What About That Electoral College?

Ahh, the Electoral College, the real way that our president's are elected.
It has been a source of angst since, well since the founding of the republic.
Many people on both sides look at the Electoral College and think, may it is time to just get rid of it. It is of a bygone era. We should just elect our president by popular vote.
After all, senators used to be appointed by state legislatures per the constitution. Now they are directly elected by the people in every state.
Why not presidents?
Well, firstly the Electoral College is in place primarily to keep a check and balance. The check is on the larger populated states. The balance is that no state no matter how small or large is at a disadvantage when voting for president. In other words, Wyoming counts as much as California. In theory.
The election in 2000 was the first time since 1888 that the Electoral College truly decided a presidential election.
In 2000, Republican George W. Bush received less of the popular vote than Democrat Albert Arnold Gore. But, Mr. Bush won the Electoral College by the barest of majorities, 271-266 and 270 is the magic number. It is why when the Florida presidential vote became agonizingly close the whole Electoral College concept was being debated itself. Once that election was settled, the trend became clear that both the Republican and Democrat parties started with a certain amount of states that were going to be in their corner and those that neither party wasted much time or resources in. That left basically a handful of states determining the winner of their state and thus the electoral college.
So, how does it work?
Well, on presidential election day, we are not really voting for the candidate of our choice directly. We are voting for a candidate to win the most votes and thus win that state's electoral votes.
So let me use my state of California as an example.
California has 55 electoral votes. They are distributed as follows: 53 votes based on the 53 congressional districts in the state. The remaining two votes equaling the number of senators. And there are 55 electoral votes. Who ever wins the most votes in this state gets all the electoral votes.
Since 1992, California has voted for Democrat candidates and thus the 55 electoral votes have gone to the Democrat candidate, win or lose the majority of electoral votes nationwide. So in 2000 and 2004, while a Democrat won the most votes in California, it did not matter because the Republican won more in other parts of the United States. When the Electoral College meets later in the election year, California's votes go to the Democrat candidate because the Democrat won the most votes in the state.
It is primarily the way it works in 48 of the 50 states. Unless one wants to count the seven add-ons courtesy of then presidential candidate Sen. Messiah Barack.
Yes, I jest. But it is fun to watch our constitutional scholar prez not know quite how many states there are in this union!

Two states, Maine and Nebraska, apportion their electors not state-wide but by congressional district. Thus, and few people know this, very Republican Nebraska actually was able to award an electoral delegate to Barack Obama. Because he won the most votes in the congressional district in and around Omaha, the state's largest city. And the last three elections saw Republican candidates try to win the Maine 2nd congressional district as it is more Republican friendly in an equally Democrat state as Nebraska is Republican.
And both states made the change by initiative asking the state voters to decide the question.
Now, some states in which the Republican candidate in 2012, Mitt Romney, lost are trying to come up with similar electoral vote distribution as do Maine and Nebraska.
Now, the rich claim of the Democrats is that, why by golly, the Republicans are trying to steal elections. Because in Virginia, where the Dear Leader, President Obama won the 13 electoral votes, that would not have happened in the last election. If Mr. Romney won the majority in the 11 congressional districts, he could have won the state based on the distribution of the electoral vote. Instead of all 13 votes going to Team Obama, maybe only five of the 11 would have gone their way. Team Romney could have won six electoral votes and thus the state.
So, do the Democrats have a point?
Not really.
Because each state can distribute the electoral votes as they want to.
And if one thinks that they don't have a trick up their sleeve to totally undermine the whole concept of the Electoral College, there is the so-called National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
And it is doozy.
So, remember how in 2000 and 2004 California voters voted for the Democrat for president and the Republican won?
Under this scheme, if enough states were to follow suit, California's electoral votes could have been given to one Republican George W. Bush.
That truly undermines the intent of the Electoral College. Not whether or not a state chooses to distribute the vote by congressional district or not. And that is the intent. And yes, this is an idea passed in Democrat-controlled states.
So, if one wants to be truly cynical, both political parties want something that they  believe will give them a perpetual advantage.
And the whole concept of the Electoral College is to not have that happen.
At least the Republicans want to keep the Electoral College. The Democrats see that as I noted something old and not suitable to the times.
But the fact is that if more states went to the congressional district distribution of electoral votes, it would make both political parties expand the map. Right now, they both seem to like that the presidential race boils down to less than 10 states and they can micro-target and all that in places like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Florida.
To regain a competitive two-party system in California, right now there are 15 Republican congressional districts. And the Democrats have the remaining 38. More than a two-to-one advantage. But in a close race, California Republicans could actually see their candidate at rallies and the like. Now, all they do is come in for a fundraiser and leave. It would give the state party a needed boost. And the Democrats do the same thing.
And one can use that same scenario for a Republican state like Utah. Yes, now with four congressional districts, there is one that is held by a Democrat. Why it would have been possible for the Dear Leader, President Obama, to have actually campaigned in Utah to try to win that electoral vote.
Under this system, the electoral map is expanded and a presidential campaign can really be a national one.
And we should let the constitution be the guide. Let the state determine how to distribute the electoral votes.
And no, the sky has not fallen because two states already have such a plan in place.
The Electoral College is needed more than ever today. For a nation that values the role of state government as being the best way to govern, it avoids the potential tyranny of a majority either way. It is a safeguard that not one state will be more powerful than another in the most important duty of the citizen. The way we elect a president.

Is The GOP FINALLY Getting It?

Well, nothing makes a political party think more than losing a winnable presidential election than, well losing.
Sure, the Republican party did gain ground in governor races in 2012.
And expanded on their majority of state legislatures.
But, as mentioned, they lost the presidential race. They lost winnable senate seats and thus are in the minority. And they did lose eight seats in the House of Representatives.
So this week, the Republican National Committee is meeting and judging by what the leadership of the party is suggesting, it is time not just to come up with a new playbook, but a new way of reaching beyond the reliable Republican voter.
While the party reelected the chair, Reince Priebus (what sick parents would actually name their child REINCE?!), some conservatives will grumble that under his leadership, the party did not take back the White House as many expected in 2012.
I will defend Mr. Priebus in this respect.
Once Mitt Romney won the nomination, he pretty much assimilated his team with the RNC. In reality, Mr. Priebus was but a face and more figurehead while Team Romney ended up on a crash and burn.
Now let us see if he can actually lead the party on his own.
It appears that he is on the right track.
Michael Walsh over at National Review Online highlights this from the RNC chair:

"It’s time to stop looking at elections through the lens of “battleground states.” We have four years till the next presidential election, and being a “blue state” is NOT a permanent diagnosis.
Simple “outreach” a few months before an election will not suffice. In fact, let’s stop talking about “reaching out”—and start working on welcoming in. Political support is cultivated over time—not collected on Election Day."

BANG!
Mr. P is totally spot on!
And Mr. Walsh goes on to state the obvious.
That the RNC basically writes off states and whole regions now before an national election even begins.
The Great Litany of states the Republicans did not even bother with:

California
Oregon
Washington
The three above states make up the Pacific Coast.

Illinois
That is one Midwest state the GOP seems to give a big fat "Meh" to in every election since Reagan.

Connecticut
Massachusetts
Maine
Rhode Island
Vermont
And there is most of New England save for New Hampshire which is becoming hard to figure out.

New York
New Jersey
Delaware
Maryland
The mid-Atlantic region. The GOP only plays for Pennsylvania and Virginia is not totally Blue just yet.

And my friends, the Republican party starts off a presidential election about 204 electoral seats that they simply give to the Democrats because they have decided most of these states are lost for the foreseeable future.
Why?
Mr. Walsh blames the permanent consultant class that many in the GOP think are Gods. And his big bugaboo is one Karl Rove.
And I do think that he is on to something there.
Yes, there are some states that maybe the GOP can't win now. But if the party stays at least competitive and builds up from the areas of a said state kind of out of the GOP orbit. Really, there is no reason for the Republican party to not be more competitive in California. Look at the map from the just concluded 2012 presidential death march, er election. There is a lot of Red in there. Imagine if the Cali GOP had the money and or resources to compete in San Bernardino county? San Diego county? And yes, even in my dreaded county, Los Angeles? Maybe Mr. Romney would have racked up better numbers here in Los Angeles county. Maybe he could have got as much as 40%. And maybe he would have won San Bernardino and San Diego counties. Had larger margins in Orange and Riverside counties.
It is doable.
But, here is a reality.
We know that the only time Republicans come to California, they leave with a boatload of cash and that is all. And many, many Republicans that I know personally shrug their shoulders and say that their vote does not matter because the Democrat will win. It is a self-suppression of voting. And I am certain that is how Republicans feel in many of the aforementioned states above.
That has to stop.
That is why we must hold Mr. P accountable that he is going to go balls-to-the-wall to fight in every single state, every single possible race and fight using the same successful tools that the Democrats used to win. And even the liberal daily Holy Bible, The New York Times, is noticing what the GOP is about to embark on.
And Ace over at the Ace Of Spades explains it right here. That yes, there are Republicans behind enemy lines. It is just that they have to be courted and looong before presidential election day if there is to be any chance of building up and getting said voters motivated and voting.
And this does dove tail nicely to this very interesting and worthwhile article by Aaron Renn for New Geography. Mr. Renn makes a good case why Republicans need to begin to look at, and yes, retake the cities. I think there are some good ideas, but Mr. Renn is setting up the conversation, not saying it is his way or the highway.
Remember that it was not a lifetime ago but the mid 1990s when Republicans mayors were leading in Los Angeles (Richard Riordan) and New York City (Rudy Giuliani). Now they are as Mr Renn wrote, Democrat cesspools with no end to the corruption in sight.
And the best is for last as Louisiana governor, Bobby Jindal, makes the case that it is time to stop worrying so much about Washington D. C., political cesspool central, and worry about getting the conservative, Republican message to the masses.
Here are some remarks from Gov. Jindal made to the RNC meeting in Charlotte, North Carolina:

“We do not need to change what we believe as conservatives – our principles are timeless. But we do need to re-orient our focus to the place where conservatism thrives: in the real world beyond the Washington Beltway.
“Today’s conservatism is completely wrapped up in solving the hideous mess that is the federal budget, the burgeoning deficits, the mammoth federal debt, the shortfall in our entitlement programs. We seem to have an obsession with government bookkeeping. This is a rigged game, and it is the wrong game for us to play."
“The Republican Party must become the party of growth, the party of a prosperous future that is based in our economic growth and opportunity that is based in every community in this great country and that is not based in Washington, D.C.."

I could not agree more with Gov. Jindal.
It will be up to people like Gov. Jindal, Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina, the new governor of North Carolina, Pat McCrory, people like that to take common sense conservatism to the people. They have to go over the heads of the Obamawhore media. They have to show Blue America why common sense conservatism works.
I think that finally, the Republican party is waking up and realizing that shrinking the field is not a way to win elections and thus not a way to govern this nation.
Hope is on the way.

There Is Actually GOOD News For GOP

Now that the inaugural hoopla is over and we know we are stuck with our Dear Leader, President Obama, for the next four years (1,458 days, but who's counting?!), there is much gnashing of teeth over the fate of the loyal opposition, the Republican party.
The angst is palpable on both the left and the right.
The left is smelling blood that somehow, they will be able to vanquish the Republican party to some super minority status.
The right is thinking that the party is not fighting the Democrats hard enough and maybe fullfilling the Democrat wet dream.
I am here to throw some cold water on, believe it or not, the left and the right.
The reality is that the Republican party is stronger today than it was in 2009. It is a fact.
Let's look at congress.
At this point in 2009,  the Republicans had 40 members in the senate and in the House of Representatives a total of 192 members. The Republicans had 22 state governorships. And to make matters worse they only had control of 13 state legislatures.
In other words, thing really sucked for the Grand Old Party.
Many people were writing their obituary. And they may have been right but for the confluence of the Tea Party movement and the public's general dislike of the passage of Obamacare.
Fast forward to now, 2013.
Yes, the Dear Leader, President Obama, did win reelection, but with less of the vote than 2008. The Dear Leader, President Obama, won only 51.02% of the popular vote and 332 electoral votes. In 2008, the Dear Leader, President Obama won nearly 53% of the popular vote and 365 electoral votes. In fact, the Dear Leader, President Obama, lost two states from his 2008 total, Indiana and North Carolina.
And in congress, the Republicans continue to control the House of Representatives with 234 seats. That is thanks to the huge 2010 midterm elections in which the Republicans won control of the House. In the senate, the Republicans now have 45 seats. And at the state level, the Republicans now have 29 governorships and the majority of state legislatures with 26.
So yeah, the Republicans are stronger now than in 2008. In Washington, all legislation has to get through the House. At the state level, Republicans can put their ideas in legislation and practical application.
Yet, yet one would think that the Dear Leader, President Obama, had a Ronald Reagan like landslide election in 1984. Mr. Reagan had 59% of the popular vote and took 49 states. The Dear Leader only took 26 states this time around. And yes, the Democrats gained 2 seats in the senate taking them to 55 seats. Five less than 2009. And yes, the Republicans lost eight seats in the House. Short coat tails to be sure for the Democrats. In fact most if not all of the eight seats gained were in the very Blue states of California and New York.
The good news is that the Republicans are really stronger now than at the beginning of the Dear Leader, President Obama's first term.
The bad news is that they act like they have no room to lead. They are abdicating their position of strength for some inexplicable reason.
Again, the Republicans have the ability to set the agenda as much if not more than the Dear Leader, President Obama.
The Republicans need to act like what they are.
The majority party in the United States.

I don't Understand Conservative Love For Richard Nixon

This year marks the 100th anniversary of the birth of the 37th president of the United States, Richard Milhous Nixon, a man that for better or worse had a huge impact on mid-20th century America and the world.
Mr. Nixon began his political life in his native California by running for congress in 1948 from his hometown of Whittier, California. In that election, Mr. Nixon ran as a strong, anti-communist Republican.
By the time Mr. Nixon left the presidency in disgrace in 1974, he began a policy known as detente and that essentially acceded to the ascendancy of the then communist Soviet Union and to live with them and not defeat them.
With political stops in the aforementioned House of Representatives, the senate, the vice-presidency and eventually the presidency, Mr. Nixon was always hard-nosed and perceived to be some sinister, right-winger when in fact and indeed, Mr. Nixon was nothing of a sort.
As John Fund over at National Review put it in this article, Mr. Nixon was a liberal. A liberal, not a conservative Republican at all.
Mr. Nixon did nothing to roll back the excesses of the so-called Great Society programs of Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson. In fact as Mr. Fund notes Mr. Nixon added to these programs.
Here are just three government agencies that Mr. Nixon implemented in his five plus years as president:
The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), the Council on Environmental Quality, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
And trust me, all three are behemoths that will never, ever go away. And between the three agencies, there are nearly 20,000 employees that are setting forth national environmental policy. Never mind that this probably is best left to the states, but it is the inclination of Mr. Nixon to put the federal government involved.
And, sadly, it did not stop there.
Again, let Mr. Fund explain one horrible day in 1971 for context of just how liberal, domestically, Mr. Nixon was:

In a single day in 1971, Nixon famously imposed wage and price controls in a naïve attempt to curb inflation, ended the U.S.’s last ties to the gold standard, effectively devalued the dollar, and imposed a 10 percent import surcharge.

Good lord, FDR, Harry Truman, JFK and Lyndon Johnson must have been stunned to see the turn of events in which a supposed conservative Republican, Nixon, implemented policies that they just could fantasize about.
Now Mr. Nixon did conceded that he did set bad precedents that successive presidents tried to follow.
Thanks a lot Tricky Dick!
And even on foreign policy, Mr. Nixon went from strident cold warrior to one that made a fateful decision in implementing detente with the Soviet Union.
As I noted, it meant that the United States, and thus the West, accepted the Soviet Union and its communist form of government.
There was no more talk of defeating the expansionist communist regime but accommodation.
And of course there is Mr. Nixon opening the door to beginning relations with Red China. Eventually, the United States ended formal recognition of the Republic of China on Taiwan. We recognized that there is only one China and we sided with the communists.
So again, my fellow conservatives, what is it exactly do you like and think Mr. Nixon was a good conservative president?
To be fair, also at National Review, James Rosen does give this counter balance here.
But I find Mr. Rosen's defense of Nixon the conservative to be very weak at best.
Where Mr. Rosen bases much of his praise of the conservative Nixon, it is almost strictly on so-called social issues. Here is a telling aside sentence in building the case for the conservative Nixon:

After all, they championed law and order, and stood against amnesty, abortion, and acid, as well as media bias, when it was least fashionable to do so — the age of Radical Chic — and carried 49 states.

Yes, that maybe true.
However, if one cannot govern as a fiscal and small government conservative, then what is the point of the above? It has to be taken in its totality. And in reality, because of the paranoia that was one Richard Nixon, Watergate did occur and while I find it a minor tale in the grand scheme of things, it was the cover-up and sustaining that what drove Mr. Nixon to resign office.
For all the tough-talk that was Mr. Nixon, he did not fight when in fact today a Democrat would do so with gusto.
Mr. Fund makes the righteous case that the Watergate affair did some very serious damage to the Republican party in general and conservatism in particular. Mr. Rosen pretty much dismisses that.
Again, I am with Mr. Fund.
I have long believed that the Watergate affair has ushered in an age of corruption that has afflicted both political parties.
But Republicans are almost always more hurt by corruption because they run against it. And when a said Republican is caught, it continues the sorry precedent of one Richard Milhous Nixon.
Now Mr. Nixon did not do all wrong.
Mr. Nixon ended the armed services draft and that has been a great thing for the United States. The all-volunteer armed forces has done a spectacular job in all military actions that have been taken since the end of the Vietnam war.
Speaking of which, Mr. Nixon did end the war that he was inherited with by Democrat President Johnson.
Mr,. Nixon did support the armed forces and always wanted to maintain higher spending than many believed he should.
And yes, many believe that today Mr. Nixon's law and order stand considering his own dalliances on the borders of legality was kind of a fraud. But it was not. Mr. Nixon believed in an imperial presidency, no doubt about that. But he saw the overall breakdown of society that the 1960s hath wrought as a direct result of the breakdown of law and order.
At best, Mr. Nixon was a conflicted politician.
He sought approval from the very people he ran against, the Establishment. Yet as Mr. Rosen notes, he wanted to set the stage for a conservative counterweight against the Establishment and their liberal allies.
Mr. Nixon went from anti-communist hawk to defender of the status-quo in regards to Soviet communist expansion.
Mr. Nixon went from anti-New Deal conservative to without a doubt a pretty damned liberal president.
In short, I do not get the conservative love for Richard Milhous Nixon.

Piers Morgan vs. Ben Shapiro On The 2nd Amendment

Yes, the 2nd amendment to the United States constitution has been in the news a lot lately, hasn't it?
Much of why there is such a conversation on the subject stems from the Massacre at Sandy Hook, Connecticut.
Let's stipulate most know what happened, but if not I will link my thoughts here and one can link to some background.
Needless to say, the left sees this as a moment to bring back the so-called assault-weapons ban that was hailed as a major legislative victory in the 1990s.
And of course there are some on the left that sees this as a moment to extend that so far as actual gun confiscation as this Iowa legislator would like to see happen.
So enter CNN low-rated talk show host Piers O'Meara Morgan.
In a recent interview, Mr. O'Meara Morgan had as a guest Alex Jones. Alex Jones, in a word, is N U T S! Besides being a 9/11 truther he is also a birther and all around conspiracy nut. And his website, which I choose not to link, is called Prison Planet. In case you missed that rather heated exchange, here it is:

 

 

OK, I think that you get I am not a big fan of Mr. Jones and this rant is one reason. He plays right into the hands of gun control advocates like Mr. Morgan. It is is embarrassing to say the least.

Enter conservative wunderkid Ben Shapiro.

BTW, you really should buy his new book, Bullies: How the Left's Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences Americans for it is a primer on such bullies as, well Mr. O'Meara Morgan.

Now, if you want to see how to handle such douchbrains as Mr. O'Meara Morgan, then take a look at this from last night:

 

 

First, let me give Mr. Shapiro props for wearing a yarmulke for he is letting you know that he is an observant Jew and an Orthodox Jew at that.

But it is how he shows Mr. O'Meara Morgan what it is liked to be bullied and he does it with a smile. Or a smirk as Mr. O'Meara Morgan tells him.

But watch, watch how uncomfortable ol' Piers is when Mr. Shapiro turns the table on him when he asks why does the left only seem to want to ban so-called assault weapons? Why not handguns? Then here is the zinger:

 

SHAPIRO: This is what I wanted to ask you, Piers, because I have seen you talk about assault weapons a lot, and I have seen Mark Kelly talk about assault weapons. The vast majority of murders in this country that are committed with guns are committed with handguns, they are not committed assault weapons. Are you willing to ban handguns in this country, across this country?
MORGAN: No, that’s not what I’m asking for.
SHAPIRO: Why not? Don’t you care about the kids who are being killed in Chicago as much as the kids in Sandy Hook?

 

Ouch! And do watch the video link to see how pompously Mr. O'Meara Morgan mocks indignation while quickly trying to dismiss Mr. Shapiro's point.

Oh yeah, and Mr. O'Meara Morgan accuses Mr. Shapiro of being the bully. And once again, Mr. Shapiro takes a page right out of the Saul Alinsky handbook and cites the most famous acolyte of Mr. Alinsky, why our Dear Leader, President Obama, of course. Mr. Shapiro says yes and hit back twice as hard. And he does.

Oh yeah, a trick that Mr. O'Meara Morgan uses is to cite Ronald Reagan and the fact that he supported the so-called assault weapons ban in 1994. And Mr. Shapiro says "So?!" Again, faux indignation from Mr. O'Meara Morgan and he asks Mr. Shapiro if he liked Mr. Reagan and he says yes, but that he would not always agree with Mr. Reagan.
Uh, memo to Mr. O'Meara Morgan, but Mr. Shaprio was born in 1984. So I don't think that he can be one to ask about the Reagan era as if he lived through it. And Mr. Shapiro answered such a trap question correctly. And another memo to Mr. O'Meara Morgan. I did not always agree with Mr. Reagan and I lived through the era.

See, the fact is that people like Mr. O'Meara mistake Republican for being conservative. Many conservatives such as myself are Republicans. But I have written many times on this blog that one of the worst, no check that two, of my most regrettable votes were for Benedict Arnold Schwarzenegger as governor of California. By the time that charlatan left office, I would have opened the door and slammed it on his rear end to get out.

But what Mr. Shaprio did in 15 minutes is show how conservatives, whether they are politicians, private citizens, artists, whatever, how to take on people like Mr. O'Meara Morgan. Have the facts to back up the argument. Don't ever let them get the upper hand, evah. Never lose your cool. Give them a little point but make sure to be able to make the larger point. And most important. Have a smile on your face. Or a smirk.

This is required watching for conservatives, conservative activists and Republicans for if you want to beat the left at their little bullying game, especially in regards to the 2nd amendment, you need to be like Ben Shapiro.



Samuel L. Jackson Schools Lily White "Reporter"

OK, I have to come clean and admit that the actor Samuel L. Jackson annoyed the devil out of me when I wrote about this horrible web ad that he did for the Dear Leader, President Obama, and his reelection campaign.
But give that devil his due on this because the same Mr. Jackson schools this lily-White SWLPL* "reporter", aka film critic when he can not come to say the N-word.
That's right.
The mother of all racist words never to be uttered in the company of Black people, evah. Especially if you are a White person.
That word, in case you are not aware, is nigger.
In the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, here is the multi-definition of nigger:

Definition of NIGGER

1

usually offensive; see usage paragraph below: a black person

2

usually offensive; see usage paragraph below: a member of any dark-skinned race

3

: a member of a socially disadvantaged class of persons

 

Well, using a quote from the former congressman and Oakland, California mayor, Mr Dellums, is lowering a terrible word even more.

But seriously, it is not meant to be a nice word. It is harsh and it is a harsh way to denigrate overwhelmingly Black Americans.

Now back to the cowardly "reporter".

This film critic, Jake Hamilton, is interviewing Mr. Jackson about the latest movie from Quentin Tarantino, Django Unchained, in which Mr. Jackson is a star.

It is, in typical Tarantino fashion, an over-the-top movie that is set in the Antebellum South and involves slavery.

And involves gratuitous use of the word nigger. Roughly well over 100 times in a two hour and forty-five minute movie.

Again, this is set in the South and involves slavery.So yeah, I think that the word nigger was in fact used very gratuitously. Like it or not.

Enter Mr. Hamilton, aka Mr. SWLPL. Here is a video of the part where Mr. Hamilton sheepishly asks Mr. Jackson about the over-the-top use of the word nigger:

 

 

 

As Mr. Hamilton asks, Mr. Jackson interjects, “No? Nobody? None? The word would be?” and Mr. Hamilton will not say the word. Mr. Jackson rightfully persists and Mr. Hamilton tries to deflect. But Mr. Jackson still persists in trying to get Mr. Hamilton to ask the question in a direct, forceful manner, “Try it … try it. We’re not going to have this conversation unless you say it.” And eventually, Mr. Hamilton backs down and they move on.

Here is where Mr. Jackson schools Mr. SWLPL guy.

It is people like him that now are utterly horrified to say the word at all. They are so horrified that one can not even utter the full word in a question about the context it is used in a movie. But, I am certain Mr. Hamilton/SWLPL guy would have not trouble dropping an f-bomb or two or three.

And here is a real difference.

The f-bomb is a word that the Federal Communications Commission has deemed one that can not be said on over-the-air television and or over-the-air radio. The fateful racial slur, offensive as it may be, can be said in full.

Unless it is by a coward and cowering "reporter" like Mr. Hamilton trying to show he is empathetic with Mr. Jackson and his peeps.

More like pathetic.

Here is a clue Mr. Hamilton.

If someone like Mr. Jackson is in a movie like Django Unchained, then he gets the context and is saying the racial slur the way that it is intended in the movie.

So, if you want to ask a question about what you think is gratuitous use of such a word, say it!

That is what Mr. Jackson mocked you, Mr. SWLPL, about. Your inability to say the word that you are asking about.

What would have impressed me is if Mr. Hamilton had the nerve to ask about the I am certain gratuitous use of the word fuck. Which I am certain is used at least the same amount as nigger.

It is amazing that in today's society, a profanity about a sex act that used to be taboo is said with little or no thought by the hip crowd. Yet a non-Black says the word nigger and all hell breaks loose.

Hey, I think that BOTH are offensive and should be used as little as possible. But if there is context, I am not a total prude about it.

But the prudity today is saying in full racial slurs. And that is where Samuel L. Jackson schooled one Jake Hamilton in an interview. And good for Mr. Jackson!

 

*-SWLPL-Stuff White Liberal People Like. A derivative of Stuff White People Like.

 

The Sunday Fish Wraps And Great Blog Material

Let me tell you folks, Sunday is a great day for blogging because the local fish wraps provide so much material.
Sometimes, I have to take a while to decide which story I will write about.
But today is a tough one because there are two that catch my eye and I think worth commenting on.
The first is courtesy of the Pasadena Star-News and lefty columnist Tim Rutten.
Today in Mr. Rutten's column, it is a lefty lament about politics today.How it is sooo terrible that nothing is getting done politically. How there is anxiety across the Great Land. Well, on that point he is correct. But let me show you how he frames it:

Too many remain jobless; income disparities continue to grow alarmingly. The rewarding middle-class American norm now seems out of reach to many and tenuous to those who still enjoy it. Social mobility, economic system's glory and our great guarantor of social peace, has ossified alarmingly. Today, children born into the American working class are less likely to better themselves over their lifetime than those born into an English or French family.

Let me write from the last sentence about American children born today being no better off than those born into an English or French family.
People like Mr. Rutten, a former Left Angeles Times columnist, love the European nations and their politics and their way of life. So why the diss to Europe Mr. Rutten? Is it a sudden realization that maybe they are not all you have cracked them up to be? That the cradle-to-grave welfare is a hindrance rather than a glory?
And the aspect of social mobility, well Mr. Rutten, look to our own state as the example of why things are so screwed-up on that level.
California is seeing businesses and those that can leaving the state due to high taxation, anti-business and bad schools. Those that are coming in, fewer than those leaving, are not contributing but simply those willing to work cheaply or taking in our government benefits.
The same song is happening all across the United States as Blue states see migration to Red states because of some of what Mr. Rutten has written about here.
And now after four years of relatively unchecked liberal policies emanating from Washington, D. C., we are see the income stagnation worsen, not better.
But for the total richness of this piece, this is the kicker:

We look to Washington for solutions and find ourselves alone, peering into the abyss just over a "fiscal cliff." Such are the wages of bitter partisanship and brittle ideology.

Sigh!
Timmy, I want to tell you something.
No, I do not look to Washington for solutions. I do not look to Suckramento, er Sacramento for solutions. I do not look to Los Angeles county for solutions. I do not look to Pasadena for solutions.
For you see, they do not come up with solutions to so-called problems but end up making problems when none exist.
What I really look for is these parasitic entities to leave me the hell alone. And the rest of the citizenry alone too.
The so-called "Fiscal Cliff" was a man-made potential disaster. Because the government had to do something.
The push for new oppressive gun control is due to the horrific Newtown massacre in which 20 first-graders were killed at the hands of a crazy man named Adam Lanza.
Because the government has to do something.
So called income "inequality" is a problem in Liberalland.
The government has to do something about it.
And on, and on, and on.
See, people like Timmy Rutten put all their faith in government and believe that there are crisis's on top of crisis's. When in reality, there are things that just happen in this life and that the government can not do all and be all.

Enough of Tim Rutten!
The Left Angeles Times provides the next bit of lefty propaganda and it appears in the sports section.
Why it is a front page expose on the issue of professional gay athletes. Or really the fact that none are "out" yet.
Again, sigh!
Trust me, I have seen variations of this story over the years. And it is the slow time of year in news because of the Christmas and New Year's break. Only it should not be all that slow as this is the college football bowl season and there is the NBA and college basketball. No NHL hockey yet.
But really, is this a front page into all of page nine in a 12-page sport section?
I do no think so. I mean, yes it will be something that happens at some point. That a male professional athlete who may be a baseball, basketball, football or hockey player will say that he is a homosexual.
Yes, like in all other aspects of the great gay outfest, it has people down with it and some not so down with it.
Take former Anaheim Angels* outfielder (no pun intended!) Torii Hunter.
Mr. Hunter is a committed Christian. As he sees it from what he has come to believe, homosexuality is wrong. The sexual act that homosexuals engage in is what is wrong has he believes it.
Here is how Mr. Hunter puts it:

"I will be uncomfortable because in all my teachings and all my learning, biblically, it's not right. It will be difficult."

Like it or not, it is how Mr. Hunter feels about the possibility of playing with an openly gay team mate. Mr. Hunter's view is more than likely a prevailing one but to varying degrees.
Of course to the pro-gay folks, it is just wrong, sexist and of course homophobic. One can not believe that having sex with someone of the same sex is wrong. It is totally cool.
And there is a sense of inevitability expressed by one football running back Arian Foster of the Houston Texans:

"People are more accepting of it. . . .I don't think it will be long."

And Mr. Foster is probably right. Yes at some point a male pro athlete is going to say that he is gay.
But that does not mean everyone is going to be cool about it. But trust me, those that are not will be ostracized. Made to feel much less than human than the gay athlete who says he is gay.
The article points out that the ones that have said that they are gay have done so after playing in their respective sport. And none are anyone that are household names.
The fact is that I am certain that there is probably a gay player on almost every team in pro sports. In the article, Tennessee Titan quarterback Matt Hasselback said that he must have played with a  "closeted" teammate during his NFL career.
But understand this about the four major pro sports in the United States.
It is team focused. Sure, there are some players better than others and they are superstars. But when the team does not work together, they play lousy. It is not about the player that is a druggie or drunk. Sure, they get help if it becomes a distraction. If they want it. It is about the team. Or let me put it in this context.
The Washington Redskins have this quarterback Robert Griffin III. He is on his way to being a star quarterback. But that is not just because he or his coaches call great plays. Or that Mr. Griffin has a great arm. He needs to have that offensive line block the other team so that he can either hand off to the running back or pass to the right receiver. He needs that running back to gain yards to  move the ball down the field. He needs the same from his receivers. If one does not have good linemen, receivers and running backs, he is not all that.
The point is that any distraction is a detriment to the team as a whole.
So imagine that some player decides that he has to tell all that he is a homosexual.
It will, no matter what, be a distraction. No amount of political correctness, wanting to be inclusive, etc. will make it non-controversial.
FWIW, I think those that choose not to be open about their sexuality do so for that reason. That they realize it is about the team and not their own self.
But that does not mean we do not get this kind of article more than we need to. For the gay left, this is one of the last hurdles in their mind for total acceptance. And this will not be popular for me to write but it is all about them and their so-called issues. Never mind what pro team sports is all about. Why a gay has to be open and "proud" and everything else be damned.
Thus I do believe that it will happen and probably pretty soon. Most people will yawn because they are, as Mr. Foster put it, more accepting.
But I do not think that this warrants a huge article in the sports section. A part of the fish wrap that is for stats and stories and analysis of games and those that play them. For at the end of the day, it is about who an athlete has relations with. And that should not be big news.
But I am thankful for the local fish wraps because they just provide some great blog material on a Sunday.

To Quote Metallica, You Know It's Sad But True

Yup, if one wants to see the nation's largest state governance and see the disaster that it is, yes as Metallica has sung, this column by Steven Greenhut is sad but true.
In my home state, where I was born, grew up and am still living in, the left-wing Democrats have something that they have never had so much of in my 48 years on God's Green Earth.
Total control of state government.
Yup, the Dems have all constitutional elected offices. The state legislature and by now super-majorities that make the Republicans, BTW, who are they now?!-totally irrelevant.
Led by Gov. Jerry Moonbeam Brown, every single bad idea from the hard-left of the Democrat party will be voted on and thus we will endure at least three-plus years of Democrat ineptency.
So what stands out in Mr. Greenhut's column to me?
Well for one, it is his prediction number two. About the overstating the state budget projections. The reality is that according to the state controller, John Chiang (yup, a Dem), tax revenue projections are off, surprise, by 10.8% this past November. And trust me folks, this will not vastly improve which leads to Mr. Greenhut's prediction number three.
That the Democrats will tax everything that they can. What ever moves. Does not move. Alive. Dead. Everything.
And where did the first trail balloon start?
With the car tax, of course.
Well, it is officially known as the Vehicle Registration fee. Doesn't that sound a lot better than a tax?
California state senator Ted Lieu (D-San Francisco, of course) flew the trial balloon of tripling the tax. Yes tripling it. So, are little Hyundai Tucson, a 2005 one, we pay a "fee" of $122 this upcoming year. If Sen. Loon's Lieu's plan were to go into effect, that $122 would triple to $422 dollars. Four hundred and twenty-two frickin dollars! In a state where for the most part the car is a total necessity, how does this help?
It does not.
But the Democrat crack-whores in Suckramento, er Sacramento, don't seem to care. They would suggest to take public transportation. Or live closer to one's place of employment. Trust me, they think that they have all the answers.
Yet it was former governor Gray Davis wanting to increase the car tax that doomed his second term.
Imagine all those that voted for Brown, the Dems et all somehow thinking why, this is cool?
Go ahead Dems, go ahead.
And while I do worry about Mr. Greenhut's prediction number five, "reforming" the innitive process, once the slew of tax hikes occur, trust me, many of these voters will clamor to do something about it. And that will be two-fold.
Voting for something to end many of the tax hikes and getting rid of Dems in some of the few marginal districts left in the California legislature.
Mr. Greenhut is spot on about the California liberal pundits blaming the Republicans.
But, that cow will not fly.
The state Republicans are totally irrelevant in the legislative process. Only the most absolutely low-info voters will buy into it.
And this is where I quibble with Mr. Greenhut and his prediction number nine.
That the California Republican party will continue the downhill spiral.
I actually believe that this will be the absolute rock-bottom for them. Not that they will rise completely in the next statewide election. But they will make a good move in getting former state senator Jim Brulte to be the next party chairman.
Like it or not, Mr. Brulte is a former legislator. He will make a good spokesman for the party. And I think that he realizes that some of the positions on illegal immigration will have to change. Of course it is more tone than anything that keeps the party from making headway in non-White communities. Like it or not, the Republican party can not win any election statewide in the once Golden State without the votes of Hispanics and Asians. Mr. Brulte gets it. And where he will be able to succeed is when the Dems raise every tax imaginable. It is when historically voters look to the Republicans to keep them down. And I believe that Mr. Brulte can do a good job in candidate recruitment than Mr. Greenhut believes. Yes, it may be that there will be some self-financed candidates for some elections. That does not mean they are all moderate mushes as Mr. Greenhut indicates. That is where a good chairman of the state party can seek a good, conservative candidate that can win a statewide election.
Yeah, it is a tall order in California. But not insurmountable.
It will be a truly painful two years of total Democrat governance almost everywhere in California as Mr. Greenhut predicts. But it is sometimes what is needed. True Democrat governance to remind people how God-awful it can be. It is how a rejuvenated California Republican party can make a difference.
But mostly, as I started this post, it is sad but true that Democrats are ruining running everything and it will be not good for the people of this once Golden State.

Yes, We Will Go Off The Fiscal Cliff And It Is Time Middle Class Americans Realize The Cost Of Big Government

I know that as I write this, there is a very small chance that the powers that be in Washington, D. C. will cut a horrible deal to avert the so-called Fiscal Cliff.
But chances are much less as the hours go on.
So, I stand by my thinking that we are not going to get a horrible deal and that the United States is going over the Fiscal Cliff.
I think that it is going to be a lesson that the middle class would rather forget, but it is necessary for the middle class to learn that big government costs real money.
And once again, Marc Thiessen of the American Enterprise Institute and Washington Post columnist explains it clearly. Clearer than House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio). Clearer than Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
Let's take what Mr. Thiessen wrote here:

During Obama’s first term, federal spending grew to more than 24 percent of GDP — the highest it has been since 1946. Yet almost no one in the country (except smokers and those who frequent indoor tanning salons) saw their taxes rise.

Very true. At least at the federal level most Americans have not seen taxes rise yet the size of government is, well continuing to be out of control.
Again, from Mr Thiessen:

160 million Americans saw their payroll taxes reduced from 6.2 to 4.2 percent.

Very true.
And for a Happy New Year, when the Dear Leader, President Obama, drives the United States off the Fiscal Cliff, that 4.2% payroll tax goes back to the 6.2%.
And as noted in the column by Mr. Thiessen, one of the big reasons that we have not felt the pain, we middle class voters, is because the administration has been essentially borrowing money from our children and grandchildren.
And he should have mentioned borrowing from Red China in the form of treasury bonds.
But what is an eye-opener is that Mr. Thiessen essentially believes that it was a mistake to extend the so-called Bush Tax Cuts.
Why, pray tel?
Because while it did seem to be a quick win for the then newly majority Republican congress, all it has done is continue to let the Dear Leader, President Obama, and his policies off the hook.
In a way, it is big government on low taxes.
But, we all know that the Dear Leader, President Obama, wants to increase taxes on the eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll, filthy, stinking rich folks. The once one percent and now two percent of Americans that make a lot of money. Well, those that are unfortunate to earn $250,000 or more.
Ok, will that solve the problems of spending and taxation at all?
Oh, it is estimated that if the Dear Leader got everything he wanted, it would amount to 30 weeks of savings over 10 years. About three weeks a year.
So, again, why not drive over that Fiscal Cliff and let the middle class understand the brunt of expanding government? And let's throw in that the reality is about wealth redistribution? Something that most middle class Americans do not even realize is up President Snidley Whiplash Obama's sleeve.
Trust me folks, my state of California is on this course.
The passage of Proposition 30 was touted as saving education. And a tax on the rich.
Only that is not the fact.
The fact is that the tax revenue will be raised by not just taxing the rich but increasing the state sales tax a 1/4 cent per dollar. Which means that Californians minimum sales tax is now 7.5%. In Los Angeles county where I live, we now have the pleasure of paying a sales tax of nine percent.
Now that does not seem like much, but if one wants to make a big ticket item like appliances, a new car, something along those levels, people may start to think twice.
The point is that government costs real money.
And at some point, people need to realize that.
And maybe, driving over the Fiscal Cliff is the only way to make Americans realize the real cost of having Barack Obama as president.

I Saw A Crime On Chirstmas Night

Christmas night 2012 seemed like any other quiet night.
It was little before 8pm and your humble blogger was getting ready to take Cashew, the Little Guy and Scout the Wonder Dog for their long evening walk.
As I was walking along our street, I saw a silver vehicle speeding down the road. It was being chased by a police car.
Now before the speeding vehicle caught my eye, I did hear a tremendous screeching sound before hand. Then saw a silver vehicle that I thought was one of those big two-ton Ford type pick ups. Apparently, it was an SUV. And what followed was a totally black police SUV with lights and sirens blaring chasing the truck/SUV.
What happened next is very haunting.
Two lights from where I was with the dogs I saw and heard it.
The suspect truck/SUV hitting another car. I could not tell what kind of car was hit. But it turns out to have been a minivan.
It was vicious. The sound. SLAM! And losing sight of the minivan that was hit, yet seeing the suspect vehicle spinning around down the street halfway over the freeway bridge to the next light.
It is all reported here in the local fishwrap.
Yet until reading the article, I did not know that anyone had died. For I did have my dogs with me. A rambunctious puppy and an oldster dog that can barely keep up. So I dared not go further as it was dark and I did not know what to expect.
The police SUV that was chasing the suspect SUV had come to a stop. The sounds of sirens began to screech as I turned down the other street where we continue our walk. It gnawed at me the rest of the night. What was the car that was hit? Were the person or people in that car OK? What about the person or people in the SUV that hit the other car?
The other thing that I thought about in the whole thing is how fast these things happen. But I knew that the minivan that was hit was simply trying to make a left-hand turn. Maybe to get on the freeway for Maple Street is a freeway frontage street. But they had no idea that they were about to be smashed by a speeding SUV. There was no way that they could have stopped as they were proceeding to turn to avoid the speeding SUV. And two people ended up being killed. More than likely they were on the side of the minivan where impact occurred.
But a family's life is ruined. And four people who were breaking the law by evading the police did commit an even worse crime by speeding in one of their SUV's and smashing a minivan of innocent people.
And I saw it all. And I do have a haunting feeling knowing that people died. The closest I have seen this kind of death. And I hope to never see anything like it again.

MERRY CHRISTMAS 2012

Well, since the Mayan Apocalypse did not occur this past Friday, thank God, we have made it to Christmas, 2012.
And what better way to share what Christmas is all about than with Linus Van Pelt and his explanation from the best television Christmas special, A Charlie Brown Christmas:

 



And here to read it from Wikipedia:

 

"'And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not; for, behold, I bring you tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you: Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace and goodwill towards men.'

 

And I can not say it better myself!

To you and yours,

 

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

 

 

Sen. Tim Scott And The New South

Today, history was made as South Carolina's first Indian-American Gov., Nikki Haley, appointed the first Black senator from the state in Rep. Tim Scott (R-Charleston).
And it is reflective of the New South.
A South in which it appears that the once God-awful race battles have given way to some pretty amazing changes.
It starts with Rep. Scott.
He won his Republican nomination for South Carolina's first congressional district over the scion of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond. The same Sen. Thurmond who desperately tried to block the Civil Rights Act in 1964. Tim Scott beat Sen. Thurmond's son, Paul Thurmond, in a Republican primary in 2010 and easily won outright election to the seat. In 2012, he has the highest vote percentage of South Carolina Republican congressional delegation in cruising to reelection.
And without a doubt, then Sen. Scott will win election to the seat of the retiring Sen. Jim DeMint outright in 2014.
And then there is Gov. Haley, the first Indian-American to win the governorship in South Carolina in 2010. She defeated a panoply of Republicans and was horribly dragged down by many of those that lost the GOP gubernatorial nod to then Mrs. Haley. She won a tough election campaign and has had her problems since being elected. But she should win reelection as well in 2014.
But imagine that the state that fired the first volley at Ft. Sumnter to begin the War Between the States, better known as the Civil War has an Indian-American governor and will have a Black senator. And both Republicans to boot.
It is indicative of what is the New South.
A South that has elected another Indian-American as governor in Bobby Jindal from Louisiana.
A South that has elected Cuban-American as senator Marco Rubio from Florida.
A South that has elected another Cuban-American, Ted Cruz, as senator from Texas.
A South that has elected all of the above under the banner of the Republican party.
The reality is that while the GOP is having trouble winning in areas of the United States entrenched by the Democrat party, they are winning the South and with candidates that as short a time as 20 years ago would have never been considered seriously.
I think that this is where the GOP starts in reaching out to those who have been for whatever reason, alienated from the party in recent years.
All of the above earned their stripes.
All those that have been elected fought in bruising primaries when they were told that they could not win.
Who can forget that the whole Republican establishment lined up to support that douchebrain Charlie Christ over Marco Rubio? Yeah, look how that worked out what when the actual Republican voters went with Mr. Rubio?
It amazes me that while the GOP is demonized for being racist, sexist, etc., etc., and yet have elected these fine people to high office.
It appears that the South has been ready for positive change and willingly electing people of color where the old timers off to the Glory are rolling in their graves.
It is really the New South and Gov. Haley and Sen. Scott are the positive developments of it.

Carnage In Connecticut

UPDATE:

It is not often that I will praise anything written in the Left Angeles Times. And much less from one James Rainey. But here, on this occasion, he addresses the main thrust of this post. The poor reportage of the media in misidentifying the the killer. The internet and social media are truly great tools, but that does not replace the point that facts need to always be corroborated by at least a second source. Especially in situations such as this. And before anyone goes off blaming Fox News or anything like that, numerous media got it wrong and all over the spectrum. Mr. Rainey's article is worth the read.


Good Lord Almighty.
What can I or anyone else say about this horrible crime that took place today in Newtown, Connecticut?
Look, we know that the left is already salivating and pushing gun control and the right is saying not so fast.
That is for another day and time.
However, I believe that, once again, the media committed gross media malpractice in trying to get the story out and for some, to be first.
For hours, the media reported that the shooting rampage was done by one Ryan Lanza. Yet it was not RYAN Lanza, but his brother, ADAM Lanza that killed 28 people, his mother and himself.
Why is that important? I mean, so they got a name wrong, no big deal because the story was running fast and furious?
Well, no matter how fast and furious a story is breaking, it is always, always important to get important facts such as who committed the act right. Thus, it should not have been reported that the shooter was Ryan Lanza when it was his younger brother Adam that committed the dastardly deed.
If there is one thing that I learned in journalism classes and has stuck with me is why the what, when, why, who and how is important in every story. And how important it is to have multiple verification of information before going public with it.
Remember the Aurora, Colorado movie house shooting? Remember when the name James Holmes was announced? Well the first James Holmes that ABC news reporter Brian Ross picked out of his rump was one connected with the Tea Party political movement. And he reported it on the air. Yet he did not act with due diligence as it turned out the James Holmes was a mentally ill graduate college student.
Now many people will point out, and I do think that this may be true, that Mr. Ross focused on a potential Tea Party angle in an effort to discredit the conservative political movement. But whatever the case, an innocent man's reputation was at the very least tarnished and possibly something more negative than that.
Same for Ryan Lanza.
As it turns out, Adam Lanza somehow had identification that he was Ryan Lanza on his person.
But again, how did it get reported and reported wrong in the first place?
And this leads to another criticism that I have about reporting blatant criminal activity.
The use of the word tragedy over murder.
Usually, I do not like that kind of wording but this story, well it is different.
Twenty children, a whole classroom, were murdered in cold blood by Adam Lanza. Because it was elementary school children, yes it does make it  a horrific tragedy.
In this case, it is correct to use the word tragedy. Yet it should be also reported accurately that this was an act of murder. That a young man, whether or not he had a mental disability problem, did have the presence of mind to kill his mother in cold blood, steal her car, drive to the school that she taught at and kill the school principal, several other adults and the 20 children. This man, Adam Lanza murdered 27 people before killing himself.
So I would suggest that while the culprit of this act is dead, let us not simply refer to his crime as a tragedy. It cheapens the fact that he committed murder of defenseless, innocent people.
And now I have other thoughts.
No parent get their kids ready in the morning for school and thinks that it is possibly the last time that they will see their kid alive. No doubt these parents, husbands and wives, did not think that when they said goodbye and went off on their day.
Yet in the span of several minutes, one deranged individual killed people and ruined countless lives.
It is why I utterly believe that we should always remind the people closest to us that we love them. In my case, I always tell Mrs. RVFTLC every day as I leave for work that I love her. And in most of our e-mail correspondence to each other, the same thing. These kind of events remind me even more how important that is.
It is also very, very important for all of us to take a deep breath, mourn for those dead and those left behind and not spout off on how this could have been prevented.
There is a time and place for that but no way and not in the hours and immediate days of this murderous rampage.
And one more last thought.
Hold on to your hats, but I thought the statement from President Obama he gave at the White House was not only appropriate but clearly that of a caring, loving father.There was nothing political in it. I felt that this one was from the heart. I think it important enough to leave you with this video link to see it.
May God bless those lost. May God bless those left behind. May God bless Nancy Lanza. May God bless the people of Newtown, Connecticut.

A HOMELESS Bill Of Rights?! Only In California. . .

I am not amazed in the least about this proposal from state Assemblyman  Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco, of course) to give the homeless people of the once Golden State a "bill of rights".
This Assemblyman Ammiano fellow was also pushing to legalize marijuana. You know, because it could be taxed to the hilt of course as a way to "solve" our perpetual budget fiasco.
But this, well this almost wants the pot to be legal because then I can use it to numb my mind to the dread that this state has become that this, more than likely, will get serious consideration in the legislature next year.
In general, the reality of homelessness is something that no society should be proud of. There are multiple layers of reasons why people are homeless. There are three major reasons why there are homeless people. One is mental illness. The overwhelming majority of homeless fall into this category. The two that follow, drug abuse and alcoholism, can be part of the mental illness. In that case, many homeless have the unfortunate trifecta. But some have one only of the three major factors.
So keep this in mind as I present the thrust of this bizarre legislation.
Here are the "highlights" of Assemblyman Ammiano's homeless "bill of rights":

-- Sleeping in public spaces such as sidewalks and parks
-- 24/7 access to bathrooms, showers, water and clean syringes.
-- Car camping on city streets without restrictions
-- "Life sustaining activities" such as urinating and collecting recycling trash
-- Welfare cash payments
-- Meditating or praying in public
-- Panhandling
-- Payment for possessions seized in a roust
-- Right to refuse the offer of a homeless shelter
-- Right to a lawyer in most encounters with the law

Oh goodness, where to start.
I guess I will go into the middle of the 10 "rights" this would start and that is welfare cash payments.
Nothing encourages homelessness more than allowing them to be on welfare of any kind and not in some kind of housing. Pray tell Assemblyman Ammiano, how is said homeless person to obtain welfare payments? Since most people who get public assistance are given a debit card, should we just start issuing John Doe or Jane Doe and guess how much to hand out to the homeless? And where will they be able to get one? Should they have a bank account? Inquiring minds want to know.
Oh this is a gasser. That the homeless can meditate and or pray in public. Hey, dude. When children are allowed to do the same in public schools, come back to me on that one.
I really, really love the "life sustaining activities" that include, I kid you not urinating and collecting recycling trash. I note that it stops at urinating and not number two, aka pooping, dumping and you know the rest.
I digress because this reminds me of something I saw a few years ago here in my fair, homeless-friendly burg.
In front of the local First Methodist Church along Colorado Blvd, the Rose Parade route, a cleanly homeless man whipped out his member in front of the church and proceeded to live life the way that Assemblyman Ammiano thinks the homeless should live. By taking a wiz right on some plants.
While the rest of us, you know, those that are not a special class by actually doing things right, would have been arrested for at the very least indecent exposure.
If this God-forsaken bill were to pass as is and signed by Gov. Moonbeam Brown, why it would create a two-class system.
One of my big issues is panhandling.
I hate it.
In the past, those that asked for a quarter or any change would be nice about it. Sheepish because they knew it was not a good thing to do. But now, now these people will ask for whole dollars. And not just a buck. Some have accosted me and asked for five bucks. Five frickin' bucks! Really?! It has happened. And many times, they do not take kindly to the no. They will follow and harass until people breakdown and give money. And let us not forget how some get a little inventive and think that if they have a squeegee and a bucket of water, that gives them a right to come up to your car, wash your windows and, yup, ask for money. Oh, and one is not always asked if they even want their car windows washed.
And here is another digression.
As a purveyor of public transit, let me share with you about the guy who just sits there and harasses people as they get on the bus for quarters. Yup, two Thursday's in a row, this dude who does not seem all that homeless is sitting there really bothering people that the bus driver has had to tell him to lay off.
But, in the old days, said dude would have been thrown off the bus. Not anymore. For those "on the margins" have extended rights us eeeeeevvvvviiiiilllll middle-class folks do not.
The "car camping" is not only wrong-headed but a clear threat to public safety to the homeless and the citizenry. What if a criminal should break into a car and end up killing a "car camper"? What would we say about that? And how about someone using car camping to stake-out places to rob? Ever think about that Assemblydude?!
But here is the kicker.
The "right" to refuse the offer of a homeless shelter.
The reason that there are homeless shelters is to give people a temporary place to stay rather than to be out on the streets, especially in inclement weather. These are places that help, not hurt, homeless people. The fact that most homeless are alcoholics, drug abusers, and mentally ill, a combo or all three is even more reason that they should be encouraged to get off the street.
This is what is wrong with modern liberalism.
They never want to address root causes of problems but they want to create unimaginable "rights" that no civil society can tolerate.
Giving the homeless "rights" to pee openly on the street, harass people for money, taking their lives and the lives of others to risk is not the way to go.
If Assemblyman Ammiano is serious about the homeless problem, he would seek ways towards getting the homeless OFF the streets, not encouraging more of them. What Assemblyman Ammiano should be doing is seeking ways to find common ground that will get as many homeless off the streets. If that means more state funding for mental health programs and hospitals and the like, we need to figure that out.
Treating the homeless like a different, yes privileged class, is not the solution. That means we need to write our legislators and tell them to vote no on this terrible proposed bill.
Because if not, then what would only be in California will spread across this nation. And that would not be a good thing.

The Peggy Joseph Of Politicians

You remember sweet Peggy Joseph from the 2008 presidential campaign, doncha?
Well, if you do not, here is a little palate cleanser of a reminder of Miss Joseph.

In case you forget, here is how Miss Joseph viewed voting for then Sen. Messiah Barack for president:

I won't have to worry about putting gas in my car.

But I do recommend watching the whole short but sweet video. I do wonder if Miss Joseph realizes that she is still paying her mortgage and gas?
But that is just the warm up for this Detroit city councilman, JoAnn Watson.
What did Miss Johnson have to say?

Well, here is some of her thinking of the Dear Leader, President Obama, and what he should do to save her cash-strapped city.

"Our people in an overwhelming way supported the re-election of this president and there ought to be a quid pro quo and you ought to exercise leadership on that," said Watson. "Of course, not just that, but why not?"
How does one unpack this crap?
What does Miss Watson mean by "Our people"? The fact that the city of Detroit is overwhelmingly Black? What about the non-Blacks? Do they count in the 75% that voted for the re-election of the Dear Leader, President Obama?
One will have to go deep inside that gal's mind.
And what kind of leadership would be shown in bailing out a city that is now perpetually cash-strapped? Can't pay it's bills? Has contracted population of over 1,000.000 since 1950? Whole neighborhoods no longer exist. It is so bad that there have been serious proposals to turn vast swaths of vacant land into, I kid you not, urban farms.
Detroit was once a booming, vibrant city in 1950 after World War II. The auto industry was a sign of that boom. In fact, the population of Detroit in 1950 was 1,849,568. By the 2010 census, the population contracted to 713,777 people. It is a staggering loss of almost 1,136,000 in 62 years.
Yet the Motor City seems to think that it is still the Detroit of the 1950s.
It is the only reason I can think of that they are not able to have enough money and then some to pay their bills and hell, have a surplus.
Ahh, but the fact is that Detroit, well there is little if any business left outside of the truncated auto industry. Hence they do not have many fat-cat businesses, you know, those one percenters, a.k.a the eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll, filthy, stinking rich folks. And with whole neighborhoods gone, don't count on much in the way of property taxes.
The background of the plight of Detroit is necessary to explain in the briefest of ways because it is why people like Miss Watson basically asks the federal government to bail out her city.
This is a sad case of demographics=destiny.Take a peek here to see what I mean.
Miss Watson is symptomatic as to a huge problem in the United States.
And that problem is dependency., she would have a big-government sugardaday
Back to Miss Joseph really thinking that if she voted for Barack Obama she would have her big government sugar-daddy take care of all her bills.
And Miss Watson, an elected city councilman, perpetuates that dependency by all but begging the Dear Leader, President Obama, to bail out an economic basket case that Detroit has become.
No ladies, what you both need is a wake up call.
What we do not need is to have a Peggy Joseph in elected office in the person of JoAnn Watson.
We do not need to have the Peggy Joseph of politicians.

You Mean The Barefoot, Homeless Dude Is. . .NOT. . .Homeless?!

The above photo of New York City police officer Larry DePrimo performing an act of kindness to a homeless man made the rounds last week.
The act of kindness Mr. DePrimo did was to, out of his own pocket mind you, go to the nearest open shoe store, a Sketcher's, spend at least $75 and buy the barefoot, homeless man a pair of boots so he did not have to have another night of cold feet.
A very nice, heartfelt gesture indeed.
On the surface, it is an act of kindness that many people do not and would not do for such an individual.
But, as the late great Paul Harvey would say, there is the rest of the story.
It turns out that homeless dude, well he is not quite really homeless.
According to this article in the New York Daily News, homeless, shoeless dude is named Jeffrey Hillman. And what's more, he actually has a publicly subsidized apartment in The Bronx borough of New York City.
Now before you scream, "Oh no! Not another homeless-bashing post here!" I am sorry to disappoint you.
This is not a typical case even with all the new reportage.
Clearly, Mr. Tillman has some kind of mental problem. What it is we do not know. But why would someone take assistance in the form of Section 8 housing vouchers, social security disability, and veterans benefits for housing and roam the streets and panhandle? And, rarely if ever use said apartment for shelter?
Why would Mr. Tillman refuse assistance from family members from his hometown of Nazareth, Pennsylvania? That includes his two children.
Again, this line in the article seems to sum it up:

"He needs help beyond mere handouts."

Yes, but because he refuses, he can continue to live his bleak, meager existence. Yet his having housing that he rarely uses because he is out on the streets panhandling and wandering is selfish because a person that can and wants that apartment does not.
What Mr. Tillman needs is to be committed in a mental facility that can address what his mental state actually is and he could be put on medication that will, hopefully, help him find his way back.
I know, the law seems to side with Mr. Tillman and his vagabond existence. And that if he shows any fleeting moment of supposed sanity, he can avoid the above solution.
This is not freedom.
This is someone that is a prisoner to something that most of us can not imagine. Because most people can not and would not want to live the way that Mr. Tillman is currently living. Something is wrong with his mind. And he is not getting help because he is a prisoner of a system that is at best indifferent and a society that ignores the homeless problem because it really does not affect them.
Now Mr. DePrimo, he did nothing wrong. He saw a human being in a bad way and thought that he could do a little something to help. Mr. Tillman seemed to be appreciative. But it is what he said later that is well, what do you make of this:

"After the story of DePrimo's generosity went viral, Hillman turned up again still on the streets and still shoeless. He told a reporter he hid the boots that set DePrimo back $75 so they wouldn't be stolen."

Sooo, if Mr. Tillman would be back at his apartment, they would NOT be stolen.
But again, we who think this way are thinking logically. A person with mental illness will NOT think logically.
And that is what is wrong with this story.
That a homeless, barefoot man who does not have to be homeless is acting as such. That a man with clear mental problems is basically swept under the rug because he refuses the help.
Somewhere there has to be some middle ground that eventually leads to helping Mr. Tillman. That would be the best outcome of this story.

Goin Off The Fiscal Cliff With Linkin Park And "Burn It Down"

Yup, I have liked this Linkin Park song, Burn It Down, since it came out earlier this year.

And now, it seems rather appropriate as we, I really believe hopefully, go off the manufactured "Fiscal cliff" that our esteemed political leadership "negotiated" earlier this year in a debt-ceiling hike.
I think it is a pretty cool video. Doncha think so?
Anyhow, I think it is great to do a little sing along, especially the chorus, because if you really think about it, it is exactly what the Democrats and the Dear Leader, President Obama, wanted to create.
A crisis.
Because as the current mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emmanuel, once said, you should never let a good crisis go to waste.
And it is a sure one for Republicans.
As I have noted here, the Republicans will be blamed no matter how this turns out. So instead of meaningless negotiations, I have now thoroughly come to the conclusion that we on the Republican side, and especially us conservatives, need to let the truck go right off this "Fiscal cliff".
And yes, the private economy will for sure suffer.
And the theme song is, Burn It Down.
Lets just get to the awesome chorus:

We're building it up
To break it back down
We're building it up
To burn it down
We can't wait
To burn it to the ground
So, how does this relate to the so-called "Fiscal Cliff"?
Here, lets break it down, so to speak, from Team Democrat.

We're building it up=building up the government. Creating big government.

To break it back down=having big government, whether they realize it or not, breaks the private sector in many ways. Especially in taxes. Thus the economy will not be about growth in the private sector but how to get money to pay for the public sector.

Let's skip the second Building it up and jump right to this one.

To burn it down=raising taxes and not just on that two percent we keep hearing our Dear Leader, President Obama, and the Democrats rant and rave about. After all, again as noted here, if the feared sequestration does take place, it will not be that two percent to feel the pinch. It will be almost all of us.

See, no matter what the Democrats say about this so-called tax "fairness" in getting that eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll two percent of the stinking, filthy rich, they know deep down that they can not pay for all their big government without more money from the suckers that voted for the Dear Leader, President Obama taxpayers.
Do you like that child tax credit that is now $1,000? Forget it because if sequestration occurs, it goes down to $500. It does not go away, but it gets cut and means more money for the feds.
And expansions of the Earned Income Credit and the Dependent Care Credit, well they go away and it goes back to what it was before.
How do you like only getting only 4.2% taken out of your paycheck for Social Security? Well, that goes back to 6.2% if sequestration happens.
And if you like government tax credits for "alternative" fuels and community development, bye bye!
But see, all this occurs if nothing is done as of January 2, 2014. And the best part for the Democrats is, as duly noted, they will blame the Republicans because they would just not allow the hike in taxes for the two percent of the eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll, filthy, stinking, rich folks.
But if they get this money that they need to keep the government going and let some phantom cuts occur in all but defense spending, they think that they can get the win.
Now the Republicans have to go on the offensive and drive it home that they do not want to raise any one's taxes. That they want to keep the tax rates as is and have true tax reform that will benefit all taxpayers and not just put some against each other.
In the meantime, the Democrats can and I think will just let it go. They will not let a good crisis go to waste. They will burn it down to get what they really want.

Yup, I'm Down With Going Over The Fiscal Cliff

As the pundits and partisans hand-wring about what will happen if the United States falls off of the so-called fiscal cliff, I am coming around to this position.
I am down with going over the fiscal cliff.
Now I am not at this decision lightly.
Without a doubt, the Republicans will be blamed if this does indeed occur. And even if a known to be horrible compromise is somehow hatched-up, Republicans who accede to Democrat demands will not be given a free ride.
Ask then-President George H. W. Bush when he collapsed under Democrat pressure and broke the no-new taxes pledge. Did he get credit for "being an adult" or any of the other Washington Beltway euphemisms? Noooo! He got hammered for raising taxes by none other than William Jefferson Blythe Clinton. in the 1992 presidential campaign. Yeah, a lot of good it did Mr. Bush who lost reelection that year.
That is what will happen to any Republican that continues to entertain giving any quarter to the Democrat demands, which will lead to tax hikes.
So, what will happen if no deal is reached and then we go over the fiscal cliff?
The immediate that happens as of January 1, 2013 will be what is called sequestration. It essentially will be a combination of budget cuts and tax hikes.
Now, I link Marc Thiessen (too bad he does not spell Mark correctly!) because it is a useful guide to exactly what happens.
And here are the tax highlights Mr. Thiessen alludes to:

●The employee share of the Social Security payroll tax would rise from 4.2 percent to 6.2 percent.

●An estimated 33 million taxpayers — many in high-tax blue states — would be required to pay the alternative minimum tax, up from 4 million who owed it in 2011.

●The child tax credit would be cut in half, from $1,000 today to $500, and would no longer be refundable for most.

●Tax preferences for alternative fuels, community development and other Democratic priorities would go away.

●And the expansions of the earned income tax credit and the dependent care credit would disappear as well.

Now what Mr. Thiessen does not discuss and is very real about the actual budget cuts is what will happen to the defense budget. It will take the largest hit if indeed budget cuts have to be implemented once the United States falls off the cliff.
But what is in it for the long run for those of us that want to pursue real tax reform and entitlement reform?
Well, I can not say it better than Mr. Thiessen does right here:

Americans had a choice this November, and they voted for bigger government. Rather shielding voters from the consequences of their decisions, let them pay for it.

And therein lie why the Republicans need to let the United States fall off that fiscal cliff.
Because the reality is that the people that did vote for the Dear Leader, President Obama, and Democrats need to come to an understanding.
That big government actually costs real money. And that real money is the taxes that the government will collect from more Americans to pay for such things as the so-called "stimulus" that currently Red China is paying for. And of course there is Obamacare.
See, the Democrats really want people to believe that only wealthy people, whatever they define as wealthy, should have to shoulder the burden of taxes and not all taxpayer need to be part of paying taxes in the first place.
The problem is, there are just not that many wealthy people unless you lower the wealth bar pretty low. The way that Democrats have figured, about $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for a married couple and or household.
And at some point, the Democrats will realize, damn, why that is not enough and wealthy, well, lets see, maybe lets make that $150,000 or individuals and $200,000 for married couples and families. It thus becomes a game of drip, drip, drip until the bar is so lowered that well what Mr. Thiessen describes as the taxes going up happens in one fell swoop.
KA-BOOM!
The problem is that if the Republicans get caught up in some moronic "Grand Bargain" to avoid the fiscal cliff, they will not have any position of strength to fight for serious tax reform let alone entitlement reform.
In other words, real pain must occur before real reform can be negotiated and achieved.
And it is why Republicans need to not try for some deal to avoid the fiscal cliff. We must drive the car right off of it and lay the blame where it belongs-with the Democrats-and then negotiate from a position of strength.