Kasich for President? Er… No, thanks.

April 24, 2015
Kasich 2016?

Kasich 2016?

There’s something about the Ohio governor I just don’t like, and I think the words “sanctimony” and “arrogance” have something to do with it. In The Washington Examiner, Philip Klein explains why limited-government conservatives should say “no” to John Kasich:

A 2012 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court made it easier for states to reject Obamacare’s costly expansion of Medicaid — as many governors prudently chose to do.

But in February 2013, despite campaigning on opposition to Obamacare, Kasich crumbled under pressure from hospital lobbyists who supported the measure, and endorsed the expansion. When his legislature opposed him, Kasich bypassed lawmakers and imposed the expansion through a separate panel — an example of executive overreach worthy of Obama.

Kasich cloaked his cynical move in the language of Christianity, and, just like a liberal demagogue, he portrayed those with principled objections to spending more taxpayer money on a failing program as being heartless.

“Why is that some people don’t get it?” Kasich asked rhetorically at an October 2013 event at the Cleveland Clinic, which lobbied the administration heavily for the expansion so that it could access a stream of money from federal taxpayers. “Is it because they’re hard-hearted or cold-hearted? It’s probably because they don’t understand the problem because they have never walked in somebody’s shoes.”

Ugh. That’s a cheap shot worthy of Obama, Reid, and Schumer. It couldn’t possibly be that one opposes the expansion of Medicaid because it represents a looming fiscal disaster for states that do enlarge the program. It couldn’t be because Medicaid has been shown to be no better than having no insurance at all, and that it increases the strain on emergency rooms. Nor could one reasonably object on principled limited-government, constitutional grounds, since the entire Obamacare project represents an anti-constitutional monstrosity.

Nope. It had to be because you’re a callous monster. But thank God John Kasich has the heart you lack, you Grinch.

There’s another problem, too. It’s that Kasich has, like Obama, shown the instincts of a tyrant. No, he’s not had anyone carted off to camps nor had himself crowned king, but his decision to expand Obamacare slapped in the face the principle that laws should be written by the people elected by The People to write them. In other words, the legislature. Article 2, section 1 of the Ohio Constitution reads, in part:

The legislative power of the state shall be vested in a general assembly consisting of a senate and house of representatives but the people reserve to themselves the power to propose to the general assembly laws and amendments to the constitution, and to adopt or reject the same at the polls on a referendum vote as hereinafter provided.

In other words, the power to write, amend, and repeal laws was granted by the people of Ohio to the legislature and reserved to themselves — none was granted to the governor. Yet, when the elected representatives of the people declined to expand Medicaid, Ohio’s chief executive –not “chief lawmaker”– forced his way around them to do it anyway. Like the old saying goes, it may have been legal, but it sure wasn’t right. That’s the “tyrannical instinct” I was talking about.

And if that gives you an uncomfortable feeling that reminds you of the shenanigans used to pass Obamacare, you’re not just imagining things. Having experienced enough of that under Obama, I don’t want to go through it again when “President Kasich” decides he knows best.

Thanks, Governor, but I’ll pass.


Report: The Clintons Referred To Secret Service Agents As “Pigs”

April 8, 2015

The Reagans and the Bushes were known for their kind treatment of their Secret Service details. The Clintons, apparently (and I’ve heard other stories), not so much. Nice way to teach their daughter about the men required to take a bullet to protect her. Points out who the real “pigs” are.

Nice Deb

Excerpts from a new book about the White House paint a not altogether complimentary picture of the Clintons’ tumultuous time there. Although some staffers remember the Clintons fondly, others remember screaming fights complete with foul language and flying lamps, as well as their secretive, suspicious and vindictive ways. Most shockingly, the florist remembers overhearing a telephone conversation where Chelsea Clinton referred to a Secret Service member as a “pig” because that’s what her parents call them.

In her article at the Politico, Kate Andersen Brower, who spent four years covering the Obama White House for Bloomberg News, provided these juicy tidbits from The Residence: Inside the Private World of the White House.

White House Florist Ronn Payne remembers one day in 1998, after President Clinton had publicly admitted to his affair with a former White House intern, when he was coming up the service elevator with a cart to…

View original post 358 more words


(Video) Bill Whittle on “The criminal arrogance of Hillary Clinton”

March 22, 2015

Whittle draws an interesting comparison between the arrogance and contempt for the rule of law shown by Hillary Clinton, on the one hand, and King George III on the other. More galling than her apparent crimes themselves is the attitude behind them: that the law, which, under the common law system that is our heritage from Great Britain, is supposed to apply equally to all citizens high and low, does not apply to her — nor to the governing class of which she is a part.

That is, our new aristocracy:

Time to put them back in their places, it is.


Greenpeace: We Spit on Your Sacred Spaces

December 14, 2014

The clueless narcissism of the self-proclaimed “activist” is at once both infuriating and amazing.

Big Picture News, Informed Analysis

Desecrating cultural and religious monuments is normal Greenpeace behaviour.

Nasca_lines_greenpeace screengrab from the BBC website (click)

Activism is about persuasion. It’s about using moral arguments to change people’s minds which, in turn, changes the world.

For moral arguments to be successful, we need to already inhabit the same approximate moral universe. Some things are sacred. The ends don’t justify the means. This isn’t rocket science, but apparently it’s news to Greenpeace.

In Peru, where a UN climate summit is currently taking place, the Ministry of Culture says Greenpeace activists have desecrated an important cultural monument.

The NazcaLines are a collection of approximately 300 figures etched into the Peruvian desert more than 1,500 years ago. In the words of vice-minister Luis Jaime Castillo, an archeologist by training, the figures

are absolutely fragile. They are black rocks on a white background. You walk there and the footprint is going to…

View original post 244 more words


Brit Hume reduces progressivism to its essence in 30 seconds

November 16, 2014

Hume here is talking about Obamacare and the admissions by Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber that deception played a key role in its passage — indeed, that deception was essential. But it isn’t just Obamacare; this attitude of patronizing condescension and even contempt (1) for the average American underlies all progressivism, and thus the governing assumptions of the Democratic Party.

Here’s Brit:

via The Right Scoop

Footnote:
(1) They’ll deny it hotly, of course, but that’s because the truth hurts.


Tennessee VW workers rejected the UAW because of… racism!

February 23, 2014
Chattanooga VW workers, per MSNBC

Chattanooga VW workers, per MSNBC

But, of course.

According to MSNBC pundit Timothy Noah, workers at the Chattanooga Volkswagen assembly plant rejected membership in the United Auto Workers union because they were a bunch of mouthing-breathing, knuckle-dragging, Southern racists:

“The South has always been hostile territory for union organizing. Y’know, as Harold said, the culture war in the South trumps the class war. You already have in a number of Southern states right to work laws, which means that even if they had unionized the plants, those who benefited from the presence of that union wouldn’t have had to pay union dues if they didn’t feel like it. So you’re in an overwhelmingly hostile climate.

And the opposition I gather, through, portrayed this as a kind of northern invasion, a re-fighting of the Civil War. Apparently there are not a lot of, uh, black employees in this particular plant. And so, that kind of, uh, uh, uh, waving of the Confederate flag was an effective strategy.”

Yep, those Johnny Rebs in Tennessee just took a pull on the whiskey jug, channeled the spirit Jeff Davis and Nathan Bedford Forrest, and voted down the union, because they wanted to re-fight the Chattanooga campaign. It couldn’t have been because they made a rational economic decision as free people that the union didn’t provide enough benefits to warrant the dues they’d have to pay. Nah. It just had to be because there were so few Blacks there in the workforce that they weren’t afraid to show their real, neo-Confederate faces.

Who’s the bigot again, Timmy?

RELATED: Naturally, the UAW wants the NLRB to overturn the election results and call a new vote. Typical: If you can’t win, vote and vote again until the rubes vote the way they’re told. What do they think this is, the EU?

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


What did Democrats miscalculate about the world? Everything.

September 3, 2013

Jim Geraghty lets Team Smart Power have it in today’s “Morning Jolt.” An excerpt:

As we await Congress’s decision on authorizing the use of U.S. military force in Syria, Democrats are suddenly realizing that their foreign-policy brain-trust completely misjudged the world.

Being nicer to countries like Russia will not make them nicer to you. The United Nations is not an effective tool for resolving crises. Some foreign leaders are beyond persuasion and diplomacy. There is no “international community” ready to work together to solve problems, and there probably never will be.

You can pin this on Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Susan Rice, but most of all, the buck stops with the president. Those of us who scoffed a bit at a state senator ascending to the presidency within four years on a wave of media hype and adoration are not quite so shocked by this current mess. We never bought into this notion that getting greater cooperation from our allies, and less hostility from our enemies, was just a matter of giving this crew the wheel and letting them practice, as Hillary Clinton arrogantly declared it, “smart power.” (These people can’t even label a foreign-policy approach without reminding us of how highly they think of themselves.) They looked out at the world at the end of the Bush years, and didn’t see tough decisions, unsolvable problems, unstable institutions, restless populations, technology enabling the impulse to destabilize existing institutions, evil men hungry for more power, and difficult trade-offs. No, our problems and challengers were just a matter of the previous hands running U.S. foreign policy not being smart enough.

Well, here we are, five years later.

The rest gets brutal. You really should subscribe. Do it. For the children.


At least Newsweek is honest

January 16, 2012

This really is what the intelligentsia in the MSM, academia, and the leadership of the Democratic Party think of most of the nation:

I don’t know about you, but I prefer this honest contempt to the patronizing variety we usually get.

For those not familiar with Andrew Sullivan, he had been blogger for The Atlantic, until he went off the deep end with wild conspiracy theories about THE TRUTH behind the birth of Trig Palin. Now he writes, supposedly as a conservative, for (what’s left of) Newsweek and The Daily Beast.

But we’re the dumb ones.

via Newsbusters

UPDATE: Joel Pollak asks, “Why is Andrew Sullivan so dumb?”

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


“What a Brownback!”

November 29, 2011

There’s an old saying about public figures attacking newspapers who say things they don’t like: “Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel.”

Well, it seems we need to update that for the 21st century: “Never pick a fight with a teenager who has a Twitter account.”

It’s a lesson Governor Sam Brownback (R-KS) learned the hard way:

It’s not every day someone turns your name into a noun. But welcome to the big leagues, Kansas Gov. (and former Sen.) Sam Brownback, and all because you trained the state’s resources on an 18-year-old senior at Shawnee Mission East High School who tweeted something mean about you.

Recall the ancient history of last week, when Emma Sullivan boasted on Twitter that she said a “mean comment” to the governor during a Youth in Government event in Topeka where Brownback was speaking. She ended the tweet with the hashtag “heblowsalot.” Team Brownback declared war on the teen and told on her to Shawnee Mission East High School principal Karl Krawitz. Krawitz called Sullivan into the office and demanded she apologize. She refused. Brownback apologized Monday.

Now Brownback faces the wrath of the Twitterverse, including this tweet from @MildlyRelevant: “Gov. Brownback’s office tattled on a high school girl who tweeted ‘#heblowsalot.’ I’m tattling on them for being a colossal Brownback.” There you have it: a proper noun.

Was Emma Sullivan a mouthy jerk? Sure. Just as I’m sure you’re all shocked someone in high school would do something like that. In fact, that a teenager would say something stupid and immature when showing off for friends (and followers) is so unusual and outrageous that it left a state governor and former US senator no choice but to crush her like an insolent bug:

Mr Brownback’s office contacted the school and complained about the tweet.

The following day Emma wound up in the principal’s office, NBC Action News reports.

She said: ‘He laid into me about how this was unacceptable and an embarrassment.

‘He said I had created this huge controversy and everyone was up in arms about it … and now he had to do damage control.’

She said she was told to write a formal apology to the governor, which so far she hasn’t done.

Emma said: ‘I don’t agree with a majority of the things that he is trying to pass.

‘I believe that it is my right to state my opinion.’

The school’s principal said: ‘This is not about political views since none were given in the tweet – it’s about being respectful with a public official whether we agree or disagree with their viewpoints.’

Yeah, right. I imagine what this was really about was the phone call the principal got from Topeka and vague hints of future “career advancement difficulties” if he didn’t force Miss Sullivan to GROVEL BEFORE THE ALMIGHTY GOVERNOR!!

I doubt the principal was all that concerned about the principle.

Not that I’m defending Sullivan’s behavior; she was a smart-alecky, immature jerk of a not-uncommon variety, and maybe her parents should have had a word with her about “respectful disagreement.” But she’s a jerk who also happens to have a right to free political speech, even if said speech is expressed in a manner more befitting an 8-year old, not an 18-year old legal adult with the right to vote.

But if Emma Sullivan was a jerk, then Governor Sam Brownback was a jackass who tried to punish someone for exercising their right to free speech (a right he swore to protect as senator and which is guaranteed under the Kansas constitution) and in the process punched so far under his class that, like President Obama attacking a radio host, he made himself look like a fool.

Or, to use the new buzzword, a “Brownback.”

The real lesson here, I think, is the illustration of the arrogance career politicians of all parties are prone to, where they think they’re protected by some form of law against lese majeste. Far from it; if you’re a politician in a democracy, you have to live with the reality that some people are going to say mean things about you.

And if Governor Brownback can’t handle that and keeps acting like a Brownback, then perhaps the voters of Kansas should give him a lesson in democratic humility at the next election.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


White House tells Supreme Court what cases it should take?

March 15, 2011

I guess we shouldn’t be surprised; this is, after all, the same administration whose leader famously dressed down the Court live on national television during his State of the Union speech. No wonder his flunkies feel free to tell the court what cases it may take and when:

The Obama administration told the Supreme Court on Monday night it should stay away from a high-profile challenge to the 2010 health care law until after a lower court has had a chance to review the case.

Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal wrote, “there is no basis for short-circuiting the normal course of appellate review.” Katyal also says Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s case is problematic because he may lack sufficient standing to challenge the health care law.

The Supreme Court normally takes cases only after they’ve been reviewed at least once by appellate judges. Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli says that’s not appropriate in this instance.

In his filing last month, Cuccinelli said there’s a “palpable consensus” that the high court will ultimately have to pass judgment on the merits of President Obama’s health care law and should do so without delay. Furthermore, Cuccinelli argues that his case involves “pure issues of constitutional law” that appellate judges on the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals will be unable to definitively resolve.

Maybe I’m just a stuffy old conservative, but it seems to me that the Court itself is competent to decide what cases it will take in which order, and when procedure will be followed and when it will be deviated from. Last I checked, it is a co-equal branch of the government and doesn’t need advice from another branch about how to handle its own affairs.

The subtext of this seems to me to be that Katyal and his bosses are worried that the initiative is against them since Judge Vinson’s devastating ruling against ObamaCare last April, even though that’s separate from Virginia’s case. Judge Vinson’s reasoning will surely be used in any number of amicus briefs filed when (not if) Virginia’s case goes to the SCOTUS, so perhaps the administration is hoping appellate review of Cuccinelli’s suit will give them some ammunition for later. Or maybe they’re playing a delaying game, hoping that, the longer ObamaCare is in force, the less likely the courts will be to overturn it.

To be honest, I’m not sure why they need to act arrogantly toward the court in this instance; it’s not as if they’ve shown any inclination to obey court orders so far.

via Doug Powers

UPDATE: I’ve been told by several lawyers on Twitter that this is a fairly standard filing, so, objection withdrawn. But the snark about obeying court orders stands.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


The arrogance of King Harry Reid

January 7, 2011

I wrote yesterday in my post about Steny Hoyer that the Democrats’ attitude toward those who oppose them is a form of oligarchical arrogance. Today, Senator Harry Reid, Majority Leader of the inaptly named Democratic Party, provided another example: when asked about the coming House vote to repeal ObamaCare, he stamped his foot, said it would never come to a vote in the Senate, and told the Republicans to get a life:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made clear Thursday that as long as he’s in charge, no effort to repeal the health care law will see the light of day beyond the House, but Senate Democrats said they are open to changing parts of the law over the next year.

“The Republicans have to understand that the health care bill is not going to be repealed,” Reid said. “Are we saying the health care bill is perfect? Of course not. We’re willing to work in any way that’s constructive in nature to improve the health care delivery system in our country, but repealing health care, they should get a new lease on life and talk about something else.”

This, of course, is a continuation of the public war of words between the Senate Democratic leadership and the House Republicans, lead by newly-minted Speaker Boehner. But, did I say “arrogance?” Maybe “childish petulance” is more in order. Little Lord Harry isn’t just saying he will oppose the bill in debate and do all he can to defeat it in a manner befitting the world’s greatest democracy. Nope. He instead threw a tantrum and announced beforehand that he will not even allow it to be considered. Forget it. Don’t even try.

What’s next? Holding his hands to his ears and screaming I’M NOT LISTENING!! whenever someone brings it up?

In effect, Reid not only flipped a finger toward the House, but he (and his subordinates in the leadership) have told the American voters to take a hike; what they want does not matter. For over a year, and culminating in the Great Shellacking of 2010, the majority of American voters made one thing clear: they hate ObamaCare and they want it repealed. That is a very big part of why the Democrats lost control of the House, much of their majority in the Senate, over 600 state legislative seats, and a whole slough of governorships.

While I do believe there are times a leader must say “you’re wrong” to his constituents (such as a majority’s desire to deny the rights of the minority), this isn’t one of them. We’re talking about policy here, not unalienable rights derived from Natural Law, and a clear majority of Americans hate this policy with a passion and want Congress to repeal it — at the very least, bring it up for public debate.

But King Harry of Searchlight and his courtiers have said “no.”

You thought we were an angry, smelly mob before, Harry; you ain’t seen nothing, yet.

LINKS: I like this idea a lot.

PS: Dear Nevada, I realize Sharron Angle was a bit of an odd duck, but you honestly preferred Harry Reid? Really? Seriously??

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Steny Hoyer, family psychologist

January 6, 2011

I’m getting so confused. You see, I thought I and others like me opposed ObamaCare and other liberal-fascist Democratic programs because we believe strongly in limited government that operates within the bounds of the Constitution and that those same programs were actually harmful to the nation. In other words, we were acting in good faith and on principle.

Silly me.

Since the (Social) Democratic Party was given free reign with the election of President Obama, we’ve been variously told that we’re Nazi sympathizers, racists, and an angry mob that makes a fetish of the Constitution.

Now we know the root causes of our irrational rage. It’s not our fault — we’re victims!

According to Steny Hoyer (D-MD), former House Majority Leader and apparently a specialist in Family Psychology, our opposition to all the wonderful things the Democrats have done for us is rooted in our dysfunctional families:

There are a whole lot of people in the Tea Party that I see in these polls who don’t want any compromise. My presumption is they have unhappy families. All of you have been in families: single-parent, two-parents, whatever. Multiple parent and a stepfather. The fact is life is about trying to reach accommodation with one another so we can move forward. That is certainly what democracy is about. So if we are going to move forward compromise is necessary.

Representative Hoyer said that two days ago. Contrast his arrogance with the humility shown by John Boehner as he was sworn in yesterday as Speaker. Isn’t it usually the loser who’s humble and the winner who crows?

Hoyer’s “diagnosis” is yet another example of the stunning arrogance and patronizing contempt for their fellow citizens that permeates the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, which is to say the majority of what’s left of their caucus on the Hill. It is the attitude of an arrogant oligarchy that cannot come to terms with having some of their power taken away and facing the prospect of losing the rest of it in two years. They’re like an employee fired for incompetence who refuses to own up to the truth and instead whines that his boss was out to get him.

Steny, I think you’re the one who needs the psychologist. Not us.

RELATED: I wonder if Hoyer has read Max Blumenthal’s book? They sure think along the same lines…

via Jim Geraghty’s Morning Jolt

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Pennsylvania Governor: “We lost because people don’t vote logically.”

November 23, 2010

No, really. That’s what he said. It couldn’t be because the majority rejected mistaken policies they didn’t want, policies that are failing miserably. Yeesh.

Patronizing, arrogant, condescending. Maybe Andrew Klavan wasn’t just being funny.

Then again, perhaps the election of an obviously far-Left* senator to the presidency proves Ed Rendell is right.

*(It would have been obvious if the media had bothered to do their homework, that is.)


And speaking of “elitism,” guess what the President said?

October 17, 2010

President Obama captured the elitist mindset perfectly with this one statement:

“Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now and facts and science and argument does not seem to be winning the day all the time is because we’re hardwired not to always think clearly when we’re scared,” Obama said Saturday evening in remarks at a small Democratic fundraiser Saturday evening. “And the country’s scared.”

Sigh. This is one his most self-revealing statements since the “bitter clingers” moment in the Democratic primaries in 2008. In Obamaland, it isn’t possible to oppose his policies because one has come to a reasoned conclusion that they’re wrongheaded, bad for the country, and just plain won’t work. It can’t be because one has a different vision for the role of government, its relation to the people, and the best way to bring prosperity to as many as possible. It can’t be because you believe (correctly) that the Constitution is a document that limits government and gives it specific powers because unrestrained government is a threat to both liberty and prosperity.

Nope, it’s because you’re irrational and scared.

If I’m scared, Mr. President, it’s because of a very rational rejection of the poor policy choices you’ve made both domestically and in foreign affairs, and a revulsion at the direction you want to take this nation. It is based very much on “facts and science and arguments,” unlike your “stimulus” program that was nothing but a pork-fest, or your climate-change agenda that’s based on junk-science. It’s because of a feckless national security policy that has only served to make the world a more dangerous place by making us weak and pusillanimous, encouraging our rivals and enemies.

I may have disagreed with George W. Bush on many things, but at least –at the minimum– I knew he didn’t hold the  people he lead in a patronizing contempt.

I’m not a religious person, but God save me from my self-anointed betters.

PS. Bill Whittle is right.

UPDATE: Byron York has a very good column on this today.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Maybe you should rephrase that, Madame Secretary?

August 31, 2010

When a majority of those surveyed believe that “socialist” is an accurate description of President Obama, saying that opponents of his health-care program need to be reeducated is perhaps not the best choice of words:

In an interview before the latest Kaiser results were released, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told ABC News that the sustained opposition to the Democrats’ health care reform efforts has mainly been a function of “misinformation.”

“Unfortunately there still is a great deal of confusion about what is in [the reform law] and what isn’t,” Sebelius told ABC News Radio on Monday.

With several vulnerable House Democrats now touting their votes against the bill, and Republicans running on repeal of the law, Sebelius said “misinformation given on a 24/7 basis” has led to the enduring opposition nearly six months after the lengthy debate ended in Congress.

“We have a lot of reeducation to do,” Sebelius said.

Get it? Opposition can’t be based on a principled objection to a statist takeover of the health-care system, the insertion of federal bureaucrats into the most intimate decisions about one’s medical care, or the tremendous economic costs this “reform” imposes. Nope, it’s got to be “misinformation” fed to gullible rubes, who need “reeducating.”

Presumably again and again until they get it right.

I assume Secretary Sebelius is unaware of the disturbing associations “reeducation” brings to mind, such as the reeducation camps in Soviet Russia, Maoist China (especially during the Cultural Revolution), and Vietnam, to name just a few totalitarian hell-holes. Now, obviously she didn’t mean “put them all in camps and subject them to reprogramming as in Clockwork Orange,” but the choice of words is unfortunate and culturally clueless.

It’s also revealing, because it shows once again the arrogance and condescension toward the common people that lays behind the progressive-statist mindset: “Government experts know what’s best for you, Citizen peasant, so trust us and let us tell you why you’re wrong to oppose us.”

Come November 2nd, 2010, Secretary Sebelius and her colleagues will be the ones getting a real –and needed– reeducation.

COMPARISON: If you find yourself reminded of the votes a few years ago over the proposed EU constitution and the attempts to force nations that rejected it to vote again until they approved it, you’re not having hallucinations. The statist attitudes of our (Social) Democratic leaders and the European Union governing classes really are that alike.

(via Reason)

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


The Goracle is displeased

August 13, 2010

Question not. The science is settled. Amen.

Alas! Al Gore, the High Priest of Gaea, Primate of the Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming, the Sex Poodle in Chief, has been foiled in his sacred mission to ruin the economy and control our lives save the Earth. He lashed out at those who defied him in an audience with his acolytes a conference call with his supporters:

Speaking about the likelihood of climate bill being passed by Congress in 2010, Al Gore told a conference call of supporters tonight that, “this battle has not been successful and is pretty much over for this year.” Gore bitterly denounced the Senate and federal government stating several times, “The U.S. Senate has failed us” and “The federal government has failed us.” Gore even seemed to blame President Obama by emphasizing that “the government as a whole has failed us… although the House did its job. [emphasis added]”

Ever notice that, whenever a Lefty doesn’t get his way, it’s proof that “government is broken?” It’s never, “Gee, maybe I was wrong and they were right.”

Gore urged his listeners to take the “realistic view that they had failed badly.” Gore said that “Comprehensive legislation is not likely to be debated” and that a “lame duck debate” is a “very slim possibility indeed.” (N.B. We thought, because Gore told us, that “the debate” was over.)

Gore said “the government was not working “as our founders intended it to” and laid more blame at the feet of fossil fuel interests who conducted a “cynical coordinated campaign” with “unprecedented funding” and “who have spent hundreds of millions of dollars just on lobbying.” He criticized “polluters” for “dumping global warming pollution into the atmosphere like it was an open sewer.”

And it’s always a conspiracy or a collusion by the demons that haunt their dreams: big corporations. Conveniently forgetting, of course, that big, bad companies like BP had hopped onto the global warming/carbon trading gravy train hoping to make millions off it.

Gore blamed the skeptics for “attacking science and scientists.” “They [the skeptics] did damage and cast doubt,” Gore said.

Funny, I thought doubt, skepticism, and the testing of hypotheses against empirical data were crucial elements of the scientific method, not heresies against the True Faith. And while skeptics like Steve McIntyre and Anthony Watts were doing just that, the vicious attacks were coming from the advocates of AGW, who would go so far as to characterize skeptics as the equivalent of Holocaust deniers and betrayers of the planet.

Asked why the alarmists were ineffective in addressing Climategate, Gore bitterly blamed a “biased right-wing media… bolstered by professional deniers.” Gore claimed the Wall Street Journal published 30 editorial and news articles about Climategate and “not a single one presented [his] side of the science.”

Ah, yes. That vaunted right-wing media conspiracy. What’s a little paranoia among friends, eh, Al?

This just begs for one of those Downfall bunker videos.

But, as befits his exalted station, the Goracle was at least temperate in language, if not in thought. Not so his buddy at the National Wildlife Federation, Larry Schweiger, who publicly referred to skeptics as “bastards.”

Love to you, too, Larry.

LINKS: More from James Delingpole and Anthony Watts.


Oligarchs: they’re not just in California

July 12, 2010

Texas has a few of them, too, as “Representative” Ciro Rodriguez (D) takes umbrage when an uppity peon a concerned voter calls him on his lies about ObamaCare:

Ciro’s anger and bluster, folks, hides a more basic emotion: fear, bordering on panic. He knows the rubes have stopped buying what he and his buddies in the oligarchy are shoveling; you can see it in his frustration when faced with facts. And he knows November is going to be bad for the party that shoved this nonsense down our throats.

Very bad, indeed.

(via Moe Lane)

LINKS: More at Hot Air, Big Government, and Sister Toldjah.

RELATED: California’s oligarchs.


11 reasons to vote for Democrats next November

July 4, 2010

Heh. Good one.

Keep these in mind when you go to vote. (Should have had twelve for that even dozen, though. )

via Moe Lane


President Hubris, meet Nemesis

June 25, 2010

Historian Victor Davis Hanson is at his best when he reaches back to our Classical past, the heritage of Greece and Rome, to draw analogies that illuminate our present. In an essay published yesterday on President Obama’s troubles, he does this in spades. Looking at all the times Obama slammed George Bush -over Katrina relief, the surge in Iraq, Republican corruption, and so forth- and allowed sycophantic politicians and the media to fawn over him, he sees tremendous ego and arrogant pride, and a man who is finally getting the predictable comeuppance: Obama’s Greek Tragedy.

Do you remember candidate Barack Obama offering his hope-and-change platitudes in front of the fake Greek columns during the Democratic convention? Or earlier pontificating at the Victory Monument in Berlin?

Why didn’t an old cigar-chomping Democratic pro take him aside and warn him about offending Nemesis? She is the dreaded goddess who brings divine retribution in ironic fashion to overweening arrogance.

Or maybe a friend could have whispered to Senator Obama to tone it down when he was merciless in damning the Bush administration for its supposedly slow response to Hurricane Katrina.

Obama railed that Bush showed “unconscionable ineptitude.” Obama further charged that Bush’s response was “achingly slow,” a result of “passive indifference,” and that his team was rife with “corruption and cronyism.”

Those adjectives now apply to Obama himself, as he seems lost amid his own disaster — eerily in about the same Gulf environs. Adding insult to injury, a recent poll revealed that Louisiana residents thought Bush had done a better job with Katrina than Obama has with BP.

Couldn’t one of Obama’s many handlers have warned him to ignore the media’s tingling-leg gaga worship, or their nonsense that Obama is “a god”?

Apparently they didn’t, and now Obama whines that people are opposing him.

And I’ve said it before, but I’ll say it again: It’s a crying shame that we have people as venal as Chuck Schumer and brain-dead as Barbara Boxer in the US Senate, but not someone as wise as VDH.

Read the whole thing; it’s well worth it.


By Obama, you’ve made enough money!

April 29, 2010

Wrapped up as I was in the desperate efforts to protect the President from terrorist grannies, I missed this gem from his speech in Quincy, Illinois:

Excerpt via Ed at Hot Air:

We’re not, we’re not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that’s fairly earned. I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money. But, you know, part of the American way is, you know, you can just keep on making it if you’re providing a good product or providing good service. We don’t want people to stop, ah, fulfilling the core responsibilities of the financial system to help grow our economy.

That was not in his prepared remarks, and I’m sure TOTUS wasn’t happy.

Is there any clearer expression of the statism at the heart of this administration? Not only do Obama and the (Social) Democrats claim the power and the requisite wisdom to regulate broad swathes of the economy, but the President himself claims to know better than you when you’ve earned enough money, beyond which, we assume, one enters the realm of “unfair.”

It also shows (again) that he just doesn’t “get” capitalism or market economies. The promise of possibly earning more money is what encourages people to start a business, hire more people (Remember jobs, Mr. President?), and take risks. That incentive system, coupled with a relative lack of government interference,  is why our economy has been phenomenally successful. By saying “you’ve made enough,” you take away any incentive for people to work harder. Why should I or anyone risk capital in an investment, or take a job that eats up most of my time, if you are going to tell us we can only make so much from it? What’s next, wage and price controls a la Diocletian and Nixon?

And the arrogance! That a man who has never worked in private business, whose whole adult life has been in academics, non-profit, and government work should think that he knows how much a businessman or an investor should make in return for their effort and risk? A man who knows next to nothing about economics? How is this even in Washington’s purview?

How about trying to do the jobs the federal government is assigned, rather than everything it isn’t?