► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Archive for the ‘Barack Obama’ Category

Mars Attacks: Oops WSU Deadly Force Racism Study Doesn’t Follow the Script

by Mars ( 66 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Bigotry, Blogmocracy, Crime, Democratic Party, DOJ, Education, Eric Holder, Free Speech, Guest Post, Hate Speech, Political Correctness, Politics, Racism, Second Amendment at September 4th, 2014 - 8:00 am

Apparently Washington State University wanted to find out why racial “minorities” are shot more often in police incidents. The study did not go quite as the liberals in this country would have wanted it to. My explanation why the disparity exists will be at the end of the article.

WSU ‘deadly force’ lab finds racial disparities in shootings
Blacks more feared, but shot less quickly

SPOKANE, Wash.—Participants in an innovative Washington State University study of deadly force were more likely to feel threatened in scenarios involving black people. But when it came time to shoot, participants were biased in favor of black suspects, taking longer to pull the trigger against them than against armed white or Hispanic suspects.

The findings, published in the recent Journal of Experimental Criminology, grow out of dozens of simulations aimed at explaining the disproportionate number of ethnic and racial minorities shot by police. The studies use the most advanced technology available, as participants with laser-equipped guns react to potentially threatening scenarios displayed in full-size, high-definition video.

The findings surprised Lois James, lead author and assistant research professor at Washington State University Spokane’s Sleep and Performance Research Center. Other, less realistic studies have found people are more willing to think a black person has a gun instead of a tool and will more readily push a “shoot” button against a potentially armed black person.

The findings also run counter to the public perception, heightened with the recent shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., that police are more willing to shoot black suspects. Statistics show that police shoot ethnic and racial minorities disproportionately to their population.

But the last comprehensive look at the racial makeup of justifiable and non-justifiable shootings was a 2001 study (pdf) using more than two decades of U.S. Bureau of Justice data, said James. And while statistics show black suspects are shot at more frequently than white suspects, the 2001 study found black suspects were also as likely to shoot at police as be shot at.

“At the moment, there are no comprehensive statistics on whether the police do inappropriately shoot at black males more than they do at white males,” said James. “Although isolated incidents of black males being shot by the police are devastating and well documented, at the aggregate level we need to understand whether the police are shooting black unarmed males more than they are white unarmed males. And at the moment, nobody knows that.”

Shootings in the field are particularly difficult to study because they can have a multitude of complex, confounding and hard-to-control variables. But WSU Spokane’s Simulated Hazardous Operational Tasks Laboratory can control variables like suspect clothing, hand positions, threatening stance and race, while giving observers precise data on when participants are fired upon and how many milliseconds they take to fire back.

James’ study is a follow-up to one in which she found active police officers, military personnel and the general public took longer to shoot black suspects than white or Hispanic suspects. Participants were also more likely to shoot unarmed white suspects than black or Hispanic ones and more likely to fail to fire at armed black suspects.

“In other words,” wrote James and her co-authors, “there was significant bias favoring blacks where decisions to shoot were concerned.”

When confronted by an armed white person, participants took an average of 1.37 seconds to fire back. Confronted by an armed black person, they took 1.61 seconds to fire and were less likely to fire in error. The 24-millisecond difference may seem small, but it’s enough to be fatal in a shooting

The recent study analyzed data from electroencephalograph sensors that measured participants’ alpha brain waves, which are suppressed in situations that appear threatening.

The participants, 85 percent of whom were white, “demonstrated significantly greater threat responses against black suspects than white or Hispanic suspects,” wrote James and her co-authors, University of Missouri-St. Louis criminologist David Klinger and WSU Spokane’s Bryan Vila. This, they said, suggests the participants “held subconscious biases associating blacks and threats,” which is consistent with previous psychological research on racial stereotypes.

However, the current study only measured the alpha waves of participants drawn from the general public, not law enforcement or the military. Consequently, wrote the authors, “results from this sample are not generalizable to sworn officers.”

“However,” they added, “there is some evidence from the field to support the proposition that an officer’s threat bias could cause him or her to tend to take more time to make decisions to shoot people whom they subconsciously perceived as more threatening because of race or ethnicity. This behavioral ‘counter-bias’ might be rooted in people’s concerns about the social and legal consequences of shooting a member of a historically oppressed racial or ethnic group.”

James said she has data on subconscious associations between race and threat from law enforcement subjects, and she awaits funding to analyze whether these biases predict decisions to shoot in the simulator. Like study participants from the general public, she said, “they were still more hesitant to shoot black suspects than white suspects. They took longer and they made fewer errors.”

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-09/wsu-wf082914.php

Ok, has anyone here figured out the real reason more “minorities” are shot in police incidents even though this study shows the opposite should occur? It’s pretty simple, the reason is right in the article, buried under a bunch of other information. Here’s the money quote.

the 2001 study found black suspects were also as likely to shoot at police as be shot at.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen. Right in the article it shows that a previous study proved that black suspects were far more likely to shoot at the police than any other group. Yet, somehow with that information there is still a mystery here that this research team needs Scooby and the gang to help figure out. Oh, and maybe the bit about police thinking that african americans might be more violent. Well, I’m not sure where they would get that Idea.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/228479.pdf

In 2008, although black youth account­
ed for just 16% of the youth population
ages 10–17, they were involved in 52%
of juvenile Violent Crime Index arrests
and 33% of juvenile Property Crime
Index Arrests

http://ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/JAR_Display.asp?ID=qa05261

The Violent Crime Index arrest rate in 2011 for black juveniles (627) was 5 times the rate for white (125) youth, 6 times the rate for American Indian juveniles (105), and 15 times the rate for Asian juveniles (41).
In the 1980s, the Violent Crime Index arrest rate for black juveniles was 6 times the white rate. This ratio declined during the 1990s, holding at 4 to 1 from 1998 to 2004. Since 2004, the racial disparity in the rates increased, reaching 5 to 1 in the late 2000s.

My advice to people is if you want the cops to stop shooting your minority group “youths”, then you should get your children to stop killing cops and other people. It would go a long way to changing the perception of potential violence seen by the police responding.

I’m trying to put this information out there without coming off insensitive, but I think we’ve hit the point where the majority of violent crime is committed by one group in this country, and that same group screams racism anytime that the police are forced to stop a violent criminal. I don’t get how this solves anything. Believe me when I say that 99% of the police out there have no interest in killing someone. That is a situation that leaves scars that few ever fully recover from. (Their leadership with their militarization goals are something else entirely, it’s always easier when you aren’t the one pulling the trigger.) If people would take the time to stop blaming others for doing their job and actually take the time to engage with their own families (or in many of these cases even admit that they have a family) a lot of this could be solved.

So, Yeah, the NRSC has made a game

by Mars ( 61 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Blogmocracy, Democratic Party, Election 2014, Entertainment, Guest Post, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Media, Politics, Progressives, Republican Party at September 1st, 2014 - 8:07 pm

Guest post from Mars:

 

While stumbling the internet today I came across an article about how the National Republican Senatorial Campaign had made a game. So, I of course had to check it out. You can look at it here.

I went to missionmajority.com and gave it a try. While enjoyable the game will invite ridicule on several fronts. One, they attempted to jump on the current 8-bit game fad. In recent years 8-bit style games have made a huge comeback and are the favorites of indy developers. However, it’s pretty obvious from the comments I’ve seen on several sites that this is “conveniently” overlooked by our liberal friends who use the old school look of the game to show how “out of touch” the party is. Two, it’s overly simplistic. I know they want it to be quick and easy so they can get the message across in the shortest time possible, but come on, I wasn’t even really taking it seriously and only lost two lives in the whole game. Finding a balance between simple and frustrating should have been a concern. Three, the soundbites have no context whatsoever. It’s all well and good to have dozens of damning comments from libs, but many of them I was even unfamiliar with and I consider myself fairly informed from the radio shows. How is someone who is just coming in from a link on another site (probably a liberal or at least negatively slanted site) supposed to even know what the heck half of the comments are even talking about.

This was an interesting attempt by the GOP to be hip and engage people, but I think it is far more of a misfire. Something a little more polished and with actual interesting characters and information would have been a far more effective means of reaching out. People don’t mind learning things when playing games, but they want an entertaining experience, not something that would be embarrassing for me to have my youngest child play. I’d like to give them some credit, but I think it’s for the best if this experiment in gamification is quickly and totally forgotten.

I just hope this didn’t cost the donors as much as I fear it did. Right now on Indiegala.com they have the Axis Game Factory Bundle on sale for a minimum of 9.99. With that software a day to gather sound bites, and a couple hours to draw sprites and throw it together, even I could make something better than this. (Though to be fair it will cost more to get the package that lets you format it for a website.) Not sure it would be any more informative, but it would look a hell of a lot better. Maybe a popup with who made the statement, when, and what it was about would help. It also shouldn’t just repeat the same dozen comments over and over, it would be nice to have more variety.

Painful Video To Watch

by Macker ( 159 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Military at August 28th, 2014 - 8:00 am

I actually made myself watch Обама’s address to The American Legion, which occurred two days ago. If you think the military’s response was bad due to Обама’s open contempt, wait till you see…no wait! RUN this speech in the background while you go do other stuff.
Here’s the speech:

Shootout at the Cold Stone Corral: The Arizona Republican Gubernatorial Primary

by The Osprey ( 79 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Business, Corruption, Democratic Party, DOJ, Economy, Election 2014, EPA, Eric Holder, Health Care, immigration, Immigration, IRS, Janet Napolitano, Misery Index, Politics, Regulation, Republican Party, taxation, The Political Right, unemployment at August 24th, 2014 - 6:02 pm

AZnObamaTruck

Damn. The Arizona Republican Primary is Tuesday, and I have still not been able to make up my mind who I am going to vote for to be our contender for Governor in November. There are 6 – count ‘em – 6 candidates!

Nicknames in quotes are mine :lol:

I break them down like this:

The Corporates – pushing their experience in the private sector:

Doug Ducey. “The Ice Cream Man” : Current AZ Treasurer. Founder of Cold Stone Creamery, the upscale ice cream chain. Has gotten endorsement of Republican heavy hitters from outside the state – Scott Walker, Ted Cruz, radio talker Hugh Hewitt. On the hand, he has been endorsed by John McCain and there have been questions of impropriety raised around some of his dealings with Cold Stone franchisees. UPDATE: It appears that Doug Ducey has been endorsed by Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

Christine Jones. “Go Daddy’s Girl”: Kind of a dark horse, or should I say, ginger horse. (She’s a red head). Was corporate attorney for Scottsdale based internet hosting company Go Daddy – they of the racy Superbowl ads and Danica Patrick ad campaign. Claims to be for strong border enforcement, but recent revelations of her social media posts from a few years back supporting Obama and other liberal positions, resume embellishments (she claimed to have worked as a prosecuting attorney prior to her Go Daddy days) have made me skeptical of her.

The Politicos – claiming the voice of moderation:

Ken Bennett: “Cool, Calm Ken” Current Arizona Secretary of State. Long term AZ politico seen by many as a balancing force in AZ Republican politics. Presents a “cool calm and collected” image but may be a RINO. Many Arizonans who support Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse investigation of Obama’s document fraud feel Bennett allowed himself to be bamboozled by Democrat officials in the Hawaii State Dept. of Records, and his lack of experience outside government has caused some criticism as well.

Scott Smith: “Mayor McRINO” Current Mayor of Mesa. Presents himself as a moderate Republican. Has a pretty good record as Mayor, but his support of Brewer’s Obamacare associated Medicare expansion which was passed in the dead of night by RINOS and Democrats and his participation in national Mayors conferences heavily influenced by Democrats has left a sour taste in the mouth of small government and balanced budget advocates in AZ. Endorsed by Jan Brewer.

The Lawmen- For border security and state’s rights :

Frank Riggs: “Marshall Dillon” Frank is a California transplant who moved to AZ in 2001. An army veteran and former police officer, he represented a conservative district in California in the Reagan years. This is his first foray back into politics since moving to Arizona. Has the endorsement for former State Senator Russell Pierce, author of SB 1070. A Border hawk. Those who object to him site a congressional voting record that is not quite as conservative as Riggs claims it to be.

Andrew Thomas: “The Boy Scout” Former Maricopa County Attorney. Defended Sheriff Joe’s immigration law enforcement in court, exposed and lead prosecution of various corrupt State representatives and Maricopa county supervisors. This gained him many enemies in the liberal Democrat run AZ Bar Association, who filed a lawsuit against him that while ultimately defeated, nonetheless lead to him being disbarred. He is very well liked in among AZ conservatives, but even many who like him feel that he is “damaged goods” and vulnerable to a Dem lead smear campaign in the General.

My initial thoughts back in February or March favored either Doug Ducey or Christine Jones. Having someone in the Governor’s office with private sector experience could help Arizona divert a lot of those California companies fleeing that state’s regulatory environment to Texas, into Arizona instead.

However, with the Bundy Ranch vs. Fed Gov showdown in April, the ongoing controversy over Sheriff Joe’s investigation into Obama’s document fraud, the “Camp of the Saints”/”Children’s Crusade” on the border, and the threat of ISIS infiltration via the border, has me leaning now towards one of “The Lawmen”. I don’t think the “Corporates” would have enough spine to stand up to Obama and Holder.

Polls are all over the map, there are some in the media who say the race is Ducey’s to lose, but I think there is a strong undercurrent for Andrew Thomas, as an F-YOU! to the Dems locally and nationally.

Curious to hear what other Blogmocers either in AZ or out of state think. We, along with Texas are on the front lines of the border crisis, Obama and Holder have been meddling in our local politics and the economy here has been struggling since 2008.

UPDATE: It appears that Sheriff Joe Arpaio has endorsed Doug Ducey.

ISIS supporter takes picture outside of the White House

by Rodan ( 1 Comment › )
Filed under Al Qaeda, Barack Obama, Headlines, Hipsters, Islamists, Jihad, Leftist-Islamic Alliance at August 9th, 2014 - 10:05 pm

Can’t tell if this ISIS supporter is a Hipster or Islamist.

ISIS is using social media to get supporters. AN ISIS supporter being that close to the White House should send chills down the spine of people.

Can You Think Of A Better Way To Destroy America?

by Flyovercountry ( 243 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Progressives at August 5th, 2014 - 9:22 am

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

So this morning, while just beginning to plug back into the world, I noticed that the news reports are focusing in on the effects of severe budget cuts to that one piece of our government the political left is more than willing, we’ll call it down right eager, to cut, our military. Defense spending for those of you who have not read the document, is one of two items of expenditure mentioned specifically within our Constitution. The other is a National Postal Service. Active duty personnel are being delivered their pink slips while in the field overseas. Calling this revelation unprecedented is an understatement. Suicidal, stupid, egregiously self destructive, openly rooting for American defeat, fomenting American defeat, or the even more caustic, a course of action so idiotic that it could only have been born by someone with an Ivy League education leap immediately to mind.

Bear in mind that while this silliness is taking place, our military is refitting, at considerable expense I might add, many of our sea traveling vessels designed for purposes of war to operate on biodiesel. This is a fuel source by the way, that even with heavy subsidy from the Department of Energy, carries a price tag that is roughly 600% higher for our Navy to pay. This undoubtedly is another of those politically correct points of stupidity to help our national defense apparatus fight our real enemy, “Global Warming.” So, I guess we can look forward to any actual people left in our armed forces facing a redeployment literally, to tree hugging duties and other such time and money wasting boondoggles, while the enemies of freedom and civilization run rampant and inflict their caliphate upon a world suddenly devoid of the once formidable protection of a strong and committed United States. Isis, Hamas, Hezbollah, a Nuclear capable Iran, a Taliban ruled Pakistan, Al Qaeda ruling in Libya, the actual invasion of our Southern Border by Mexican Drug Cartels armed via gift from Barack Obama and Eric Holder personally, are all small potatoes, when compared to the unproven claims, (and coincidentally, recently the subject of some more scandalous incidents of data manipulation by the NOAA,) inherent in the global warming scam.

Just when you thought this couldn’t get any more surreal, we get a bipartisan approval of the very same all in one air craft that other armed forces the around the globe passed on, mostly because it’s useless, over a decade ago. We’ll allow the guy who designed one of the truly great fighter jets in world history to tell you why the F-35 is a disaster, and why it is folly for our military to spend one thin dime more on this project. (Yes, Democrats and Republicans alike should be taken to task on this one.)

What we have is a military now that is being literally starved of its most valuable asset, troops to do the work necessary. At the same time that we’ve fired the people necessary for any endeavor to succeed, we’ve been busier than hell spending like idiots on gadgetry and new toys, some of them already proven to be worthless. Technology is great, but only when used properly as a tool in the hands of trained professionals. Barack Obama is decimating our military, and changing its mission from one of national defense to one of environmental radicalism. In this game of national self flagellation however, the United States is not the only citizenry to pay the consequences for our country’s insistence upon twice electing the least qualified person in any room he enters to be our chief executive. The world as a whole is less safe. The removal of our missile defense systems from Europe turned out to be the beginning of long line of national defense blunders, entered into purposefully, so that America and her allies would get their comeuppance. Redeploying our military to be nothing more than the political muscle of Green Peace just turns out to be adding insult to injury. Purchasing the F-35, a jet proven to be less capable of performing any individual task which may be asked of it than the aircraft used by the military during 1950′s, that’s just flipping any who hold our Constitution in any regard the proverbial middle finger. That’s modern liberalism folks, recognize it for what it is.

http://musingsofamadconservative.blogspot.com/2014/08/can-you-think-of-better-way-to-destroy.html

A rational Foreign Policy

by Rodan ( 113 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Democratic Party, George W. Bush, Marxism, Progressives, Republican Party at July 30th, 2014 - 9:05 am

There was a time when this nation had a rational foreign policy. During the Reagan era the Peace through strength doctrinaire kept America out of war, while defending its interest against Soviet aggression. The result was the collapse of the Soviet Union without a major war. Since then our foreign policy has become deranged.

Starting with the Clinton Administration, the US foreign policy became oriented in the service of Islamic interest. The US/NATO bombed Christian Serb forces in Bosnia to prevent the defeat of Bosnian Muslims and their al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps allies. In 1999 the US/NATO bombed the Serbs again to created an Albanian Muslim Narco-terror state of Kossovo. We did nothing about the slaughter of 2 Million Sudanese Christians and forced Israel to give Southern Lebanon over to Hezbollah. All this, while the very same Islamists we supported were attacking us. The culmination of these attacks was 9/11.

When 9/11 happened, instead of identifying Islamists as our enemy, President Bush praised it as a religion of peace and through the diversity visa program, gave Islamic nations immigrant preferences. We overthrow the Taliban, but replaced it with a Narco-Islamic state that is flooding the world with heroin. In Iraq we decided to overthrow Saddam and yes there was justification for that, but we immediately began building schools and roads, while our soldiers were getting shot. Even worse, we installed a Pro-Iranian Shiite Islamic regime which was ethnically cleansing Christians before the rise of ISIS. The obsession with Islamic democracy and nation building was a geostartegic disaster.

Under the Obama Regime, the foreign policy of this nation became even more deranged. The US/NATO attacked Qaddafi, who after giving up his WMD’s was an ally against Islamists. The result is that the ISIS franchise Ansar al-Sharia now controls the Western 1/3 of Libya and other Islamist Militias are causing havoc. Supporting the Pro-Iranian puppet regime of Malaki resulted in a  Sunni backlash to the rise of ISIS. The same insanity applies with the Obama Regime’s support of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. We  now treat one of our closet allies Israel as the unwanted step child to appease Islamists and the International left.

In the Ukraine which has been part of Russia’s sphere since the 1600′s, the Obama Regime with the backing of elements of the Republican Party supported the European Union’s alliance with Ukrainian Neo-Nazis to overthrow the legally elected governmnet to seize that nation’s resources and confiscate people’s wealth under the guise of the IMF. The result is Russia pushing back by taking Crimea and supporting Rightwing wing Russian militias in the Eastern Ukraine.

Meanwhile, we turned our backs on Christian Conservative and Libertarian anti-Regime protests in Venezuela. The very same Republicans who were pounding their chests like baboons over a confrontation with Russia to help out Euro-Socialists and Neo-Nazis, did nothing to assist their ideological brethren in that South American nation. Standing by the Venezuelan people would have been good PR for Republicans and put Obama in a predicament for going on the record in backing a Marxist dictatorship

Our foreign policy has vacillated between appeasement and nation building. We no longer define what our interest are and pick the wrong causes to get involved in,. What is needed is a return to our traditional foreign policy that rejects nation building and appeasement.

Today there is a torrent of redundant evidence for the Macmillan axiom. When British prime minister Harold Macmillan was asked what caused him the most trouble, he supposedly replied, “Events, dear boy, events.” He certainly used the phrase “the opposition of events.” Events, from Ukraine to Syria to Gaza, are forcing something Americans prefer not to think about, foreign policy, into their political calculations.

Having recoiled from the scandal of the Iraq War, which was begun on the basis of bad intelligence and conducted unintelligently, Americans concluded that their nation no longer has much power, defined as the ability to achieve intended effects. The correct conclusion is that America should intend more achievable effects. 

Obama has given Americans a foreign policy congruent with their post-recoil preferences: America as spectator. Now, however, their sense of national diminishment, and of an increasingly ominous world, may be making them receptive to a middle course between a foreign policy of flaccidity (Obama) and grandiosity (his predecessor).

If so, a Republican presidential aspirant should articulate what George Washington University’s Henry R. Nau calls, in a book with this title, “conservative  internationalism.” This would, he says, include:

the liberal internationalist goal of spreading freedom, but doing so “primarily on the borders of existing freedom, not everywhere in the world at once”;

the realists’ use of “armed diplomacy” against adversaries outside of negotiations; and

the “conservative vision of limited global governance, a decentralized world of democratic civil societies” rather than “one of centralized international institutions as Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt advocated.”

[....]

In eleven ruinous years, beginning with the invasion of Iraq, Republicans have forfeited their foreign-policy advantage and Obama has revived suspicions that Democrats are uncomfortable with American power. There is running room for a conservative internationalist. 

The appeasement of the Obama Regime has resulted in failure and help create the chaos we see in the world. However, the calls from some in the Republican Party for more nation building and permanent war is not the answer either. The GOP needs to ditch the Jacobin concept of endless wars and realize that America can’t save everybody. We need to define our sphere of influence, make sure the governments in that sphere are friendly and base our interest on economic needs. A combination of realism and humility but based on strength is the foreign policy that the Republican Party should embrace.

 

 

Being ‘hip’ is everything to Progressives

by Rodan ( 217 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Entertainment, Hipsters, Progressives at July 28th, 2014 - 11:00 am

Recently on the show True Blood, there was an episode based on fundraiser for Ted Cruz. Republicans were portrayed in bad light and became objects of ridicule. This is one of the Progressive movement’s most potent weapons, the use of the popular culture to deride their political opponents and define what is cool.

If you took great offense of the recent episode of HBO’s True Blood in which two vampires crashed a Ted Cruz fundraiser — at the Bush Library no less — and said some bad words about Republicans, I have some advice: Lighten up.

The other week I wrote about how the standard conservative critique of the popular culture is just a bit too tightly wound. This minor kerfuffle strikes me as a good illustration of my point.

[....]

And that I think is the source of the real problem here. By any objective or commonsense measure, the uptight Republicans slaughtered at the Ted Cruz fundraiser are happier and more productive members of society than virtually every other character in the show. From the sympathetic white-trash werewolves to the corrupt human rabble-rousers, from the vampire aristocrats to the endless string of slatternly young women and men who come and go with regularity, the show focuses on creatures who are, variously, decent-but-doomed, evil, stupid, or morally, spiritually, or intellectually lost.

The one thing these people have going for them? They are cool — at least by the glandular, knee-jerk liberal, fashion-forward, standards of the show’s producers and its niche pay-cable audience. In other words, to the extent the show is politically appealing, it is an irrational hot mess (much like the goo vampires turn into when struck with a wooden stake). It’s like it was written for Bill Maher’s studio audience, a group that doesn’t care about real facts or arguments — they just want to hear how they’re awesome and the people they hate aren’t.

[....]

Once you start looking for it, it’s amazing how much liberal commentary — particularly about sex and religion — boils down to a kind of sneering self-satisfaction that liberals are hip and conservatives are squares (just think about how much “analysis” of Obama has been rooted in the assumption he’s cool).

Progressives view themselves as cool and hip. This view is perpetuated by their control over the popular culture and mistakes the Right has done in the culture wars. This episode of True Blood is just a microcosm of the advantages the Left has in defining the political narrative.

Remarkable To Behold, Like Swiss Watches Are Our Socialist Friends

by Flyovercountry ( 97 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Progressives at July 24th, 2014 - 12:00 pm

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

I caught this one on my news feed yesterday, and I seem to have remembered reading it before. In fact twice before. The first time was in the Spring of 1980, and the second time during the Clinton Presidency. I remember vividly the 1980 story, because Mr. Ruthers, my history teacher at the time graded a report I did based upon that Time Magazine piece. (I was a flaming liberal in those days of life without consequence.) The main crux of the argument went something like this, “the current President we’ve helped to foist upon the American People is obviously still the smartest guy in the room, and while we acknowledge that his Presidency is an abject failure, on every conceivable level, we still maintain that if he can’t do it, nobody can.” In the world of the leftist, it’s never the fault of their failed policies, only that the right people didn’t implement them, or that the citizenry at large failed to appreciate what was being bestowed upon them, and acted too greedily. In the words of the late Senator Hal Heflin, “there’s too much consumin goin on out there.”

Just in case you thought today’s main stream media was above recycling old news stories in order to perpetuate their mythology, ladies and gentlemen, I give you The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza.

From the Washington Post article with emphasis being mine:

Being president is the most powerful job in the world. At which you will almost certainly fail.

Why? For lots of reasons up to and including:

* The decline of the bully pulpit as a persuasion mechanism

* The deep partisanship present not only in Congress but also in the electorate more broadly

* The splintering of the mainstream media/the rise of social media.

snip:

Take the last 96 hours (or so) of the Obama presidency as illustrative of the broader impossibility of being president.

On Thursday, in the immediate aftermath of the Malaysia Airlines plane being shot down over Ukraine, President Obama delivered a cautious statement mourning the tragedy and promising he would get to the bottom of the situation. Conservatives immediately criticized that statement as insufficiently strong, comparing it unfavorably to how President Reagan handled a similar situation in 1983. (As The Fix’s Philip Bump explains, the Obama critique is not entirely fair.) Seeking to counter that narrative, Obama delivered another statement on Friday — and took questions from the press. He was far more aggressive in his tone about the possibility of Russian involvement. Over the weekend, the story of Secretary of State John Kerry’s on mic but off camera comments before a Fox News Channel interview drove much of the chatter. On Monday, Obama was back on TV with an even more aggressive stance on Russia — “What exactly are they trying to hide?” he asked about Russian separatists reportedly limiting access to the crash site — while also juggling an executive order banning discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation among federal contractors, hosting a town hall aimed at pushing his “My Brother’s Keeper” initiative and trying to cajole Congress into helping him deal with the ongoing crisis of undocumented children at the country’s southern border. Oh, and he also was trying to walk a fine line between defending Israel’s right to defend itself with somewhat critical comments about the number of Palestinian civilian deaths occasioned by the military operation in Gaza. And, double oh, he and his staff will have to continue to fend off Republican criticism of a three day fundraising tour he leaves on tomorrow — a cash-collection trip that GOPers believe looks unseemly amid the various domestic and international crises happening at the moment.

Did you get that? It’s not that Obama’s policies led to these failures, but that these failures just randomly happened. It’s really unfair of you ungrateful brats who make up the American Electorate to expect that a man who campaigned for the job, be held to any type of standard in performing the duties that go along with the gig. Barack Obama promised hopety change as Senator Obama, that he would heal our national divide by being the only transcendent figure in our nation’s history who could get people who agreed on nothing to find ample common ground to solve every perceived and make believe problem that he could think to tell us we had. So, after two years, when our nation via a mid term election, served Barack Obama a restraining order in terms of his infliction of his agenda, he naturally blamed Republican obstructionism for his failure to get a single other piece of legislation passed, including a fiscal budget. In his first point, Cillizza laments the decline of power held by our nation’s chief executive. (Yes, that statement caused a stream of coffee to shoot towards my computer screen upon reading it.) Perhaps Mr. Cillizza should read the Federalist Papers, which would tell him that our nation’s founders never saw the Presidency as the power position that it is today. The entire reason for making the Legislative Branch a bicameral body, and one that had two separate origins for election to it, including differing lengths of tenure, was precisely because it was designed to be the more powerful Branch of government, and those measures would limit that potential. Everything in our Constitution is designed to limit power of the federal government, and more specifically, to prevent power from consolidating itself with one specific person or group. The President is not supposed to have a bully pulpit, and allowing Presidents to have bully pulpits has only ever led to trouble. Putting all of that aside for the moment, in what Universe has the power of Barack Obama’s personal use of the bully pulpit diminished? This is the same man who announced at his last State of the Union Address that if Congress failed to do what he wanted them to do, he would act unilaterally. He has done more damage with his executive action than all previous Presidents combined. The EPA has run amok, Obamacare has granted HHS power to regulate our diets, who gets treated for illnesses, who can own guns, (we haven’t seen this manifest itself yet, but it’s in there,) how we heat our homes, how much light we can use at night, virtually every aspect of our daily living. The CFPB has authority to regulate home prices, determine who gets to live where, fix prices in the Financial Industry, determine who will be allowed to invest, what investment options will be available to what class of citizenry, who will be allowed to loan money, and who will be allowed to borrow. Whether you agree with these laws or not, it’s hardly indicative of diminished executive power.

The social media argument is so vacuous, even typing this sentence is an embarrassment. I’ll just leave you with this, people talking amongst themselves about anything in general, and about politics in particular should never be considered a bad thing in any nation that views itself as free. Barack Obama used social media to his great advantage while campaigning for office, and if that same media is also able to point out his flaws to a greater number of people, that’s just hard cheese for the Bamster.

Someone should tell Mr. Cillizza that the conservative reaction to our President’s tepid statements on the matter of a passenger jet being shot out of the sky, which included by the way more time giving shout outs to supporters and talk show style jokes than actual acknowledgement of a tragic even transpiring, was more about the fact that his feckless foreign policy probably contributed greatly to what is happening in the Ukraine than any other factor. This didn’t just happen. Vladimir Putin, a former KGB operative and a man with imperialistic aspirations, as in wanting to reassemble the old Soviet Empire, saw plainly and clearly that the United States was not even remotely interested in checking his aggression. When Barack Obama sent that message back to Putin via Dmitry Medvedev, the one that said, just tell Vladimir that I’ll have more flexibility after the election, Putin read a whole lot more into that, and by the way he was correct in his assertions. He saw a weak American President who was more concerned with his electoral prospects than with his role as the protector of the free world, that shield against unchecked aggression, and the last hope of nations not capable of defending themselves against an aggressive and reawakened Soviet neighbor. He saw a vacuous man so devoid of substance, who’s ineptitude was matched only by his arrogance and vanity. There’s a reason why these examples of thuggish tin pot aggression only happen during Democrat Administrations, and that reason is a complete lack of respect for those Democrats we’ve mistakenly chosen to be Presidents. Barack Obama is an unserious man, and the only people who fail to see this are Americans. Unfortunately, Vladimir Putin was able to see through it immediately, and he endeavored to make the times far more serious in nature from the moment our man child President joined him on the world stage.

There’s something else I’ve found troubling about this President, and Cillizza manages to mention it as a perk, one of those unfair demands we mere mortals place on this impossible task he’s undertaken for our ungrateful benefit. Every time some piece of bad news hits this Administration, the next day we’ll see a heavily covered news story on almost every network about the President addressing the least important piece of minutia available in our collective subconscious. When the separatists shot down a passenger jet with the support of Vladimir, Barack Obama made a big showing the next day of signing an Executive Order dealing with homosexuals working for federal contractors. As the world burns, our President isn’t playing the violin, he’s arranging, for the umpteenth time, how the chairs in the auditorium are aligned. When the IRS commissioner testified in Congress that Seven Hard drives randomly crashed causing an obstruction to a very pertinent investigation, our President spent the next day in front of a bank of microphones discussing the importance of children’s school lunches, and how important it was for his wife to monitor how well I was feeding my kid. Mr. Cillizza, that’s not juggling the important duties of the Presidency, that’s dodging the responsibilities of the job.

With that out of the way, the crisis on our Southern Border as well, is the direct result of this President’s purposeful incompetence. He wanted to create this crisis in order to cajole Congress into passing his immigration plan. In that regard, he has succeeded. We have the crisis he wanted. He deployed our border patrol agents 40 miles inside our borders so that anyone trying to come here would be able to, and once caught, would face hearings and court proceedings with an appointed defense attorney, rather than being turned away. He gave Central American nations our tax dollars to help them ship their kids here, and advertised for them to do so, telling them what to say once here, so that they would have a greater chance of avoiding deportation. Our President has governed with the philosophy that it is far easier to establish his will when we fear a crisis. So, of course these past six years have been a continual crisis, with America skating from one emergency to the next, each one culminating with the consolidation of increasing amounts of power, all flowing to that diminished bully pulpit Cillizza seems so worried about. This current immigration crisis is no exception to that rule, and I’m sure it’s only a matter of time until the beneficent Bamster picks up his magic pen and once again flouts the Constitutional constraints placed upon his office.

As for, “walking the fine line,” with respect to his treatment of our only true ally in the Middle East, someone please clue Mr. Cillizza into the fact that this is precisely the problem with Barack Obama’s foreign policy, encapsulated to its purest form. Our ally, Israel, has been under attack since they pulled out of Gaza in 2005. Since that time, over 8,000 rockets have been fired into Israeli civilian neighborhoods, and if it were any other nation on Earth, no one would have urged restraint in the response, that any answer be proportional, (which I still maintain is the dumbest concept ever to have been developed by man kind,) Our ally is under attack, and the only possible end to this attack would be to the unconditional surrender of an evil enemy. The only way that that will happen is if they deliver an overwhelming military show of force, breaking their enemy’s infrastructure, killing their soldiers, and destroying their will to commit further acts of violence. It is an enemy by the way that is not interested in peace, coexistence, or allowing any Jews to live ever, on the entire planet. Walking a fine line to borrow the idiotic phrase penned by the author of this article, is exactly the problem, and its one that’s been shared by American Presidents for the entirety of Israel’s existence, (with the exception of course of Richard Nixon. I find it strikingly odd that the one President who showed unwavering support for Israel also had the reputation as being an Anti-Semite.) Doing the right thing may sometimes cause the world to react negatively, especially since moral equivalency has found its way into much of the public discourse, but that does not mean that we should shrink away from that course of action. Part of a President’s job is to make the right decisions, even if it means a loss of international popularity for him personally.

You may recall that after Carter, we had Reagan. Carter was hailed as a genius, the most intelligent man, in terms of sheer IQ to have ever served as our President. Reagan was hailed as an affable oaf, a man so dumb it was a miracle that he could put his pants on all by himself. Yet somehow, after the Time piece about how it was impossible in the modern world to succeed as President, somehow the dim witted Reagan, (sarcasm intended,) did just that, and he made it look easy. No Mr. Cillizza, it’s not impossible to succeed as a President, one only needs to implement policies that divest power from Washington and return the freedom that built this great nation to those very people who make it all work. That’s the difference between Reagan and Carter, or for that matter hopefully, Obama and who ever follows.

Cross Posted from Musings of a Mad Conservative.

Conservative Democrat Sighted In Alaska!

by Flyovercountry ( 451 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Election 2014, Progressives at July 16th, 2014 - 7:00 am

Cryptozoologists the world over have been seen dancing in the streets the last few nights. With the rumored sighting of the mythical creature known as a Conservative Democrat in the state of Alaska, this group of tin foil hatted survivalists and pseudo scientists are now claiming that other mythical creatures can be proven to exist by the often used rule of nonsensical extension. “That’s all the proof we need to state that Bigfoot, Nessie, and the Chupacabra are all real,” insisted Dick Dire, a self proclaimed professor of cryptozoology from the pretend University of Transylvania, located in upstate Washington.

Here’s the sighting from earlier this week that kicked off the jubilation.

Senate Democrat’s reelection pitch to Alaskans: I’m a thorn in Obama’s side

BARROW, Alaska — When Sen. Mark Begich talks about his role in American politics, he describes himself as a sharp object, sent to Washington to jab at President Obama.

“I’ll be a thorn in his [posterior],” Begich (D-Alaska) said in an interview. “There’s times when I’m a total thorn, you know, and he doesn’t appreciate it.”

That metaphor is at the heart of Begich’s political self-image — and, now, his reelection campaign. Begich is running in an age of congressional weakness. Earmarks are dead. The Hill is gridlocked. So Begich has little hope of doing what Alaska always expects its politicians to do: bring home boatloads of money through legislation.

Instead, Begich is running on his power to nag.

Begich tells voters that, as a Democrat holding a Senate seat in a red state, he is a man the president has to listen to. And he says he uses that access to badger the administration for things that benefit Alaska, such as more permits for oil and gas drilling.

emphasis mine.

Interesting that Begich notes that the President has to listen to Senators from his own party situated in red states when it comes to granting permits for new oil exploration, seeing as that as of today, there has not been a single instance of such a permit being granted, for the entirety of either Begich’s nor Obama’s term in office. Even with that however, exactly what has Mark Begich done in six years that might even remotely be considered to have annoyed the President in the slightest manner, let alone rise to the level of thorn in his side?

Pryor voted for Dodd/Frank, Obamacare, Cap and Trade, every Obama Judicial Nominee, has not said one word to oppose the beyond amok expansion of the EPA, said nary a peep when Barack announced that he has a pen and phone, and those two tools alone will allow him to ignore the Constitutional constraints of his office. I’m not sure if there’s a single instance of Mark Begich bucking his President and voting in any manner against the man or his agenda. On the IRS targeting scandal, silence from Begich, as with Fast and Furious. We’ve not heard one thing from Begich’s office regarding Pigford, nor did he chime in on Solyndra, and all of those numerous examples of financial catastrophe known as the green fairy’s list of subsidy. So, where exactly does the thorn-in-his-side mythology gain its life?

The answer of course is political necessity. Begich won his election through chicanery, and now he faces his prospects for reelection without the confluence of bizarre circumstances that enabled him to win election in the first place. So, for that reason, as with many Democrats during election season, Barry Goldwater becomes someone to the left of Vladimir Lennon just long enough to fool voters into believing the myth. Mark Bagech isn’t a liberal you see, you’ve gotten it all wrong. He’s going back to our nation’s capitol to oppose the Bamster, which is easier done as a memeber of the Bamster’s own party, rather than adding to the ranks of those who oppose him out rightly somehow.

Cross Posted from Musings of a Mad Conservative.