Witch’s Will For A January Morning
My Pick of the Litter Today
The Peaceful Transfer of Mobocracy
Not all revolutions involve coups.
Casting about for something positive to say on Inauguration Day, pols and pundits fell back on the cliché that America exhibits the“peaceful transfer of power.” But that’s not much of a consolation if it results in revolution anyways. Most revolutions are not against state power but with it. So it goes with Obama’s, as he leaves the old forms in place but fills them with new revolutionary meanings.
The disturbing hollowness of Obama’s inauguration derives from this more subtle form of revolution. All the usual trappings of tradition were on display but at the service of a revolutionary ideology antithetical to them. Obama swore to uphold the Constitution, by which he meant his lawless reading of it. He invoked God-given rights, by which he meant man-made ones.
“There is no mob” here, said Republican Senator Lamar Alexander in his inaugural remarks, praising the day’s “orderly” transfer of power. But Obama’s concept of a living constitution is a species of mobocracy, in that it revolves around a demagogue seducing a mass of people into overthrowing their country’s original form of government. It is revolution not by force but by fraud: changing the form of government not through a constitutional convention but through the successful manipulation of popular opinion.
Experts Aren’t Deities
by Walter E. Williams
Let’s look at experts. Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727) was a mathematician and scientist. Newton has to be the greatest and most influential scientist who has ever lived. He laid the foundation for classical mechanics, and his genius transformed our understanding of science, particularly in the areas of physics, mathematics and astronomy. What’s not widely known is that Newton spent most of his waking hours on alchemy; his experiments included trying to turn lead into gold. Though he wrote volumes on alchemy, after his death Britain’s Royal Society deemed that they were “not fit to be printed.”
Lord William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907) was a Belfast-born British mathematical physicist and engineer. Kelvin’s major contribution was in thermodynamics, and he is widely recognized for determining the correct value of absolute zero, approximately minus 273 degrees Celsius. In his honor, absolute temperatures are expressed in Kelvin units. Being an expert in one field doesn’t spare one from being an arrogant amateur in others. Based on his knowledge of heat dissipation, Kelvin criticized geologists of his day and claimed that Earth was between 20 million and 100 million years old. Kelvin also said that “X-rays will prove to be a hoax,” but he changed his mind after he experienced an X-ray of his own hand. Kelvin also predicted, “I can state flatly that heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.”
Linus Pauling (1901-94) was one of the most influential chemists in history. He was one of the founders of the field of quantum chemistry and is often called the father of molecular biology. Pauling won the Nobel Prize in chemistry in 1954 and the Nobel Peace Prize in 1962, making him the only person awarded two unshared Nobel Prizes. Later, he was awarded the International Lenin Prize for Strengthening Peace Among Peoples by the Soviet Union. Many of Pauling’s colleagues who admired his scholarly work saw him as a naive spokesman for Soviet communism.
Everyone is evidently “twittering” about FLOTUS rolling her eyes at John Boehner. What amazed me was the way she was shoveling in the grub as if she hadn’t eaten in a month. Not to mention her appalling table manners. The next time some libtard compares her to Jackie O, show them this. Ugh!
What’s Up With the Democrats?
Filibuster reform is a headache for Reid
Filibuster reform has become a headache for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).
Reid is stuck in the middle, between liberal senators pushing hard for drastic reform and senior Democrats balking at changing the culture of the upper chamber.
What Up With Republicans?
Paul Ryan: Obama Was Shadowboxing A Straw Man In Inaugural Speech
REP. PAUL RYAN (R-Wis.): The concern that people like me have been raising is we do not want to encourage a dependency culture. This is why we called for welfare reform. This is what welfare reform in 1996 was. This was what the new rounds of welfare reform we’re calling for do, which is to increase social mobility, economic opportunity, self-responsibility, those kind of things.
But earned entitlements, where you pay your payroll taxes to get a benefit when you retire like Social Security, Medicare, are not taker programs. And I think when the president does kind of a switcheroo like that, what he’s trying to say is we are maligning these programs that people have earned throughout their working lives.
And so, it’s kind of a convenient twist of terms to try and shadowbox a straw man in order to win an argument by default. It’s essentially what that rhetorical device is, that he uses over and over and over.
Q: What’s the difference between Obama’s cabinet and a penitentiary?
A: One is filled with tax evaders, blackmailers, and threats to society.
The other is for housing prisoners.
by Kathy Shaidle
Women rush from one triviality to the next, consume gossip and trash, then wonder why America is falling apart. Time to put your brain on a diet.
So last week I ragged on guys for reading comic books and playing video games and consuming instead of creating and basically committing slo-mo suicide in a miasma of onanistic escapism.
I just know lots of female readers were going, “Right on! I am so forwarding this to my husband!!” — then they got to the last line of my article, about how I was going to rake Today’s Woman over the coals next.
Trouble is: the ladies who need to read this article aren’t on the internet right now; they’re at a “spa,” trying to decide between the “Brazilian” and the “Californian.”
PJ Media’s female readers are presumably politically engaged, well-informed and — just a guess — not too skanky.
So I’m preaching to the converted rather than the perverted.
Let’s consider a stereotypical suburban mom.
She’s upset about all the mayhem she hears about on the news.
Another school shooting! Why do other people need all those horrible guns?
Why do other people’s children turn out so horribly?
She wonders this while racing her daughter to yet another extracurricular activity — because it’s easier and more pleasant than actually having to — ugh! — spend too much time alone with a fourteen year old.
The SUV’s CD player blasts out another Katy Perry song — or is it last year’s American Idol? — about “loving yourself” and being a “hottie” or a “single lady” or something. Mom can’t make out all the words.
Her daughter knows them by heart, though.
Her daughter wants a tattoo one day. What can mom say? She’s got a butterfly on her ankle.
As for a tongue piercing, well, mom thinks they’re just jewelry and doesn’t know what those are really for.
Dad does, but isn’t saying. Life’s easier and quieter when he keeps his mouth shut.
Yep, the world is a horrible place, thinks mom.
Good thing she ferries her children everywhere instead of letting them take the bus, and sets up play dates and makes them wear helmets and shields them from peanut butter.
Obama’s Warmed-Over Collectivism
Once again, the president rejected the false choice between “caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future,” a formulation that simultaneously waves aside the relentless growth of entitlement spending (from 37 percent of federal outlays today to a projected 50 percent by 2030) and valorizes Washington’s other frequently wasteful expenditures as transactions from which we can expect net financial returns.
Once again, he has made the factually dubious claim that future “economic vitality” depends not only on “sustainable energy sources” that will “power new jobs and new industries,” but on making damned sure that America leads the world in this sector. “That’s what will lend meaning to the creed our fathers once declared,” he added, oddly.
And once again, Obama has asserted the centrality and indispensability of the federal government to just about everything worth caring about. Here is the passage that best encapsulates the president’s post-Bill Clinton ideology, including the feinting, to-be-sure stuff in paragraph four. I have italicized the action words:
Obama gun view out of step with public opinion
The NRA has a higher approval rating than the president because it’s in sync with Americans’ beliefs.
Ever since the Sandy Hook shootings, we’ve been hearing that now, at last, it’s time for the National Rifle Association to drop its “extremist” views and accept the sort of gun control that Democrats — and their allies in the press — were pushing long before Sandy Hook. When NRA Executive Vice President Wayne La Pierre proposed armed guards in schools, it was portrayed as evidence of how out-of-touch the organization was. Democratic pundits called on Obama to crush the NRA while it was on the ropes — when they weren’t calling for its members and officers to be killed.
Whose idea was it anyway?
But then a funny thing happened. After the NRA school-guard strategy was roundly denounced as outright crazy by the pundits, — the editors of the New York Times called it “delusional, almost deranged” — President Obama came out with … a proposal for armed guards in schools. It is no small feat for an out-of-touch, on-the-ropes organization to get the president to basically endorse its signature policy proposal at a time of national debate.
But, then again, it turned out that 55% of Americans supported the NRA proposal. Turns out, it was the people calling it crazy — like the editors of the New York Times — who were out of the mainstream.
Nebraska Backs Pipeline; Obama Back in Hot Seat
Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman signed off Tuesday on the segment of the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline that would run through his state, placing the onus back on the White House to reach a decision on the politically charged issue.
Obama’s Inaugural Address, Individual Rights, and the Royal “We” That Screws Us All
by Nick Gillespie
Before we forget about President Barack Obama’s second inaugural address yesterday, it’s worth pausing for a few minutes on what strikes me as a profound confusion in it.
I was happy to hear Obama say this:
We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths -that all of us are created equal – is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall; just as it guided all those men and women, sung and unsung, who left footprints along this great Mall, to hear a preacher say that we cannot walk alone; to hear a King proclaim that our individual freedom is inextricably bound to the freedom of every soul on Earth.
Invoking the gay rights movement (Stonewall) is a good thing and it marks a step forward for presidential discourse. Long an outspoken defender of marriage as something between one man and one woman, Obama last year averred he had grown in office and now embraced gay marriage or, more precisely, civil unions of same-sex adults.
It’s not clear if he’ll push for, say, federal tax recognition of gay couples that is equal to that of straight ones. But still, his embrace of something like equality under the law for gays and lesbians, along with his ending of Bill Clinton’s odious “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, is a serious step forward for the government in treating individuals equally under the law.
Indeed, what links Seneca Falls, Selma, and Stonewall is theremoval of governmentally sanctioned inequality, not the creation of a new entitlement or protected status. Women, blacks, and gays were/are treated differently by the law, even or especially when private entities with whom they voluntarily contract wanted to treat them the same.
Back in September 1996, when Bill Clinton proudly signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) into law, businesses were already accomodating gay partners in the workplace. In fact, that’s one of the reasons why DOMA, which meant that the federal government and states wouldn’t have to accept gay marriages legalized by gay-friendly states, was passed. IBM, Apple, Disney, Levi-Strauss, and an increasing number of companies were more than happy to treat their gay employees the same as they treated their straight ones. Plessy v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court ruling that created the unbelievably grotesque “separate but equal” doctrine that underpinned Jim Crow, arosewhen the state refused to let a railroad sell first-class tickets to blacks. There’s no question that some private entitites have a long and ugly history of refusing to do business with blacks, women, gays, and other out-groups. But it’s always been local, state, and federal governments that caused far more problems by refusing the sorts of mixing and work-arounds that reliably happen when markets operate.
So more power to Obama for embracing individual rights on any level.
Yet as Matt Welch pointed out earlier today, most of Obama’s speech was spoken in the royal “we” and involved talking about all the new things that were going to involve us all, whether we want to pitch in or not. In particular, I was struck by this passage about entitlements for the elderly and the poor:
We reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future. For we remember the lessons of our past, when twilight years were spent in poverty, and parents of a child with a disability had nowhere to turn. We do not believe that in this country, freedom is reserved for the lucky, or happiness for the few. We recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, any one of us, at any time, may face a job loss, or a sudden illness, or a home swept away in a terrible storm. The commitments we make to each other—through Medicare, and Medicaid, and Social Security—these things do not sap our initiative; they strengthen us. They do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great.
This is a load of high-minded-sounding junk, conflating all sorts of issues and appeals. Seriously, do you know anybody remotely in a position to influence policy who thinks that the government should never help anyone under any circumstances? Medicaid is the country’s health-care system for the poor and is, by all accounts, an atrocious program that even sometimes harms the very population at whom it’s directed. On a wide variety of outcomes, it is worse than the alternative. And in every state in the union, it is either the single-biggest or second-biggest annual expenditure and a primary cause for state fiscal problems. You can’t wrap this rotting fish in soaring rhetoric and get rid of the stink. I happen to believe in a state-assisted safety net – which is precisely why Medicaid is so outrageous. It’s a huge waste of money that chronically under-delivers. To pretend otherwise is wilful blindness.
Obama hits the wrong note in inaugural address
Yes, it was an unusually partisan speech. It was also unnecessary because no one woke up in a partisan mood anyway. Inaugurations are special days for emphasizing the peaceful transfer of power, an American tradition going back to the very early days of the republic.
I can still remember President Carter turning around and thanking President Ford for everything he did to heal the country. It was a classy moment and a well deserved bipartisan praise.
I can recall the first President Bush speaking of a “1,000 points of light” and bringing the nation together. It was good.
Or what about 41 hugging 43? That was good, too!
President Obama blew an opportunity to highlight the Martin Luther King themes that most Americans subscribe to. It would have been a great today to remind young people that we have a black man in office on the 50th anniversary of The March in Washington. Wonder if the Rev King would have believed that?
He missed a great chance.
So why did he do it? Why is President Obama so tone deaf about the historic importance of an inauguration day?
I think that President Obama is trying to come to the terms with the reality that it’s tough to be a big government liberal when there is no money in the treasury. There are very tough choices ahead and the left won’t like any of them. In other words, he can talk “big liberal” but he ain’t going to walk it!
President Obama will have to cut spending because reality is reality.
Treasury enabled Street cheats
It is official: The big shots on Wall Street had inside information during the financial crisis. And all the little shots, like you, were cheated.
I’ve already documented exclusively in previous columns how Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson had numerous telephone conversations throughout the financial crisis with friends on Wall Street. Paulson, of course, would have been in possession of highly confidential information that could have been used for insider trading.
And Paulson’s phone calls, at least in some instances, seemed to coincide with unusual activity in the stock market.
Now it comes out that Tim Geithner — who just gave up the US Treasury secretary’s job — was accused in 2007 by a Federal Reserve official of leaking market-moving info to people at banks.
Transcripts of the Fed’s meetings for 2007 were released late last week. While everyone else seems astounded that these notes show how clueless the Fed was about the impending turmoil, I think the even more shocking revelation is how dishonest people in sensitive government positions were.
It’s Official: Matt Damon’s Anti-Fracking Propaganda Flick “Promised Land” Bombs At The Box Office…
Matt Damon’s much hyped anti-fracking film “Promised Land” has failed to make the impact that its producers and environmental groups had hoped for.
As of January 20, “Promised Land” has raked in a whopping total of $7,542,000 since it opened on December 28, according to Box Office Mojo. According to The Hill, the movie cost $15 million to make. Box Office Mojo ranked it 139 out of all movies from Jan. 23, 2012 to Jan. 21, 2013.
Maybe a few more flops like this one will awaken the Hollywood libtards to the fact that if only environmentalists and libs go to their movies they ain’t gonna keep on raking in all that lovely money. As for Damon, the more he talks the less interested I am in seeing any of his movies. Actually it’s been a while since he was in anything worth seeing.
Maybe he should get out of the movie business and go into politics full time. His statement: “that he didn’t make a biased movie and claimed to have just wanted to start a conversation on the subject”, clearly shows that he can lie like a politician.
Ben Shapiro: ‘NBC News is a disaster area, an unholstered weapon for the left’
Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro says in a new book that conservatives are getting bullied by the liberals — even by mild-mannered NBC news anchor Brian Williams.
“Brian Williams is an excellent example of how the media bullies the right,” said Shapiro, author of the new book ”Bullies: How the Left’s Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences Americans,” in an email.
“He claims objectivity, but he’s obviously a leftist. I don’t mind bias – I’m biased. But I don’t lie about it. He sits atop NBC News, then allows his news outlet to slander George Zimmerman as a ‘white’ guy (he’s Hispanic), cut Zimmerman’s 911 tape to make him look racist, and broadcast repeated accusations of a racist cover-up in Sanford, Florida.
He questions whether Sarah Palin should have run for vice president not because he questioned her credentials, but because she had a newborn child (imagine if he’d done that to any liberal woman).”
NRA Leader Wayne LaPierre Responds To Obama’s Inaugural Address
Will Liberals Meet Reality on the NYC School Bus Strike?
In the New York Post last week, John wrote an excellent piece on the latest union-taxpayer showdown in New York City–the school bus driver strike that began earlier this month. This battle, like many across the country for oversized compensation for unionized workers that outpaces a municipality’s ability to pay, could shape the financial future of New York City for years to come. In the Post John explained,
You should watch this one closely, whether you have kids who’ve been kicked off a bus or not, because it’s a sneak preview of what is likely to be coming over the next decade in municipalities across the country.
These workers aren’t city employees. They work for private companies. The city’s contracts with those companies are up in June. The city plans to bid out the work.
It has to. You want it to. Trust me: Under the terms of the current contracts, providing this bus service costs — I hope you’re sitting down before you read this next clause — $7,000 a year per passenger.
That’s seven grand per kid.
Predictably, the unions have spent a considerable amount of time, effort and money trying to convince parents that their children would be safest in the hands of unionized drivers. The New York Post reported on the statistics regarding bus accidents with supposedly safer unionized drivers yesterday:
Buses with public-school contracts were involved in more than 1,700 accidents in which the driver was at fault in each of the past five years for which numbers are available, according to statistics compiled by the city’s Department of Education.
The incidents range from minor fender-benders to collisions that resulted in 912 injuries in 2011, the latest year for which stats are available.
A year earlier, there were 1,792 accidents resulting in two deaths and 1,796 injuries.
Despite this bloody record, the Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1181 claims its crippling bus strike is being waged in the best interests of its student passengers — because only its members can do the job safely.
Worth a Read:
CBS’s Attkisson: Obama Admin. Has Stonewalled on Benghazi Since October
Good for Sharyl Attkisson!
Obama Rips ‘Name-Calling,’ Inaugural Full of Name-Calling
RNC Launches New Project to Grow Grassroots Movement
Secretary of State Clinton’s Stunningly Incomplete Opening Statement on the Benghazi Attack
QUOTE OF THE DAY:
“We don’t receive wisdom; we must discover it for ourselves after a journey that no one can take for us or spare us.” ~ Marcel Proust