Friday, October 24, 2014

Third Time's a Charm!

From RCP. I guess it figures that someone whose nickname is now "Mark Uterus" would make a huge Freudian slip on the campaign trail.

"I'm so proud of our country," Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO) said as he introduced First Lady Michelle Obama at a campaign event on Thursday. "We showed that Dr. Martin Luther King [Jr.] had it right. Which is that in America, at our best, we judge people by the content of their color."

Udall quickly corrected himself.

"The content of their character, not the character of their skin," he said.

"I got it right. I got it both ways!" he said the audience which gave an audible reaction.

You meant you want to have it both ways, maybe.

New Open Comment Thread

I just added a new feature to the blog here, and I'm hoping people will find it useful. If no one does, I'll go out in the woods and throw rocks at small, innocent animals.

No, seriously, in the spirit of "Open Line Friday", I created an Open Comments Page where people can go any time and leave a comment about anything they'd like to see covered here, or to vent, or to exercise their First Amendment rights, etc. You get the idea.

To the purpose of making it as easy as possible to access this wonderful invention, I have posted this cute little picture over in the right-hand column so it is easy to access from the home page or any page of this blog. As you might imagine, I am thoroughly impressed by my own genius.

At this point, it may be a good idea to review our de facto commenting policy here at Est Quod Est as stated five years ago:

Don’t use threatening language toward other commenters or their expensive pets. Not responsible for suicides. Please bring your own ropes and petards.

"You're all puppets tangled in strings!"


A Resource on the Inherent Violence of Islam

I found a good list of violent verses from the Qur'an the other day which is well to study. I decided to post the list on a page here. It is a good resource to use when making the case that Islam contains enough inherently violent teachings to fuel the radical Muslims or Islamic extremists—however you wish to name them—with religious authority on which to base their violent acts.

Addressed also within these verses are the moderate Muslims or non-violent Muslims as we might call them, the ones who will not engage in Jihad or Holy War. The Qur'an anticipates their existence, and it doesn't speak very highly of them. At best, they are "not equal" to the Jihahis, and as the last verse here shows, they will receive a "grievous penalty" in the afterlife.

Qur'an (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."

Qur'an (4:95) - "Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons...."

Qur'an (9:38-39) - "O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place."

Thinking people should all admit that there is something very violent about Islam as it acts in the world which sets itself apart from all other religious belief systems. But to those infected with political correctness this admission doesn't seem fair. Haven't there been examples of adherents of other religions using their beliefs to justify violence? Yes, but much fewer cases and their actions are always disavowed easily by coreligionists using the true tenets of their religion. Quantity is itself a quality, and this should never be forgotten in the argument.

It should also be remembered that those people taking a politically-correct view of Islam like Ben Affleck are themselves victims of Islam's strategy of deceit. Mohammed's famous quote "War is deceit" cannot be denied in the context of carrying out Jihad, and it is not hard to find sources to confirm this, for example: How Taqiyya Alters Islam's Rules of War, and this link about Islam's general teachings on lying. So we should attempt to patiently correct these victims so they will see the true nature of Islam as deceitful and violent.

Thursday, October 23, 2014

Michelle Malkin's Thumb-nail Bio of Hunter Biden

Vice President Joe Biden's son is a drug-abuser, and I guess the most interesting thing is that this fact has been known for some time. He's had special treatment due to his famous dad for pretty much all his life. Malkin relates just how charmed his life has been here. Excerpt:

Hunter's first job, acquired after Joe Biden won his 1996 Senate re-election bid in Delaware, was with MBNA.

That's the credit card conglomerate and top campaign finance donor that forked over nearly $63,000 in bundled primary and general contributions from its employees to then Sen. Biden. As I've reported previously, Daddy Biden secured his custom-built, multimillion-dollar house in Delaware's ritziest Chateau Country neighborhood with the help of a leading MBNA corporate executive. Average Joe went on to carry legislative water for MBNA in the Senate for years.

Hunter zoomed up to senior vice president by early 1998 and then scored a plum position in the Clinton administration's Commerce Department, specializing in "electronic commerce" before returning to MBNA three years later as a high-priced "consultant." While he collected those "consulting" (translation: nepotistic access-trading) fees, Hunter became a "founding partner" in the lobbying firm of Oldaker, Biden and Belair in 2002.

William Oldaker was Papa Biden's former fundraiser, campaign treasurer and general counsel -- a Beltway barnacle whose Democratic machine days dated back to Teddy Kennedy's 1980 presidential bid. Under Oldaker's tutelage, Hunter lobbied for drug companies, universities and other deep-pocketed clients to the tune of nearly $4 million billed to the company by 2007.

Coincidentally, then-Illinois Sen. Barack Obama personally requested and secured cozy taxpayer-subsidized earmarks for several of Hunter's clients. Hunter got himself appointed to multiple corporate board positions, including a directorship with Eudora Global.

It's an investment firm founded by one Jeffrey Cooper, head of one of the biggest asbestos-litigation firms in the country. SimmonsCooper, based in Madison County, Ill., donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to Biden the Elder's various political campaigns over the past decade -- all while the firm poured $6.5 million into lobbying against a key tort-reform bill, which former Sen. Biden worked hard to defeat. Cooper also contributed to the Delaware attorney-general campaign of Hunter's older brother, Beau, and paid Beau for legal work on lucrative asbestos-litigation cases.

As Malkin quips in her intro, "Where are the Occupy Wall Street rabble-rousers and enemies of elitist privilege when you need them? Straining their neck muscles to look the other way."

Ferguson protestor: "St. Louis is going to burn."

Whoa! I told you these Ferguson protestors aren't going to crawl back under their rocks if Wilson isn't indicted. They are not going to let a crisis go to waste, that's for sure. Conn Carroll from seems to agree with me. Excerpt:

"This is not a black and white thing," Ferguson activist Angela Whitman told CNN after The New York Times story Friday, "this is about what's right and wrong. St. Louis is in trouble, because if this is what Darren Wilson said, and they believe him, St. Louis is going to burn."

Whitman's let it burn attitude seemed to be the prevailing sentiment among Brown supporters this Sunday when they harassed people outside a St. Louis Rams game, holding the American flag upside down, while punching and spitting on passers by.

Will the violence at the next Rams game be worse or better now that it is becoming clearer Wilson will not be indicted? If it does get worse, it is hard to see how more leaks could possibly prevent a full blown riot.

I suppose some commendation should be given for this "leak strategy" which is attempting to let the air out of the anger balloon a little bit at a time. But what if that isn't the way this kind of blind rage works? What if this will just give everyone more time to recruit their old OWS buds from years back for when the big news hits?

People can gripe about how "oh, the authorities mishandled this" all they want but in the end, this is all about an idiot who was so high he thought he could take on an armed policeman.

Feel the love for CNN in Ferguson (Language Warning)

"CNN lied on Occupy Wall Street!"

"Hey! you're all run by Zionists!"

"Shut it down!! Just like we shut down Walmart!"

Wait, what are you guys doing here? I thought you were in Ferguson protesting an innocent man being shot? What's all this about Palestinians and Occupy Wall Street?

When the cop is not convicted or is not even indicted will these clowns "go gentle into that good night"? I don't think so.

I must admit it is sort of gratifying to see a CNN reporter get "mugged by reality" as the saying goes.

"Please ignore my vacant stares"

Ba da ba da ba, ba ba ba da da....

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

Real Vision

Died too young.

Michael Brown's hands were not up

The Daily Caller has the story.

Michael Brown did not have his hands over his head when he was shot by Ferguson, Missouri police officer Darren Wilson, a self-identified eyewitness told the grand jury investigating Brown’s death.

The eyewitness recounted his firsthand observations to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch late Wednesday after speaking to the grand jury this week. The grand jury’s decision about whether or not to indict Wilson is expected in mid-November.

Brown had his arms at his sides during at least one phase of his confrontation with officer Wilson, but he never raised his hands over his head at any point, according to the witness. Brown continued to approach Wilson against police orders and stood about 20 to 25 feet away from the officer when he was fatally shot, the witness said.

But will this keep the protestors from doing that "hands up don't shoot" chant? Probably not. But hopefully it will take the wind out of their lying sails.

Tuesday, October 21, 2014


Dear Joe,
I am sorry I hurt
you. Please forgive
me. Please.

The Wendy Davis Hat Trick

There have been 3 articles in the last several days about Wendy Davis's failing, flailing campaign that have got me to first shake my head, then cringe, and finally to drop my jaw in disbelief. Here they are:

Head Shake: Wendy Davis is Selling Baby Onesies

Cringe: Wendy Davis Questions Greg Abbott’s Support For Interracial Marriage When He’s Married To A Hispanic Woman

Jaw Drop: Wendy Davis Attacks Abbott With Dildos (Yes, dildos. Warning: the article also mentions "blowjobs" and how horrible it is that Abbott is against them also.)

You can't make this stuff up.

Picture hat tip goes to Legal Insurrection. Great shot, guys.

Josh Mandel Deserves Second Term as Treasurer

I remember that I was initially enamored of Mike Huckabee in 2008, but then he made a remark about Mitt Romney "getting rid of your job" or something. I immediately thought "But that's what I want a GOP President to do! Get elected, go to Washington and get rid of government jobs!" I guess I was a proto-Tea Party member.

So I'm all for re-electing Josh Mandel, and it should be a no-brainer for Ohioans. He's saved mucho dollars and reduced staff size in his department by 15%. That's a huge accomplishment in government where many officials are generally trying to spread the tax payers wealth around the office and then say they need more funding. He's just raked in endorsements from the Columbus Dispatch, the Ohio Society of CPA's and the Canton Repository. Here's the CantonRep Editorial in its entirety.

Our view: Office has managed money well with fewer employees

In four years as Ohio treasurer, Josh Mandel has done a commendable job of managing the state’s money. The Repository editorial board believes he has earned a second term.

Mandel, a Republican, helped to maintain an AAA rating from Standard & Poor’s for the state’s $4 billion STAR Ohio investment fund despite a still-wobbly economy. He also saved several million dollars by refinancing some of the state’s long-term debt.

Yet Mandel also was able to cut the treasurer’s staff from 140 employees in 2011, when he took office, to 117 and to reduce his office’s budget by nearly $5 million. He also eliminated the department’s fleet of vehicles and got rid of a host of smaller expenses epitomized by a contract with a company that watered the plants in the treasurer’s office. Mandel’s switch to electronic banking ended the need for an employee to drive from Columbus to Cleveland daily to deposit thousands of checks.

Early in his first term, Mandel’s office created searchable databases of salaries for public employees in Ohio and of state-owned properties and buildings. Mandel also has been advocating legislation he proposed that would create an online database of state spending over the past five years and require future treasurers to keep the database current. The House has passed the bill.

Mandel has always worn his political ambitions on his sleeve, moving from Lyndhurst City Council and the Ohio House to the treasurer’s office in less than a decade and making an unsuccessful bid for the U.S. Senate a year after becoming treasurer. His backing by North Canton businessman Benjamin Suarez, who was prosecuted but acquitted this year on seven of eight federal campaign finance-related charges, has given Democrats an opening as Mandel runs for re-election.

But given the outstanding performance of the treasurer’s office, his opponent, state Rep. Connie Pillich, hasn’t made a convincing case even for her key proposal, installing an inspector general in the treasurer’s office.

The Ohio Society of CPAs, in endorsing Mandel’s re-election, cited his efforts to pass the “online checkbook” bill and his receiving a clean audit from the state auditor’s office each year. Earlier this year, Mandel received an Excellence in Financial Management Award from the 15,000-member Association of Government Accountants for making “significant improvements for Ohio taxpayers.”

Josh Mandel has done just that as state treasurer and deserves a second term.

Maybe Mandel was a proto-Tea Partier too?

I'm fascinated with this

I always felt bad for the angel dude in the painting. He's thinking "Man, I worked so hard on the rhombohedron then they come along and say 'Oh, we just want two small tetrahedra, thanks' so I end up doing a double truncation and now I'm left with whatever this thing is."

So 500 years later we should celebrate the fact that someone decided to turn Dürer's useless lump into an awesome paperweight.

These reflections are probably at least somewhat rooted in my recent viewing of the most triumphant film Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure.

Byron York explains why there is no Surgeon General

The Ebola scare has raised awareness that there is currently no one serving as Surgeon General. Is it all the Republicans fault like some liberal pundits claim? Of course not; they don't control the Senate explains Byron York. Excerpt:

There is, however, an Obama nominee for surgeon general, Dr. Vivek Murthy, who has not been confirmed by the Senate after more than a year of waiting. Why hasn't Murthy won Senate approval in all that time?

To hear some of the president's advocates tell it, it's the Republicans' fault. "GOP blocks Surgeon General nominee," tweeted Eric Boehlert of the pro-Obama group Media Matters. "After blocking surgeon general nominee, Republican blames Obama for surgeon general vacancy," added another pro-Obama group, ThinkProgress.

Before getting into the details, here is the basic fact about charges that Republicans are blocking the surgeon general nominee: There are 55 Democrats in the Senate. Since Majority Leader Harry Reid changed the rules to kill filibusters for nominations, it would take just 51 votes to confirm Murthy. Democrats could do it all by themselves, even if every Republican opposed. But Democrats have not confirmed Murthy.

Why haven't they confirmed him? It turns out that the guy is embarrassingly political and obsessed with guns. He's behind the whole "Guns are a health care issue" nonsense, you know, asking Jimmy where daddy keeps his revolver when he's getting a check-up.

In 2008 Murthy, a Yale-trained physician currently affiliated with Harvard, founded a group called Doctors for America. Actually, he first called the organization Doctors for Obama; after Obama's victory, Doctors for Obama became Doctors for America. The group devoted itself to lobbying for passage of Obamacare.

The organization's political focus continued after the Obamacare battle was won. In 2012, Murthy got a lot of attention when he expressed frustration with opponents of his preferred gun control policies. "Tired of politicians playing politics w/guns," he tweeted, "putting lives at risk b/c they're scared of NRA. Guns are a health care issue."

In January 2013, after the Sandy Hook shootings, Doctors for America sent a letter to Congress advocating an assault weapon ban, universal background checks, mandatory waiting periods, a gun buyback program, and other proposals favored by gun control groups.

If nothing else, the letter showed that Murthy's approach to his profession remained deeply political. In any event, Murthy's activism came back to haunt him in November of 2013, when the president nominated him to be surgeon general.

So this guy is poison to Democrats seeking re-election in "red" states.

The National Rifle Association took a strong stand against Murthy, a position that caught the attention not only of Republicans but of red-state Democrats seeking re-election.

"Murthy's previous statements about gun control being a public health issue made him toxic to Democrats in cycle like [Mary] Landrieu, [Mark] Pryor, and [Mark] Begich," says one senior Republican aide.

So the truth is that there is bi-partisan opposition to confirming Vivek Murthy, and anyone who blames the Republican minority — who cannot filibuster under the new Senate rules — is lying.

"We are creating a cultural shift in how we live and eat!"

"If we keep pushing forward, we have the potential to transform the health of an ENTIRE GENERATION!!"

Well, sort of. As long as they eat all their meals at school.

There's all kinds of reasons why liberals don't want to touch SNAP, EBT or any of those programs. They know what it's really about: vote buying and control.

This video is cute, sort of funny and instructive of a double standard. But I don't think the interviewees see any double standard at all, even after they have it revealed to them. That's because they see the two things entirely differently; to them it's an "apples and oranges" situation, excuse the healthy food metaphor. Making a school lunch healthier at the expense of yumminess is fine for one reason: the kids don't vote yet. However, someone with an EBT card in their hand is going to be miffed if they can't buy what they want with it and it's going to be perceived as the deprivation of an entitlement. This might very well be reflected at the ballot box. If you've spent any time with welfare recipients you know this for a fact. Any real understanding of the power of the modern day liberal left relies on this welfare-pawn machinery.

Monday, October 20, 2014

Huh? Wha? What's SB5?

More bad news for Ed FitzGerald. The memory of the voter defeat of Senate Bill 5 is the great hope of the Democrats if you follow FitzGerald's Facebook page or the comboxes in PD articles. But it doesn't seem like it is going to matter:

George Edge of Grove City and Judy McLaughlin of Canton both voted against Senate Bill 5 in a statewide referendum nearly three years ago.

Both had union members in their household when they opposed the law, which would have stripped many collective-bargaining rights from about 360,000 state and local government workers.

But now both say they are voting for the re-election of Gov. John Kasich, even though he led the campaign to pass the measure.

The two voters are part of a modern political phenomenon in Ohio: the turnaround from a 62 percent to 38 percent defeat of the collective-bargaining law in November 2011 to an apparent runaway victory for Kasich coming on Nov. 4.

Why would celibate gay men cohabit?

Maclin Horton reflects on Eve Tushnet's commentary and opines. Excerpt:

I admit that I really don't see a good resolution for that problem. One thought the question provokes, though, is that her vision of some sort of place for "celibate partnership" (there's a link to further discussion of that idea in her piece) is something that I can see more easily workable for lesbians than for gay men. Despite the abundant evidence, most women don't really understand just how commanding and obsessive the male sex drive is. They may understand it as an observed datum, but since they don't experience it, they still tend to underestimate its power.

Well put.

A problem that I have seen growing for some time within the whole "purpose of sexuality debate" is the downplaying of the difference between male and female and the accenting of the differences in orientations. I don't care if same-sex attraction is completely innate—a position of which I am highly skeptical—the gender of a person is always more determinative of behavior. And behavior, as all men and women know, is what lands you in trouble as far as your relationship with God goes, whether or not there is a risk of pregnancy.

The old cynical line is that men use relationships to get sex and women use sex to get relationships. And although we as Christians want to rise above the wrongful use of others for whatever purpose and enter into a covenant of mutual self-giving, we can't deny the truth of the difference between the genders with regard to sexual urges.

There is a mistaken belief out having to do with gay men, that they can most easily be compared to women. Unfortunately this seems to lead people to forget that their bodies are still male and they have the same fundamental hormones that heterosexuals do.

Perhaps on the surface gay men exhibit feminine traits to attract other men. But having had some experience being around them, they remind me more of men who have not learned to control their male urges, and maybe they would rather not learn. Hence they form sexual relationships with other men so they don't have to.

I'm sure this observation is very offensive to some homosexuals, but the same observation about sexual immaturity and irresponsibility can be made about other men in general. Sports teams, for example; remember the Duke LaCrosse team? In my hometown, the few gang-rape scandals had to do with drunk girls and the HS football team.

But going back to male effeminacy—are gay men really more like women, or are they simulating secondary characteristics? Can we all acknowledge that they are not trying to be more like women in the sex drive department? For example, one gay guy I knew in Pittsburgh wanted to fix me up with his female cousin whom, he assured me, had enormous breasts. I seriously never heard any other human talk about his own relative this way. But it cannot be doubted that this is men's locker room talk, not women's.

Andy Warhol made close study of men who worked extremely hard to look like women consciously, i.e., drag queens. He made these astute observations in his book The Philosophy of Andy Warhol. Excerpt:

Among other things, drag queens are living testimony to the way women used to want to be, the way some people still want them to be, and the way some women still actually want to be. Drags are ambulatory archives of ideal moviestar womanhood. They perform a documentary service, usually consecrating their lives to keeping the glittering alternative alive and available for (not-too-close) inspection.

To get a private room in a hospital you used to have to be very rich but now you can get one if you're a drag queen. If you're a drag queen they want to isolate you from the other patients, but maybe they have enough for a ward now.

I'm fascinated by boys who spend their lives trying to be complete girls, because they have to work so hard—double-time—getting rid of all the tell-tale male signs and drawing in all the female signs. I'm not saying it's the right thing to do, I'm not saying it's a good idea, I'm not saying it's not self-defeating and self-destructive, and I'm not saying it's not possibly the single most absurd thing a man can do with his life. What I'm saying is, it is very hard work. You can't take that away from them. It's hard work to look like the complete opposite of what nature made you and then to be an imitation woman of what was only a fantasy woman in the first place. When they took the movie stars and stuck them in the kitchen, they weren't stars any more—they were just like you and me.

Emphasis mine. In other words, picturing a woman in a non-sexual place like a kitchen and the fetish dissolves with the fantasy. Only for the length of a Hollywood flick can a woman remain raring for hot romance. Whereas a man is ready jump into bed 24 hours, 7 days a week.

This is why I would suggest that "celibate partnership" is probably not possible for most healthy, young (under 85) homosexual men if they plan on being in close quarters together at all. Maybe a gay man should consider having a "celibate partnership" with a lesbian if he is really not attracted to women and he is serious about celibacy? I have a friend who owns an apartment which he rents to such a couple. He is gay and is a cook at a restaurant. She is a lesbian and works in a very physical construction job and appreciates coming home to good meals. Who knows; maybe they'll fall in love, or maybe they already have a very deep fraternal love for one another.

But just to conclude before I ramble much longer. When Maclin describes the male sex drive as "commanding and obsessive" he is spot on, and this is true for guys who are trying not to let themselves run off on a feeding frenzy. The idea that there is any less drive on the part of men because they are gay isn't supported by any evidence. And I think we need to stress that the reality of male and female is in mankind's immovable roots while this concept of orientation is out in the branches where there is far more fluttering and flexing.

"All will be revealed"

Newsflash: Pope Still Catholic, will beatify Pope Paul VI

Jennifer Roback Morse writes the following for the Ruth Institute on her blog:

Ok, everyone, listen up.  There is no longer any doubt: Pope Francis is definitely Catholic! And completely orthodox on sexual morality!  At the end of the Synod, he will beatify Pope Paul VI, author of Humanae Vitae.  This action leaves no doubt at all where the Holy Father stands.  He absolutely does not have to beatify Paul VI. His doing so will be a major-league thorn in the side to the self-styled “progressives” and “reformers.” He is “sealing the deal” on Church teaching on contraception by beatifying Paul VI.

Paul VIBesides all that, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI attended the ceremony.  The liberal world loves to hate Benedict, and has tried to create a “narrative” which opposes the “good guy” Francis to the “bad guy” Benedict. Actually, they are on the same team.  They may be playing “good cop, bad cop” as a strategy, as parents must sometimes do with recalcitrant children.  But there is no doubt at all that these Holy Fathers are united.

People, do not allow yourself to be triangulated by media games pitting Pope Emeritus against the current Pope.  Do not allow yourself to be sucked into the liberal spin machine vortex, by repeating their narrative.  They have enough outlets for telling their story, don’t you think?

Get behind Pope Francis. Spread this word as far as you can, in as positive a manner as you can. Church teaching is not changing. We still believe that human sexuality is a great gift from God, that it is deeply meaningful, and that we are not to demean that act by deliberately separating the unitive and the procreative aspects of the sexual act.

Thank the Father, Son and Holy Spirit that we will continue to witness to this beautiful truth, when all the world is teaching the opposite: “A good society must strive to separate sex from procreation and both from marriage. Sex has no intrinsic meaning, only the meaning we happen to assign to it. We ourselves are nothing but meaningless atoms, bumping into each other at random in the cosmos, for no particular reason at all.”

If you have a Facebook page, you are a member of the New Media. If you have a blog, you are a member of the New Media. Use your microphone to make it clear: the Catholic Church will not be changing its doctrine on sexual morality.  If Francis had plans to do so, there is simply no way he would even mention the prophetic voice of Paul VI, much less take steps to canonize him.

BTW, if you are not sure whether Paul VI was prophetic, read paragraph 17 of Humanae Vitae.  Think about the “one child” policy in China, and realize that Paul VI predicted this type of human rights abuse in 1968.

I realize that Dr. Morse's viewpoint is not the only one out there. Some people are afraid that the Church is "giving way" by even considering certain questions. But I so see it that way. I'm more in line with Fr. Longnecker's take on the synod, and he has criticized the Pope's style in the past.

So please fire away in the comments, and don't hold anything back, man.