Gwyneth Paltrow: useful idiot for Liberal Fascism

October 10, 2014
"Ready for dictatorship."

“Ready for dictatorship.”

So, yesterday President Obama screwed up traffic here in Los Angeles so he could attend a(nother) fund-raiser at the California ATM, hobnobbing over $1,000 a plate meals with the Hollywood glitterati  at the home of actress and Obama fan-girl Gwyneth Paltrow. As Politico reports, her introduction of the President was cringe-worthy on several levels:

Gwyneth Paltrow wants President Barack Obama to know: she’s just like everyone else.

She makes $16 million per movie, sure, but that doesn’t mean that she’s not worried about Obama getting equal pay legislation through Congress.

At a fundraiser for the Democratic National Committee held at her house in Brentwood Thursday evening, she called the issue “very important to me as a working mother.”

In front of a crowd that included fellow actors Julia Roberts (who took her picture in front of the presidential limo on her way out) and Bradley Whitford (that’s Josh Lyman from “The West Wing”), Paltrow told Obama she is “one of your biggest fans, if not the biggest.”

Reminding Obama that she hosted an expat fundraiser for him in London when she was living there, Paltrow described Obama as a president who would be studied for generations, and a role model for everyone of this generation.

“It would be wonderful if we were able to give this man all of the power that he needs to pass the things that he needs to pass,” she told the crowd.

Like I said yesterday on Twitter:

Because we all know “working moms” who struggle with making at least $16,000,000 per year, live in huge mansions in Brentwood and Bel Air, and have to get by with only a few dozen maids, nannies, groundskeepers, and cooks. Not to mention personal assistants.

Life must be hell for poor Gwyneth.

But that was nothing compared to the second highlighted statement, in which the “working mother” wishes Obama had absolute power. She yearns not for a constitutional chief executive, whose job is to enforce the laws Congress passes in an evenhanded manner. Nope, what she wants is a king, a caliph, an emperor, a dictator… a fuhrer.

Yeah, I went there. I’m not accusing Paltrow of consciously (1) being a fascist, liberal or otherwise; I don’t believe she’s bright enough or cares to really understand or care about such things. But she makes it clear that fascist leadership, in which all power is vested in a Leader who embodies the will of the nation and knows what’s best for it, is what she wants. Democracy is just too messy, and there are too many unenlightened people pushing their own wrongheaded agendas, in spite of what Gwyneth knows to be right. And so we need to get rid of it and just give Obama all the power he needs, because Gwyneth is sure Barack will only do good with it, progressive superhero that he is.

No, she’s not a liberal fascist. She’s just a useful idiot. A beautiful, smiling, and vapid useful idiot.

Trouble is, there are so many like her in our cultural elites.

RELATED: Other posts in Cult of Personality.

PS: Have a look at this photo of Paltrow staring worshipfully at the man who should have all the power he needs.

PPS: Oh, and here is how she finished her introduction of Him …er… him:‘Then turning over the microphone, she said, “you’re so handsome that I can’t speak properly.”  You may now barf.

PPPS: Speaking of liberal fascism, you need to read… well, “Liberal Fascism.” Trust me, it’s an eye-opener.

Footnote:
(1) There’s only one thing she’s conscious of.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


The 1st Amendment prevents the government from attacking ISIS ideologically? Really?

October 8, 2014
"But don't criticize them."

“But don’t criticize them.”

This is why the Left cannot be taken seriously on constitutional matters: they don’t even understand the basics. Via Power Line:

Bill Gertz has a lengthy and fascinating piece in the Washington Free Beacon about what he calls the Obama administration’s failure “to wage ideological war against Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS) terrorists.” Gertz attributes the failure to “fears that attacking [ISIS's] religious philosophy will violate the constitutional divide between church and state.”

It seems difficult to believe that the First Amendment explains Obama’s unwillingness to acknowledge, for example, that the Islamic State is Islamic. Gertz cites James Glassman, former undersecretary of state for public diplomacy. Glassman seems to rely mainly on what he hears coming out of the State Department.

For the record, here’s what the 1st Amendment says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I don’t see anything in there about “the government may not criticize the religious doctrine of an enemy organization,” do you?  Perhaps our constitutional law professor-president can explain it to us.

Gertz calls this a “surrender in the war of ideas,” and he is right. It’s a pathetic bit of hand-waving to hide the fact that the administration desperately does not want to deal with the Islamic doctrine cited by ISIS as the justification for its jihad. For whatever reason –political correctness, a leftist reluctance to criticize “victims of colonialism,” a fear of upsetting allied Muslim states, or even a secular inability to deal with minds operating on a religious paradigm– the Obama administration (and, to a lesser extent, the Bush administration before it) will go to any lengths to deny the truth: we are in a global conflict with an Islamic supremacist/revivalist movement that, while having many sometimes fractious elements, is united by a largely common and mainstream understanding of Islamic texts and doctrines. And until and if (1) we can get imams willing to go public with their criticism in Islamic terms of the doctrinal arguments of the jihadists, we will continue to surrender in this war of ideas and the jihadists will continue to attract recruits.

Footnote:

(1) Which is problematic, because a) I think the Muslim Brotherhood, al Qaeda, and other jihad groups have a very good understanding of Islamic doctrine, and imams critical of them have trouble finding counter-arguments; and b) critics of the jihad who do come forward often put their lives at real risk.


Warren Gamaliel Obama?

October 7, 2014
Liar.

Barack Harding?

There’s an interesting piece by Victor Davis Hanson (1) today in National Review Online comparing the scandals of the Obama administration to that of President Warren G. Harding, who’s widely, if a bit unfairly, considered one of the worst to hold the office. It’s comparison that’s unfavorable to President Obama. Hanson begins by summarizing the myriad scandals and political outrages of Team Obama. Here’s one example:

Eric Holder has politicized the Justice Department in a way not seen since the scandals of Nixon appointee John Mitchell. Holder’s prior ethical lapses – notably, as deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration, the disreputable eleventh-hour pardon for fugitive (and Democratic contributor) Marc Rich — were well known. But in less than six years, he has managed to trump them. Holder was held in contempt by Congress for withholding subpoenaed documents about the Fast and Furious scandal, and he editorialized on pending criminal cases, such as the Trayvon Martin and the Ferguson cases. He arbitrarily chose not to enforce existing laws, whether elements of Obamacare or immigration statutes. He was forced to pay back the government for using a Gulfstream to junket to the Belmont Stakes with family and friends. He sought to try terrorists in civilian courts, and he demonized the idea of Guantanamo, which earlier, when it was politically expedient, he had praised. He caricatured his critics and made race essential rather than incidental to his tenure (e.g., “my people,” “nation of cowards,” and the false charges of racism against critics of the administration) in a way that would have gotten anyone else fired. Had any other attorney general monitored reporters’ communications as Holder did those of AP reporters, and, even more so, James Rosen, he would also have been summarily dismissed. Even the media will not be able to prevent Holder’s legacy from being seen as one of the Justice Department’s no longer enforcing the law without prejudice, but instead choosing haphazard compliance in order to advance partisan ideas of social justice.

Why, yes. I did pick this example because of my particular loathing for Eric Holder. I admit it: I’m weak.

Anyway, as Hanson says, Obama’s multiple scandals and numerous incompetent appointments dwarf anything that went on under Harding, even the infamous Teapot Dome scandal.

One outcome VDH sees in all this is immense damage to the public’s faith in “big government,” a government that can and should insert itself into every facet of life, because it knows best how to do what’s fair to everyone. He concludes:

Obama has set the standard that the purpose of government is to facilitate his version of social change, regardless of protocols, laws, or traditions. And the result is a scandal-ridden administration that exceeds that of Warren G. Harding — one that has now convinced the public that their government agencies are not lawful, competent, or to be trusted.

The Obama administration was the moment progressives had dreamed up since FDR passed away. But, instead drawing people to the Great Liberal Cradle To Grave Paradise, it will more likely send them screaming in the other direction. At least, so we hope.

Be sure to read the whole thing.

Footnote:
(1) Which can be said about pretty much anything VDH writes.

PS: An example of how Harding succeeded where Obama failed.


DNC vice-chairwoman calls for scrapping the Constitution

September 29, 2014
Donna Brazile

Donna Brazile

Over the weekend Donna Brazile, Al Gore’s former campaign manager, current vice-chair of the Democratic National Committee, and a regular commentator apologist for the Democratic Party on CNN and other networks, made it quite clear what she –and, I assume, many of her high-ranking Democrat colleagues– think of our governing document:

Got that? The Constitution, the skeleton of our Republic and perhaps the single most successful governing scheme in history, just isn’t up to the job anymore. It can’t stop the charlatans (1), the loudmouths (2), or the filthy rich (3) from hijacking our democracy! We must have a new one to save the Republic! (4)

What really bugs Ms. Brazile and many in the Democratic leadership is that the Constitution won’t let them do everything they want to do: it’s standing in the way of what they define as “progress” — bigger, more intrusive government; cradle to grave welfare state; higher taxes; and rule by technocratic elites with only an occasional nodding obeisance to democratic accountability.

In other words, France.

Earth to Donna Brazile: that means the Constitution is doing exactly what it was designed to do — to limit power and divide sovereignty, to preserve human liberty and to prevent tyranny by preventing its increasing concentration in a few hands. As James Madison wrote in Federalist 47:

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.

It’s actually been darned successful at that, too, which has been driving progressives such as Donna Brazile nuts for over 100 years, since the future President Wilson denounced our founding documents as obsolete in the 1890s. Convinced that they have seen the future and know its preordained course, they’ve tried mightily to ignore it, work around it, twist it, warp it…

And now call for its replacement.

Not that I’m criticizing Donna Brazile for sentiment. After all, as a free American, she has the perfect right to express her opinion. Just as I have a right to say the idea is bad and that she has strawberry jam for brains.

Truth is, I’m grateful to Ms. Brazile, Vice-Chairwoman for the Democratic National Committee. I’m glad that at last a Democrat politician is being open about what Democrat politicians really believe.

PS: Somehow I doubt that Americans really want to take the advice of someone who couldn’t figure out why her health insurance premiums went up after the passage of Obamacare.

PPS: Move went well, by the way. But now the “I finally have time to stop and breathe” exhaustion is setting in, so this is it for me today.

Footnotes:
(1) Well, true. Obama did get elected.
(2) Funny how I immediately thought of Chuck Schumer.
(3) I’m sure she includes lefty eco-loon billionaire Tom Steyer, who’s doing his level best to buy a victory for the Democrats.
(4) Pet-peeve alert: a lot of people shorthand the US as a “democracy.” No, we are not a direct democracy, as was ancient Athens. We are a democratic republic that elects representatives who vote on national issues for us. We are democratic because we have a very wide franchise, but we are not a democracy.


Progressive victory: since 2008, Illinois has created more food-stamp recipients than jobs

September 16, 2014

seal of Illinois

Another mile-marker on the road to state financial collapse, courtesy of the Big Government Liberalism:

Illinois’ sluggish jobs recovery is coming at a tremendous cost. For every post-recession job created in Illinois, nearly two people have enrolled in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly known as food stamps.

In the recession era, the number of Illinoisans dependent on food stamps has risen by 745,000. Without adequate job creation in the state, Illinois families have had no choice but to depend upon food stamps to put bread on the table.

The Prairie State has had the worst recovery from the Great Recession of any state in the U.S. There are nearly 300,000 fewer Illinoisans working today than in January 2008, and 170,000 fewer payroll jobs.

This couldn’t be the result of a decades-long toxic mix of progressive government and Big Labor exploiting the heck out of taxpayers and creating a corrupt, over-regulated mess that has the most productive people and companies fleeing the state, could it?

Nah. What happened in Detroit was mere coincidence.

Scary thing is, California isn’t all that far behind them.

via… Someone on Twitter. Sorry, lost the link.


California school district buys $14,000 espresso maker to save jobs. Or something.

September 15, 2014
"For the children?"

“For the children?”

No, really.

The break room coffee machine is a staple of many a workplace. Usually though, it tends to fall on the “economical” or “value” side of the java spectrum.

But not in Castro Valley, California, where officials with the Castro Valley Unified School District are taking fire for the purchase of a $14,000 espresso maker.

The outrage was immediate. According to KPIX News in San Francisco, the school board’s facebook page was flooded with angry comments when word of the pricey espresso maker – paid for with taxpayer money – got out.

According to a school board official, buying the espresso machine was “an opportunity” to keep a part-time child nutritionist on staff. If you can’t see that, you must hate the children.

Though how a $14,000 espresso maker for the staff and child nutrition go together is a bit baffling. When I was in fourth grade, we were served chocolate milk, not a double shot.

And for an additional fourteen grand per year, maybe they could have made that nutritionist full-time? Or used it to… Oh, I don’t know. Buy new textbooks and school supplies for the kids?

Silly me. I guess a Mr. Coffee is just too déclassé for the Castro Valley school board.

Can’t wait to see the board members justify this to the voters.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


More Los Angeles restaurants add #Obamacare surcharge

September 4, 2014
"Obamacare has arrived"

“Obamacare has arrived”

First it was Republique, announcing they were charging customers an additional 3% to cover the added costs imposed by Obamacare and being ripped for it by outraged liberals. Now the owners of Lucques and other trendy restaurants have decided to add a healthcare surcharge, too.

Economics — it’s the law:

The cost of offering these benefits is significant and the reality is that restaurants, particularly smaller restaurants like the ones many of us own, have a very high ratio of staff members to revenue and run on very slim profit margins. Successfully run restaurants generally make between 5-10% net profits so a health care benefit which eats away 3% of gross sales will take away anywhere from 30% to 50% of annual profits for a restaurant. We’ve discussed simply raising menu prices, but ultimately food prices are tied in many ways to the ingredients we purchase. Those ingredient costs have increased astronomically recently so we’re already struggling with working creatively to keep menu prices down and don’t feel it’s right to try to factor health care costs into menu prices as well. We’d rather keep our menu costs as an accurate refection of our ingredient prices so that customers know that if we have to raise them it’s because we can’t avoid passing on our increased costs.

Like I’ve said before, labor is a cost. If you increase the cost of labor –in this case, by commanding employers to provide  expensive health insurance coverage– something has to give. Either the restaurant takes a huge hit in their profit margin, calling into question the reason for being in business in the first place, or they cut hours and jobs, or they raise prices. There is no way to avoid that choice. These restaurant owners have chosen the third option: raise prices, and they have chosen to be bluntly honest with their customers about it.

Good for them, and I hope all businesses follow the trend. Why shouldn’t customers know why their meal or other commodity or service has become more expensive? Isn’t transparency good? Or is it gauche to remind the largely progressive clientele of places like Melisse that their legislated largesse to the proletariat actually has a cost?

The ACA is an anti-constitutional monstrosity of a law. It needs to be repealed; it’s inflationary effect is just one reason why.

More under Elections have consequences.

via Truth Revolt


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 13,532 other followers