My favorite person this week: The Washington Free Beacon’s Andrew Stiles

Democrat fundraising e-mails lately have been on the verge of suicidal. They are so fucking crazy and desperate, it’s pathetic. Shorter DCCC chair: “Our fake impeachment talk sure is an awesome way to freak money out of our fuckwit base!” Andrew Stiles did a little photoshopping and, honestly, the tone isn’t that far off from the real emails…




Hilarious. Stiles also nailed Salon to the fucking wall yesterday with this piece:

Salon has published an important piece urging our nation’s Thought Leaders to stop pretending Senator Ted Cruz is an intelligent person. Read all 1,200 words of it if you insist, but the upshot, essentially, is that being smart and holding conservative political views are mutually exclusive. On the other hand, it wouldn’t require much editing to rewrite the piece in a way that would condemn the intellect of another alleged genius, Barack Obama, and pretty much every Democrat who might run for president in 2016. For example, Salon writer (and presumed Obama superfan) Nathan Robinson argues that the “preexisting consensus” about Cruz—that despite his moral failings as a Republican, he does possess a “sophisticated mind”—is wrong because of Cruz’s tendency to speak in “platitudinous drivel” and engage in “performance art.” Unlike Obama, obviously, who historians have already declared “the smartest guy ever to become President.” Obama is “cerebral,” has written two memoirs, and received his undergraduate degree at an Ivy League institution only slightly less prestigious than Cruz’s alma mater. He probably watches The Colbert Report and “gets” all the subtle, intellectual jokes. Nothing platitudinous about “Hope and Change,” or “Economic Patriotism.” If Cruz was really a genius, Robinson asks, would he have “alienated all of his colleagues” in the Senate? You know, just like President Obama has alienated his Democratic allies in Congress, who are unimpressed by his scholarly aloofness. Cruz is a gigantic liar, too, and doesn’t even have any political successes to his name, so he’s clearly an idiot. Unlike Obama, whose one transformative accomplishment (Obamacare) suffered a disastrous rollout and would never have passed in the first place if voters hadn’t believed the gigantic lie—“You can keep your plan”—the president repeated ad nauseum.

Stiles then copies and pastes several paragraphs of the Salon article, replacing Cruz’s name with Obama’s, and you honestly can’t tell the difference. Go to the link to see. Stiles concludes:

Did you even notice the difference? More importantly, we should all be asking ourselves: Is it racist to publicly question the intelligence of a prominent Hispanic politician? I think we all know the answer.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics, The Left

Afternoon Links

LOL. Assholes.

Detroit residents are struggling to pay their water bills at such an alarming rate that the city’s utility announced a few months ago that it would cut off water for between 1,500 and 3,000 people every week…Now, an unlikely group seems to think it can step in and solve this systemic problem. PETA, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, announced in a blog post on Thursday that it will offer financial assistance to 10 families who can’t afford their water bills — if the families go vegan, that is…The group asks people who are interested to take photos of their overdue bills and send them in along with a pledge to go vegan. It gives no indication of what it would do should someone accept the funding and then immediately start eating meat again.

State Senator of mysterious party affiliation (he’s a Democrat, but you won’t find that anywhere in this article) now facing additional federal charges, including racketeering.

Incompetents spend millions of taxpayer dollars unsuccessfully trying to make Afghans eat tofu.

That’s a heck of a correction, Think Progress.

“The truth is, we are all living in Israel. It’s just that some of us haven’t realized it yet.” Fantastic, fair Sam Harris piece on why it is obvious whose side you should be on in this conflict. The original transcript – before he went back and annotated it because the Left started screaming at him – was better and easier to read but it’s still definitely worth wading through.

We gave lots and lots of weapons to Afghanistan and now we have no idea where they are, of course.

If you selected “automatic renewal” on your ACA exchange plan, you’re in for a real shock in 2015.

“Death to the Jews” chanted the crowd waving the black flags of ISIS…in the Netherlands. Good luck, Europe.

LOL. North Korea’s midget man-child is mad no one’s paying attention to him.

I swear there are undiscovered tribes in the Amazon who know more about guns than the American Left does. The refusal to even Google shit is astounding to me. Bob Owens uses something called facts to obliterate this ridiculous Atlantic piece.

Meanwhile, in the terrible mistake that is the country of Pakistan.

I tend to blame anti-semites for anti-semitism, but that’s just me.

Sharknado 2 (premiering tonight on SyFy, don’t miss it!) is being touted as “the most important film ever made about climate change.” Yeah, the first one really made me wake up. Me and America, I think it’s fair to say.

LOL WaPo’s Greg Sargent attempts to destroy the Halbig case, gets hoisted on his own petard.


A koala named Timberwolf has suffered only minor injuries after he was found clinging to the bottom of a car that travelled 88km before the furry stowaway was discovered. The four-year-old marsupial was discovered clinging to the grille of the vehicle by its occupants when they stopped at a service station in Gympie, Queensland, on Friday. The family in the car did not know they had a koala passenger for the 88km journey from Maryborough. Staff at the Australia Zoo Wildlife Hospital treated the koala, naming him Timberwolf after their football team. Luckily, Timberwolf suffered only minor injuries from his joy ride, with a torn nail being the worst of his woes. However, staff discovered the koala also has chlamydia, which will require antibiotic treatment.

Hamas’s military command bunker is underneath a hospital and every reporter knows it, but they’re not reporting it, mostly because Hamas threatens them.

Don’t laugh. No, really.

Women should not laugh in public in Turkey, the Deputy Prime Minister has said in a speech on “moral corruption” in the country…Among his other complaints was people having too many cars and using too much petrol, and women talking about “unnecessary” topics on the phone instead of meeting face-to-face.

Leave a comment

Filed under Around the World, Guns, TV/Movies, Uncategorized

Video of the Day

I don’t know about you, but when I watch this “anti-gun” commercial all I can think is: “I should go out and buy a gun so I can protect my family from crazy people in case the cops don’t get there in time.”

Charles C.W. Cooke explains:

I am reliably informed that the folks over at Michael Bloomberg’s gun-control outfit, Everytown, believe earnestly that the above commercial makes the case for stricter gun control. The intended message, presumably, is: “We need to keep guns out of the hands of violent men with restraining orders.” A laudable aim, in and of itself. Does this come across? Not really, no. What the video ends up doing instead is demonstrating a) that people who are willing to abduct children and shoot women in the face are not likely to follow the laws (the victim already has a restraining order out against her assailant, which frankly doesn’t seem to be doing much); b) that the victim would have been better off with a gun in her hand than with a phone connected to the police department; and c) that, firearms being a great equalizer between men and women, any rules that make it difficult for potential victims to get hold of guns (and make no mistake: Everytown supports them all) put vulnerable people in danger.


Leave a comment

Filed under Guns, Video of the Day

How the Left argues: A Case Study

I frequently get into arguments with Leftists (and people on the right too, but we’ll focus on the Lefties today) on social media because A. I love a good debate. B. They often post things that are factually inaccurate and need to be corrected. C. Once in awhile, I get someone to actually think a little bit about their own beliefs and we should all re-think our own positions from time to time.

Last night I got into it with a few “progressives” who provided a textbook example of how the Left argues. We’ll call these two people John and Kate. John starts off in typical fashion with a completely inaccurate meme:


When asked the source for this meme/these statistics John didn’t know, which I assume means it was randomly found on the Internet and, as we all know, random things on the Internet are ALWAYS FACTUALLY ACCURATE. So, we have Step 1 in the Left’s argument process: Throw out random facts, which you haven’t bothered to fact check, as if they are true.

I kick off the conversation with a quick debunking of the “facts” in this meme:

“LOL. We grew at NEGATIVE 3% last quarter. The Dow is up because the Fed is pumping money into the market (quantitative easing), which is A. Unsustainable B. Increasing the debt. C. Benefitting mainly the uber rich. The real unemployment rate is in the double digits: Your number only includes people who are still looking for jobs, not the many people who have stopped looking and dropped out of the workforce. We have the lowest labor force participation rate in many decades. Deficit has gone down mainly because of the sequester (which Obama decried and which is no longer in place so it will go back up again). The debt is still exploding.”

John’s response: “And who started the deficit? Democrat Bill Clinton had a surplus, Republican Bush did not.”

I find that starting off with simple questions can quickly give you an indicator of the extent of the person’s knowledge, so I simply ask: “Do you understand the difference between the debt and the deficit?” To which John replies: “Yeah. The only way to lower the debt is to get the deficit down, no? Clinton had a surplus, Bush a deficit. That’s where it started.” (As you can see, we’ve already begun Step 2: Blame Bush.)

Ok, so now I know that John doesn’t really understand what the deficit is and how it factors into the debt. If he did he would have said, “If you want to decrease the debt, you can’t just decrease the deficit, you have to eliminate the deficit and not just for a year or two.” The surplus has to last for awhile. Third grade math example: If I get in $1,000 (my ‘deficit’) of credit card debt a year for four years and the fifth year I lower my ‘deficit’ and only get in $800 of credit card debt, have I lowered my overall debt or am I still in a $4,800 hole? “Surpluses” like the Clinton-Gingrich “surplus” are always destined to be very temporary and don’t decrease the debt, mainly because entitlement spending continually escalates. So I explain to John:

“The deficit is the yearly difference between how much you take in and how much you spend. Obama’s deficits have been, on average, over a trillion dollars every year he’s been in office. Bush’s last deficit was $458 billion. Obama’s deficit is lower now than his first few years in office (only because he TRIPLED the deficit when he got in office and Republicans took over the House in 2010 and have slowed spending a bit). When you are spending more than you take in in any given year that adds to the debt. You can’t lower the debt if you have a deficit. You can only lower the debt if you spend less than you take in in a series of years. It’s like your credit card bill. All we’re doing now is paying interest on the debt (a debt which Obama will have doubled by the time he leaves office; it was a little over $10 trillion the day he took the oath, it’s over $17 trillion now and rapidly going up). The reason we had a “surplus” for a time under Clinton was that the Republican House balanced the budget (the House holds the purse strings). Clinton did not submit a balanced budget. He submitted a deficit. To his credit, he let the Republican House negotiate him into signing a balanced budget, something this President would never do.”

John’s reply:

“This, however, does not answer the question: why did Bush run a deficit. The answers are obvious. He gives them himself. Tax cuts, and the war in Iraq. I’ve no intention on discussing that, only to point out that the fact on the ground is that the Democrat had a surplus, the Republican a deficit.”

Step 3: Ignore everything I just said and reiterate that it’s Bush’s fault.

Notice that at no point yet has John acknowledged that Obama has anything to do with the exploding national debt/enormous yearly deficits. The fact that there is a national debt at all is apparently “Bush’s fault!” because he had budget deficits (like every other modern President). So, I try explaining again to John:

“As usual, the only argument you guys have is ‘BUSH’S FAULT! BUSH’S FAULT!’ Yes, Clinton left office with a balanced budget, but he, like all recent presidents, increased the national debt while in office, leaving the country more than a trillion dollars deeper in debt. Bush left office with a deficit and more debt. None of that has anything to do with the fact that Obama has vastly outspent his predecessors. Clinton’s debt record is “best,” Bush’s is bad but Obama’s is by far the worst.”

Now I get radio silence from John, but now Kate has joined the conversation. She starts off by responding to someone else on the thread who is asking John what he thinks about the terrible economic indicators under Obama (median household wealth is down, median income is down, unemployment is up, part time jobs are becoming the norm for a lot of people instead of full time, etc.) John doesn’t respond to that person either, but Kate says:

“As for median household wealth being down, that is support for the progressive view that the decline in unions has resulted in corporations and some small businesses keeping the money at the top for the sole use of CEO’s, bonuses, and (if appropriate) stockholders rather than investing in the economic health of the US through appropriate wages. Likewise, it is not the POTUS who determines whether companies are going to hire mainly part time employees in order (once again) to keep the money at the top. Corporate profits are at an all-time high. Under those conditions, if employees aren’t hired full time or aren’t paid livable wages, the blame lies squarely on the business sector. I’m curious as to what excuse the “persons” disguised as corporations have when making record-breaking profits for NOT paying livable wages and contributing to the healthcare of the employees who help make them their profits?”

Someone else responds to her on that (noting that Obamacare has a lot to do with companies now hiring more part-time, etc.), but I’m showing you that so you understand how/why we eventually get on the topic of wages, etc.

Kate then starts replying to my conversation with John:

“I love how those opposed to Obama absolutely REFUSE to admit any impact Bush has had on this administration. Just as an example, the current administration inherited wars that OF COURSE caused tremendous debt – which those blinded with hate of Obama do not take into account when discussing rising debt. It isn’t that liberals blame everything on Bush, they just refuse to take his impact out of the equation when looking at the current situation. They refuse to forget that Bush left the country in a severe recession and on the brink of depression. How dare they!!!! The irony of the is that it is the conservatives who are in the blind ‘blame game’!”

Ok, there’s Step 4: Establish a straw man.

No one “refused to admit” Bush’s role in growing the debt. I actually just blamed him (scroll up) for making it worse. Note, neither John nor Kate have yet to lay any blame on the man sitting in the Oval Office for the last six years who has almost doubled the total national debt. We keep repeating Steps 2 and 3. I reply:

“I acknowledge Bush had a big hand in increasing the debt and I intensely dislike him for it. Obama will have more than doubled it by the time he leaves office. Simple truth that you guys refuse to acknowledge. Nearly halfway through Obama’s second term and you guys are still screaming “BUSH’S FAULT” over everything. It’s pathetic. At some point, the guy who has been sitting in the Oval Office for the past six years has to be held responsible for something.”

She replies:

“Once again, there is a difference between screaming “BUSH’S FAULT” and giving credit to Bush where credit is due. The topic is mainly raised to counteract accusations where “you guys” are screaming “OBAMA’S FAULT” for EVERYTHING negative in the universe – whether he had anything to do with it or not. On the whole, “you guys” want to pretend that this POTUS came into a clean slate. That kind of blindness is really sad.”

More straw men, so I simply reply: “No one on this thread has said everything in the universe is Obama’s fault or that he came in with a clean slate. I don’t know who you’re talking about.”

Kate then replies to the person who is owning her on the Obamacare argument by saying the evidence showing increased premiums and deductibles is wrong and that most people are actually experiencing lower premiums and deductibles (she doesn’t provide any evidence of that, which, to be fair, she can’t because it doesn’t exist. She’s wrong). She then makes a bizarre claim: “The ACA, as compromised for Republican votes, surely has short comings.”

At this point John has found another pointless meme (from a site called “Conservatives Are Destroying Our Future” – sounds like a bunch of reasonable policy experts who should be taken seriously!) so he returns to the conversation just to post this and then leaves:


So, now we’re back to a version of Step 3: Ignore all the facts that were just laid out and go back to tacitly blaming Bush. We’ve also moved on to Step 5: Post memes and/or links to random studies and/or Salon, Think Progress, Daily Kos, etc. articles in lieu of making an argument. 

Anyway, I’m still in conversation with Kate, who i have called out for implying in one of her above posts that running a business is as simple and straightforward as just lavishing high wages and benefits on employees because it’s a nice thing to do; as if that doesn’t effect prices, profits, etc. I also weigh in on her bizarre claim that the “ACA was compromised for Republican votes.” At this point I’m thinking, surely she knows that not a single Republican voted for it, or ever planned to, nor did any of them have a hand in drafting it. I must have misunderstood what she was saying.

I reply:

“You seem to be suggesting that if a company makes a profit they can just up everyone’s wages and benefits and it’s that simple, as if paying people more than what their labor is worth doesn’t effect anything. That’s not how it works. What is your suggestion? For the government to set wages, prices, profit levels, stock dividends for all companies coast to coast? Not sure what you mean by “the ACA as compromised for Republican votes.” No Republicans voted for it, nor were they ever planning to. No Republicans were involved in the drafting of the law. There were many kickbacks thrown in to get Democrat votes, but not Republicans.”

I then reply to John and his meme, to which I get no response:

“I don’t understand what your argument is at this point. Are you trying to make the case that Obama is some kind of deficit hawk? As I explained above, Obama lowered his own deficit for one year (each of his deficits have been higher than any of Bush’s, even Obama’s lowest one). Obama has the five highest budget deficits the U.S. Government has ever run and he has almost doubled the overall debt. Clinton’s lowered deficit and eventual balanced budget was, once again, lowered from Clinton’s OWN previous deficits. Clinton still added over a trillion to the national debt overall during his presidency. When he took office the total outstanding public debt was $4.1 trillion. When he left office it was $5.7 trillion. So, the point is, even if Clinton and Obama lowered the deficit for a year or two from their previous high deficits, it doesn’t lower the overall national debt. If you are consistently running budget deficits at all, it increases the debt. Smaller deficits just mean you’re growing the debt a bit more slowly than you were growing it the year before. It’s still making the problem worse, not better, and the interest keeps accumulating (which ultimately increases the debt more).”

Now Kate’s reply to me (by the way, she never responds to me on Republicans and the ACA, which I take to mean that she didn’t realize it was passed on a party line vote, which is amazing):

“This statement says everything about your position: ‘as if paying people more than what their labor is worth doesn’t effect anything.’ There are people who CANNOT survive on their wages without getting government assistance, and yet you automatically assume that a raise would pay more than what their labor is worth. You immediately devalue their contribution to the company and to society. It is that mindset that devalues the wage earners in this country that is destroying our economy and the very fiber of our country. I view it as a complete lack of empathy as to what is happening to our citizens.”

So, we’ve arrived at Step 6: Reduce your argument to some form of “Oh yeah, well you’re a big meanie who lacks empathy.”

My response:

“First of all, you didn’t respond to my question about whether your solution would be to have the government set all wages and prices, etc. Here’s another question: should we pay burger flippers at McDonald’s $50 an hour just to be nice? You realize that means prices will go up, right? That means they end up in the same position, with the same buying power, as they were in before. The market decides what someone’s labor is worth. It’s called supply and demand. Welders make more money than fast food workers because their labor is worth more because their skills are in higher demand. Empathy has nothing to do with it. It’s basic economics. The answer is not to arbitrarily fix wages, but to help people acquire skills so they can grow and compete. McDonald’s cashier is not supposed to be a career. It’s supposed to be an entry-level job for a teenager. If you force McDonald’s to pay a cashier more than their labor is worth, McDonald’s will just replace them with a robot.”

Her reply:

“I don’t need to answer whether I accept your made up solution, since I have given you absolutely no reason to ask me whether I think the government should set all wages and prices. Nor did I ever suggest that McDonald’s “flippers” should make $50 an hour. And I object to your constant insinuation that other people don’t understand simple ideas such as that increases in wages could make prices go up (unless, of course, executive bonuses go down, but how dare anyone suggest such a thing!). Is it your premise, that “we” should pay CEO’s hundreds of millions of dollars a year because they are “worth it”? You discredit me the same way you do the value of workers. I will counter, however, that the concept that the “market” decides what someone’s labor is worth is no longer automatically accepted as a truism. Now that the majority of the “market” is controlled by a very small number of corporations (antitrust laws be damned), the market model is too skewed, That is what you don’t seem to understand. I’m afraid you are too busy having all those conversations with yourself, which is why I think you can’t understand what I and others have said about any of these issues.”

Step 7: Repeatedly refuse to answer the question. I asked a simple yes or no question. Her resistance to answering is telling. Kate has given me reason to ask whether she thinks the government should set wage and price controls, especially with this last answer. She “objects” to my insinuation that “people don’t understand simple ideas such as that increases in wages could make prices go up.” Therein lies the fallacy in her (and the Left’s) raise the wage! argument. If you understand (as she says she does) that increased wages mean increased prices (if you now have to pay the burger flipper $15 an hour, you now have to increase the wages of your shift manager – who was probably making $15 an hour – to $30 an hour and on up the chain). This obviously results in a price increase because now everything is more expensive because your butchers, suppliers, truck drivers, etc. have to abide by the increased wage ladder, too. There’s also the fact that heads of businesses aren’t all just fat cats sitting around, much as the Left imagines they all are. They are constantly making decisions about growing their business, opening up new stores, investing in new products, hiring more workers, etc. Kate won’t answer me on price controls because she refuses to acknowledge that what she’s asking for is for the government to impose wage and price controls. That’s the only way her idea can work. Government would have to raise the wage and then prevent businesses from raising prices (I shouldn’t have to tell you that there’s a name for this idea and it never works). She also expresses a desire for executive bonuses to go down, in order to pay the workers at the bottom of the chain more. Again, you’re essentially asking for government to set a limit on how much executives can be paid. That’s the only way that happens. I would have gotten into this (and her claim that a “very small number of corporations” now apparently control “the market” to a degree that means the basic laws of supply and demand have been nullified or something. What?) more with her and plainly, instead of subtly, asked her the question no Lefty can ever answer: Why not set the minimum wage at $50? Why not $100? But it was 2 in the morning and I was tired. Note that she completely ignores the parts of my argument that don’t fit her progressive Unicornland narrative: the idea that maybe we should teach people skills and turn them into assets instead of simply treating them as mouths that need to be fed/problems to throw money at; the reasons (basic supply and demand, what skills a market values/needs) why a welder or construction worker or engineer or auto mechanic makes more than a McDonald’s cashier. Her argument boils down to the typical Leftist talking points: people who own businesses are evil people who should have their money redistributed and I want to give poor people free stuff, logic and math be damned.

Anyway, suddenly Kate found a Politifact “fact” that she must have been convinced she could really get me on because suddenly we were back on the deficit/debt train. She quoted a Politifact article (from a year ago) stating that Obama’s claim (at the time) that “the deficit is falling at the fastest rate in 60 years” is true.

I simply responded by asking: “How much has the national debt decreased?” Then I used the simple credit card example I used above to prove my point about why, even if what Obama said was true for that one year, it does nothing to address the larger problem. “If I get in $1,000 of credit card debt a year for four years and the fifth year I only get in $800 of credit card debt have I lowered my overall debt or am I still in a $4,800 hole?”

In a separate comment I posed the wage control question again: “So, you’re not calling for the government to institute a higher minimum wage?”

Kate responds correctly to the debt question: “The national debt has not decreased overall. As a matter of fact, it is expected to double over the course of Obama’s presidency. It will definitely not decrease with an obstructionist Congress blocking all attempts to improve the economy.” (Step 8: Revert back to the talking points: obstructionist Republicans’ fault!) “However, all of that is much too complicated for this thread.” (Step 9: (Now that I’m losing the argument and have been forced to concede your original point) it’s just all too complicated to discuss.) “And I, unlike you, do not consider the debt standing alone to be the most pressing issue this country faces.” (Step 10: It’s not a huge problem anyway! What’s the big deal?)

She continues in another comment: “Your last insulting comment has ended this discussion for me. I should not have to point out that I have the intelligence to understand that debt in your example accumulated. Since you seem to feel that I do, I have no desire to encourage your further “put downs.” I’m very sorry that you don’t understand that setting a MINIMUM wage does not constitute the government setting ‘all wages and prices.’ Good night.” (Step 11: Suddenly claim that you’ve been insulted and put down as an excuse to leave the conversation. Optional to Step 11: Put quotes around random words.)

Anyway, while all that was going on I was replying to her acknowledgment that the debt has increased. Me:

“No, it hasn’t decreased. It has increased. That’s my point. Even if you’re running a smaller deficit than you were running last year you’re still adding to the debt. Conservatives and libertarians would love to actually address the debt and fix the problem.”

I then reply to her claim that I “insulted” her:

“I don’t know what insulting comment you’re referring to. I asked my minimum wage question again, which you still won’t respond to. You implied that Obama had accomplished something by having one year of a slightly lower deficit. I used an example to prove it’s meaningless in the grand scheme of things. No put down involved.”

Ok, so at this point she goes up and DELETES the Politifact quote she posted.

I comment: “LOL. Way to delete your original comment that I was responding to.”

She replies: “LOL – way to assume it had anything to do with you or knowing that you were responding when I did it. Center of my universe you are not. :)”

Several minutes have now gone by, plus she responded to my response to her Politifact comment (that’s where she accused me of insulting her), so the idea that she didn’t know I had ever replied to the Politifact quote is ridiculous and disproven by scrolling up (assuming she hasn’t deleted that comment too). (Step 12: Put the inconvenient facts down the memory hole. Optional to Step 12: Start with the passive-aggressive smiley face emoticons.) I reply: “You posted a quote from Politifact, which I responded to. You said my response was ‘insulting’ and had ended the discussion for you. Then you deleted the comment you were complaining about my response to.”

At this point she replies to me by posting the following meme implying that I’m a greedy asshole (because I understand how the laws of economics work, sorry!):


“Starvation wages”…KOCHTOPUS!!

Anyway, she now goes back and edits her last comment so that it now reads:

“LOL – Way to assume it had anything to with you or knowing that you were responding when I did it. Center of my universe you are not :)  Two other of my posts didn’t show. One about my full realization that conservatives and libertarians have an absolute obsession with the debt and a single-minded idea that it is controlled only by reducing expenditures. The weakness is to ignore other elements of the equation related to building a healthy economy (including more employment and better wages) and country with an end result of reducing debt through more “income”. Much too complicated for conservative talking points. Another to point out that whereas I don’t think I discussed the minimum wage earlier, supporting an increase in the MINIMUM is not in any way equivalent to suggesting that government control all wages and prices. Either that is too complicated for you to understand or you were insulting by accusing me of that leap. Either way, discussion with you seems pointless.”

Step 13: A. Declare that “discussion with you is pointless.” B. Accuse your opponent of being insulting/arrogant/condescending, then immediately act in the manner in which you just accused them.

Now she’s replying to my last comment which was a reply to her previously unedited post:

“Sorry, but you have misstated what happened ONCE AGAIN, and misunderstood what you have said that is insulting ONCE AGAIN. I sincerely am leaving now, but I was not going to have the exchange end with your misrepresentation of what occurred. Yes, I deleted a post where Politifact determined that a statement made by the President about the deficit falling was true. I deleted it because I determined it served no purpose to post it. I deleted it before even reading your comments. The remainder of your last post is merely you having a fictional conversation with yourself. Good night.”

Theory: She deleted the Politifact quote because she posted it before she actually read through the article and when she realized they make my point halfway through the article, she deleted it. But that’s ok, that’s embarrassing, she doesn’t have to admit that.

Step 14: Insinuate that your opponent is a crazy person. “You are too busy having conversations with yourself.” WTF are you talking about? I’m having a conversation with YOU. If you’re talking about your feelings rather than responding to my arguments that’s not my problem.

Kate really tried to make Step 14 happen. She started going back and editing her comments so it looked like my replies were to an imaginary person rather than to her. “The remainder of your comment is you having a fictional conversation with yourself,” she said. Yes, now it’s me having a fictional conversation because you’ve gone back and edited your fucking comments so that I now look like a crazy person who’s talking to myself.

I brought this up but, of course, never got a reply: “You keep going back and editing your comments after I’ve already responded to what you originally wrote, so this conversation now doesn’t make sense to anyone looking at it.”

I briefly addressed her last couple points and then went to bed: “Increasing the minimum wage means other wages go up, which means prices go up, which means everyone is back to having the same amount of purchasing power they had before. I agree a healthy economy and more employment could help reduce the debt through more income. Raising the minimum wage isn’t going to do it though.”


The thing about the Left is that they don’t know what they don’t know. They think they know everything because they’ve been told that they are the “elites,” the “intellectuals,” that their opponents are knuckle-dragging Neanderthals who believe in Jesus and angels (gasp!) and must therefore be fucking idiots on every topic. (P.S. There are plenty of atheists on the right). But, in reality, my encounter with the average Leftist almost always involves me spending most of my time debunking absurd claims and/or explaining basic facts to them. Pro Tip: If you’re only getting your news from Salon, Think Progress, Daily Kos, MSNBC, etc., YOU’RE NOT GETTING ALL THE INFORMATION. I certainly don’t know everything and I get stuff wrong of course, but I read everything I can all across the Left-Right spectrum. Because if I didn’t, I would be even more stupid than I already am. It’s useful to read the other side’s arguments because it’s helpful to know what your ideological opponents actually believe and how they really think. Most Leftists have no idea what their ideological opponents actually believe. They live in a bubble in which they only talk to people, and read things, they agree with. Conservatives/libertarians have an advantage here because the American education system is steeped in Leftist thought and ideology. So, we have read our Marx and our Chomsky and our Said and our Keynes and our Zinn. Most Leftists I encounter have NOT read the other side’s thinkers (i.e. Hayek, Toqueville, Friedman, Burke, etc.). That’s why most conversations between the two sides play out like the one above. 

Leave a comment

Filed under The Left

Afternoon Links

Oh dear. A Democrat Senator plagiarized a significant chunk of his 14-page (!!) master’s thesis.


Ok, timeout. 14 pages was the length of my average paper as an undergrad. I think I wrote a 14-page complaint letter to U.S. Airways once after they lost my luggage both to and from my destination. How can you not be able to fill 14 pages on a subject you supposedly know something about? And who the hell assigns a 14-page master’s thesis? Anyway, Senator Walsh dug his hole deeper - as senators are wont to do – by claiming that he plagiarized because he had PTSD (he didn’t) after getting hit 100 times with IEDs during his military service in Iraq (he actually only got hit by one).

Rarely do I fully embrace an NYT editorial, but this weekend I did. The “progressive” New York Times finally catches up to the “conservative” National Review, which was calling for getting rid of federal marijuana criminalization and leaving it to the states 20 years ago.

As usual, Mark Steyn nails it. An excerpt from a must-read blog post:

Bush may have been loathed by large numbers of Europeans and Arabs, but he had very cordial relationships with their leaders, from Blair and Merkel to the brace of Abdullahs in Jordan and Saudi. Obama’s too cool to work the phones…With regard to what’s happening in Gaza, the US president has no relationships with anybody in the region who matters. To define American “allies” as broadly as possible, name one who has any reason to trust Obama or his emissaries. In Cairo, General Sisi regards Obama as a Muslim Brotherhood sympathizer; in Riyadh, King Abdullah regards him as the enabler of the Shia Persian nuclear program; and in Amman, the other King Abdullah regards him as the feckless bungler who’s left the Jordanians with the world’s wealthest terrorist group on their eastern border. Shuttle diplomacy, of the kind the vainglorious Kerry is attempting, only works if you already have a relationship…And in this case the regional leaders’ crude self-interest outweighs whatever value they might place on staying on the right side of President Fundraiser and Secretary Windsurfer. General Sisi wants to destroy the Brotherhood in Egypt, to which Hamas has significant ties. The Saudis are Israel’s new best friend and see them as their last chance to scuttle Iran’s nuclear ambitions. So we are in a bizarre situation where the Arab leaders are more hostile to Hamas than Washington is…Progressive humanitarianism, as much as old-school colonialism, prefers its clientele “helpless,” and, despite Iranian weaponry and Iraqi money and the human sacrifice of its schoolchildren, the Palestinians have been masters at selling their “helplessness” to the West. In Europe, colonialism may be over, but colonialist condescension endures as progressive activism, and the Palestinians are the perfect cause. Everywhere else, from Nigeria to Nauru, at some point the natives say to the paternalist Europeans, “Thanks very much, but we’ll take it from here.” But the Palestinians? Can you think of any other “people” who’d be content to live as UN “refugees” for four generations? They’re the only “people” with their own dedicated UN agency, and its regime has lasted almost three times as long as Britain’s Palestine mandate did…For all the tedious bleating of the Euroninnies, what Israel is doing is perfectly legal. Even if you sincerely believe that “Chairman” Arafat is entirely blameless when it comes to the suicide bombers, when a neighbouring jurisdiction is the base for hostile incursions, a sovereign state has the right of hot pursuit. Britain has certainly availed herself of this internationally recognized principle: In the 19th century, when the Fenians launched raids on Canada from upstate New York, the British thought nothing of infringing American sovereignty to hit back — and Washington accepted they were entitled to do so. But the rights every other sovereign state takes for granted are denied to Israel. “The Jews are a peculiar people: things permitted to other nations are forbidden to the Jews,” wrote America’s great longshoreman philosopher Eric Hoffer after the 1967 war. “Other nations drive out thousands, even millions of people and there is no refugee problem … But everyone insists that Israel must take back every single Arab”…Thus, the massive population displacements in Europe at the end of the Second World War are forever, but those in Palestine a mere three years later must be corrected and reversed. On the Continent, losing wars comes with a territorial price: The Germans aren’t going to be back in Danzig any time soon. But, in the Middle East, no matter how often the Arabs attack Israel and lose, their claims to their lost territory manage to be both inviolable but endlessly transferable. And so land won in battle from Jordan and Egypt somehow has to be ceded to Fatah and Hamas. As I said, this is all the stuff that never changes, and the likelihood that it will change lessens with every passing half-decade…What sort of human capital do you wind up with after four generations have been born as “refugees”? If you’ve ever met a charming, urbane Palestinian doctor or lawyer in London or Paris, you’ll know that anyone who isn’t a total idiot – ie, the kind of people you need to build a nation – got out long ago…The UNRWA is forever, running its Mister Magoo ground operation and, during the periodic flare-ups, issuing its usual befuddled statements professing complete shock at discovering that Hamas is operating rocket launchers from the local kindergarten. But, like I said, that’s all the stuff that never changes, decade in, decade out. The problem this time round is that everything else in the region is changing. Jordan’s population has swollen by 25 per cent, refugees from the Syrian civil war. Does anyone seriously think the UN has plans to set up a refugee agency to minister to them until the year 2090 and beyond? ISIS have destroyed the Christian churches in Mosul and chased the entire Christian community out of town. Does anyone seriously think the Europeans will be championing Iraqi Christians’ “right of return” for the next three-quarters of a century? ISIS is doing what winners do in war: It’s shaping the facts on the ground. It wants no Christians in Iraq, and it’s getting on with it. General Sisi wants to kill the Muslim Brotherhood: He’s getting on with it. The wilier Brothers have slipped over into a collapsing Libya to make common cause with various al-Qaeda affiliates, as the Libyan state implodes: Its would-be successors are getting on with it. In the new Middle East, everyone and his uncle has an Obama-Clinton “Reset” button and they’ve pressed it. But they’re not Jews. So nobody minds, and no preening Botoxicated buffoon of an American emissary comes to lecture them.

Walter Russell Mead has a great explainer on the Gaza conflict, delving into what is making this round more complicated than usual: the fact that Egypt and Saudi Arabia are backing Israel on this one. I can’t pick and choose parts to excerpt, it’s all too important. So just go read it.

Better headline: “Why you should blame Iran for pretty much every major conflict in the Middle East.”

Did Obama put politics ahead of security in Iraq? Multiple reports point that way and, honestly, would anyone be surprised?

Bringing up the Shaneen Allen story again. There’s a link at the end of this piece where you can donate to her legal fund if you wish. Here’s a refresher on her case:

In October of 2013, a Pennsylvania resident named Shaneen Allen drove into New Jersey’s Atlantic County and was pulled over by police for an “unsafe lane change.” When the detaining officer arrived at her car window, Allen informed him that she was carrying a concealed firearm, and presented her Pennsylvania carry license as proof of eligibility. Unbeknownst to her at the time, however, was that New Jersey is among the 20 states that do not recognize Pennsylvania’s permit. In consequence, she was arrested. If convicted of the charges that the state has elected to bring, she will be locked in prison for up to a decade. A single mother of two young children, Allen works more than one job and as a result leaves her home at odd times of the day. After two robberies made her aware of her vulnerability, she became convinced that she should be prepared to defend herself and her family, and resolved to do something about it. Which is to say that Allen bought her firearm, and obtained her concealed-carry permit, not to commit crimes but to prevent them. This has failed to move the prosecutor, Jim McClain, an overzealous man who has routinely declined to use the considerable latitude with which he has been entrusted by the state. Under New Jersey’s rules, McClain could have declined to press any charges against Allen, recognizing that she was guilty of little more than an innocent mistake. He could have treated it as merely a misdemeanor and sent her to municipal court. He could have permitted her to enroll in one of the diversionary programs that New Jersey has established for peaceful first-time offenders, thereby sparing her both the prison time that will take her away from her children and the felony conviction that will almost certainly destroy her career in medical work. Instead, he has sought punishment to the fullest extent of the law: in this instance, a three-year mandatory minimum jail sentence for illegal possession of a firearm, and an extra year or more for possession of illegal ammunition. This is a travesty of justice. The travesty can be reversed.

Well, this is terrifying:

Nearly half of the contractors with access to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) online data network do not have a required security clearance, according to the Office of the Inspector General (OIG). In an audit released on Thursday, the OIG warned that sensitive information of beneficiaries and USDA employees are at risk due to security failings in a multimillion-dollar IT contract that is being administered by AT&T…Due to “inadequate oversight” the system has numerous security failings, the OIG found. In addition, mismanagement over the AT&T contract has led to nearly $2 million in billing errors, resulting in the agency paying for services they are not getting…”USDA faces an increased risk of sensitive information being lost, disclosed, altered, or destroyed, and is paying for task order services that are not being provided,” the OIG said. The contract required employees at AT&T with access to USDA data have at least a secret level clearance with a background check. The OIG found that nearly half of the AT&T contractors working on the system did not have clearance…The USDA did not even know who has working on its data system, leaving it vulnerable to “unscrupulous persons.” Both the USDA and AT&T could not provide an “accurate listing of all AT&T personnel working on the UTN,” the audit said. A former IT specialist for the USDA was recently sentenced to two years in federal prison for stealing $113,000 from her coworkers by accessing their Social Security numbers.

You probably didn’t hear it from the mainstream media this weekend, but we have completely evacuated our embassy in Libya. That’s how bad the situation is there. As Walter Russell Mead notes: If Obama were a Republican the media would be raking him over the coals for his failure in Libya.

Since both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have their fingerprints all over Libya, there isn’t a lot of press hunger for a detailed, unsparing autopsy into this stinking corpse of policy flub…If Obama were a Republican, the press and the weekly news shows would be ringing with hyperbolic, apocalyptic denunciations of the clueless incumbent who had failed to learn the most basic lessons of Iraq. Indeed, the MSM right now would be howling that Obama was stupider than Bush. Bush, our Journolist friends would now be saying ad nauseam, at least had the excuse that he didn’t know what happens when you overthrow a paranoid, genocidal, economically incompetent Arab tyrant in an artificial post-colonial state. But Obama did—or, the press would nastily say, he would have done if he’d been doing his job instead of hitting the golf course or yakking it up with his glitzy pals at late night bull sessions. The ad hominem attacks would never stop, and all the tangled threads of incompetence and failure would be endlessly and expertly picked at in long New Yorker articles, NYT thumbsuckers, and chin-strokings on all the Sabbath gasbag shows. Why, the ever-admirable tribunes of a free and unbiased press would be asking non-stop, didn’t this poor excuse for a President learn from what happened in Iraq? When you upend an insane and murderous dictator who has crushed his people for decades under an incompetent and quirky regime, you’d better realize that there is no effective state or civil society under the hard shell of dictatorial rule. Remove the dictator and you get chaos and anarchy. Wasn’t this President paying attention during the last ten years?…But luckily for Team Obama, the mainstream press would rather die than subject liberal Democrats to the critiques it reserves for the GOP. So instead, as Libya writhes in agony, reputations and careers move on. The news is so bad, and the President’s foreign policy is collapsing on so many fronts, that it is impossible to keep the story off the front pages. “Smart diplomacy” has become a punch line, and the dream Team Obama had of making Democrats the go-to national security party is as dead as the passenger pigeon. But what the press can do for the White House it still, with some honorable exceptions, labors to accomplish: it will, when it must, report the dots. But it will try not to connect them, and it will do what it can to let all the people involved in the Libya debacle move on to the next and higher stage of their careers.

The people who were out protesting for a $15 minimum wage this weekend would be far better off (and would end up making much more than $15) if they used their time to actually learn a skill (like welding) rather than bitch and moan. 

Must read from an Israeli citizen.

“Hamas and North Korea in secret arms deal.” Doesn’t surprise me.

God I hate millennials. Get over yourselves and grow up already. Either make a commitment or don’t.

D.C.’s flagrantly unconstitutional handgun carry ban has been struck down in no uncertain terms. Bravo.

The Taliban is already making good progress in their retakeover of Afghanistan.

This seems to be a trend among our supposed journalists lately: Passing off photos of dead Syrian children as though they are dead children in Gaza.

Best headline of the weekend: “Russia Regains Control of Gecko Zero-G Sex Satellite”

Syria had its bloodiest week yet with 1,700 killed, but no Jews to blame, so no one cared.

Elsewhere in this burning world, Boko Haram has kidnapped the wife of Cameroon’s vice PM.

Leave a comment

Filed under Around the World, Foreign Policy, Guns, Politics, Uncategorized

Well, well, well…

I believe…I believe that is…yes, by god, it is!…it’s Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber admitting in 2012 that states without exchanges lose subsidies/explaining why only the states get subsidies! ROLL THE TAPE (fast forward to around the 30-minute mark)…

Michael Cannon writes:

Gruber doesn’t just acknowledge the conditional feature of the PPACA’s tax credits. He also supplies a plausible purpose for that feature (there were people in Washington who either wanted to “squeeze the states to do it,” or saw the law as directing them to do so). He describes the mechanism by which this provision achieves that purpose (taxpayers will pressure their state officials to create Exchanges so they can receive tax credits). He acknowledges that the conditional nature of the tax credits sits perfectly well alongside the law’s requirement that the federal government establish an Exchange within states that do not (providing another refutation of the argument offered by Yale law professor Abbe Gluck that these provisions are somehow in tension). He even explains why the Obama administration might try to ignore this part of the law (the politics of the PPACA “can get ugly,” and the lure of tax credits might not be enough to induce states to cooperate). I couldn’t have said it better myself. Now why should we care about what this one health economist says about this hotly disputed feature of the PPACA? Gruber is not a member of Congress, so this isn’t direct evidence that Congress intended to offer tax credits only in state-established Exchanges. (The procedural path the bill took through Congress is dispositive evidence of that.) But he may be the next best thing. Gruber was an architect of both the PPACA and its Massachusetts precursor, “RomneyCare.” In 2009 and 2010, he was a highly paid advisor to the Obama administration during the congressional debate that produced the PPACA. According to the New York Times, “the White House lent him to Capitol Hill to help Congressional staff members draft the specifics of the legislation.” Later the above video, Gruber boasts of having written part of the PPACA. He boasts to the Times, “I know more about this law than any other economist.” He’s probably right about that. I don’t mean to overstate the importance of this revelation. Gruber acknowledging this feature of the law is not direct evidence of congressional intent. But Gruber is probably the most influential private citizen/government contractor involved in that legislative process. He was in the room with the people who crafted this bill. There may be videos of them talking about this feature too. (I wouldn’t know; I only researched congressional statements made pre-enactment.) At a minimum, however, with the D.C. Circuit and the Fourth Circuit and now Jonathan Gruber lining up against the idea that it is implausible that Congress could have meant what it said, we can dispense with that argument once and for all.

Game, set, match, motherfuckers. WE’RE DONE HERE. Here’s Gruber saying it a second time. OH NOES, PROGS! That ruins the narrative! CUE LEFTY MELTDOWN… 


…and the shunning of Gruber…


Gruber is now saying he made a “speak-o” which is apparently the verbal version of a typo, never mind that he said it multiple times in prepared remarks. The number of times our ‘elite’ moral and intellectual ‘betters’ have used the “I’m just a fucking incompetent who doesn’t know how to read, write or speak” excuse over the last few years is astounding. This wasn’t a speak-o. Gruber changed his tune when it became politically necessary for him to do so, as Cannon notes:

Interestingly, Gruber changed his story around the same time it seemed this provision might imperil the statute he had worked so hard to craft, enact, and protect. Just one year later—after the IRS issued a final rule purporting to authorize tax credits in federal Exchanges, after Jonathan Adler and I published our research on this issue, and after people started filing lawsuits challenging that final rule—Gruber was singing a different tune.


Meanwhile, the big thinkers on the Left are doing that thing big thinkers on the Left do:

24 hours later…

As Charles C.W. Cooke points out, the thing that should really bother you about all of this is the way these people just shamelessly lie and rewrite history in order to get their agenda pushed through:

Since its official launch, in October of 2013, the architects and salesmen of our ill-conceived phalanx of reforms have been engaged in some of the most pronounced historical revisionism of the modern era — truth being subjugated to expedience; idealism being repackaged in the pathetic language of good intentions; and the past being tweaked at every tricky stage. Thus has the ironclad promise that insurance premiums would decrease for all people given way to scoffing admissions that “of course” some people’s premiums would increase. Thus has the quixotic assurance that there would be no winners and losers been transmuted into the defensive insistence that there are no perfect plans but that this one was “worth it overall.” Thus has a favored vow that anybody who “liked” their existing plan would be able to “keep it” replaced with the patronizing mantra that people just don’t know what’s good for them — and need in consequence to be told what they may buy. Thus has the claim of “universal health insurance” been quickly forgotten, a series of unseemly statistical victory dances being offered in lieu. And thus — now that it looks as if the executive’s attempt to circumvent the rules will meet meaningful resistance in the courts — has the scheme’s legally established architecture been reimagined as a “typo” or a “mistake” or a “drafting error,” and the damning confirmations of the law’s mastermind rewritten as the feverish claims of a churlish right-wing coup.Today, we are witnessing the fall from grace of the progressive health-care wonk, Jonathan Gruber, a primary architect of Obamacare who is renouncing his previous testimony with all the giddy enthusiasm of a veteran clerk in the Khrushchev administration. Once upon a time, Gruber was admirably honest on the subject of how his creation worked, and what it did and did not permit the federal government to achieve. On a tour of the country in 2012, Gruber urged recalcitrant states to set up their own health-insurance exchanges, explaining in no uncertain terms the consequences of their declining to do so…From “verifiable” and “objective” prepared remarks to “off the cuff,” “screwy,” and “desperate” in just two and a half years? We have always been at war with Eastasia. Those of us who have been critical of Obamacare’s endless textual invitations to leave the details of national policy up “the secretary” have often referred to the law as an “enabling act” — as a perilous general warrant that transfers the prerogatives of Congress to the executive branch and substitutes for the codified work of citizen-approved legislators the transient whims of a haughty mandarin class. Little did we know just how appropriate our critique would become. There being nothing in America’s constitutional settlement that permits a president to recast the rules if they prove electorally inconvenient for him, the Obama administration’s repeated rewriting of the law has been vexing enough in isolation. Far worse, however, is that in the eyes of the expansionist Left, Obamacare seems not to represent a limited series of binding and meaningful words on a page — there to be implemented within the usual bounds of discretion — but a holistic permission slip for its aims. Increasingly, its defenders’ arguments are boiling down to “but this is a good idea,” an approach that renders Obamacare little more than a shell into which good intentions can be poured without limit and that cannot legitimately be resisted — not by Congress, not by the states, and not even by the courts. “Sure,” the attitude dictates, “it doesn’t say we can do that explicitly. But all right-thinking people believe we should.”…Meanwhile, anyone who pushes back is met with the same mawkish, manipulative cry: “Are you really going to take away from people what we have now given them?” The answer to this question should be a resounding “yes.” Yes, if you had no authority to give out favors in the first instance. Yes, if you insist upon behaving with no regard for memory or for history. Yes, if you are determined to hijack the system and ride roughshod over the consent of the governed. “Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored,” Aldous Huxley once wrote. The rule of law, neither. Reality is not optional, and power is not its arbiter — whatever our celebrated experts might find it convenient to forget.

Kevin Williamson has a great essay on this as well:

The written law was the first real constraint on the power of kings. An oral tradition is subject to constant on-the-fly revision. Mr. Klein and others of his persuasion would see us return to that primitive state: “Oh, sure, the law says that the IRS can only operate on state-created insurance exchanges, but that isn’t what we” — and who is this we? — “really meant. And besides, things will turn out other than as we desire if we follow the law as written, and who are you, and what is the law, to forbid us our desires?” It is easier to think that way when you believe that you represent a uniquely enlightened point of view, that you are acting in the public interest, and that your political rivals are wicked and ignorant.There will always be occasions for discretion and interpretation on legal questions, but it is not the case that such discretion should presumptively empower the IRS to do things that the IRS is not legally entitled to do simply because Barack Obama wishes it to be so. If history teaches us anything, it is that a system of law that presumptively sides with political power soon ceases to be any sort of system of law at all. Rather, it becomes a post facto justification for the will to power, an intellectual window dressing on might-makes-right rule. The matter addressed in Halbig is hardly the Obama administration’s first attempt to circumvent the law as written — see Hobby Lobby, etc. — nor is it the progressives’ only attempt to impose what they imagine to be enlightened ad-hocracy on the American people. The disdain for the letter of the law is complexly intertwined with the progressive managerial imagination: The law, in their view, is not something that limits the ambitions of princes, but something that empowers them to do what they see fit. It is not surprising that conservative concerns about limited government frustrate and befuddle those who see the law in that way. They imagine government to be something like a plasma cutting table, a complex and precise tool that, in the right hands, can reshape the world in desirable, predictable ways. But government is not a complicated tool. It is in fact a simple tool: a bayonet.

And from Robert Tracinski over at The Federalist:

What used to be a “law” is now just an open-ended grant of power coupled with a vague aspiration. Nothing in between, none of the actual concrete provisions of the law, has any meaning or makes any difference. If you understand that context and that mentality, then you can see why ObamaCare’s defenders were so confident—and in many cases remain confident—that they get to skate on following the actual letter of the law. They believe no one will hold them to it, not the courts, not the press, not the public, because that’s the system they’re already living in. It’s the way we legislate now, which is to say that we don’t pass any real legislation at all.

Not good, folks. Not good at all.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics, The Left

Somebody get this man a Nobel Peace Prize!




…has unwittingly accomplished the impossible via his inept ceasefire diplomacy: He has united Netanyahu and Abbas. God is great!

That’s right, kids. In case you missed it, this weekend both the Israelis AND the Palestinian Authority accused global village idiot John Kerry of trying to aid a terrorist organization (Hamas) with his ceasefire proposal. So, if nothing else, this administration has gotten the Palestinians and the Israelis to finally agree on something: John Kerry is a fucking retard.


We now live in a world where it’s Egypt/Israel/the Saudis/the Palestinian Authority vs. the United States/Hamas/Qatar/Iran. Heckuva job, guys! Kerry’s incompetence is so profound that he has even succeeded in uniting the Israeli press! When you’ve lost the far Left Haaretz and Barak Ravid…

The draft Kerry passed to Israel on Friday shocked the cabinet ministers not only because it was the opposite of what Kerry told them less than 24 hours earlier, but mostly because it might as well have been penned by Khaled Meshal. It was everything Hamas could have hoped for. The document recognized Hamas’ position in the Gaza Strip, promised the organization billions in donation funds and demanded no dismantling of rockets, tunnels or other heavy weaponry at Hamas’ disposal. The document placed Israel and Hamas on the same level, as if the first is not a primary U.S. ally and as if the second isn’t a terror group which overtook part of the Palestinian Authority in a military coup and fired thousands of rockets at Israel. On Saturday, the State Department distributed photos of Kerry’s meeting with Qatar and Turkey’s foreign ministers in Paris. The three appear jovial and happy-go-lucky. Other photographs show Kerry carousing romantically with the Turkish foreign minister in the pastoral grounds of the U.S. ambassador’s home in Paris, as if the Turkish official’s prime minister didn’t just say a few days ago that Israel is 10 times worse than Hitler. The secretary of state’s draft empowered the most radical and problematic elements in the region – Qatar, Turkey, and Hamas – and was a slap on the face to the rapidly forming camp of Egypt, Israel, the Palestinian Authority, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, who have many shared interests. What Kerry’s draft spells for the internal Palestinian political arena is even direr: It crowns Hamas and issues Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas with a death warrant. It’s not clear what Kerry was thinking when he presented this draft. It’s unclear what he had in mind when he convened the Paris summit. It can only be seen as surreal. It’s as if he isn’t the foreign minister of the world’s most powerful nation, but an alien, who just disembarked his spaceship in the Mideast.

Haaretz (the Israeli equivalent of The Nation) spits more hot fire here (bolded, parenthetical insert mine):

If Israel is forced to undertake an expanded ground operation, it would be appropriate to name the offensive after the person who caused it: John Kerry…Until last weekend, the moderates held the upper hand. They felt the military achievements of Operation Protective Edge were rather good: The Iron Dome system intercepted the rocket attacks on Israel; the air force caused enormous and horrible damage in the Gaza Strip; and the ground forces destroyed 10 out of 12 offensive tunnels that threatened the Israeli communities near Gaza. At the same time, Hamas’ strategic capabilities were eroded somewhat, and the pressure on its leadership grew stronger. With proper management, the military success could have been translated to a certain extent into a significant diplomatic victory: The Egyptian initiative. But over the weekend, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry ruined everything. Very senior officials in Jerusalem described the proposal that Kerry put on the table as a “strategic terrorist attack.” His decision to go hand in hand with Qatar and Turkey, and formulate a framework amazingly similar to the Hamas framework, was catastrophic. It put wind in the sails of Hamas’ political leader Khaled Meshal, allowed the Hamas extremists to overcome the Hamas moderates, and gave renewed life to the weakened regional alliance of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Obama administration proved once again that it is the best friend of its enemies, and the biggest enemy of its friends. The man of peace from Massachusetts intercepted with his own hands (see photo of Kerry intercepting with his own hands below) the reasonable cease-fire that was within reach, and pushed both the Palestinians and Israelis toward an escalation that most of them did not want. If Israel is forced to ultimately undertake an expanded ground operation in which dozens of young Israelis and hundreds of Palestinian civilians could lose their lives, it would be appropriate to name the offensive after the person who caused it: John Kerry. But if the escalation does not happen, instead we should remember that those who prevented it are three people the Obama administration loathes: Abdel-Fattah al-Sissi, Benjamin Netanyahu and Moshe Ya’alon.


As Bill Kristol points out regarding the Haaretz wrath: “These words come from the heart of the peace camp in Israel. They come from one of President Obama’s strongest defenders in Israel. And they present to Barack Obama this question: How do you ask an Israeli–or a Palestinian–to die for John Kerry’s mistakes?”

Why it’s almost as if John Kerry is a moron who sucks at his job! Someone throw this man a bone (NOT a football) and brief him on post-Arab Spring Middle East alliances/pissing matches, please, because right now he’s…well, he’s doing this…


David Bernstein tries to figure out what the fuck these clowns are thinking:

From the White House Press Office: “Building on Secretary Kerry’s efforts, the President made clear [in a phone call to Israeli PM Netanyahu] the strategic imperative of instituting an immediate, unconditional humanitarian ceasefire that ends hostilities now and leads to a permanent cessation of hostilities based on the November 2012 ceasefire agreement.” I’m really at a loss as to what President Obama is thinking. First, in 2012, Hamas was in a much better position than it is today. Then, it had a powerful ally in Egypt, and an ongoing Israeli military conflict with Hamas risked the fragile peace between Israel and Egypt. Now, Hamas is Egypt’s enemy, and Egypt would like nothing better than to see Israel crush Hamas. Then, Hamas could easily resupply itself through smuggling tunnels from Egypt. Now, if Israel degrades Hamas’s military capabilities, including destroying its remaining tunnels into Israel it will be extremely difficult for Hamas to rebuild them. Second, how could the White House talk about a ceasefire that “leads to a permanent cessation of hostilities based on the November 2012 ceasefire agreement.” After all, the November 2012 ceasefire agreement obviously didn’t lead to a permanent cessation of hostilities, so why should a new agreement based on that agreement lead to one? So, given that (a) Israel is in a much better strategic position, and Hamas a much worse one, than in 2012; and (b) the 2012 cease-fire agreement only lasted a year and half, why would the president demand that Israel immediately stop fighting with the goal of reviving the agreement from 2012? Moreover, the Israeli cabinet already unanimously voted down this proposal when Secretary of State Kerry proposed it. Reasserting the proposal, as what sounds like a demand from the president, is creating a confrontation between Jerusalem and Washington that will leave Israelis suspicious of U.S. intentions at least through the end of the Obama administration, killing any chance that Israel will accept U.S. security assurances regarding any proposed peace deal with the P.A. So again, why?

This is the intellectual capacity of our foreign policy right now, you guys:


Leave a comment

Filed under Foreign Policy, Unusually Stupid Primates