Someone on the radio said these Chrysler workers were also driving Fords, but I can't tell from the vid; I'm not an autophile. However I wouldn't blame them. I'm certainly not going to be driving a car made by these clowns. H/T The Blaze.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Thursday, September 23, 2010
What happens when an Australian Muslim cleric calls for the beheading of a Dutch politician?
What happens when an American pastor no one ever heard of threatens to burn a Koran?
It ignites an international outcry.
Well honestly, what media outlet wants to report a "dog bites man" story? A Muslim threatening to behead someone is just that.
Maybe it has to do with absorption. Those Dutch people can absorb the loss of a politician like Geert Wilders, but the Muslims cannot absorb the loss of a few books which the Saudi government gives away for free.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
You have to watch this. There is so much here. Obama's Organizing for America gins up a rent-a-mob. Breitbart starts engaging him and they call him gay.
Then someone orders the rent-a-mob to back off, probably because they saw the Fox cameras, etc. Breitbart receives an apology from a handler named Eugene H. Winkler, who googles out to be a Chicago preacher and social activist associated with the group Protestants for the common good.
Then I realized that this Eugene Winkler was the angry guy who earlier slipped and said "We're not paying anybody!" Then it's like (oops) "Nobody's getting paid!" They know when the jig is up.
Breitbart is going to take down the left with cheap camcorders.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Brian Darling from RedState details the beginning of rationing based on the brave new world of Obamacare. Excerpt:
This past August, an advisory panel for the Food and Drug Administration recommended that the late stage cancer drug Avastin be “de-labeled” because of cost considerations. It is critical to note, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) did not propose denying cancer victims the right to the drug because of the safety of the drug, but because of a formula containing cost as factor.
Senator David Vitter (R-LA) has taken a leadership position on the issue and has written letters to the FDA and expressing concern about “cost rationing.” Senator Vitter is worried that the Avastin case will be the beginning of ObamaCare rationing for drugs that may extend life. Rationing for seriously ill patients based on cost.
Should the FDA agree with the advisory panel’s recommendation, private insurers and Medicare will drop coverage for the drug for breast cancer patients, despite the fact that the drug extends life for an average of six months. This is a classic example of why many conservatives are concerned about government run health care.
Well, there's always bribery. Of course that's only for the well-to-do. So where does that leave us?
I'm telling anyone who will listen. You have got to get rid of associations with bad people. If you don't distance yourself immediately people will wonder about you. Ron Paul didn't have the nerve to do it, and it really hurt him. Now David Frum has seemingly refused to do it, and so we see him descending further into irrelevance in the conservative commentariat.
Monday, September 20, 2010
I'm digging into this document, Shariah: The Threat to America which I had mentioned earlier and I have to continue talking about it here. There are too many people, especially religious people, who are talking nonsense about the Islamist problem because they believe wrongly that all religions deserve equal respect, or because they are irritated with the conservative hawks who are leading the charge on the issue, or because they simply cannot connect the dots―these are just several examples of the many failures in logic I've seen. Check out this excerpt from the introduction (page 16):
When Army Major Nidal Hassan murdered thirteen people at Ft. Hood, Texas on November 5, 2009, the media, as well as the FBI, searched for answers as to why this American-born military officer would commit such an unconscionable act – the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil since September 11, 2001. While myriad theories and opinions were offered, few in the Administration, the media, academia or the rest of the elite seemed capable of comprehending the killer’s motives – even as he expressly stated them for years leading up to the event.
In fact, Hasan fully articulated his intentions to senior officers in the U.S. Army Medical Corps years before his rampage, and the warnings were ignored when brought to higher ranks. In a fifty-slide briefing given to his medical school class in 2007, entitled “Koranic View as it Relates to Muslims in the U.S Military,” (41) Hasan articulated the requirement that Muslims under Islamic Law conduct Jihad against non-Muslims, and he specifically defined the parameters within which Muslims must act. For Hasan, the relevant parameter was being deployed to the Middle East as this would put him in a status where he could be required to “kill without right.” As can be demonstrated in detail, Hasan’s presentation tracks exactly with Islamic Law (42) – and he should know since, at the time of his massacre he was the acting Imam for Ft. Hood.
Had anyone in the audience been taught the Enemy Threat Doctrine (i.e., shariah on jihad), Hasan’s amazingly candid presentation, which thoroughly explained his concerns given the fundamental concepts of shariah, would have alerted authorities in time to prevent his attack. Furthermore, the briefing contained an explicit declaration of Hasan’s allegiance as a Muslim soldier in the Army of Allah. And yet, seemingly, none of the audience of senior medical officers recognized the threat that Hasan posed to his fellow soldiers. Hasan announced himself an enemy combatant and no one was either able or willing to process that information properly.
I either never knew or had forgotten Army Major Nidal Hasan was an Imam. It remains an amazing thing to me that this story disappeared so quickly. The fact that everyone―including the military―was embarrassed by this event is a good reason to keep it in the front of the news.
This entire document is a serious analysis of the Islamist threat and an attempt to explain to the Western reader the thought process of the Jihadists, their associations, tactics and strategies. It's not alarmist, neither is it easy reading. But I advise everyone to try to slog through it.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Sore losers are never attractive, never sensible and never properly place the blame. Jennifer Rubin reminds us that this hold true in politics as well. Excerpt:
After the across-the-board defeats in 2008, conservative pundits didn’t rail at the voters. You didn’t see the right blogosphere go after the voters as irrational (How could they elect someone so unqualified? They’ve gone bonkers!) with the venom that the left now displays. Instead, there was a healthy debate — what was wrong with the Republican Party and with the conservative movement more generally? We had a somewhat artificial debate between traditionalists and reformers. If anything, the anger was directly (unfairly, in my mind) against George W. Bush (whose tax cuts even many Democrats now want to extend, and whose strategy in Iraq allowed Obama to withdrawal troops in victory), and to the hapless McCain campaign (which spent the final days of the campaign ragging on its VP nominee).
This is yet another confirmation that the right and left look at America – and Americans – quite differently. The leftists view their countrymen as in dire need of supervision — by elites like them, of course. Americans are not competent to make decisions on their own, and left to their own devices, will run amok. Wall Streeters are greedy, New Yorkers are xenophobes, and the rest of us are Bible- and gun-huggers. And here we go again — acting out and acting up. Obama, the poor dear, just can’t talk sense to us.
This is entirely true in my experience. Post 2008 election discussions and arguments in which I participated were themed around candidates and strategies. Questions posed: Did Sarah Palin hurt the ticket? Would Romney have fared better? Should McCain have gone after the Rev. Wright stuff? My crazier friends suggested that McCain could have won if he'd brought up the birth certificate issue, but even they didn't blame the voters.
It would be wonderful if this were the year we finally buried the "blame the angry voters" meme altogether, however, I'm too realistic to hold my breath until I hear shoveling. But think about this: when liberals blame voter "fear and anger" like President Obama did in his Parma speech ("...the easiest thing for the other side to do is to ride this fear and anger all the way to Election Day....") they are really accusing independent and swing voters of possessing the anger, not right-wingers. We could wake up to find that we inherited a half million dollars, that our son just won a full scholarship to our favorite college and that we landed a long sought after promotion―and we'd still go vote Republican and conservative even if there were not a cloud in the sky and the home team was winning 10-0. We are not swayed one bit by emotion or lack thereof. It's the swing voters to whom these remarks refer; indeed, they are the intended targets of an attempted shaming. The left will chose this tactic over admitting that their policies are unpopular or that they are out-of-touch with the middle or that their message is outmoded, weak and ineffective.
I don't think it's going to work this year. That hope and change doesn't float anymore.