With Friends Like These. . .

It’s been a slow news summer, with the exception of one or two HUGE items. . . but how many times can we talk about Justin Beiber’s new album? ;) So let’s do a couple small items, then we can all get back to preparing for tryanmax's and T-Rav's birthdays!

● Silly Gays: You know that gays think with their genitalia, right? At least, that’s what Joy Behar tells us. She’s upset that a group of gay Republicans have endorsed Romney. More specifically, she questions their motives. She actually suggested that GOProud only endorsed Romney because they’re attracted to his sons:

“Could it be that the GOProud guys are just attracted to Mitt Romney's sons Matt, Mutt, Tag, Tip, Tack, and Bashful? Do you think that's the issue?”

No doubt she'll claim this was a joke, but could you imagine the outrage if a Republican suggested (even as a joke) that gays only voted for Obama because they were attracted to his children? Gays should be insulted because here is a prominent (idiot) liberal suggesting that they think through their sex organs. This woman is a mess.

● Brother Can You Spare A Stadium?: The Democrats are running so low on money that they are thinking of cancelling the opening kickoff to their convention in North Carolina. At the least, they apparently plan to move it to a smaller venue. Ha ha. This is despite Obama supposedly being prepared to raise a billion dollars, despite the unions being flush with billions in stimulus money, despite Hollywood emptying their pockets to help out. Where did it all go wrong? Oh, that's right, they proved to be idiots and everyone knows they’re going to lose!

Speaking of Hollywood, it looks like Obama is starting to skip the fundraisers they are doing for him. Apparently, it doesn’t fit with his manufactured image of “caring about normal people.”

● Fleeing A Sinking Convention: In a sign of how bad the PR is for the Democrats at the moment, Missouri Democrat (and neighbor of Mr. T. Rav) Sen. Claire McCaskill will apparently skip the convention. She gets added to a growing list of other Democrats who fear that being seen at that toxic venue will cause them problems with the voters. This list includes the Clintons and the West Virginia delegation. This is a bad, bad sign for Obama. When your friends don’t want to be seen with you, you know you’re in trouble.

● Patriotism Is The Last Refuge of Short Scoundrels: Clinton Labor Secretary and noted dwarf Robert Reich just said that Republicans aren’t patriots because we don’t want to pay taxes. Specifically, he said this: “True patriotism means paying for America.” This is interesting, since Republicans actually are the ones who are paying. Democrats don’t work, they leech, be they Democratic billionaires who avoid their taxes and demand federal subsidies for their business (cough cough Warren Buffett) or be they the army of Democratic voters who live on welfare and demand subsidies for everything they buy from their homes, to their student loans, to their heating fuel, to their food, to their kids’ school lunches. So using Reich’s formula, it turns out that Republicans are true patriots and Democrats aren’t. But then, we knew that already.

● No Habla Liberalismo: So get this, we all KNOW that Hispanics only care about immigration, right? That’s what we’re told by the left. Well, it turns out that’s not true. USA/Gallup just did a poll and it turns out that Hispanics care most about. . . get this. . . healthcare (21%), then unemployment (19%) and then comes immigration at 12%. Imagine that, they’re just like the rest of us.

● No One Could Have Known!: As usual, The Economist is slowly discovering what conservatives already knew. When the Arab Spring hit, The Economist went all giddy. They saw visions of westernized-socialist Arab diplomats taking over these countries and turning them into mini-Greeces. They dismissed anyone who suggested that things might not go so well. Arabs didn't really want fundamentalist Islam, we were assured. Well, now that Egypt has had its elections, The Economist has discovered to its horror that the same people who demand the destruction of Israel, who persecute Christians, and who murder their wives for no reason whatsoever, didn’t make the wisest choices as voters after all. Shocking. The selection of the Muslim Brotherhood candidate is not as bad as people fear, but The Economist has gone into full panic mode and is now wondering how nobody could have seen this coming. . . just like all liberals do when their fantasies implode.

Anything you'd like to add?

Not All Speech Should Be Protected

I love the internet. It’s provided me with hours of entertainment, it’s let me sell a book, and it’s let me meet all of you. That’s pretty darn cool. But the internet does have a downside. Specifically, it lets the most hateful turds do their best to intimidate those they don’t like. We need a law, dammit!! Actually, we don’t.

It really is undeniable that the internet can be a problem, particularly when it comes to “hate speech.” Indeed, some corners of the internet are a seething cauldron of hate and idiocy. But here’s the thing, we don’t need laws to stop hate or idiocy. For one thing, hate and idiocy don’t actually harm us. Sticks and stones, my friends. So why do we need more laws to stop things that don’t really harm us? Isn’t that just using the power of government to force your pet peeves on people?

Not to mention, letting people speak their minds and expose their twisted views is an incredibly useful tool for discovering who you shouldn’t trust. Would you rather know that the normal looking guy in the bowtie thinks Jews are evil creatures, or would you rather only know that he smiles a lot?

Equally problematic is the idea of how we define hate. One person’s hate is another person’s truth. So whose opinion is right, and where will the government draw the line? Moreover, how do you keep the hypersensitive from getting their views imposed through the government? They are the most likely to make such an attempt after all. Do we really trust that the government won’t start declaring things like Christianity “hate speech” merely because it argues that certain acts are immoral? Many liberals already make that argument.

Let’s face it, there are very strong reasons to allow hate speech and there really aren’t any valid ones which justify banning it except that some people don't like it.

But there is another angle to this. Sometimes people hide behind the First Amendment to do more than just spew hate and stupidity. Indeed, they cross over that line and advocate violence. Now that, is a real problem.

And that brings me to Jesse Morton, the founder of a militant Muslim website “Revolution Muslim.” Jesse just got sentenced to 11.5 years for making threats against the creators of South Park because of their episode featuring Mohammed in a bear suit. He also admitted to conspiring to solicit the murder of Seattle cartoonist Molly Norris, who drew Mohammed as part of a protest against the intimidation of Danish cartoonists.

Jesse’s conviction is exactly how “hate” speech needs to be curtailed. Rather than trying to ban people from spewing idiotic opinions, we should only punish those cross the line into advocating illegality. Jesse made threats and conspired to make threats involving the injury or murder of other individuals. That is not some nebulous hateful opinion, it is in fact a crime, and has always has been recognized as such since the foundations of our justice system were laid. When he crossed the line from giving opinion to soliciting crimes, he needed to be punished.

In fact, the same thing needs to be done to the army of idiots who are taking to Twitter to issue their own death threats. If you tweet that you will kill someone or rape them or their children, that is a threat and you should be locked up, whether your target is a public figure or not. If you ask someone to kill someone else, then you have solicited murder. If you suggest that it would please you if someone died or was raped, or you simply hope they are killed or raped, that is solicitation. Those are crimes.

The internet is indeed out of control, but it’s not the handful of lunatics whining about racial purity or how everyone else is evil that are the problem. The problem is this group of supposedly normal people who now think it’s acceptable to make threats or solicit crimes against political opponents they don’t like. It’s time these people got rounded up and sent to jail, just like Jesse Morton, so that people stop doing this. If something isn’t done soon, this will spin out of control, if it hasn’t already.

Thoughts?

Keep The "Bad" News Coming!

Every day I think I’ve covered the issues that matter and then people do stuff and more issues appear. I’m starting to think blogging is a Sisyphean task? In any event, we’ve got more sour grapes advance-excuses for Team Obama, bad news for Madame Pelosi, the NCAA and more!

● The Big Mo in Michigan: Romney has moved ahead of Obama in Michigan. Yes, Michigan. That’s the state with the “eternally grateful” autoworkers whose very lives were saved by Obama. That’s the state with all the Muslims who hate and fear Republicans for their evil. I don’t put much faith in polls, but I do put faith in momentum in the polls and Romney’s got the Big Mo.

● Cry Poverty: Obama’s campaign is not in the best financial shape. After all this talk of him raising a billion dollars for this election, the funds have actually been few and far between, and he’s nowhere near a billion. To the contrary, he’s only raised $261 million so far. At this point in 2008, he’d raised $296 million. What’s worse, he’s spending money faster than he’s bringing it in. Last month, he took in $39.1 million, but spent $44.6 million. At the same time, Obama is now worried that Romney will actually hit a billion dollars ($1.2 billion to be precise) and Obama will earn yet another historical distinction – being the first incumbent to be outspent by a challenger.

● Prog-not-stication: Pelosi has been claiming for a long time now that the odds of them retaking the House “are better than 50/50.” I would like to put down five grand on “no f-ing way.” Now the Cook Political Report, which is usually pretty good at guessing Congressional races, says it ain’t happening.

Using simple math, Pelosi needs only 25 seats to retake the House. However, only one time in recent history has an incumbent President’s party gained more than 25 seats in the House in an election: Johnson in 1964. So this is unlikely in any event. But there’s more. Because of redistricting, the Republicans will likely gain 8-12 seats. That means Pelosi likely needs 35 seats. That ain’t happening. Moreover, Cook predicts that the Democrats will gain only 10 seats. So much for Madame P’s ability to see the future.

Interestingly, one race which blew up on the Democrats involved California’s new voting law. Last year, California decided that rather than letting both parties select their own candidates, everyone would vote and the top two vote-getters would move on. The idea was to ensure that lots of races ended up with a choice between two Democrats. Well, something went wrong and a district which voted for Obama by 56% will now have a choice between two Republicans. Ha ha! Look for the law to be changed again in light of this. Maybe this time they’ll just ban Republicans from running?

● Prog-not-stication: What do you all think of Tim Pawlenty as Vice President? Honestly, I liked him and his ideas, but he quit awfully quickly and I don't see him having the killer instinct the job needs.

● Playoffs? Playoffs?!: Finally, slightly off topic, the NCAA has let it leak that they will do a college football playoff system starting in 2014, with a committee picking four teams and then letting them eliminate each other with extreme prejudice. I personally don’t like this idea. I think it caters to the obsession of finding a single best team at the expense of the traditions set up within college football. As the system stands right now, it means something to win your conference and win a bowl game. Dozens of schools can gain glory and fans love it. But under the new system, only four teams will be relevant and only one will matter, just like in the NFL. But you may disagree. Thoughts?

“Obama Will Lose” Omen No. 472

Back in September 2010 (LINK), I wrote an article predicting how the left would react to the pending failure of Obama. I said that when the left knows things have gone wrong and they’re going to lose an election, they whip out the sour grapes. Specifically, they start writing articles telling us that “it’s impossible for anyone to govern!” Well, we have achieve grapedom.

As I said before, liberals are big on defense mechanisms, and their favorite defense mechanism when their candidate fails is the old idea that “nobody could do it.” Indeed, every time one of their leaders fails at something, they rush to warn us that this had nothing to do with their beliefs, it was because the thing was simply impossible – often couched in terms of “this is impossible because democracy allows Republicans to obstruct us.”

And when their Presidents fail utterly, they really step it up and we are treated to a whole slew of articles lamenting the fact that America itself is ungovernable. Carter gave us the clearest example of this. When it became obvious that he would fail, liberals everywhere started writing articles about how America was too big to be governed by one man, and how the ancient presidency just wasn’t up to the task of running a modern country. It really infuriated them when Reagan proved the doomsayers wrong.

With Obama following the Carter plan to the letter (hyperinflation, gas price problems, no jobs, soaring debt, falling currency, war in Afghanistan, crashing poll numbers), it was only a matter of time before the media decided that the problem wasn’t Obama, it was that America itself is ungovernable. Enter the Washington Post and an article obnoxiously titled:

“Can any president succeed in today’s political world?”

Of course they can, they just can’t succeed when they are doing stupid things. And Obama, like Carter, does stupid things. Obama had the House and a supermajority in the Senate. He could have done anything if he had the political leadership skills to simply outline what he wanted. But he didn’t. The failure was his own with an assist from the genuinely stupid ideas of his party. It wasn’t the result of some inherent defect in our system. But that won’t sooth the Washington Post. Here’s what they blame his failure on:

Consider this: We are in the midst of more than a decade-long streak of pessimism about the state of the country, partisanship is at all-time highs and the media have splintered — Twitter, blogs, Facebook and so on and so forth — in a thousand directions all at once.

Ok, stop right there. This the same paper which said to run the Republicans over when the Democrats had the majority. Apparently, partisanship wasn’t a problem for them then. Pessimism isn’t a problem either because policies work on their merits, not on the hopes of the people who implement them. As for the media “splintering” why would that matter unless the Post thinks the only way to achieve anything is to force groupthink on the public?

Now watch them flip this around:

Layer over the constant stream of news with the fact that Twitter, blogs and cable television turn every slip of the tongue, misstatements or gaffe into a mountain — “the private sector is doing fine” being a prime, recent example — and it’s clear that the idea that the president can drive the hourly, daily or weekly message of his choosing feels outdated. The bully pulpit may still exist, but it’s far less bully than it once was.

That’s especially true not only because the fracturing of the media makes it hard to push a clear message but also because roughly half of the American public doesn’t want to hear the message (whatever it is) because it is of the other party.

Wrong. Notice that the first problem is the inability to reach the public because there is no single all-powerful (liberal) media telling people what to think, somehow that makes it impossible to govern. But then they flip that right around and whine that all these blogs and twits brainwash the public. How can the public be lost in a splintered media wilderness on the one hand, but simultaneously that splintered media can exploit any story and brainwash the public on the other? Then we flip it over one more time and finish with no one being able to get a message out because the media is splintered again. Consistency, thy name ain’t liberal.

The problem here is that liberalism fails, but liberals don’t want to believe it. So instead, they scratch their heads trying to figure out what could have possibly gone wrong. And the only answer they can come up with, before they start talking about betrayal, is that the whole system stinks. Good grief: “I can’t bowl a 300 game, so bowling must be flawed.” Yeah, that makes sense.

Look for more of these articles for a while and enjoy them while they last because they will soon give way to the bloodbath phase as our liberal friends start to tear each other apart. In fact, we’re already seeing the preliminaries on this as the West Virginia delegation and Hillary Clinton are saying they won’t go to the Democratic Convention. It’s going to get ugly(er), so grab your popcorn and enjoy the show!

You Sir, Are Doomed

Excuse me while I laugh. . . ROFLMAO(twice). Sorry, but sometimes the news makes me laugh. It doesn’t make the Democrats laugh, but I sure do. Here’s the latest:

Item 1: Enthusiasm Gap

First up, we have Obama’s rural problem. Obama won the Pennsylvania primary as expected. Nothing to see here, right? Well, some worried leftists looked a little deeper and discovered a wee hint of a problem. Let’s call it an enthusiasm gap, shall we?

Obama ran unopposed in Pennsylvania. But when PoliticsPA looked at the voting data, they found that in 27 of the state’s 67 counties, more than 30% of Democratic voters didn’t vote for Obama. That’s right, they left it blank.

Think about that. These people were enthusiastic enough to turn out for a primary, but then chose not to voter for their own Presidential candidate. Fascinating. They couldn’t even be bothered to lift their pens or chad-pokers or whatever they use to vote in Pennsylvania and poke a hole for old Obamy. Wow.

And this isn’t a new problem. In Arkansas, Kentucky, and West Virginia, Obama lost 40% of the primary vote to “not him.” In West Virginia, he actually lost 8 counties to convicted criminal Keith Judd, who is serving time in Texas. In Oklahoma, Obama lost 18% of the vote and 12 counties to an anti-abortion protestor. He lost 12% of Louisiana Democrats to a lawyer from Tennessee. And so on.

Until Pennsylvania, none of these were states Obama was supposed to win, so it didn’t freak too many people out. But Pennsylvania is supposed to be Obama country and it tells us he’s got serious problems. If even 2% of his supporters don’t turn out, he will lose, and this suggests that 30% of Democrats are, to put it lightly, not enthusiastic about voting for him. Moreover, Pennsylvania gives us a strong bit of insight into the key states of Ohio, Wisconsin and Michigan. The man is doomed. Maybe he should buy some overalls?

Item 2: I Am Woman, Hear Me Whine!

A couple of chicks just threw an interesting hissyfit about the mistreatment of poor, noble Elizabeth Warren, as well as other representatives of the double-X chromosome set everywhere. What upset them? Well. . .

According to these brainiacs, when male candidates attack female candidates, they always attack their honesty. Why? Because “female candidates generally have an advantage on honesty and ethics,” i.e. they are more honest. So male candidates must destroy this perception. Hence, when male candidates challenge them about their honesty, it has nothing to do with politics as usual or the actual issue being brought up. Nope. It’s just a strategy meant to undermine the biggest advantage female candidates have. . . and that’s sexist. Whined the chickies, “It’s upsetting not only because it is a cheap shot, but also because it is a tactic that disguises political games as a genuine push for transparency.”

Wrong.

For starters, how in the world can something that is true and goes to a candidate’s honesty, integrity and ethics be considered a cheap shot? The cheap shot is actually the idiot who lied and then tries to hide behind their chromosomes to get immunity. Secondly, how is this a “woman’s issue”? Name a single male candidate who hasn’t had his honesty and ethics challenged?

Also, where are the examples of other women similarly attacked? The other examples they give in the article are Nikki Haley being accused of infidelity and Alex Sink losing the voters when she decided to play with her cell phone during a televised debate. Well, let’s consider these. The accusation of infidelity is nothing new. In fact, I can’t think of a Republican who hasn’t been accused of mystery infidelity by the Democratic machine. How is the attack against Haley anything special?

As for Sink looking at her cell phone, notice first that this is not a smear by her opponent, it is something she did herself to hurt the public’s perception of her seriousness as a candidate. Hence, it doesn’t support the argument the chickies are making. Not to mention, this is no different than Mike Dukakis flaming out because he looked stupid in a helmet, Howard Dean flaming out for a scream, or a dozen-dozen other examples. Again, this isn’t a gender issue.

The fact is Warren is flaming out because she’s a liar and an idiot, and she never learned the first rule of politics, which is to stop shoveling when you find yourself in a hole. She tried to sell herself as something she is not and her attempts to defend her lie blew up in her face repeatedly. The fact that she’s a liar and an idiot means she should not be trusted. This has nothing to do with her gender. . . whatever that may truly be.


P.S. Don't forget, it's Star Trek Tuesday at the film site.

It’s Because You’re Stupid

The MSM has finally found a narrative they can all get behind: criticism of Obama by conservatives is racist. Forget that they’ve leveled plenty of their own criticism, because hypocrisy doesn’t matter to them. Any conservative who criticizes Obama is a racist.

The line that criticism of Obama is racist goes way back. Jimmy Carter whined in 2009 that the entire birther movement was racist. Then he claimed Republican Joe Wilson shouting “you lie!” during Obama’s campaign speech to Congress showed that there is “an inherent feeling in American that a black man should not be President.” In September 2011, MSNBC claimed that all criticism of Obama was because of “the color of his skin.”

Calling Obama “cool” was declared racist the other day. Before that the words “cocky”, “flippant” and “arrogant” were declared racist “code words.” Last month, Team Obama themselves said that trying to link Obama to Jeremiah Wright was racist and hate-filled.

Now we have Neil Munro, a reporter for the Daily Caller, interrupting Obama during his latest campaign speech from the White House where he tried to buy Hispanic votes by proposing amnesty for young illegal aliens. The MSM was immediately outraged, and quickly decided this was racist. Said MSNBC:

“I think it's a very important question because I think this is the first African-American president. We've never had a white president been told by the opposing party to shut up in the middle of a major address to the Congress. We've never had a president like this heckled so disrespectfully. We've never had this otherness afforded to any other president and I think the right wing has some explaining to do because to me it's patently obvious.”

Well, actually, that’s not true. Indeed, as the Daily Caller immediately pointed out, Sam Donaldson used to do this to Ronald Reagan all the time, and yet the MSM never accused him of even bad manners.

Naturally, the MSM went to Sam Donaldson and asked him if this was true. Guess what he said? He lied about doing this to Reagan. Indeed, he said, he “never once interrupt[ed] a president in any way while he was making a formal statement, a speech, honoring awardees or in any other way holding the floor.” Of course, that’s a lie, but no MSM reporter can be bothered to go find the dozens of example disproving this.

Then Donaldson said exactly what you would expect from a leftist hack. He charged racism:

“Let’s face it: Many on the political right believe this president ought not to be there – they oppose him not for his polices and political view but for who he is, an African American!”

This is pathetic. Do I think Munro should have interrupted Obama? No. It pissed me off when Donaldson and the rest did it to Reagan and I don’t think anyone should be doing it to Obama either. But it pisses me off even more that the MSM is pushing this crap about this being the result of racism.

People criticize President "Downgrade" Obama because he’s incompetent. They criticize him because he’s an arrogant ass. They criticize Obama because he’s ruining the country and trying to destroy large parts of our economy. It doesn’t matter what color he is, the man is a menace to our nation.

Moreover, the real racists are on the left and within the MSM. It’s the leftist media which sees the world through the prism of race, not the rest of us. The rest of us have moved beyond race. We now judge men and women by the content of their characters and the competence and quality of their actions, and in that test people like Obama fail miserably. Race doesn't factor into it for us, that only matters to the race-obsessed MSM.

So in the spirit of providing proof, give us your Top Three Biggest gripes with Obama without mentioning his race?


OT, For those who regularly visit Patti's site, she's talking about my book today and there's a Q&A! Check it out! LINK

You're Doing It Wrong!

Alright, a couple points then we can all get on with our days. First up, Jimmy Carville is “worried” about Obama. Second up, we have some polls showing why Jimmy is right to worry. Finally, we have a reminder why we should be done with the Bush family once and for all. Let’s do this.

● Jimmy Carville: James Carville is a partisan hack, so when he tells you that Obama is eeah, doin’ sumtin wrongg, you better believe Obama’s doing something wrong. And in this case, Jimmy C is upset that Obama is telling everyone the economy is great. Said Jimmy C on Good Morning America:

“I’m worried that when the White House or the campaign talks about the progress that’s being made, people take that as a signal that they think that things are fine and people don’t feel they ought to believe that.”

In other words, by telling people everything is fine when the public clearly knows better, Obama is squandering what little trust he has left and is telling voters that he “doesn’t get it” and has no plans to address their concerns.

As proof that Carville is right, think back to last week when Obama said at a press conference that “the private sector is doing fine.” Really? Perhaps he forgot that four million private sector jobs have vanished under his Reign of Error? The Republicans (led by Romney) pounced on this so strongly that Obama had to “clarify” his comments a few hours later by telling reporters, “it is absolutely clear the economy is not doing fine.” Nice, complete reversal “clarification.”

Carville once famously said, “It’s the economy, stupid.” Perhaps he was talking directly to Obama?

● Polls: I’ve said before that this election really comes down to Florida and Ohio. In Ohio, Romney leads Obama 46% to 44%. In Florida, Romney leads Obama 46% to 45%. With undecideds typically breaking for the incumbent, this tells us Obama will lose. Iowa, which I see as irrelevant, is also trending Romney over Obama 47% to 46%. And if that isn’t enough, get this. . .

Colorado, an Obama state, is tied 45% each. Michigan, a clear Obama state, has Romney leading 46% to 45%. Wisconsin, another Obama state, has Romney leading 47% to 45%. That’s 36 electoral votes slipping through his fingers. Winning will be virtually impossible for Obama if that happen.

● RINO-dynasty: It is time America was finished with the Bush clan. Two disastrous Presidents who did their best to tar conservatism is enough. Sadly, there’s one more out there and he’s no better. This week old Jeb reminded us again why we want no part of him. What did he do this time? Get this. . . despite the election coming up, he decided now would be a good time to call us all a bunch of extremists. Specifically, he said this:

“Ronald Reagan would have, based on his record of finding accommodation, finding some degree of common ground, as would my dad — they would have a hard time if you define the Republican Party — and I don’t — as having an orthodoxy that doesn’t allow for disagreement, doesn’t allow for finding some common ground.”

In other words, Reagan and Bush Sr. couldn’t have been nominated if they ran today because the party is now too extreme to accept them.

First of all, this is false. This is the same party which just nominated Mitt Romney, who was viewed by conservatives as a RINO and whose record as a governor is clearly moderate. This is also the same party which has made RINOs like Chris Christie and, regrettably, Jeb himself into stars. Secondly, saying this now is disloyal as now is the time to rally around the nominee to defeat Obama. Finally, it’s ultra-disloyal to say this particularly because this has been a Democratic talking point for years now, and only true RINOs adopt Democratic talking points and lend them credibility.

I’ve said it before and I will say it again, I will never vote for another Bush.

OT: I was planning to do a book giveaway promo later in the year, but for various reasons beyond my control, it's moved. So next Tuesday, Without A Hitch will be FREE on Kindle. Please pick it up if you haven't and read it and then leave a review! :)

Also, if you have already read it or Wrongful Death, please do me a favor and try to leave a review before Tuesday. People judge books by the number of reviews these days so it would help me a lot if you all posted one (and no, they don't need to be 5s... be honest). Thanks! Here's the LINK

A Double Dose of Failure

Let’s cover two short issues today. First, we have economic data which confirms the middle class is getting crushed under Obama. Secondly, the NRA and Indiana seem determined to set back the cause of gun rights.

Issue One: The surest way to determine what chance a president has at being re-elected is to ask the question Reagan made famous: “are you better off today than you were four years ago?” Obama desperately needs to hope no one asks that. Why? How about these numbers:

● Unemployment: At 8.2%, unemployment is at one of its highest points in decades. In May, 12.7 million Americans were officially unemployed, with another 24 million unofficially unemployed or underemployed. Five million people have been officially unemployed for more than two years now.

● Falling Incomes: Since 2007, the median income for all American families has fallen 7.7%.

● Inflation: Inflation is eating away at spending power. A dollar today is only worth 32 cents of what it was worth in 1979. That means inflation has eaten 68% of the value of the dollar in 33 years. When you factor in wage increases, the middle class already took a 28% pay cut between 1979 and when Obama took office (the poor took a 50% pay cut). Official inflation under Obama has been minor, but that’s a fake number. Gas prices are up 83% and meat is up 24%, and real inflation is estimated at around 12%. Factor in the falling wages of 7.7% with the pay-cut of inflation at 12%, and you have a huge pay cut being taken year after year.

● Falling Net Worth: Since 2007, the median net worth of American families has fallen by 38.8% from $126,400 to $77,300. This is largely (but not entirely) the result of falling housing prices. In the West, this decline was 55%.

This tells us that the American public is taking a beating. Their savings have been cut by a third, their incomes are falling (those that are even employed), and inflation is eating away at all of it. So much for being better off today than anyone was four years ago. The exception, of course, is Club Fed which increased its spending 714% since 1979 and 33% since Obama took office.

Issue Two: Indiana has passed a law at the behest of the National Rifle Association which allows residents to use deadly force against government employees, including law enforcement officers, who “unlawfully” enter their homes. Mitch Daniels signed this in March.

This is a HORRIBLE idea!

First of all, let me ask why we need this? Is there a problem with cops attacking people in their homes in Indiana? If not, then there’s no reason for this. Secondly, has anyone asked what this will cause? How do you decide if the police are there unlawfully? Doesn’t this give people a false belief that they have a right to shoot at the cops no matter why the police are there? This is a stupid bill which will get police (and civilians) killed. And there is no need for this bill because it doesn’t stop any real problem.

This is a classic example of the stupidity of activists. Some jerkoff at the NRA decided this would be a good idea for whatever reason and the other jerkoffs talked themselves into it without every stopping to ask someone with common sense if this was a good idea. By pushing this, the NRA has put the “responsible” gun lobby on the side of fringe politics and irresponsible laws. This is, in fact, the very type of law which turns people off the cause being promoted. This is Planned Parenthood defending partial-birth abortion or gay marriage activists suing churches to force them to perform gay marriages. This is stupid. This is the kind of bill guaranteed to bring a backlash. And this is yet another reason I won’t support the NRA despite firmly believing in the Second Amendment.

Thoughts?

Fixing Immigration

A couple weeks ago an issue came up in the comments, which I think should be officially raised in an article: how to fix immigration. This may be the most pressing issue of our time for a number of reasons and fixing the problem will prove to be incredibly difficult. But it can be done. Here’s what I recommend.

For starters, let me point out that there is no silver bullet to resolve this problem. Sealing the borders won’t work as most illegal immigrants find other ways here (plus the real problem is those who are already here). It’s a logistical near-impossibility to deport eleven million people. Big business wants workers and will fight anything which reduces illegal immigration, so will the Democrats who want voters. The public no longer trusts the political class because they’ve lied about this too much. Hence, an amnesty won’t work because no one trusts the promises that will be made to justify it.

All in all, you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t and no one. . . no one is going to let you try anything.

That sounds bleak. But it doesn’t mean we can’t fix the problem, it just means it requires a more careful plan. Indeed, any effective plan will need to be done quietly at first, so people don’t freak out, and the goal must be to build the trust needed to implement the harder parts to come.

With that in mind, I think the best strategy would be this. . . spread over two Romney terms:

Step One: In the first week in office, Romney (and the Republican Congress where needed) should slash the number of legal immigrants allowed into the US each year in half. This shouldn’t be too difficult as Obama raised the number and Romney can explain he is simply reversing that, giving new immigrants time to join the melting pot, and preventing the environmental problems of importing enough people to populate Denver each year. He can also use high unemployment as a reason. The idea here is to reduce the number of immigrants who would otherwise be in the country over the next four years by about two million. I’ll explain why in a moment.

Step Two: As soon as possible, end all payroll deductions for any business which doesn’t use the eVerify system. This would provide a strong incentive for businesses to use the system, but wouldn’t freak out big business by making it a criminal offense to hire illegals. This “voluntary compliance” would go a long way to making it harder for illegals to find work and many will leave.

Step Three: Fix Mexico. This would take several years, but the idea would be to provide military and police assistance and heavy financial aid in exchange for more libertarian economic policies along with deregulation and the busting of massive corporate empires. The idea here would be to get Mexico on its feet and turn it into a magnet for workers from all over the Americas, i.e. instead of us. If this works, and it should, then Mexico could become the destination of choice for Spanish-speaking illegal immigrants and it could draw back a large chunk of the eleven million illegal immigrants in the United States.

Step Four: Fix the guest worker program. One of the problems which has arisen is that with American paranoia over 9/11 and the border with Mexico, it has become increasingly risky for guest workers to leave the country again because there is a significant chance they won’t get back in come the next season (they are mainly farm workers). As a result, many of them have left Mexico permanently, even though they don’t want to, and brought their families here so they don’t need to run that risk. We need to make sure these people understand that they will be able to return to the US each season when needed. That way they have no reason to stay here illegally. Moreover, fixing this program will be essential to getting Big Business to stop fighting the other reforms because they can get the labor they need through this program.

If everything goes right, by the end of Romney’s first time, this program would have born the following results:

1. A reduction in the number of legal immigrants on the order of two million from those who would have otherwise been here.

2. A reduction in the number of illegal immigrants because of reduced job opportunities because of the eVerify system, improving conditions in Mexico, and the clean up of the guest worker program. Judging on the effects of the last recession, this could be anywhere from (rough guess) one to two million.

3. The pacification of Big Business as an opponent.

This means Romney can tell the public that his policies have reduced the number of “immigrants by up to four million” in his first term. This should buy him some good will with the public, for what is to come. Moreover, he can then show how the eVerify system worked, and he can make the case that those who are left likely are here for reasons other than just economics and probably have ties to the country. Thus:

Step Five: At the beginning of the second term, Romney makes the use of eVerify mandatory and imposes criminal punishments for employers who hire illegals.

Step Six: Romney proposes a long-term amnesty as follows: (1) Illegals will be required to report themselves within a month. Anyone who fails to report will be ineligible for the amnesty, as will anyone who arrives after the amnesty date (and those with criminal records). Those people will be deported immediately and local police will be required to report them to ICE. (2) For those who did report themselves, they will be issued a new “green card” which lets them act like citizens, except voting. They may work and must pay taxes. They can get drivers licenses, insurance, report crimes to the police, etc. (3) If you recall in Step One, we cut the number of legal immigrants in half. Now we do that again and allocate one half of those slots for legal immigrants and one half for converting illegals into legals, who can then apply for citizenship just like other legal immigrants. The goal would be to make them all legal over a decade long period.

Step Seven: Follow through and deport everyone who didn’t register.

Honestly, I think this is the only solution. Whether conservatives like it or not, there needs to be some way to make these people legal. Right now they can’t report crimes, can’t get car insurance (making them a road menace), and don’t pay taxes. And there just is no way to deport them. Making them legal fixes all of that -- it might also endear them to the Republican Party for making that happen. Not to mention, it will let them get on the social ladder to become property owners and stakeholders in the community, which will lead them toward conservatism.

Who would be upset by this? The left would be upset at the drop in immigration numbers, but the public won’t have a problem with that. The left will certainly be upset by the stepped-up, zero-tolerance deportations program, but they won’t have a leg to stand on since this will be given in exchange for making millions of illegals legal. The public be upset at the amnesty, but not as much as you might think because this method softens the blow considerably by reducing the number of immigrants overall to offset this amnesty. Indeed, at the end of his second term, Romney could report a “drop” (non-increase) of four million immigrants plus whatever illegals left because of eVerify and the stronger pull of Mexico. That should reduce the opposition to amnesty because it shows the public good faith that the political class is finally doing the hard part first.

Thoughts?


P.S. Don't forget, it's Star Trek Tuesday at the film site.

William Jefferson STFU Clinton

Oh boy, Bill is back! That’s right, former President Bill “trailer-park ten-dollar-bill dragger, depends-what-‘is’-means” Clinton, and he’s talking up a storm. And as you would expect, he’s causing Obama all kinds of problems. Ha ha.

So get this. . . some fool in the Obama Administration apparently decided to let Bill Clinton act as a campaign surrogate. They either knew nothing about Bill or they have decided that the country would be better off with Romney as president. And to no one’s great surprise, Bill has gone off half-cocked all over the place.

First, Billy Boy forgot whose side he was on and he praised Mitt Romney’s “sterling business career.” The timing on this couldn’t have been worse because Obama was already struggling to explain why his attacks on Bain Capital were appropriate, were relevant, and didn’t make him a socialist. . . like Rick Santorum.

Then Bill said that he would extend the Bush tax cuts until 2013, i.e. until after the election. This was both deeply cynical and it flew right in the face of Obama’s sworn opposition to extending those tax cuts. Clinton has since had to apologize for saying what he truly believed. . . an apology he delivered with the usual self-aggrandizement and a chuckle.

In and of themselves these statements wouldn’t be that bad, except Clinton’s supposed to be representing Obama and his timing couldn’t have been worse. Indeed, the timing is horrible because Obama’s campaign has been flailing. They haven’t been able to find anything to use to promote Obama or to tear down Romney. To the contrary, everything they’ve tried has blown up in their faces. In many ways, Obama has become the Coyote to Romney’s Roadrunner. And having Elmer Pudd shooting off his mouth isn’t helping. Every news cycle that gets wasted with Clinton contradicting one of Obama’s policies or the White House trying to explain away Clinton’s latest gaff, or with Bill trying to remind voters that he was a better President that Bush or Obama (“Remember me? I'm the only guy that gave you four surplus budgets out of the eight I sent.”), has been another precious news cycle wasted as Obama struggles to gain traction. Moreover, rather that focusing on Romney, the left has become obsessed now with trying to figure out if Bill is doing this intentionally to hurt Obama or what his real motives could be. And whether the public pays attention to the specifics or not, it’s obvious this is blue-on-blue fire, and that makes Obama’s campaign look disorganized, dis-unified and endangered.

So why is Clinton doing this? Some speculate this is an attempt to bring the Democratic Party back from the class warfare rhetoric which will doom it. I doubt that because Clinton has show no interest in helping the Democratic Party.

Others speculate this is payback for Obama beating Hillary (and Obama’s repeated humiliation of her, like his joke about her drunk-texting him). Could be. Some speculate Clinton wants Obama to lose so Hillary can rise up and run for President again. That doesn’t really make a lot of sense though. For one thing, Hillary looks horrible and I don’t just mean physically. She’s been the butt of jokes now and has no public achievements to show for her time on Team Obama. Plus, she’s been close enough to Obama to be tarred with his failure if he loses. Not to mention, she’ll never beat Andrew Cuomo, who I suspect will easily be the nominee in 2020 anyway.

Sure, these could all be his motives. But for my money, it’s much more likely Clinton is doing this to make the one person he truly loves happy: himself. By talking up his own administration and by contrasting himself with Obama (and Bush), Clinton makes sure that he’s remembered as the last “great” President. . . remember how good it was under ME, everybody? Indeed, he wouldn’t want an Obama success to stain his legacy.

Obama should have known this before he choose Clinton. Asking Clinton to act as your spokesman is like hiring Narcissus himself. But apparently Obama isn’t good at knowing things which every other American knows. . . like the number of states. So I guess Bill Clinton was just a mystery to him. Dopehead.

Finally, there was a fascinating article this weekend where some leftist AP hack tried to make all this pain go away by claiming that conservatives once hated Clinton but now praise him. Gee, I guess we’re hypocrites or something? Wrong. I do indeed have some good things to say about Clinton, but they hardly qualify as praise. My “respect” for Clinton goes a little something like this: he was smart enough to realize that his own beliefs weren’t selling, so he learned to sit back, let the Republicans do their thing and then take credit for their actions. That’s hardly high praise. That’s a bit like saying Hitler helped millions of Russians see Germany.

So what do you think Clinton is up to? Should Obama be worried? Should we? And what should Obama do about him?

Liberalism Is Sick

Totalitarianism and privilege runs in the blood of liberals. They want to control everyone else, but place themselves above the law. We’ve just had some classic examples of this. Observe the vile petulance of the left. . .

● S.W.A.T.ing: For some time now, prominent conservatives (including bloggers like Erick Erickson of RedState) have experienced the joys of finding the SWAT team showing up at their homes. Why? Because some liberal group has learned how to hack into the phone system and call 911 pretending to be the conservative. These calls go something like this: “I am Erick Erickson and I just shot my wife.”

Obviously, this is a crime. It is also despicable. Think about the kind of pathetic, abusive mindset someone would need to send the police screaming to someone’s house on a false murder claim? That’s Nazi-tactics. What happens when the cops show up and shoot someone by mistake? What about the emotional toll on these people’s children? Think of the people who might get killed because the police are distracted? Think of the waste of resources and the effect on the 911 system when police start doubting the veracity of calls.

But this has become the modern liberal mindset. They are abusive little Nazis who seek to instill terror in their enemies and they don’t care about the damage they do in the process. To them, it’s all legitimate -- calling out the cops, death threats by phone, mail or twitter, bomb threats to events they don’t like, property damage, arson. We have reached a point where liberals are becoming a menace to society. And something will need to be done about them. . . perhaps the old liberal favorite of re-education?

● Uncontrollable Rage: Wisconsin once again exposed the twisted emotional wreckage that is liberalism as liberals everywhere devolved into whiny rage about the election results. One guy told a camera he hopes Lt. Kleefisch dies of colon cancer. Another liberal idiot was so incapable of handling rejection that they actually slapped Dem. Candidate Tom Barrett right after he gave his concession speech. Apparently, it was Barrett’s fault the public didn’t hate Walker. . . or this liberal wanted Walker to cling to the “slim” hopes of overturning a 6.9% defeat. So much for losing with grace. Another liberal sobbed “this is the end of democracy.” How idiotic. Just because the public doesn’t agree with your view, somehow that’s the end of democracy? Someone needs a civics class. Then we have the violent Twits. They posted things like this:

KILL SCOTT WALKER KILL SCOTT WALKER KILL SCOTT WALKER KILL SCOTT WALKER KILL SCOTT WALKER KILL SCOTT WALKER! Ole Bitch Ass Pig Ass Nigga!!!!

Somebody need to Abe Lincoln Scott Walker cave frog lookin ass.

I wanna kill scott walker so fucking baddd!!!!! & the racist dumb assholes that voted for him #nbs

Please somebody kill Scott Walker.

You couldn’t find a less intelligent, less hateful set of morons if you tried. And note the obvious racism. Yet liberals like to think they’re smarter? Ha. These fools can barely speak and certainly can’t think. Heck, if you want to proof of evolution, this is it -- liberals are the missing link. . . not quite human yet.

Again, frankly, it’s getting to the point that liberals need to be medicated or locked up for everyone’s good. They prove time and again that they are violent, racist creatures of hate who seek to instill terror when they don’t get their own ways. That’s called psychosis, and psychotics should be locked up for everyone’s protection.

● Heil Moochelle: Madame O has jumped on the food Nazi bandwagon once again and is expressing support for the idiotic idea of banning large drinks in New York City. This is laughable nonsense. For one thing, as with all other liberal ideas, this is unworkable. How, pray tell, do you stop someone from buying two 16 oz. drinks? Whoops, I just found the hole in the security net.

This is more evidence that liberals really are Nazis. They want to control every aspect of your life right down to how much cola you can put into a single container at a time. Think how petty that is! In fact, calling them Nazis is a bit unfair to the Nazis because they weren’t nearly the control freaks liberals are. And why am I not surprised that the people with the least grip on reality (see above) are the people most inclined to tell everyone else how to live? Pathetic.

● I Am Above The Law: Amanda Bynes (who?) is pathetic. She’s apparently an actress, though you wouldn’t know it by me, and she’s a drunk, a fool, a liar and a fascist. Two days ago she got caught DUI. Did she quietly pay her ticket like everyone else who gets caught? Heck no, she’s a liberal celebrity! Laws aren’t meant for people like her!! So first she refused to blow into the breathalyzer (which is a stupid move, especially for someone who claims they weren’t drunk). Then she took to Twitter, where all morons go to display their moronism, and she tweeted this:

“Hey @BarackObama, I don’t drink. Please fire the cop who arrested me.”

Well, honey, that’s not how the world works even for you. For one thing, your lord and master has ZERO power to fire a local police officer. You would know that if you weren’t liberal and stupid (but that is redundant). Secondly, they don’t fire people for doing their jobs just because some celebrity turd doesn’t like how they do it. But this is how liberals think: laws are meant for the little people and if you dare to apply the same law to them, well, then you need to be fired because you failed to recognize the superiority of the person you so ruthlessly treated like everyone else. What a vile little creature she is, I hope the cop sues her for something. By the way, appealing to the President to save your butt from a DUI is pretty much the definition of narcissism, another standard liberal trait.

● Who Cares About Human Life?: Patti Smith, a singer, just made a fascinating statement. For decades, liberals have whined about how any death is a tragedy and how we should go to any extent (including wrapping kids in bubblewrap) to prevent any death. But we know their willingness to take any step is selective and depends on who gets hurt and by whom. Enter Patti Smith, who is upset with Obama for continuing the war on terrorism. Why? I’ll let the callous dipsh*t explain it herself:

“[Terrorism is] not the most important issue in the world. When you think about how many people the terrorists have killed, its nothing. It’s not as many as die on a bicycle in America probably in a year or something.”

In other words, who cares, it’s only a couple people. And to make her point clear, she added this:

“I’ve said this over and over, but I’ll say it a million more times — I’m concerned more about the death of a bee than I am about terrorism. Because we’re losing hives and bees by the millions because of such strong pesticides. We can live with terrorism. We can’t live without the bee.”

Nice huh? Not only does she write off the deaths from terrorism (cost of business, I guess), but she’s more concerned about bees than the people who died. Wanna bet she believes products which might kill someone should be banned?

● Misplaced Tolerance: Finally, we have this little bit of intense hypocrisy. Janice Roberts, a 63-year old Masshole “anti-war” activist, has refused to rent an apartment to Sgt. Joel Morgan because he’s a veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan. So much for tolerance and so much for the lie that “we’re against war, not soldiers.”

What’s more, at the same time, over in New Mexico, the state’s Court of Appeals has ruled that a private photo studio cannot refuse service to people based on sexual orientation. The studio owner had argued that this violated his religious and moral beliefs but the court didn’t really care. This is so typical of liberal tolerance. Tolerate those whose causes you like and use the force of law to crush those whose causes you don’t.

Is it just me or does liberalism seem increasingly sick to you?

My Advice To Social Conservatives

I said last week that social conservatives have not done a great job winning over the public on social issues. There are some minor advances here and there, but for every advance there is full retreat in some other area. I think a change of strategy is called for on all fronts.

Let me start with three broad principles:

● Principle One: It’s time to get rational about the goals social conservatives want to achieve and how to achieve them. This means putting an end to pie-in-the-sky ideas like constitutional amendments to force change. Not only is that easily lampooned in light of the conservative claim to states’ rights, but it’s pointless because there is simply no way to get any constitutional amendment through the Congress and then passed by enough states. It is impossible, and talking about it wastes time and diverts resources from better causes. Moreover, talking about changing the constitution, scares the public, who will automatically see this as extreme and dangerous. So drop the idea of trying to solve everything with one shot and learn the art of incrementalism, i.e. achieving your goal little by little. This isn’t sexy, but it’s the only effective way to achieve controversial goals under our system.

● Principle Two: Drop the harsh rhetoric. The fiery pulpit speeches may work well in church, but the public sees them differently. To the public, they are evidence that social conservatives are hateful people who can’t deal with the modern world and who want to judge everyone else. This is a self-inflicted wound.

● Principle Three: You can’t win with religion-based arguments. Those simply don’t work with the modern public because the vast majority of the public doesn’t see the Bible as the thing which runs their day-to-day lives. Indeed, while 90% of the public claims to believe in God, only 40% claim to go to church “regularly” (there is reason to believe the real number is closer to 20%). And even of those who go, there is a disconnect between what the churches teach and how people live their lives -- the classic example of this are Catholics, who love the Pope, but ignore his rules. And even then, different denominations and different religions have different views about what their religion tells them, e.g. some accept gay marriage, some don’t. So premising arguments on religion is a bad start because you lose most of your audience. Moreover, in making these arguments, social conservatives end up bypassing the stronger arguments they should be making.

Ok, now let’s look at specific policies.

● Abortion: Abortion is an area where social conservatives are largely doing it right because they’ve adopted incrementalism. In the 1980s and early 1990s, abortion opponents kept looking for the home run, and it never came. It wasn’t until they learned to take the issue step by step that they began to make progress. The goal right now should be to entirely eliminate public funding, which is what keeps the abortion lobby alive, and to impose restrictions which the public will find reasonable.

One thing that needs to be dropped is this ridiculous idea of extending 14th Amendment rights to fetuses. Not only does this scare people, and thus is counterproductive, but it cannot pass, and it is almost the classic example of unintended consequences. Give fetuses rights and they can sue pregnant women if they don’t stop smoking or drinking or otherwise fail to follow doctor’s orders. This is a Pandora’s box of legal insanity which liberal interest groups will gleefully use to invade families. Think twice people.

● Gays: The gay marriage battle is lost. Yes, it won’t gain any more support in conservative states for the moment, but this issue is inevitable because the younger public really doesn’t see gays as a threat. Indeed, gays have pretty much proven there is nothing to fear from gay marriage. So so-cons better find proof fast to refute this.

A better strategy would be to switch over to a religious freedom argument. Right now, social conservatives have let themselves by placed on the wrong side of the gay marriage debate because gays have argued they are the ones seeking “freedom.” The reality is they have freedom and they are really seeking to use government power to impose their beliefs on others. But so-cons aren’t arguing that. Instead, they talk about “morality,” which is a loser. What they need to do is argue the religious freedom aspect, i.e. that gays are seeking to take away freedom by forcing others to accept them. Americans always vote for whoever is offering the greater freedom, so-cons need to learn to explain this better.

I also recommend giving serious thought to getting the government out of the marriage business entirely, as I discussed HERE.

● Drugs: Social conservatives are losing the drug war, particularly marijuana, because they’ve adopted the wrong argument. They’re arguing that drugs are bad for you/society. But that’s a nanny state argument. And indeed, the pro-pot people have merely had to argue that pot isn’t that bad to slowly win over a near-majority. The better argument involves civil freedoms. If we allow people to take drugs, then we either need to change negligence laws dramatically (in ways people really won’t like), or we will end up imposing huge costs on employers, employees and the economy because of the need for widespread drug testing. Why? Because any company that makes any product or provides any service which can injury someone (i.e. any company) will need to take steps to ensure that their workers are not high when they are working. That means widespread drug testing of everyone with a job. Right now the argument is “should the government be allowed to stop Person X from smoking pot at home.” But the argument should be, “are YOU willing to undergo constant drug testing to protect your employer from lawsuits just because the government decides to legalize drugs for the few who want it?” That’s a very different matter. I’ve discussed this HERE.

● Religious Freedom: This one’s a can of worms. A lot of social conservatives are going down a very dangerous path with the idea of religious freedom laws. Specifically, they are pushing bills which prohibit employers from stopping employees from engaging in religious practices or wearing religious items, e.g. crucifixes. This should send up huge red flags for conservatives. For one thing, conservatives have opposed employment-discrimination-based lawsuits almost across the board when it comes to gays, blacks, women and disability. Why make an exception for religion? Shouldn’t a private employer be entitled to impose whatever restrictions they want on the people they pay to be their employees? Can’t the employees just go elsewhere if they don’t like it?

Further, there is an obvious flaw here which social conservatives are overlooking because they tend to equate the word “religion” with their brand of Christianity: our Constitution doesn’t allow discrimination amongst religions. Thus, if you give people absolute power to act out their religious beliefs at work, that would include things like the wearing of the Islamic veil or separation of men and women, the handling of snakes, the smoking of peyote and whatever other crazy ideas these fringe religions can dream up.

This also applies to things like prayer in schools. If you seek legislation to allow that nice Protestant Principal to say a prayer each morning, except that your kids may also find themselves forced to sit through an Islamic prayer or Buddhist ritual or even an atheist’s speech. Unless you want other religions forced upon you and your children, it is best to always keep in mind that any new power you give yourself can be used by others as well.

Frankly, the best bet here is to vote with your feet and your wallets. Don’t support businesses which are hostile to your religious beliefs. Do support friendly ones. Stop seeing movies, watching television shows, or buy videogames with bad messages in them. Use the power of boycott. Send your kids to religious schools and volunteer to make sure those schools are the best (a shining example). In this regard, support legislation which lets federal money follow the students to whatever schools they choose -- trust people to make the right choices rather than trying to use the government to force the right choices upon them. Remember, you have to win people over, you can’t force them to believe what you want them to believe.

The big takeaway here is that social conservatives need to learn to speak to people who don’t share their religious beliefs -- framing things in religious terms simply will not work for anyone who doesn’t agree with your religious beliefs. They need to learn that a thousand small victories are better than the false hopes of complete victory in fell swoop. And they need to think more about the unintended consequences of the policies they propose and they need to realize that others will get to use the same powers they create in the law.

Thoughts?


P.S. Don't forget, it's Star Trek Tuesday at the film site.

Wisconsin Recall Primer (Ironic Version)

Tomorrow night is the Wisconsin recall. This is an interesting election, but purely for the sake of momentum. Ironically, while the Democrats and their union buddies forced this showdown, they are facing possible disaster if things go wrong, whereas the Republicans aren’t. Here’s what you need to know about Wisconsin and what it means for the rest of us.

Although the recall of Scott Walker has received the most media attention, there are actually two parts to the recall. The first is Scott Walker verses Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett. Walker appears safe at this point, as he leads by 6-9% in recent polls and his lead has grown steadily -- though Bluffington Post claims “internal polls” show the race is neck and neck. . . yeah, and I can levitate when no one is looking.

The second involves four GOP senators and Lt. Governor Rebecca Kleefisch. Kleefisch is polling well against labor candidate and Professional Fire Fighters of Wisconsin president Mahlon Mitchell. I suppose that’s good, except her job is meaningless. Of the four Senate seats, only one is considered a possibility to change hands. That is the seat of Sen. Van Wanggaard who is being challenged by Democrat John Lehman, who held the seat until 2010. If the Democrats do win that seat (or any of the other three) they will take control of the Senate.

So what does all this mean? That’s the laugher.

If Scott Walker were to lose, it would only mean an end to his ability to keep pushing Wisconsin to the right. It would not mean the repeal of anything he’s done because the Wisconsin House is dominated by Republicans and they can stop anything. So the reforms will go through either way. It might mean a loss of anti-union momentum nationally, but I doubt it because Wisconsin is a very pro-union state. Thus, a pro-union result should be expected and won’t have much meaning elsewhere, especially since it took everything the unions/Democrats/etc. could muster to barely win it.

But if Walker wins, this has HUGE meaning. First, it means that the voters of pro-union, liberal Wisconsin have endorsed a major shakeup in unionization laws. Under normal circumstances, this would be bad enough for unions, but the unions made this infinitely worse. They chose to make an example of Wisconsin by flexing all of their national might and, in the process, they put all of their credibility on the line. They sent in thousands of people and poured in millions of dollars. They called out all the celebrities, all the politicians, all the dirty lawsuits and false allegations, and all the death threats and union thuggery they could. In other words, they went all in. And yet, all their might couldn’t even win against “extreme” reforms in a pro-union state? The national message will be clear if Walker wins: the unions are finished, kill them off.

Democratic face saving is already beginning. Debbie Wasserman “Assbag” Schultz is trying to dismiss this recall as nothing more than “a dry run for November.” Uh huh, sure.

The unions and their leftist fellow travelers are trying to console themselves that they may win control of the Senate even if they can’t beat Walker. Wisconsin Democratic Party Chairman Mike Tate claims that would be enough, “taking back the Senate majority is a huge deal.” He claims this would allow them to “undo” what Walker has done. But that’s laughably false.

For one thing, the Senate is done for the year, so taking the Senate now is meaningless. Indeed, current Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald says that all the Democrats could achieve would be to get new parking spaces and bigger offices before November -- they can’t pass legislation. And here’s the interesting bit. Because of redistricting, which will take effect in November, it looks like the Republicans are likely to gain seats in any event. Thus, a Democrat win would likely last only until November.

So the best the Democrats can do is stop further reforms if they beat Walker or get new offices/parking spaces until November if they defeat any of the Senators. Aim high, donks!

But the price for trying this, i.e. what the Democrats/unions have risked to win this “valuable” prize, is that they have exposed union impotence. If unions can’t win in Wisconsin, where will they win? Moreover, they will have completely demoralized the Democrats before November. Indeed, admits Democratic consultant Heather Colburn:

“People have put so much of not just their time, but their heart and passion into Walker’s race, and he’s been so vilified and people have so organized around him that I think there’s going to be some broken spirits and hearts, even if we take back the Senate.”

Even Politico warns that a sweep by Republicans would be a disaster for the left:

“At the same time, a GOP sweep of the four races and a Walker win would deal a devastating blow to the left. It would hand a powerful mandate to Walker and his Republican allies in the state Legislature and give the GOP a burst of adrenaline heading into the November elections.”

A Republican sweep (or even just a Walker victory) also will put Wisconsin into play on the national map in terms of Obama’s reelection, especially if the Republicans get a clean sweep. And if Wisconsin swings into the “maybe” column for Romney, then expect things to really fall apart for Obama. In that event, forget everything I said about this race coming down to Florida and Ohio. . . if Wisconsin goes red, we’re looking at a landslide.

Good times!