conversations to our national discourse and political debate.  I never would have thought of it, but I guess I’m grateful that debate moderators and our candidates don’t feel the liberty to pepper their talk with sh*t f*ck just to make a point.

What’s weird, though, is that if you go only one circle outside the candidates and their official spokesmen and listen, the difference is shocking.  Maher and his ilk unleash misogynist foulness on the Palins, Bachmanns and Malkins that would be on the front page of the New York Times if someone said the same about Hillary or Pelosi.  Sarah Silverman offers an explicit sexual experience to a major donor if he will contribute to Obama.  And George Lopez–mildly funny and generally innocuous–takes after Mitt Romney while cussing up a storm.  And this is all in the last couple days.

I can hear some of my liberal friends now making excuses, and, more specifically, differentiating in their minds their own views from the crassness of Obama’s advocates in the media.  But it’s not a difference that can or should be dismissed so easily. It is simply not a coincidence when it happens so regularly.

Only fools and rank Dems give Team Obama’s recent felony talk the slightest credence.  In fact, what everyone knows, including Obama, is that Romney is as straight laced as they come.  It’s doubtful he drinks, smokes, cusses, cheats on his wife or even laughs at dirty jokes.  I know what it takes to work at Bain and I can tell you that as its head he worked his tail off during what turned out to be the greatest bull market in the history of our country.  Call it right place right time, some luck and a lot of elbow grease, but he got rich fair and square and he earned it.  And for being rich, every indication is that he’s a good and decent man.

Maybe it’s boring, but I doubt you’ll see any of Romney supporters offering George Soros fellatio for $100 million.

We live in desperate times.  Jobs are scarce.  Our economy is gasping for air.  Our government’s debt grows by sums larger than other nations’ GDP–daily.  Our support for individual liberties is mocked as archaic and selfish by the Democratic leader of the House.  Our belief in the value of hard work and pulling oneself up by your bootstraps is chided by the President.  And the President’s crusaders don’t just scream at his opponents they spew filth into the public forum.

In 1976 Jimmy Carter played the moralist and soundly defeated Gerald Ford.  His presidency still ranks as one of the great disasters of modern American political experimentation.  Barack Obama ran against Bush as a different kind of moralist, but mostly he just ran against Bush.  By just about any measure–including his own in 2008–his presidency has been an epic failure.  But he will not go quietly.  His fangs are showing.  Instead of Hope and Change we have Fear and More of the Same.

And oddest of all, when confronted with an opponent who not only is a deeply moral man but also understands the economy as intuitively as Obama understood his chance to manipulate America’s desire for change in 2008, the President has opted to play the moralist himself and advocate not so much for anyone in particular as against the rich.

Only this moralist president also offers sexual favors.

A critical election

As Team Obama’s gloves come off we get more and more glimpses of the man he is and the vision for America that he holds. I am convinced that any American who is not already in the liberal tank can only support this man for president if he or she (a) is simply not paying attention and continues to just assume there’s no real difference between the parties and “he’ll do,” and/or (b) has no understanding of the history of our Republic and of the basic premise–liberty of the individual from the tyranny of the state–upon which it was founded.

For Obama, on the other hand, he’s just got a better idea.

Do I think he can implement a socialist state overnight? No. Do I think that is the political system he prefers? Absolutely. And when half of the country is on the government dole and a substantial enough number of the other half simply abdicates responsibility to vigilantly protect and preserve individual liberty, bad things can happen in a hurry. See Obamacare.

The unmasking of Obama is finally underway, but it is useless if the Americans who still have the power to slow down this train don’t act.

Here’s a great piece from Power Line:


One of the essential elements in President Obama’s transformation of the United States is a transformation in the understanding of the American people in the basic principles of political right. Obama is a proponent of the Progressive faith and its assault on the founding principles of the United States.

The Founders of the United States understood the protection of property rights to be bound up with freedom itself. “In a word,” James Madison explained, “as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights….” The Founders thus incorporated numerous provisions in the Constitution and Bill of Rights to protect the property rights of citizens from the power of the government.

Whatever else might be said about him, President Obama operates on a different philosophy of government from that of the Founders. His credo is reflected in the proposition: “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.”

The Founders thought that at some point the government had enough power. Obama, however, is a devout believer in unlimited government. The common denominator among so-called health care reform and financial regulatory reform as well and other elements of Obama’s program is the augmented power they confer on the government in general and the executive branch in particular.

On Friday night at a campaign stop in Roanoke President Obama stated his teaching in a form that echoes Elizabeth Warren. Video of Obama’s speech is accessible here; video of the Elizabeth Warren original is accessible here. It is useful to have it directly from Obama, and here it is:

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

Obama continued:

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

Certain deductions or inferences follow from Obama’s teaching. There is no just limit on the power of the government to take your property. Your property isn’t yours. What the government does not take from you by taxes or regulation remains yours conditionally, on the sufferance of the state.

Obama’s teaching presents us with a crisis in understanding. Responding to a similar crisis in understanding, the greatest Republican responded: “Now I ask you in all soberness, if all these things, if indulged in, if ratified, if confirmed and endorsed, if taught to our children, and repeated to them, do not tend to rub out the sentiment of liberty in the country, and to transform this Government into a government of some other form.” The answer is yes, and it applies every bit as much to Obama’s teaching as it did to Stephen Douglas’s.

Here’s the link.