The blog will be off-line as I am moving home and office plus taking a holiday. It should re-commence in mid-May.
Cheers!
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Monday, April 2, 2012
Mad Men of Hollywood
There's a popular TV show named "Mad Men" which is set in the 1960s but still, like virtually every Hollywood concoction, it's anti-Republican/conservative and pro-Democrat/liberal. A recent show had specific dialogue which said the (George) Romney was "a clown". George Romney was, of course, Mitt's father.
When will there be an episode describing Hussein Obama's father as a clown, a deadbeat Dad or any other derogatory word? Or comments about Hussein's illegal relative(s) or his DUI uncle?
To quote that eminent constitutional scholar, N. Pelosi, "Are you serious?"
(HT: Legal Insurrection)
When will there be an episode describing Hussein Obama's father as a clown, a deadbeat Dad or any other derogatory word? Or comments about Hussein's illegal relative(s) or his DUI uncle?
To quote that eminent constitutional scholar, N. Pelosi, "Are you serious?"
(HT: Legal Insurrection)
Saturday, March 31, 2012
T'aint Funny McGee
Americans of a certain age will recognize Molly's weekly jousting with Fibber. I was reminded of it this week when Justice Scalia asserted his 8th Amendment privilege against being required to read the 2,700 page ObamaCare bill in order to determine what should be excised and what should be retained. It was funny and the court's audience laughed. If you think about it though, it's not really a laughing matter.
Do think about it: two thousand seven hundred pages of fine print law in one bill. I'm pretty smart; learned to read decades ago; studied literature and philosophy in college and, later, went to law school. My everyday work requires me to read, read, read. Pleadings, statutes, cases, letters, contracts and more. But I promise you I could not read and understand a two thousand seven hundred page law. Nobody can. In fact, nobody does. Famously Pelosi said we have to pass the bill in order to find out what's in it. Other congressman concurred and nary a one has stood up and said: "I read the bill; I understand the bill." You can be sure Hussein Obama has never read the bill either.
So, who has?
Lobbyists; the special interst boys and girls on K Street; staffers lurking in Congress who, for money and more, make sure that their pet supporter's codicils are somewhere in those two thousand seven hundred pages that nobody has read.
Anyone else?
Yup, but just not yet. Faceless and endless bureaucrats will pore over the law down through the years and exert whatever pressure they can find therein to impose the then-current administration's policies on you, Dear Reader and your children down through the end of this once-free Republic.
Do think about it: two thousand seven hundred pages of fine print law in one bill. I'm pretty smart; learned to read decades ago; studied literature and philosophy in college and, later, went to law school. My everyday work requires me to read, read, read. Pleadings, statutes, cases, letters, contracts and more. But I promise you I could not read and understand a two thousand seven hundred page law. Nobody can. In fact, nobody does. Famously Pelosi said we have to pass the bill in order to find out what's in it. Other congressman concurred and nary a one has stood up and said: "I read the bill; I understand the bill." You can be sure Hussein Obama has never read the bill either.
So, who has?
Lobbyists; the special interst boys and girls on K Street; staffers lurking in Congress who, for money and more, make sure that their pet supporter's codicils are somewhere in those two thousand seven hundred pages that nobody has read.
Anyone else?
Yup, but just not yet. Faceless and endless bureaucrats will pore over the law down through the years and exert whatever pressure they can find therein to impose the then-current administration's policies on you, Dear Reader and your children down through the end of this once-free Republic.
Friday, March 30, 2012
SCOTU and The Trojan Horse
As a working lawyer, I seldom deal with Constitutional issues. They rarely arise in business litigation or divorce cases. Much of what I learned in my Con Law classes is rusty or forgotten. Nonetheless, I have followed the Supreme Court arguments on ObamaCare but more with a political than a legal interest.
The whole business got me thinking of the Commerce Clause, which for years has been the Congressional rationale for its ever-expanding encroachment into the nooks and crannies of American's lives. The Founders, those dead, white, Christian men who wrote the greatest constitution ever devised, were so clever. You see, whilst the entire thrust of the Constitution is to deny government power by limiting it to those powers enumerated within the Constitution's four corners, those crafy craftsmen snuck in the Trojan Horse known as the Commerce Clause which, with lawyerly penumbras emanating when needed, could be used to set agricultural subsidies or mandate health care insurance for all. Beware of Founders bearing gifts.
Always life has tipping points and, this past week, one was seen and heard by all. In shock and awe by this mandate, the court stood athwart the colossus and said: Enough already. We're co-equal here; you may play within the rules but we get to say what those rules are. And this is not a rule we recognize. We're going to consider this rule over here in SCOTUS. And, in a couple of months, we'll give you all our Opinion.
Seriously, Ms. Pelosi.
The whole business got me thinking of the Commerce Clause, which for years has been the Congressional rationale for its ever-expanding encroachment into the nooks and crannies of American's lives. The Founders, those dead, white, Christian men who wrote the greatest constitution ever devised, were so clever. You see, whilst the entire thrust of the Constitution is to deny government power by limiting it to those powers enumerated within the Constitution's four corners, those crafy craftsmen snuck in the Trojan Horse known as the Commerce Clause which, with lawyerly penumbras emanating when needed, could be used to set agricultural subsidies or mandate health care insurance for all. Beware of Founders bearing gifts.
Always life has tipping points and, this past week, one was seen and heard by all. In shock and awe by this mandate, the court stood athwart the colossus and said: Enough already. We're co-equal here; you may play within the rules but we get to say what those rules are. And this is not a rule we recognize. We're going to consider this rule over here in SCOTUS. And, in a couple of months, we'll give you all our Opinion.
Seriously, Ms. Pelosi.
Hussein and Other Blacks
Black Panthers offer $10,000 for the head of George Zimmerman and Hussein Obama says not a single word about these bounty hunters. Eric "My People" Holder says nothing even though he's in charge of the Department of Alleged Justice. Hate-mongers Sharpton and Jackson rant; black pundits everywhere are in full hue and cry. All this is supposedly about the police not yet arresting Zimmerman as their investigation is incomplete. Not really.
What it's about is to make sure black voters remain convinced the world is out to get them so that they do not defect from their political plantation and vote to re-elect Obama in November while, simultaneously, increasing the visibilty and prestige of the race-hustling types such as Sharpton.
The liberal media is beside itself as usual, screaming about white-Hispanic murders of blacks without one mention of crimes by blacks on whites which are far greater both absolutely and relatively.
We are seeing, again, how illiberal liberals truly are; how twisted, small and deformed their social thinking is. We are also seeing further division among races which is surely leading to a white/Asian political party, perhaps Republican, perhaps not, but surely in process.
What it's about is to make sure black voters remain convinced the world is out to get them so that they do not defect from their political plantation and vote to re-elect Obama in November while, simultaneously, increasing the visibilty and prestige of the race-hustling types such as Sharpton.
The liberal media is beside itself as usual, screaming about white-Hispanic murders of blacks without one mention of crimes by blacks on whites which are far greater both absolutely and relatively.
We are seeing, again, how illiberal liberals truly are; how twisted, small and deformed their social thinking is. We are also seeing further division among races which is surely leading to a white/Asian political party, perhaps Republican, perhaps not, but surely in process.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
The Justices and The Mandate
Now that the arguments are done, the waiting and guessing begins. Will Kennedy side with the President and retain his aura of the swing-vote with the DC elite? (inside the court, Kennedy is referred to as "Flipper")Will Scalia be consistent and vote as he did in another recent commerce clause case? And Roberts. Will he do whatever the rumor-monger wants to tout. All over DC and the high-brow media these speculations about what might tilt those justices are amok.
Interestingly, at least to me, there is one set of speculation one never hears: Nobody, but nobody, ever questions how Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor will vote. Everybody knows that the liberals will vote one-way and one-way only: a party line vote all the way.
Interesting how everybody simply knows that the liberal, democrat justices are not at all ever swayed by argument. They always vote liberal when the issue is politically charged. Liberals always do. They are closed-minded and we all know it. That's why nobody even thinks about how a liberal will vote. They know.
How liberal is that?
Interestingly, at least to me, there is one set of speculation one never hears: Nobody, but nobody, ever questions how Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor will vote. Everybody knows that the liberals will vote one-way and one-way only: a party line vote all the way.
Interesting how everybody simply knows that the liberal, democrat justices are not at all ever swayed by argument. They always vote liberal when the issue is politically charged. Liberals always do. They are closed-minded and we all know it. That's why nobody even thinks about how a liberal will vote. They know.
How liberal is that?
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Low Esteem of Black Male's Life
As part of the black politician's exploitation of the shooting of Trayvon Martin, Demcrat Black Congressman Emmanuel Cleaver said that the death was emblematic of the low esteem in which a young black man's life is held. He's right. Young, black males are substantially more likely to be murdered than young, white males.
Cleaver's problem is that almost always, those young, black males are murdered by guess who?
Young, black males.
Congressman Cleaver is doing the usual black thing: blaming everyone and anyone else for what is a black problem. Whites rarely kill blacks; blacks kill blacks.
Cleaver's problem is that almost always, those young, black males are murdered by guess who?
Young, black males.
Congressman Cleaver is doing the usual black thing: blaming everyone and anyone else for what is a black problem. Whites rarely kill blacks; blacks kill blacks.
Sunday, March 25, 2012
The Primary Is Secondary
It, the Republican primary race, is over and Romney will be the nominee, Louisiana's results notwithstanding. The Republican party will nominate an unpopular RINO, who is the intellectual and political godfather of socialized medicine in the United States and who has never been re-elected to any office held.
Mr. Romney's source of primary delegates is founded on states which neither he nor any Republican is likely to win against the incumbent. It is useless for a Republican candidate to spend a nickel to try to win California's electoral votes as my home state will vote for a dead Democrat over any Republican. That is a fact exercised in Illinois every election, presidential or not. It is smart primary politics to work those useless electoral states as they do count for the convention nominating process. But no Republican candidate will obtain a single California, Illinois, Vermont or Massachussets electoral vote, not one.
Romney will be a dreary candidate against the more cool, media-backed incumbent. He's a pretty-boy with a perfect 10 resume. That's why he's unliked: he's too perfect, he's all resume; he gives no vibes as to understanding the general electorate. I think that's because he doesn't understand the general electorate: he sees people as various statistical cohorts which needs to be managed. McCain was a better candidate than Romney will be including the fact that McCain had Sarah with him to liven up his mortuary appearance. Romney will have none of that. And we know how that worked out.
Nevertheless, Romney is very consistent. He will do what he has historically done best: he will lose.
Mr. Romney's source of primary delegates is founded on states which neither he nor any Republican is likely to win against the incumbent. It is useless for a Republican candidate to spend a nickel to try to win California's electoral votes as my home state will vote for a dead Democrat over any Republican. That is a fact exercised in Illinois every election, presidential or not. It is smart primary politics to work those useless electoral states as they do count for the convention nominating process. But no Republican candidate will obtain a single California, Illinois, Vermont or Massachussets electoral vote, not one.
Romney will be a dreary candidate against the more cool, media-backed incumbent. He's a pretty-boy with a perfect 10 resume. That's why he's unliked: he's too perfect, he's all resume; he gives no vibes as to understanding the general electorate. I think that's because he doesn't understand the general electorate: he sees people as various statistical cohorts which needs to be managed. McCain was a better candidate than Romney will be including the fact that McCain had Sarah with him to liven up his mortuary appearance. Romney will have none of that. And we know how that worked out.
Nevertheless, Romney is very consistent. He will do what he has historically done best: he will lose.
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Liberal Logic
George Zimmerman, the person who shot the boy who looked like Hussein Obama's putative son, is universally described as a white male in the mainstream media. Seldom is his picture displayed. The reason is that he is clearly not a Euro-white male: he is a Latino, an Hispanic. Sadly for the Sharptons, Jacksons and other racist rabble-rousers, that truth does not fit the narrative they're selling.
To a liberal, that Zimmerman has a white father and a Peruvian mother is enough to make him the white killer of a black man.
Following that liberal logic leads one, ineluctably, to the conclusion that Hussein Obama, who has a Kenyan father and a white mother is our 44th white president.
To a liberal, that Zimmerman has a white father and a Peruvian mother is enough to make him the white killer of a black man.
Following that liberal logic leads one, ineluctably, to the conclusion that Hussein Obama, who has a Kenyan father and a white mother is our 44th white president.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Abortion on Television
Did you ever wonder why an abortion is never shown on television? We see re-enactments of murder, rape and mayhem. We see real death, disasters and destructions in news programs. But we never see an abortion. Why?
An abortion, the "procedure" as its proponents call it would, if seen, end abortions once and for all. Imagine the Obama abortion, the one in which the doctor errs and the baby is not killed during the "procedure" but is alive and outside the womb. Obama, with others, voted to permit the doctor to kill the born child without penalty.
How can anyone do that? Only a gutless politician could vote that way for his own election. No decent person would consider it; it is murder to be sure. Yes, it is: the intentional killing of one human being by another is murder.
Think about it; picture it in your mmind. Then ask yourself why it has never been shown on television.
An abortion, the "procedure" as its proponents call it would, if seen, end abortions once and for all. Imagine the Obama abortion, the one in which the doctor errs and the baby is not killed during the "procedure" but is alive and outside the womb. Obama, with others, voted to permit the doctor to kill the born child without penalty.
How can anyone do that? Only a gutless politician could vote that way for his own election. No decent person would consider it; it is murder to be sure. Yes, it is: the intentional killing of one human being by another is murder.
Think about it; picture it in your mmind. Then ask yourself why it has never been shown on television.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Romney's Electability III
Once again the inevitable Mitt Romney falls far short, capturing something less than a third of the Republican primary voters. We've said right along that he's a cold fish, plastic and unlikeable. (See Older Posts) Romney is simply not a leader in the electoral sense. It's more than clear that he's very intelligent, has led an exemplary life and is a lot better than Hussein Obama. But it's not enough. If you can't get more than a third of your friends to vote for you, how can you secure votes from the undecideds and the democrat voters?
You can't - and that is the issue. Newt is, finally, sounding that tocsin. It's way past time for the Republican Grandees to note that that bell tolls for them as well. If nominated, Romney will not win the election as Republicans will not come out and vote for him in the enthusiastic droves that Hussein engenders in blacks, Mexicans and food stamp voters, including lottery winners. That's the ball game.
You can't - and that is the issue. Newt is, finally, sounding that tocsin. It's way past time for the Republican Grandees to note that that bell tolls for them as well. If nominated, Romney will not win the election as Republicans will not come out and vote for him in the enthusiastic droves that Hussein engenders in blacks, Mexicans and food stamp voters, including lottery winners. That's the ball game.
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Feministas
As noted in my prior post, I rarely comment on feminism but Gloria Allred's newest blather is worth noting as it's just so much obvious bs. Her latest clarion call is a demand that the Florida prosecutors arrest Rush Limbaugh for violating some state law prohibiting defamatory statements against women. Limbaugh is a Florida resident.
There are major legal impediments with Allred's braying. First, the law is unconstitutional as it offends the eqaul protection clause of the Constitution. You can't have a law like that which applies to females only. I now assume that Allred is okay with rules unfair to men on their face; it's just women who can't be treated unfairly. It's okay to be unfair to men. It's a bit like affirmative action: repayment for historical (and hysterical) wrongs.
Another major legal problem is that Limbaugh's remarks are simply not defamatory in the legal context. They are opinions; they are hyperbole and a reasonable person would interpret them that way. Such are constitutionally protected speech. Sorry Gloria; this time you're up the wrong tree. But she's looking for publicity, not a conviction. And our compliant press is not simply ignorant but incurious. They will let any liberal say anything but nitpick the conservative to death.
The lesson here? Democrat liberal loudmouths get wide-spread exposure from the press even when it's obvious that what they say is wrong. No lawyer would shout this except secure in the knowledge that there will be no blowback from a press which would love to see Limbaugh taken down/
There are major legal impediments with Allred's braying. First, the law is unconstitutional as it offends the eqaul protection clause of the Constitution. You can't have a law like that which applies to females only. I now assume that Allred is okay with rules unfair to men on their face; it's just women who can't be treated unfairly. It's okay to be unfair to men. It's a bit like affirmative action: repayment for historical (and hysterical) wrongs.
Another major legal problem is that Limbaugh's remarks are simply not defamatory in the legal context. They are opinions; they are hyperbole and a reasonable person would interpret them that way. Such are constitutionally protected speech. Sorry Gloria; this time you're up the wrong tree. But she's looking for publicity, not a conviction. And our compliant press is not simply ignorant but incurious. They will let any liberal say anything but nitpick the conservative to death.
The lesson here? Democrat liberal loudmouths get wide-spread exposure from the press even when it's obvious that what they say is wrong. No lawyer would shout this except secure in the knowledge that there will be no blowback from a press which would love to see Limbaugh taken down/
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Speaking of Feminism
I rarely do feminism blogs but this Fluke thing is beyond rational thought. Can you image the cojones Fluke must have to ask someone else to pay for her personal pleasure? Why not ask the dude she's with to cover (no pun) the cost or, better, to bring his own condom(s)? Why does she even need contraception? Is she a high-risk taker so as to have mucho sex but not mucho safe sex? Please say it isn't so.
If this new useful idiot of the left is having safe sex, i.e., sex with a guy wearing a condom, she has no need for contraception. If she's not having safe sex, she needs to attend safe sex classes. Such are a bit like traffic school where everybody knows how to drive but forgot to follow the rules and got caught. Maybe, a trip to her doctor would be in order?
Who should pay for that? Not me. Maybe you, Lefty.
If this new useful idiot of the left is having safe sex, i.e., sex with a guy wearing a condom, she has no need for contraception. If she's not having safe sex, she needs to attend safe sex classes. Such are a bit like traffic school where everybody knows how to drive but forgot to follow the rules and got caught. Maybe, a trip to her doctor would be in order?
Who should pay for that? Not me. Maybe you, Lefty.
Experiment in Feminism
Let's try this on for size. Our feminist friends are large on women having rights equal to men. Logically, that would mean that in their ideal world, women and men have equal rights. Okay?
Man tells wife: "I'm outta' here Fatso." Shortly thereafter, a judge says: "You may be outta' there but you're also going to be out some bucks in spousal support. You made a deal and you broke it. Breaking a contract has consequences. Pay up." Okay?
Wife tells hubby: I'm outta' here BetaBoy." Shortly thereafter, a judge says: She may be outta' there but you're also going to be out some bucks in spousal support. It's public policy. Pay up." Okay?
"Fair is fair" said the fair feministas.
Man tells wife: "I'm outta' here Fatso." Shortly thereafter, a judge says: "You may be outta' there but you're also going to be out some bucks in spousal support. You made a deal and you broke it. Breaking a contract has consequences. Pay up." Okay?
Wife tells hubby: I'm outta' here BetaBoy." Shortly thereafter, a judge says: She may be outta' there but you're also going to be out some bucks in spousal support. It's public policy. Pay up." Okay?
"Fair is fair" said the fair feministas.
Starve The Beast
In California, our governor, democrat Jerry Brown, is huckstering his new form of tax-increase proposals lauded and egged-on by the liberal California press. Einstein's cliche about insanity being repititious is applicable here. Why would any rational person give more money to the California legislative machine which is composed of those who got California into its financial morass in the first instance?
Unless and until Brown has a reasonable answer to that, he can shove his proposals into the back-room from whence they came.
It is also obvious that the same question should be posed by fiscally responsible candidates for office at every level. Why candidates don't just state the obvious is beyond me. Another charge is equally obvious: the U.S. Senate has failed to pass a budget in almost 3 years. That's years, Reader. How can a citizen vote for a candidate responsible for that irresponsibility?
Unless and until Brown has a reasonable answer to that, he can shove his proposals into the back-room from whence they came.
It is also obvious that the same question should be posed by fiscally responsible candidates for office at every level. Why candidates don't just state the obvious is beyond me. Another charge is equally obvious: the U.S. Senate has failed to pass a budget in almost 3 years. That's years, Reader. How can a citizen vote for a candidate responsible for that irresponsibility?
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Bill O'Reilly
Bill O'Reilly is one of the more well-known Fox News opinion pundits. As he nightly brays, his show is seen by more than all others in his time slot combined. My question is: "Why?" He is transparently fake: "the spin stops here; we're looking out for you, the folks" and more such drivel.
Rarely have I grown to dislike someone as much as he. A bully, boor and just plain obnoxious know-little, he makes Newt Gingrich appear humble. No guest is allowed to speak without interruption, often people aren't allowed to finish a sentence. Regular contributors take this guff because of the money and exposure but, frankly, I'd rather be poor.
The last straw was O'Reilly's analysis of the recent gasoline price increases and his proposed solution. First, his 'analysis'. Prices are rising because American producers are shipping product internationally thus reducing domestic supply and increasing domestic prices. Assume that's true. Does O'Reilly have a solution? You betcha' and it's a doozie. Here goes.
Oil is found in the ground and off-shore. That's the people's resource; government issues permits to drill on the people's land. The President should call in the oil company CEOs and tell them that a certain percentage of domestically produced oil must be sold here. If they refuse, the President slaps an export tax on their shipments and, maybe, shuts down their oilfields. That's the defender of capitalism, knight of the free marketeers talking. He actually trumpeted that proposal as the lead-in to his show. It was surreal.
It is hard to believe that 12 million people tune in to him every week-night, just plain hard to believe. I have a harder time trying to understand why they would be interested.
Rarely have I grown to dislike someone as much as he. A bully, boor and just plain obnoxious know-little, he makes Newt Gingrich appear humble. No guest is allowed to speak without interruption, often people aren't allowed to finish a sentence. Regular contributors take this guff because of the money and exposure but, frankly, I'd rather be poor.
The last straw was O'Reilly's analysis of the recent gasoline price increases and his proposed solution. First, his 'analysis'. Prices are rising because American producers are shipping product internationally thus reducing domestic supply and increasing domestic prices. Assume that's true. Does O'Reilly have a solution? You betcha' and it's a doozie. Here goes.
Oil is found in the ground and off-shore. That's the people's resource; government issues permits to drill on the people's land. The President should call in the oil company CEOs and tell them that a certain percentage of domestically produced oil must be sold here. If they refuse, the President slaps an export tax on their shipments and, maybe, shuts down their oilfields. That's the defender of capitalism, knight of the free marketeers talking. He actually trumpeted that proposal as the lead-in to his show. It was surreal.
It is hard to believe that 12 million people tune in to him every week-night, just plain hard to believe. I have a harder time trying to understand why they would be interested.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Abortion, Contraception and the Death of a Nation
Nowadays, I'm the oldest lawyer in the courthouse. Even the judges are more deferential or, at least, more polite. Not only do I have four grown children, each of my seven grandchildren is grown and out of college. Plus, I am blessed with a now 7-year old son. Thus, as they say, I walk the walk of which I talk.
I make no arguments as to abortion; each sides are obvious to any sensible person. Nonetheless, the truth of choice is the consequence of the death of a new life. Looking at my 7-year old today confirms the wisdom of the choices made by his Mother and me. I cannot imagine this world with him having been tossed into a container of bleeding fetuses, dumped into a landfill or worse.
In this nation of ours, we have legalized abortion so that it has become a legal right. I don't like or agree with it but then, I don't like or agree with some other legal rights. So, I grant that a woman has a legal right to choose. I do not believe there is an attached legal right for that same woman to expect me to pay for her exercise of her legal right or the consequence thereof. I paid for my 7-year old's birth and continue to pay for the costs of his life. Someone said that just because he had a legal right to bear arms, he did not have the legal right to a tax-payer provided gun.
I believe abortion morally wrong even if a legal right. Contraception is different; its morality is less clear. Its consequences, however, are similar to abortion's. The truth is that the consequences of each is the Death of a Nation. Since Roe, more than 50 million American children have not been born. Since contraception became so accessible, uncounted millions more American children were not conceived, much less born. Add it up; what do you get? The Death of a Nation.
Those unborn American children have nonetheless left their indelible mark on our country; they left an emptiness in America; fewer children means fewer customers, fewer workers, fewer payers into social security systems. Fewer children means less future. Put another way, less America.
And so, into the space of those missing millions of American children, have stepped the millions of children of non-Americans, forever changing this country to something radically different from the way we were to be into what we know not. Thus is the unintended consequence of choice the Death of our Nation.
I make no arguments as to abortion; each sides are obvious to any sensible person. Nonetheless, the truth of choice is the consequence of the death of a new life. Looking at my 7-year old today confirms the wisdom of the choices made by his Mother and me. I cannot imagine this world with him having been tossed into a container of bleeding fetuses, dumped into a landfill or worse.
In this nation of ours, we have legalized abortion so that it has become a legal right. I don't like or agree with it but then, I don't like or agree with some other legal rights. So, I grant that a woman has a legal right to choose. I do not believe there is an attached legal right for that same woman to expect me to pay for her exercise of her legal right or the consequence thereof. I paid for my 7-year old's birth and continue to pay for the costs of his life. Someone said that just because he had a legal right to bear arms, he did not have the legal right to a tax-payer provided gun.
I believe abortion morally wrong even if a legal right. Contraception is different; its morality is less clear. Its consequences, however, are similar to abortion's. The truth is that the consequences of each is the Death of a Nation. Since Roe, more than 50 million American children have not been born. Since contraception became so accessible, uncounted millions more American children were not conceived, much less born. Add it up; what do you get? The Death of a Nation.
Those unborn American children have nonetheless left their indelible mark on our country; they left an emptiness in America; fewer children means fewer customers, fewer workers, fewer payers into social security systems. Fewer children means less future. Put another way, less America.
And so, into the space of those missing millions of American children, have stepped the millions of children of non-Americans, forever changing this country to something radically different from the way we were to be into what we know not. Thus is the unintended consequence of choice the Death of our Nation.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Foot-Stamping
Mrs. Clinton at State and Ms. Rice at the UN are stamping their collectivist left feet at the intransigence of China and Russia for voting against the UN Resolution re Syria. La-dee-da.
The girls and their political friends, eager to take down Libya's Ghaddafi, are atwitter about some other approach to removing Assad from Syria. They couldn't wait to bomb Libya but urge sanctions-only in Syria
Who knows? They don't.
The girls and their political friends, eager to take down Libya's Ghaddafi, are atwitter about some other approach to removing Assad from Syria. They couldn't wait to bomb Libya but urge sanctions-only in Syria
Who knows? They don't.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
The Real Story of the Republican Primary Race
There is an endless number of pundit articles dissecting the Republican primary race but your ever contrarian writer sees more than meets the average pundit's eye. Behold.
It is fact that there have been eight state elections. Four have been won by Santorum, three by Romney and one by Gingrich. Most analysts describe a horserace, replete with touts, charts and odds. What I see is a constitutional republic writ loud and clear. The several states are yet truly different even among the supposedly united front of a political party. Despite the homogenizing effects of television and other major media forms, Americans are of substantially different opinions on important issues. Thus, the essence of our Constitution, federalism, still shines brightly.
Even though E Pluribus Unum is our nation's motto, one size does not fit all.
It is fact that there have been eight state elections. Four have been won by Santorum, three by Romney and one by Gingrich. Most analysts describe a horserace, replete with touts, charts and odds. What I see is a constitutional republic writ loud and clear. The several states are yet truly different even among the supposedly united front of a political party. Despite the homogenizing effects of television and other major media forms, Americans are of substantially different opinions on important issues. Thus, the essence of our Constitution, federalism, still shines brightly.
Even though E Pluribus Unum is our nation's motto, one size does not fit all.
My Recovery
Listening to Hussein Obama's interview with Matt Lauer, I heard Hussein say: "...my recovery..." Unbelievable narcissism in that person. "My recovery" indeed. As if his policies haven't restrained and retarded whatever recovery exists.
Monday, February 6, 2012
Irish Catholic Families
Hussein Obama's wife recently expressed her disdain and distress at those Irish Catholic families who, she said, run Chicago.
I am distressed by black families who cannot control their children or themselves and who commit the vast majority of violent crime in these United States.
I am distressed by black families who cannot control their children or themselves and who commit the vast majority of violent crime in these United States.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
A Sad Victory
Willard won big tonight and most of the punditocracy attribute his financial strength which gave him the ability to run enormous numbers of negative ads throughout Florida. Gingrich ran what negative ads he could afford so neither is a virgin in this.
I don't watch TV other than for news and, sometimes, a ball game so I never see a political ad. Nonetheless, they clearly work. One hopes that his compatriots choose on the issues but that's high hope and unlikely change. I know winning is everything but, somehow, winning ugly deflates the victory.
Sad, truly sad.
I don't watch TV other than for news and, sometimes, a ball game so I never see a political ad. Nonetheless, they clearly work. One hopes that his compatriots choose on the issues but that's high hope and unlikely change. I know winning is everything but, somehow, winning ugly deflates the victory.
Sad, truly sad.
Monday, January 30, 2012
"I Created Millions of Jobs"
All the politicos and candidates say something like that and it's all BS. Except for government jobs, politicians do not and cannot "create jobs".
Evil corporations create jobs. Oil companies create jobs. Coal mining companies create jobs. Only business people, risk-takers all, create jobs. Most of them do it with their own money too, not like the Solyndra hustlers who took your money and threw their green ideas on the wall to see if they would stick. No risk to them; all were well-paid with your tax-dollars Sucker.
So tell Willard, Hussein, Newt et al that they create no jobs. The best they can do is to set a better government environment for job-creators. It's not nothing but it's all they can do and nothing else.
Evil corporations create jobs. Oil companies create jobs. Coal mining companies create jobs. Only business people, risk-takers all, create jobs. Most of them do it with their own money too, not like the Solyndra hustlers who took your money and threw their green ideas on the wall to see if they would stick. No risk to them; all were well-paid with your tax-dollars Sucker.
So tell Willard, Hussein, Newt et al that they create no jobs. The best they can do is to set a better government environment for job-creators. It's not nothing but it's all they can do and nothing else.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Biden's A Cheap SOB
In the ten years prior to becoming vice-president, Joe Biden averaged $369 a year in charitable donations. Yup! $369.
He, Hussein Obama and their fellow-liberals are only generous when it's your money they give away, spend or waste.
He, Hussein Obama and their fellow-liberals are only generous when it's your money they give away, spend or waste.
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Whoremasters
Yesterday, ABC News put out a list of famous politicians who have had mistresses. They went all the way back to Thomas Jefferson by golly. Somehow, though, they missed Franklin D. Roosevelt, Bill Clinton, John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and Edward Kennedy.
How could it be that they missed those five Democrat whoremasters? Isn't ABC a news organization?
How could it be that they missed those five Democrat whoremasters? Isn't ABC a news organization?
Foreign Policy Elites
Once again the reigning elites have been proven wrong. Egypt is now a Muslim run country, alien to Israel, the United States and all things Western. One wonders how that could possibly be given the credentials of our foreign policy leaders, former cocaine user Hussein Obama, The One, and, of course, the Smartest Woman in the World, that open-marriage frump over at State. Don't forget the idiot at the NY Times rag, one Friedman, and those other media types who gushed about the Arab Spring. Those people are credentialed fools. Historically, they resemble that earlier failure, Carter, whose fecklessness enabled the Iranian Revolution to succeed, overthrow the Shah and send you and me into higher priced gasoline and the world into the greedy hands of OPEC. You do remember the Iranian hostage crisis, the helicopter crash in the Iranian desert, gasoline lines and rationing don't you?
Well, you Democrat readers voted for and supported each of those fools. Trump is right: those people couldn't do a deal if their lives depended on it. Neither could either Bush.
As the most powerful country in the world, our elected and appointed elites have simply given away our power and prosperity instead of lending it to those who can do our citizens the most good. Want to keep lots of manufacturing jobs in the US? We should have made a deal with Saddam for our support in return for his (cheap) oil. Why should we try to impose our civics upon other peoples? Our elites - read Bush family - made personal deals with the Saudis. That's simply ignored nowadays though it was news some years back. K Street lobbyists make deals for the Saudis. All of that is bad for Amerca; it's just good for those insiders and their bank accounts.
You want more? Look at Mexico. It's one of the world's great exporting countries. Probably a greater exporter than China. What do they export? Uneducated, illiterate Mexicans who can't get a job in Mexico. In a word, Mexico exports its poverty. And we buy it, hook, line and sinker. The Mexican elites, none of whom looks like any Mexican illegal you ever saw, dump their underclass onto the backs of the American taxpayer. In California, we even put their children ahead of our own and pay them to go to college. Its called multiculturalism by the elites though I can't imagine appreciating anything alleged as culture to be found in third-world Mexico's underclass or Mexico itself. In fact, I can't find any Mexican culture much less appreciate it. Mexico produces zero technological contributions to the world, creates zero world class music, art or theater, discovers zero medical breakthroughs, offers zero support in the drug wars, has zero control of its drug-cartel run Northern provinces, has zero Nobel prizes, zero anything.
Nonetheless, American elites love Mexicans over American citizens. Who are these Mexican lovers? The Wall Street Journal crowd; the Bush family again; the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; the Democrat Party; liberals and Catholic bishops. Even black elites want to join forces with them, screwing working-class blacks for the brown-skinned Mexican illegals in order to retain their personal spoils from their race-baiting careers.
So, in addition to 16 trillion in debt, we lose undeclared wars to the Viet Cong, Afghanistanis and other world-class military organizations, dilute our country's greatest asset, its citizenry, worsen the status of our own underclass, probably forever, as the Latinos are ascendant, better organized and numerically superior.
Nice work Harvard.
Well, you Democrat readers voted for and supported each of those fools. Trump is right: those people couldn't do a deal if their lives depended on it. Neither could either Bush.
As the most powerful country in the world, our elected and appointed elites have simply given away our power and prosperity instead of lending it to those who can do our citizens the most good. Want to keep lots of manufacturing jobs in the US? We should have made a deal with Saddam for our support in return for his (cheap) oil. Why should we try to impose our civics upon other peoples? Our elites - read Bush family - made personal deals with the Saudis. That's simply ignored nowadays though it was news some years back. K Street lobbyists make deals for the Saudis. All of that is bad for Amerca; it's just good for those insiders and their bank accounts.
You want more? Look at Mexico. It's one of the world's great exporting countries. Probably a greater exporter than China. What do they export? Uneducated, illiterate Mexicans who can't get a job in Mexico. In a word, Mexico exports its poverty. And we buy it, hook, line and sinker. The Mexican elites, none of whom looks like any Mexican illegal you ever saw, dump their underclass onto the backs of the American taxpayer. In California, we even put their children ahead of our own and pay them to go to college. Its called multiculturalism by the elites though I can't imagine appreciating anything alleged as culture to be found in third-world Mexico's underclass or Mexico itself. In fact, I can't find any Mexican culture much less appreciate it. Mexico produces zero technological contributions to the world, creates zero world class music, art or theater, discovers zero medical breakthroughs, offers zero support in the drug wars, has zero control of its drug-cartel run Northern provinces, has zero Nobel prizes, zero anything.
Nonetheless, American elites love Mexicans over American citizens. Who are these Mexican lovers? The Wall Street Journal crowd; the Bush family again; the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; the Democrat Party; liberals and Catholic bishops. Even black elites want to join forces with them, screwing working-class blacks for the brown-skinned Mexican illegals in order to retain their personal spoils from their race-baiting careers.
So, in addition to 16 trillion in debt, we lose undeclared wars to the Viet Cong, Afghanistanis and other world-class military organizations, dilute our country's greatest asset, its citizenry, worsen the status of our own underclass, probably forever, as the Latinos are ascendant, better organized and numerically superior.
Nice work Harvard.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Monday, January 16, 2012
Missing Gingrich
It will be a shame if Newt Gingrich is taken out of the nominating process so soon as his wit is fun. Today's zinger is: Why would you nominate the guy who lost to the guy who lost to Obama?
That should have been said weeks ago as it's memorable, funny and unassailable logic.
That should have been said weeks ago as it's memorable, funny and unassailable logic.
Friday, January 13, 2012
The Bain Solution
Before I was a lawyer, I was a computer guy whose "big idea" launched a company which forever changed the way the world entered information into computer systems. In those halcyon days, virtually every bit of information entered in a computer got there by way of a keypuched IBM card. Tens of millions of IBM cards were punched each and every day, world-wide. There was no other way. Today, many people would look at you blankly were you to ask them about an IBM card, much less a keypunch.
The details are unnecessary here but available to anyone interested; just ask me. Our company's main selling point was this: entering data this new way increased the productivity of each data entry operator by at least 33%. That meant a company could FIRE 33% of its operators by using our equipment rather than IBM's equipment. It was demonstrably true, easy to validate and we sold hundreds of millions of dollars worth of our computer equipment plus our competitors sold hundreds of millions of dollars more. In those days, hundreds of millions was a lot of money.
Thus, we caused thousands and thousands of people to be FIRED which resulted in the enrichment of the three founders, our investors and our shareholders. And nobody took us to the woodshed for it. Indeed, we were lauded for being prescient. Merrill Lynch, then the Holy Grail of the investment banking business, took us public after much vetting.
Enter, Willard Romney.
Bain's business was basically the same: make a business more efficient. Often, that means saving labor costs for customers or labor costs for the company.
Here's the debate and marketing pitch: It's only the government which is indifferent to saving labor costs. The government does not need to make a profit, it can print or borrow money easily, tax its citizens without firing anybody and the Obama democrats simply do not give a damn. In fact, they love it; it's in their DNA.
If, for example, the government had been in the telephone business, we'd still have telephone operators for long-distance calls; direct-dial would cause government employyees to be fired. That philosophy is exactly why there are still hundreds of thousands of Postal Service employees who are unnecessary when FedEx or others would gladly replace them were the government to end its monopoly on delivery into mailboxes.
So, soon-to-be Mr. rather than President Obama, are you in favor of the inefficient keypuch operators or the unneeded telephone operators? If you are, then you're in favor of continuing the waste of government (taxpayer) money. If you are not, then you are in the same business as Bain: making government, business, people, everthing work smarter, better and more effectively.
Where's your beef with that Hussein?
The details are unnecessary here but available to anyone interested; just ask me. Our company's main selling point was this: entering data this new way increased the productivity of each data entry operator by at least 33%. That meant a company could FIRE 33% of its operators by using our equipment rather than IBM's equipment. It was demonstrably true, easy to validate and we sold hundreds of millions of dollars worth of our computer equipment plus our competitors sold hundreds of millions of dollars more. In those days, hundreds of millions was a lot of money.
Thus, we caused thousands and thousands of people to be FIRED which resulted in the enrichment of the three founders, our investors and our shareholders. And nobody took us to the woodshed for it. Indeed, we were lauded for being prescient. Merrill Lynch, then the Holy Grail of the investment banking business, took us public after much vetting.
Enter, Willard Romney.
Bain's business was basically the same: make a business more efficient. Often, that means saving labor costs for customers or labor costs for the company.
Here's the debate and marketing pitch: It's only the government which is indifferent to saving labor costs. The government does not need to make a profit, it can print or borrow money easily, tax its citizens without firing anybody and the Obama democrats simply do not give a damn. In fact, they love it; it's in their DNA.
If, for example, the government had been in the telephone business, we'd still have telephone operators for long-distance calls; direct-dial would cause government employyees to be fired. That philosophy is exactly why there are still hundreds of thousands of Postal Service employees who are unnecessary when FedEx or others would gladly replace them were the government to end its monopoly on delivery into mailboxes.
So, soon-to-be Mr. rather than President Obama, are you in favor of the inefficient keypuch operators or the unneeded telephone operators? If you are, then you're in favor of continuing the waste of government (taxpayer) money. If you are not, then you are in the same business as Bain: making government, business, people, everthing work smarter, better and more effectively.
Where's your beef with that Hussein?
A Dumb Jew and a Dumb Idea
A fellow Ashkenazic, Glenn Greenwald over at Salon magazine, is running against type. Ashkenazic Jews, such as Greenwald and I, are lucky members of the world's highest IQ class. Even so, Greenwald writes some dumb stuff. Consider.
Greenwald asserts that by killing Iranian nuclear scientists, Isreal and/or the U.S. are "terrorists". For a Jew to think that by killing Iranian nuclear experts, Israel becomes a terrorist nation is more than a stretch: it is simply dumb.
Few know whether either country or even any country is really behind the rash of assassinated Iranian nuclear scientists. Either way, I'm delighted. We should do a lot more of that stuff. Kill the bastards before they kill us is the best way to avoid wars and avoiding the deaths of American military men. Unlike some, I would make deals with the devil if it's beneficial to the U.S. I've always thought both Bushes made a big mistake with Saddam Hussein. We should have made a deal with him for cheap oil and military bases in Iraq in return for protection for his government. In that sense, The Donald and I agree even though I don't think he's Ashkenazic.
Were I president of the U.S., I'd be less concerned about other country's citizens problems and very concerend about American citizen's problems. I'd resolve the latter and leave the others to Allah.
Greenwald asserts that by killing Iranian nuclear scientists, Isreal and/or the U.S. are "terrorists". For a Jew to think that by killing Iranian nuclear experts, Israel becomes a terrorist nation is more than a stretch: it is simply dumb.
Few know whether either country or even any country is really behind the rash of assassinated Iranian nuclear scientists. Either way, I'm delighted. We should do a lot more of that stuff. Kill the bastards before they kill us is the best way to avoid wars and avoiding the deaths of American military men. Unlike some, I would make deals with the devil if it's beneficial to the U.S. I've always thought both Bushes made a big mistake with Saddam Hussein. We should have made a deal with him for cheap oil and military bases in Iraq in return for protection for his government. In that sense, The Donald and I agree even though I don't think he's Ashkenazic.
Were I president of the U.S., I'd be less concerned about other country's citizens problems and very concerend about American citizen's problems. I'd resolve the latter and leave the others to Allah.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
The Hispanic Panderer
Hussein Obama, the guy whose wife hates powerful 'Irish Catholic families", has instructed his immigration department to "temporarily" cease and desist from deporting the over 200,000 El Salvadorans illegally in our country. This 18 month freeze is great for El Salvador because the Yankee dollars sent there by its illegals keeps that hell-hole of a country afloat economically. Hussein does not give one thought to the over 200,000 Amaericans who are either not working or not supported by a working American as a result of these illegal aliens in our country.
Hussein only cares about reelection. He's a socialist you see and they only care about power. Americans? You can't be serious.
Hussein only cares about reelection. He's a socialist you see and they only care about power. Americans? You can't be serious.
Monday, January 9, 2012
Flying Elephants
I almost never read the New York Times on politics which is, frankly, a mess of lies and lying political writers. Maureen Dowdy is one such; another is a guy named Friedman. He was a major proponent of the Arab Spring baloney alleging that Egypt, after Tahir Square, would be a fledgeling liberal democracy. Well, well. What those mostly illiterate Egyptians voted for was more Muslim Mullahs. So Friedman writes a column about flying elephants comparing that feat to predicting the fluid Middle East. He's excusing himself much as many Democrats now see Hussein Obama differently. There is something Friedman forgot though: one elephant did fly.
Dumbo.
Dumbo.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Romney's Electability II
Following last night's Iowa caucus it is abundantly clear that Willard Romney lost and that he lost big-time.
When 75% of your fellow Republicans vote against you after your having spent $10,000,000 to persuade them to vote for you, you have lost. If 8 votes better than Rick Santorum is the best he can do among his putative friends, how do you think he will fare among Democrats and independent voters?
The Romney we see on television is an unlikeable, plastic, cold repeater of cliched phrases. Despite his advertising, being governor of Massachussets is not much of a recommendation for the presidency. It's a small state, not known for much other than Harvard and corrupt Democrats being imprisoned. Frankly, nobody pays much attention to what Deval Patrick does. (Who is Deval Patrick?)
As for Willard's managerial skills, L.A. ran a better Olympics than Willard did in Salt Lake and nobody touted the L.A. managers for the presidency based on their managerial skills. Few can even name those good folks.
And, as for Bain Capital, it's a financial consulting, venture capital firm that buys, strips and sells businesses, assets and bets with other people's money. It manages nothing. Neither has Willard. His expertise is in stripping companies of their assets, shuffling them and betting that the company's management can make the business model work. I don't recall him being CEO of any operating company. My view is that he's another Harvard MBA wonder boy: a numbers manipulator. We have thousands of them in D.C. We do not need another computer plan; we need a leader. The key ingredient of a leader is that his followers like him and when he says "Go", all move together. Too few folks like Willard. Mostly sycophants follow him.
So, when I look at it all in all, Willard the Wonder Boy does not have "it". Obama will beat him handily as the Democrats will turn out the vote. Willard will not as 3 of 4 Republicans don't want him.
Karl Rove is wrong - again. Romney is unelectable. He is unlikeable. It's that simple.
Unfortunately.
When 75% of your fellow Republicans vote against you after your having spent $10,000,000 to persuade them to vote for you, you have lost. If 8 votes better than Rick Santorum is the best he can do among his putative friends, how do you think he will fare among Democrats and independent voters?
The Romney we see on television is an unlikeable, plastic, cold repeater of cliched phrases. Despite his advertising, being governor of Massachussets is not much of a recommendation for the presidency. It's a small state, not known for much other than Harvard and corrupt Democrats being imprisoned. Frankly, nobody pays much attention to what Deval Patrick does. (Who is Deval Patrick?)
As for Willard's managerial skills, L.A. ran a better Olympics than Willard did in Salt Lake and nobody touted the L.A. managers for the presidency based on their managerial skills. Few can even name those good folks.
And, as for Bain Capital, it's a financial consulting, venture capital firm that buys, strips and sells businesses, assets and bets with other people's money. It manages nothing. Neither has Willard. His expertise is in stripping companies of their assets, shuffling them and betting that the company's management can make the business model work. I don't recall him being CEO of any operating company. My view is that he's another Harvard MBA wonder boy: a numbers manipulator. We have thousands of them in D.C. We do not need another computer plan; we need a leader. The key ingredient of a leader is that his followers like him and when he says "Go", all move together. Too few folks like Willard. Mostly sycophants follow him.
So, when I look at it all in all, Willard the Wonder Boy does not have "it". Obama will beat him handily as the Democrats will turn out the vote. Willard will not as 3 of 4 Republicans don't want him.
Karl Rove is wrong - again. Romney is unelectable. He is unlikeable. It's that simple.
Unfortunately.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Ann Coulter
A veritable icon of the right, Ann Coulter is hustling votes for Willard Romney, recently re-named "McCain with Hair". Coulter, now well ensconced in childless spinsterhood, is laying the groundwork for a personal renaissance after marginalizing herself by years of practicing the professional recklessness which she posits as Newt Gingrich's principal failure. Her relentless style has, I think, worn thin. As she moves into AARP territory, Ann seeks to re-position herself so as to rescue her career from irrelevancy.
If you're conservative, it's difficult not to like Ann. She's bright as can be, speaks well, has facts at her fingertips, is unafraid of debate and comes across as a believer in what she says. In that sense at least, she is, in fact, Newt in a skirt. Alas, this New Ann is an obvious licker of Establishment boots who wishes to rejoin the Party's mainstream leaders. It is an unattractive flip-flop but not inconsistent with her new main man, Willard the Wonder. It may work for him but, for her, she'll be useful and used by the elites. Nothing more.
If you're conservative, it's difficult not to like Ann. She's bright as can be, speaks well, has facts at her fingertips, is unafraid of debate and comes across as a believer in what she says. In that sense at least, she is, in fact, Newt in a skirt. Alas, this New Ann is an obvious licker of Establishment boots who wishes to rejoin the Party's mainstream leaders. It is an unattractive flip-flop but not inconsistent with her new main man, Willard the Wonder. It may work for him but, for her, she'll be useful and used by the elites. Nothing more.
Sunday, January 1, 2012
2012 Wish
Like most seasoned citizens, my 2012 wish for myself is 2013. I wish the same for all my readers. If granted, I will pray for a renewal of my corporeal subscription immediately.
Enjoy the rest of your life.
Tick Tock; Tick Tock.
Enjoy the rest of your life.
Tick Tock; Tick Tock.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
