Wednesday, October 29, 2014

Election Time Again


In elections past, I could just say “Vote Republican or Die!” However, now, with the new “jungle primary” system, you may have two Democrats running against each other in many places. So use your best damage control judgment.

GOVERNOR: Neel Kashkari

This is probably futile, as Governor Brown is too entrenched. And in fairness, “Governor Moonbeam” has not been as bad as I had feared. Still, I will protest vote for Mr. Kashkari on these issues:
1. Judicial Appointees (see “California Supreme Court Judges” section below)
2. The “high speed rail” (sic) boondoggle
3. Neel Kashkari hasn’t signed onto a “Transgender Bathroom Bill” or other such nonsense.
4. The 2nd Amendment
5. Prison realignment / early prisoner releasing (see also Proposition 47 below)
6. “Cap and Trade” Tax Increase and other “Climate Change” fraudulent “science” (no, fudging data to make it fit your computer model is NOT science), in order to bilk us proles filling up our gas tanks
7. Pension reform of state workers

What is sad is that apparently back in the Republican Primary, the GOP Establishment pushed Mr. Kashkari over the Tea Party favorite, Tim Donnelly, because Mr. Donnelly dared address the Elephant In California’s Room—the illegal alien problem. And the GOP Establishment is too afraid, or perhaps too greedy for cheap gardeners and maids, and doesn’t want to address that.


For the same reasons as Governor above, plus Gavin Newsom’s truly smarmy character.


The Issue: Voter IDs.

The Democrat Dishonesty here, claiming “discrimination”, is enough to make any sensible person disgusted. Although I suppose we are discriminating against key voting blocs such as Non-Americans, Deceased Americans, Fictional Americans, Canine Americans and Feline Americans. All important Democrat voter groups.

On a lighter note, I am reminded of the classic 1980’s teenage movie “The Breakfast Club”, where, when the Jock high school character asks the Nerd high school character why he has a fake ID, since the Nerd is shunned by the “in” crowd at school and can’t drink and party with them anyway, the Nerd replies, “So I can vote!” As a kid in the 1980’s, I understood that well.

CONTROLLER: Ashley Swearengin

While her opponent, Betty Yee, has done nothing particularly Demunistic or Commiecratic, Ms. Swearengin deserves massive kudos for her financial acumen as Mayor of Fresno, keeping the City Of Fresno in the black—at a time when most San Joaquin Valley cities and towns were and still are on the skids.

TREASURER: Greg Conlon

Given the term limits rules, California politicos have to play “musical chairs”. Current Controller John Chiang is now trying to make the jump to Treasurer.

However, Greg Conlon has championed realistic pension reform, something badly overdue in the state government.


Current Attorney General Kamala (Commie-lah) Harris has a hostility to self-defense and a propensity to coddle criminals if they are the right color, and it is nauseating. We are lucky not to have a Ferguson, Missouri incident in this state yet.

And lest you think Ronald Gold is just another crusty conservative Republican, he has actually talked about legalizing pot, on the grounds that the Prohibition laws we now have are not realistic.


A former State Assemblyman and now State Senator in my area, and all around good guy. He also opposes Propositions 45 and 46 (see below).


This issue has not been discussed much, but this up or down, yes or no plebiscite is probably *the most important matter* on this ballot, given the Left’s propensity to appoint judicial tyrants who impose their whims upon us all. We must remove judges who read into the Constitution what blatantly does not exist, and read out of the Constitution what blatantly *does* exist. Hence, I have this bolded.

Where I do fault Governor Brown, it is mostly *here*. Brown’s appointments have been abysmal.

We must restore the Rule of Law, rather than continue the Rule Of Whims that we have had ever since the overturning of Proposition 8. Even if you DO think homosexual relationships deserve the *exact* same legal status as a marriage, then such matters are to be hashed out in the legislatures, not imposed by tyrants in black robes. The Constitution is utterly silent on this matter. There is NO reference to sexual orientation whatsoever in the Constitution. Not even so much as "I'm a little bi-curious..."

However, the Tenth Amendment tells us that the powers not delegated to the United States federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. That means this issue needs to be hashed out in the legislatures, not subject to Roe-style hijacking.

See also: for judges in your local area. Meanwhile, for the state as a whole:

Justice Goodwin Liu: NO!!!!!!!!!!

Perhaps the most nauseating and Rose Bird like justice we have now is Goodwin Liu, appointed by Jerry Brown after the Republicans in the US Senate blocked Obama from appointing him to a Federal Bench. Ever wonder why we can’t get a death row murderer the execution he so righteously deserves? You can thank Goodwin Liu and his ilk for that. See also Affirmative Racism and forced School Busing.

“Liu's criticism of Judge John Roberts and especially his statement during Samuel Alito's Supreme Court nomination: "Judge Alito's record envisions an America where police may shoot and kill an unarmed boy to stop him from running away with a stolen purse; where federal agents may point guns at ordinary citizens during a raid, even after no sign of resistance, where a black man may be sentenced to death by an all-white jury for killing a white man, absent [an] analysis showing discrimination, is not the America we know. Nor is it the America we aspire to be"[25] was targeted by Senate Republicans as proof of his lack of judicial temperament and partisanship. Liu later apologized and said that his words were "unduly harsh".[26]

Enough said. Kick this tyrant in black robes out.

Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar: NO!

Goodwin Liu’s understudy.

Justice Kathryn Mickle Weredegar: YES

Has been there since the days of Governor Dukemejian, and she has not let the Power Of The Bench go to her head.


For Santa Clara County:

Justice, California State Court of Appeal; District 6
Miguel Marquez–  NO
Adrienne M. Grover–  NO
Patricia Bamattre-Manoukian–  YES
Franklin D. Elia–  YES
Eugene Milton Premo–  YES

Judge – Superior Court; County of Santa Clara; Office 24
Matthew S. Harris-- YES
Diane Ritchie-- YES

For Sonoma County:
Justice, California State Court of Appeal; District 1, Division 1
Jim Humes–  NO
Kathleen M. Banke– YES

Justice, California State Court of Appeal; District 1, Division 2
Therese M. Stewart–  NO
J. Anthony Kline–  NO

Justice, California State Court of Appeal; District 1, Division 3
Stuart R. Pollak–  NO
Martin J. Jenkins–  YES

Justice, California State Court of Appeal; District 1, Division 4
Ignazio John Ruvolo–  YES

Justice, California State Court of Appeal; District 1, Division 5
Terence L. Bruiniers–  YES
Mark B. Simons–  YES

For Sacramento County:

Justice, California State Court of Appeal; District 3
Vance W. Raye–  YES
Louis Mauro–  YES
Andrea Lynn Hoch–  YES
William J. Murray, Jr.–  YES
Jonathan K. Renner–  NO
Elena J. Duarte–  NO
Ronald B. Robie– YES


Mr. Tuck may be talking a Big Reform Talk, and we shall see how well he walks the School Reform walk. Still he is much better than Teacher Union Stooge Tom Torlakson.

I am increasingly of the mind to get rid of these, since they seem to be very prone to manipulation and take the onus away from our elected state representatives to actually legislate as they should. However, since they do in fact exist, here we go:

Prop 1 – Water Bond: YES, albeit qualified.

This is a long way from a perfect measure, but it’s as good as it gets in California these days: a $7.545 Billion water bond that spends $2.7 billion of that bond for new water storage!!! In other words, Real Dams! This is much better than the “bait and switch” of the so called “water bonds” of the last decade or more, which were environmental initiatives in disguise. However, the latter still exist in this initiative.

The rest of the bond? It consists of:
--$725 million for water recycling and possible desalination—sort of useful.
--$810 million for “regional water projects”—sort of nebulous, as the wording of the initiative includes environmental gimmicks, but the wording also includes rainwater capture and wastewater reuse. See “Text Of Proposed Law, Chapter 7, sections 79740 to 79747”
--$1,495 million (or $1.495 Billion) for “Watershed protection and restoration”-- wildlife programs in disguise
--$1,420 million (or $1.42 Billion) for “Water Quality”—environmental gimmicks in disguise.
--$395 million for flood protection—perhaps worthy, but not increasing water supply!

If that sounds breathtakingly underwhelming, remember that’s $2.7 billion more than the multi-billions of dollars of “water bonds” that were nothing but wildlife programs in disguise that we’ve spent in recent decades.

Sadly, this initiative doesn’t overhaul the environmental laws that vastly inflate costs and it squanders a great deal more that won’t be used for storage, but it is a step away from the lunacy of the Watermelon Left (or “Green” Left) that adamantly opposes it (see “Arguments” section) and this alone merits support.

While I tend to regret bond financing because it is more debt rather than pay as you go, and the actual costs turn out to be about double the actual price tag, at least this initiative finally *builds more dams*, something long overdue,. So I must say YES, albeit a qualified YES.

Prop 2 – The Rainy Day Fund, a.k.a., Stop Us Before We Screw Up Again: YES.

This repeals much of Prop 58, a vat of Schwarzenegger snake-oil sold to voters as the panacea to the state’s budget woes. It wasn’t. Prop 58 promised an iron-clad reserve, but in reality, the governor could suspend it any time he wanted. He did.

What I like most about Prop 2 is that to raid the required budget reserve, both the governor AND the legislature must agree and then, only for a specifically declared emergency. In a nutshell, it requires the legislature and governor to do what they did voluntarily during the Governor Deukmejian era in the 1980s. Still plenty of loopholes, but better than what we have today.

The opposition to this initiative is coming from the school boards who like the spending straitjacket we were put into by Proposition 98 of 1988. Prop 98 means that a minimum percentage of the state budget *must* go to Education spending—regardless if California has a natural disaster that year, regardless if a serious crisis happens in this state’s economy, no matter what. I oppose spending mandate “budgetary straitjackets” in general.

NOTE: I do, however, support mandates that *additional*revenues get spent in certain ways. For example, since the California Lotto was sold to us as “for the schools”, then by gum, the revenues from it should go *to the schools*, and not get raided for other government programs. Since fuel taxes were sold to us as “for roads and transit”, then by gum, the revenues from them should go *to the roads and transit*, and not get raided for other government programs. Surplus from the Lotto? Then dole out more prizes. Surplus from fuel taxes? Then lower the fuel taxes. You get the idea.

Prop 45 – Price Controlling Health Insurance, a.k.a., If You Thought Obamacare Was Bad: NO!!!

This is a trial lawyers’ measure that give the state insurance commissioner the power to set health care rates. Sound good? Doctors and other health care providers are already opting out of Obamacare because of artificially low rates; this compounds the problem for California. The good news it you’ll have cheap health insurance. The bad news is you won’t have a lot of providers accepting it.

This kind of mentality was what led to California’s Car Insurance Fiasco of 1988, where people thought they could just *price control* car insurance without addressing why car insurance was and is so costly in the first place. Price controls are indeed the Demunist mentality at its most Commiecratic. And surprise, surprise, one of the major backers of this terrible proposition is “Pee Wee Harvey” Rosenfeld, who also brought us the Car Insurance Price Control Fiasco that was Proposition 103 in 1988.

Prop 46 – Trial Lawyering Health Care, a.k.a., If You Thought Prop 45 Was Bad: NO!!!

Another trial lawyers’ measure that quadruples the amount they can get for pain and suffering awards. Prop. 45 means lower provider reimbursements and Prop. 46 means higher provider costs. It also requires drug testing for doctors, which is a stupid idea but I appreciate the poetic justice in making THEM pee into little cups for a change. Anyway, it won’t matter because your doctor will be out of state.

Prop 47 – Decriminalizing Property Crime, a.k.a., Rose Bird’s Revenge: NO!!!

We have gone overboard on drug-related offenses, which makes *part* of the Proposition a good idea.

However, this Proposition can only be described as a drug-induced hallucination, in the way that it *decriminalizes* many crimes against property. Sorry, property rights matter. Robbery, Burglary, Theft and Grand Larceny are serious “strike” crimes and deserve serious time. This initiative reduces many grand-theft crimes to misdemeanors and would release an estimated 10,000 incarcerated criminals back on the streets. Basically, it is a burglar’s get-out-of-jail free card. Good news for alarm companies and the handful of 60’s radicals nostalgic for Rose Bird – bad news for the rest of us. Hide the silver.

But this Proposition, along with recent moves by Governor Brown and the Legislature, is part of a disturbing trend: the watering down of the “three strikes” felony laws. When the Brown Administration boasts of keeping within the budget, even while building the “high speed rail” (sic), keep in mind that they are achieving this by moving some state inmates down to County Jails, and letting some County Jail inmates out early. This will come back to bite us all in the future.

Prop 48 – More Indian Gaming: NEUTRAL / Undecided.

Argument For: This ratifies Indian Gaming compacts for two tribes in economically depressed regions of the state that would allow those two tribes to open a casino near a major highway. This will be an economic boon to the struggling local communities there.

Arguments Against:
1. Opponents see this as a gateway to letting *any* tribe move its casino wherever it wants.
2. Is encouraging more games of chance just encouraging more of a “something for nothing” mentality in general???

1. One of the big contributors to the NO campaign is—surprise surprise—ANOTHER Indian Casino! Gee, I thought the gaming tribes were supposed to share revenues with the non-gaming tribes, because not every tribe is lucky enough to be near the main highway.
2. Let us once and for all debunk the notion that somehow those lofty “Native Americans” have deep respect for the land more than any of the rest of us: “We found the bones of our sacred ancestors on that parcel when they were building the freeway by it—so naturally we put a casino on top of them!” :-D

Wednesday, October 15, 2014

Mountain Lions and Foothill Suburbs

Mountain Lions are definitely on the upswing and are more and more bold with their range. They are prowling my old neighborhood.

Contrary to sentimental belief, it is NOT the the suburban foothill developments are intruding on the mountain lions' traditional range. On the contrary, the mountain lions are *coming down from the mountains* to explore what food the suburbs have to offer.

The ranchers and fruit growers in days gone by, who used to occupy the places where the foothill subdivisions are now, had no qualms about shooting the big cats. Moreover, the ranchers and growers were not likely to leave food out for them.

The growth of suburban areas that are not keen on firearms discharge, combined with increased pet food left out (and sometimes the smaller pets *themselves* as mountain lion food) and scraps to forage, have ironically led to more mountain lions.

Another key fact is, contrary to the oft repeated saw that "we are shrinking their land" - given the vast green belts and open space preserves surrounding the Bay Area, *lobbied for by the environmentalists*, and the conversion of hinterland usages from things like logging, ranching, farming and mining, to things more like second homes, primary homes and "country estates" for wealthy Silicon Valley people, the habitat for Mountain Lions and all other large mammals has become a lot less challenging than it was 40 years ago.

A lot less lead flying at the critters (not to mention, a lot fewer traps).

It is ironic. The more citified (or more properly, suburbanized) the Bay Area became, the more bold and overpopulated some of the wildlife became.

Suburban shrubbery attracts more deer, and suburban gardening and garbage cans attract more skunks and raccoons, as well.

Contrary to the notion that increased homes mean decreased wildlife at all times, for some species, the arrival of Suburban Man is a downright boon.

Monday, September 22, 2014

When the "Planners' complain about "Sprawl", what do they really mean?

"Sprawl" = affordable pleasant single family homes with yards for people, and the commercial enterprises that come along to serve people and employ some of them. Industrial parks can sometimes come along too, but usually the industrial site came first, which caused population influx (see below).

"Sprawl" draws the wrath of wanna-be Party Commissars who euphemistically call themselves "urban planners", more on them later.

However, "sprawl" is a simple result of (A) population influx and (B) The Two Out Of Three Rule.

The (B) Two Out of Three Rule is the simple principle that while buyers want homes that are (1) affordable, (2) convenient (usually to/from work), and (3) safe and pleasant, in the Real World most people can only have Two out of those Three.

(3) Safe and Pleasant, for most people, means (a) no or at least minimal criminality, (b) a yard for themselves and their families, (c) a park nearby that also (a) non or at least minimally criminal aforementioned.

"Sprawl", therefore, is the result of homebuyers giving up, or going short on, on (2) convenience (usually to/from work), in favor of having, or going long on, (1) affordability and (3) safety and pleasant conditions.

This is anathema to the wanna-be Party Commissars who euphemistically call themselves "urban planners", who would rather demand that we the people (who they view as Petty Bourgeois or Aspiring Proles) give up our desires for (b) a yard for ourselves and their families.

The even more extreme wanna-be Party Commissars who euphemistically call themselves "urban planners", insist that we Petty Bourgeois or Aspiring Proles give up our desires for (a) no or at least minimal criminality, and forget or never mind (c) a park nearby that is also (a) non or at least minimally criminal.

The wanna-be Party Commissars who euphemistically call themselves "urban planners", pay lip service the "alternative" idea that "New Urbanism", or "infill development", meaning more dense development in the inner city, can house us, the Petty Bourgeois or Aspiring Proles. However, when it comes to *actual* infill development,

(I) the same Commissars who claim to want it often *then* turn around and call it "Manhattanization", and end up *curtailing* it, in favor of a "People's Park" here, or a "Community Garden" there, or just restricting denser development in general. And yet they still tut-tut and cluck-cluck about the "Sprawl" that is exacerbated as a result.

(II) many families still want (b) a yard for themselves and/or their families. While dense infill development *can* appeal a good many people, most notably the childless, the single, and the non-heterosexual, a good many people are still simply *not* served by the "New Urbanist" model.

But of course, we are Petty Bourgeois and Aspiring Proles, and our petty bourgeois aspirations must be snuffed out in the warped minds of a good many of the wanna-be Party Commissars who euphemistically call themselves "urban planners".

(III) When New Urbanist infill developments do succeed, they become pricey, because they are (2) convenient and (3) nice and pleasant (at least they are to the the childless, the single, and the non-heterosexual anyway), and so, they are *no longer* (1) affordable.

The Two Out Of Three Rule still holds in any area with significant (A) population influx.

(IV) A good many inner city neighborhoods remain definitely *not* (3) pleasant, and thus they fail. They often fail because the same wanna-be Party Commissars who euphemistically call themselves "urban planners" have ideological bents, such as:

(i) the view that the "authentic" behavior of people in said inner cities is to behave like thugs and criminals because they are racial/ethnic group X, and those of us who are not racial/ethnic group X have some kind of "privilege" that makes us behave like decent citizens. This is known as Turning Crime Into A Civil Right.

(ii) the view that we Petty Bourgeois or Aspiring Proles must not arm and defend ourselves against thuggery and we must depend upon the benevolence of the same wanna-be Party Commissars who euphemistically call themselves "urban planners". This is known as "gun control".

Anyway, that was a lot of Arabic and Roman Numerals and capitalized and lowercase letters, but I think it makes the point.

The solution is to tell the wanna-be Party Commissars who euphemistically call themselves "urban planners" to "Put up or SHUT UP."

Monday, April 28, 2014

The Donald Sterling kerfluffle

So the Left media noise machine is generating outrage about Donald Sterling's stupid remarks (and yes, they were rather stupid). But no one asks the real questions:

1. Gee, maybe Mr. Sterling doesn't like being cuckolded? Although the douchebag's cheating on his spouse with this mistress of his certainly does not say much for him. Can't say which side of "too much" she is on the enhancement surgery scale. What is evident, though, is that she could suck a bowling ball through 50' of garden hose.

2. Mr. Sterling may be the greatest douchebag alive at the moment, but it is somewhat amusing to see that somehow saying something somewhat "racist" now trumps at least misdemeanor wiretapping laws. Didn't we once impeach a president over wiretapping? Of course, he was an evil white guy, but...

3. It is also amusing to see liberal douchebags like Mr. Sterling dole out millions to the NAACP and other black liberal politicos. How did that work out for him?

4. What about all this kerfluffle makes me think that this was a shakedown by a jilted ex at her former sugar daddy? This girlfriend who was sued in court by Sterling's wife to return the Lamborghini and Ferrari and pricey apartment given to her by Sterling.

Sterling is an old fool, to think that his girlfriend would NOT be cheating on him massively with various Alpha males, never mind the blackness of Athletes like former Rihanna boyfriend Matt Kemp.

At any rate this seems a way to generate some quick TMZ cash ... listening to the full tape, you can just sense her lawyer coaching her to bait Sterling into saying "Black" when frankly, he's really concerned more about the Athlete/Alpha Male part. I really doubt Mr. Sterling would be happy with his trophy hootchie cheating on him with a strapping *white* athlete either.

All that said, It's impossible to feel sorry for the old fool, being a stupid old man thinking some young "Adventuress" would actually be interested in him for anything other than his money.

Mr. Sterling may be a despicable person, but his former trollop is far worse.

Friday, April 25, 2014

“Clinton Library Reveals CRA Fueled Subprime Bubble”

The Community Reinvestment Act is the gift that keeps on giving....
Newly released memos from the Clinton presidential library reveal evidence the government had a big hand in the housing crisis. The worst actors were in the White House, not on Wall Street.

During the 1990s, former Clinton aides bragged that more aggressive enforcement of the Community Reinvestment Act pressured banks to issue riskier mortgages, lending more proof the anti-redlining law fueled the crisis. 

A 2012 National Bureau of Economic Research study found “that adherence to that act led to riskier lending by banks,” with “a clear pattern of increased defaults for loans made by these banks in quarters around the (CRA) exam, (and) the effects are larger for loans made within CRA tracts,” or low-income and minority areas. 

To satisfy CRA examiners, Clinton mandated “flexible” lending by large banks. As a result, CRA-approved loans defaulted about 15% more often, the NBER found. 

Exhibit A in the 7,000-page Clinton Library document dump is a 1999 memo to him from his treasury secretary, Robert Rubin.

“Public disclosure of CRA ratings, together with the changes made by the regulators under your leadership, have significantly contributed to … financial institutions … meeting the needs of low- and moderate-income communities and minorities,” Rubin gushed. “Since 1993, the number of home mortgage loans to African Americans increased by 58%, to Hispanics by 62% and to low- and moderate-income borrowers by 38%, well above the overall market increase.

“Since 1992, nonprofit community organizations estimate that the private sector has pledged over $1 trillion in loans and investment under CRA.

”Other documents reveal how the community-activist group ACORN and other organizations met with Rubin and other top Clinton aides on “improving credit availability for minorities.”

Clinton’s changes to the CRA let ACORN use the act’s ratings to “target merging firms with less-than-stellar records and to get the banks to agree to greater community investment as a condition of regulatory approval for the merger,” White House aide Ellen Seidman wrote in 1997 to Clinton chief economist Gene Sperling.

“Community groups have come to recognize how terribly powerful CRA has been as a tool for making credit available in previously underserved communities,” Seidman added.

Seidman later boasted that Clinton’s 1995 CRA revisions created not only the subprime mortgage market but also the subprime securities market. Of course, subprime loans and their high default rates ruined minority neighborhoods when the market crashed.

Memos also reveal how Clinton aides held repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act hostage to strengthening the CRA. They gave Republicans deregulation of banking activities in exchange for over-regulating how those banking activities applied to low-income communities.


In 2000, HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo lit the fuse on the subprime bomb by requiring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase subprime, CRA and other risky mortgages totaling half their portfolios.

A 1993 memo, “Racism in Home Lending,” captured the tone of Clinton’s affordable-housing crusade. It proposed coordinating with the Washington Post and Congressional Black Caucus on bank investigations. 

These White House papers are smoking-gun evidence of Clinton’s culpability in creating the subprime bubble. The mainstream media’s silence is deafening.
 Jeff Goldstein at Protein Wisdom asks,
It consistently amazes me how the American people re-elect to office the very kinds of people who cause them so much harm, be it to liberty or property. Maybe we’re a nation of masochists.
What we are is a nation that can be race-baited. This was all about the “Affirmative Action” in home lending.

And as long as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were underwriting it, why should any thoughtful banker care?

Go along to get along, or face shakedown lawsuits from the race pimps.

Saturday, January 04, 2014

The Dow Paradox

How is it, despite the utterly counter productive and business bashing moves of this Obama Administration, is the stock market reaching new highs?

First, we must understand that these highs are *nominal* highs, and they are achieved with "Quantitatively Eased" dollars. In real terms, a 16,469 Dow closing today simply *does not* mean what a 12,000 Dow meant in 2006, let alone what an "irrationally exuberant" Dow of 14,000 meant in 2007.

And what of the irrational exuberance of today? What is truly underpinning this economy? And more importantly, what isn't?

For all the Leftist Rhetoric about the "99 percent", it is the politically connected 1%, like big time Obama donors at General Electric for example, who are making out big in this easy credit driven market boom.

Rahm Emanuel famously said that a crisis should not be wasted. Well, the Obama administration has made a very good use of this one. By relatively shielding the wealthy and the educated, the Obama bureaucracy loving elite has used the crisis to make the less prosperous and less educated poorer and more dependent on government largess. How? By using tax payer money to employ the grad school educated in more and more government administrative jobs and by pumping money into the stock markets through near zero percent bank lending.
The result? Two Americas. (1) A mostly employed graduate degree America increasingly drawn to secure, well paid, prestigious if unproductive government jobs, and (2) the increasingly underemployed rest.

How come? The promise of continued low interest rates emboldens those who have gobs and gobs of money to afford risking losing it, i, e., hedge funds and other professionals.
Meanwhile, other individuals with just a little bit of savings are too worried by the dire economy (high unemployment, poor housing markets and record national debt) to risk what remains of their funds. So, they missed the bull market.

What do they do with their money? They put it in the bank for very little return. For as Charles Schwab poignantly notes, Low Interest Rates Punish the Savers and the Prudent.  To make matters worse, American saw their personal income decline by by 3.2% during the Obama presidency. Not to mention that “At the end of last year, debt averaged $43,874 per American, or about 122% of annual disposable income,” though economist debt should exceed 100%.

Ironically, to jump start the economy, Americans, and not merely wealthy ones, are encouraged to spend more, not less of money many do not have. Some fear their money is going to be worth less and less not to mention the probability that an increasing percentage of it will be lost to regressive taxes. They are getting more and more dependent on food stamps, unemployment checks and soon to come government health care.
The big question, of course, is when all these quantitatively eased chickens come home to an inflationary roost.

Monday, July 29, 2013

Black Democrat Smear on Immigration Backfires

Karen Bass (pictured) is a black congresswoman who held a townhall in Los Angeles. She made sure to attack Steve King, and accuse those Republicans who refuse to back the farce of "Comprehensive immigration reform" of being secretly racist:

But it turns out her own constituents aren't happy:
About 300 people attended the meeting, and despite Los Angeles' deeply liberal bent, the crowd was sharply divided over what should be done with the millions of people who are living in this country illegally.
Several spoke out against a pathway to legalization, saying it would reward those who broke the law by entering the country illegally. Others pointed to the economy and unemployment and argued that the job prospects of Americans — particularly African Americans — would be harmed.

Keith Hardiner, 57, said he is the descendant of slaves.

"They were separated from their families, but we had to fight and struggle," said the Silver Lake resident. "And now I feel like we are being set back and the country is being kind of stolen from us."
In 1994, when Pete Wilson *tripled* the share of votes he and other Republicans usually get from African Americans becuse of their stance on the illegal alien issue, did anyone in the GOP Establishment pay attention? Or, like the Wall Street Journal, they so want their cheap maids and gardeners they have to do everything to smear border patriots?

Sunday, July 28, 2013

How to REALLY win Hispanic votes

Allan Wall nails it:
OK, here's an interesting result from a California State Senate special election in a district that is 60% Hispanic, in which Republican Andy Vidak beat Hispanic Democrat Leticia Perez.

According to Breitbart, "Vidak, a working class candidate, resonated with working class Hispanics in the district who also saw how coastal California elites were not putting their bread-and-butter interests first." 
Breitbart also reported that: "Vidak ran broadly on "the bifurcation of California: the coastal liberal elites versus the Valley folks." On a more local level, Vidak's theme of "fish versus farmer" resonated with Democrats in a District where the unemployment rate is 15% and as high as 30% in some communities in the District." 
Rather than allowing hysteria about the Hispanic vote to provoke them to pander to the leftist Hispanic establishment, some astute Republicans might be able to use local issues to win elections. They could at least try to campaign against amnesty on the grounds that it hurts employment prospects among American citizens. It's worth a try.
THIS is how the GOP wins Hispanic votes.

Not by "Hispandering" amnesties that import a larger underclass that will vote Commiecrat, but by engaging those Mexican Americans who actually *run businesses*--as farmers, as restaurateurs, as contractors, as oil and gas drillers, as truckers, as "Jose' the Plumber". All of whom are being hurt--badly--by the Eco-Fiend Left in this state.

The "Green" Demunists in California have been shutting down agribusiness, "fracking" for oil and natural gas, road improvements, irrigation water and hydro power.

Wake up, GOP, and turn the "Brown Businesses" against the "Green" Eco-Fiends, who are really "Watermelons", "Green" outside, but Pinko Red inside.

How is allowing more illegal aliens in going to help the actual Mexican American and other Latin American CITIZENS who have always been here?

Update (08/02/13): Maybe not. Vidak is already pandering, too.

Friday, July 19, 2013

LA Times admits to "Bash Mobs Sweeping Through Southern California"....

....but it still can't acknowledge just who the bash mobs are.

Black goons attack White and Asian victims, and the LA Times just leaves the racism of the mobs utterly unmentioned, even when all the video camera evidence makes it obvious.

Congratualtions, LA Times. You've been encouraging this for weeks. Every since the Zimmerman trial started. Feel happy now that you got what you wanted?

Gee, I wonder if any of the "bash mob" participants look like President Obama did 35 years ago?
35 years ago Obama could have been part of a bash mob. 35 years ago President Obama WAS part of an academic communist cabal excusing the bash mobs.

It would be nice if these bash mobs would find their way to prison fast, as everything is recorded on video and can be reviewed frame by frame. The flash mob footage will be scrutinized down to the pixel.

However, given our Liberal Demunist Commiecrats in office, it is more likely they will find their way to a slap on the wrist, perhaps. They will be coddled and excused because after all, someone once thought their appeared to look like a criminal, so all their actions are justified. Just ask Obama, he will cry a tear for them right on camera.

So if I am attacked by these bash mobs, and I shoot them in self defense, will I be tried for attempted murder or murder for standing my ground? Given the libs who run this state, probably.

These aren't "bash mobs", they are feral black mobs rioting under the protection the media who call them "youths".

And God help any white person who is CCW (are there ANY in L.A.?) who takes out one or more while defending himself. Zinnerman verdict reaction redux.

Theser bash mobs are the result of a single parent Sub-Culture raised on anti-white animosity and envy. Triggered by their racist hatred and a righteous indignation instilled and encouraged by a Leftist Hollywood and Public School Victimist Propaganda. Empowered by Liberals and their Entitlement Mentality. Often Ignored and Protected by the National News Media, Political Correctness and a corrupt DOJ. Forgiven by an endless list of Affirmative Excuses and Lowered Expectations. Glorified beyond recognition by a fawning media on TV, on the Movie screen, and Gansta Rap.

This is the chaotic new social dis-order, void of personal safety, common decency, and civilized behavior that the multi-cultists have forced upon us, and until America wakes up out of its blind obedience to Political Correctness and recognizes this behavior for what it is, and admit that it is a serious problem, violent crimes like these will only get worse....much worse.

Although, in fairness, the LA Times won't admit when Latino criminal gangs are targeting African American victims either.


Saturday, June 15, 2013

Remember MTV?

Daniel Flynn does. When it just played music, and didn't attempt to be the arbiter of anything, and certainly wasn't full of commie politics:
I want my MTV. I keep getting Snooki’s.

MTV celebrates the Fourth of July by declaring its independence from reality television. The initialism that formerly stood for Music Television returns for twelve hours to what it once did 24/7/365: music videos. Perhaps the move will inspire the network formerly known as The Learning Channel to ditch Long Island Medium and the History Channel to take a respite from Ice Road Truckers.

MTV, after all, is contagious. Cable’s reality obsession proves that.

The surreal announcement that MTV will play music videos comes in the wake of VJ: The Unplugged Adventures of MTV’s First Wave, a memoir by the four surviving original video jockeys. “To this day,” Martha Quinn writes, “I have dreams that I’ve been fired by MTV. In my dream, I’m going to a party. I can see that Mark [Goodman] and J.J. [Jackson] and Al [Hunter] are all having a really good time, but nobody will talk to me because I’m not allowed in that area anymore.” But viewers aren’t even allowed in that area anymore, save for a few hours during a backyard holiday when the television is off.

The group memoir recounts tales of Alan Hunter snorting lines with David Lee Roth to an audience of onlookers (“they were all just watching us do blow”); Nina Blackwood finding herself a subject of the #1 hit “Missing You” by former beau John Waite; Martha Quinn on an ill-fated date with Paul Stanley in which a bowling loss compels the Kiss frontman to inspect the lane for defects; Mark Goodman “hooking up in the bathroom” midflight with the winner of the network’s “Asia in Asia” contest (“the mile-high club is great in theory”); and a sweaty and jumpy J. J. Jackson getting through his morning broadcast via the same chemicals that fueled him the night before.

They partied like rock stars. They weren’t paid like them.

The stingy network initially awarded Quinn a paltry $26,000 annual salary. She couldn’t afford cable so, as one of the fledgling medium’s most identifiable faces, she stole it. Alan Hunter, an actor with bit parts in David Bowie’s “Fashion” video and the movie Annie, earned $27,500. He elected to keep his bartending night job. J.J. Jackson and Mark Goodman, veterans of FM rock radio, earned more than double. But on a channel less music than television, the popularity of the younger, more camera-friendly VJs soon eclipsed their colleagues with more impressive rock CVs.

In the beginning, MTV was a transplanted-to-television album-oriented rock station, albeit one that leaned heavily on New Wave imports. Outside of reggae influences like Musical Youth’s “Pass the Dutchie” and Eddy Grant’s “Electric Avenue,” few black performers won saturation airplay on the promotional juggernaut. So, the VJs found themselves on the defensive from recording executives charging racism. Country stations didn’t play The Waitresses. Why should MTV play Michael Jackson?

“We were ecstatic when ‘Billie Jean’ got added — art trumped format,” Quinn remembers. “What we didn’t see at the time was how it was the foot in the door to expanding the format. And then it became a constant exercise in expanding it a little more: How about a game show? How about a reality show?” The start of MTV’s end didn’t come with Remote Control or Real World but with “Billie Jean.”

When Quinn refused to ask Robert Palmer a trashy question at 1986’s Video Music Awards, she sealed her fate. “I went on unemployment, because I couldn’t pay my rent. That was my lowest point: Less than a year after that Robert Palmer interview, I was standing on line at the unemployment office in Van Nuys, California, praying that nobody would recognize me.” The reality of her post-MTV life dawned on her at a stoplight where, from her Honda Accord, she spotted acting school classmate Heather Locklear in her Porsche Turbo Carrera. “She was going home with her husband, Motley Crue’s drummer — I was heading back to Sherman Oaks, where I had a roommate because I didn’t have the money to pay the rent myself.”

Regrets? They have a few. Goodman spends much of VJ apologizing to his then wife Carol Miller for his serial adultery and admits that hard living has led to cirrhosis. “We’re the reason you have no attention span,” Goodman confesses. “And you can really pin reality TV on us too. You’re welcome.” Nina Blackwood laments that she exuded a sexpot image when she was in fact a prude. “I have very few regrets in life, but posing for Playboy is probably my biggest,” Blackwood recalls of a pre-MTV shoot that came back to haunt. Mom Martha Quinn now cringes at some of the videos she played then: “I have to admit, now I see where Tipper Gore and the [Parents Music Resource Center] were coming from.”

A Sunset Blvd. quality colors the retrospective. One can imagine Quinn and company surfing the web for old clips the way I do. If they searched back far enough, they would discover aSunset Blvd. vibe present at the creation. What else is“Video Killed the Radio Star” but an aural reinterpretation of a dilapidated Gloria Swanson watching her old movies?

“In the beginning, everyone told us MTV wouldn’t last,” Quinn recalls. “As it turns out, they were right — our MTV doesn’t exist anymore.” For twelve hours on the Fourth of July, MTV lives again— if but as a ghost of its former self. But it’s never the same the second time around.

We can’t rewind. We’ve gone too far.

Monday, May 13, 2013

US Stay Out of Syria

The optimal solution is to support the Syrian rebels just enough to keep them fighting. Let Assad's goons kill the Al Quaeda goons and vice versa. It's good for the US that Syria is suffering a Civil War - it keeps them pinned down with domestic unrest, but we don't benefit by anyone winning that war. Minimal intervention, just enough to keep the rival factions of savages evenly match and killing each other, like Iran - Iraq 1980-1988, is optimal.


Sunday, March 31, 2013

On the "Gay Marriage" court battles

I honestly don't see how redefining a word which has held the same meaning since the beginning of recorded history is a 'civil right', bogus semantic examples to claim otherwise notwithstanding.

Nor do I see why redefining the word is necessary in light of the other legal vehicles available to same sex couples. There are civil unions, domestic partnerships, or they could even come up with a new word that sounds cooler and doesn't create controversy by hijacking an institution that is considered ancient and sacred by many in our society. 

If anyone is showing "bigotry" here, it is those with the dogma that same-sex relationships deserve the *exact* same status as a marriage, whatever status they may merit, and I do understand that they deserve a legal status and legal protection, which the state of  California has already well established with its domestic partnership laws.

Marriage has been the primary building block of human society for thousands of years, and is closely tied to human reproduction. Same sex relationships, however loving they may be, are fundamentally different in that respect, and parents who simply want their children to grow up and produce grandchildren don't view same sex relationships as the equivalent of marriage, nor, frankly, does mother nature. 

Parents who don't want the "gay rights" crowd circumventing what they teach their children about sexuality at home don't view it as equivalent, nor do parents who raise their children in a religious manner. 

If the goal is to achieve legal status for same-sex couples, this could have already been done if we weren't just fighting over ownership of a word. 

If the goal is to rub the gay lifestyle in the faces of people who don't agree with it, and in the faces of the religious community from which the concept of "marriage" flows, then this fight will probably continue for quite some time.

And let's just get something out of the way right now. I support the traditional definition of marriage, but it has nothing to do with hatred for anyone, contrary to leftist Commiecrat propaganda. This is a free country, and people should be able to live however they choose, up to the point that it infringes on others. 
I only oppose the agenda of the gay rights political lobby when they begin to trample on the rights of others, such as by forcing people to publicly agree with lifestyles they privately disagree with, circumventing what parents teach their children about sexuality at home with "gay" curriculum in public schools, or hijacking an ancient, sacred institution such as marriage in an effort to force society at large to their viewpoint.
But even if you DO think homosexual relationships deserve the *exact* same legal status as a marriage, then such matters are to be hashed out in the legislatures, not imposed by tyrants in black robes.

The Constitution is utterly silent on this matter. There is NO reference to sexual orientation whatsoever in the Constitution. Not even so much as "I'm a little bi-curious..."

However, the Tenth Amendment tells us that the powers not delegated to the United States federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. That means this needs to be hashed out in the legislatures, not subject to Roe-style hijacking. But such is the smug arrogance by the Commiecrat Left: 
Notice that the “inevitability” argument for gay marriage is coming from Beltway elites who want judges to decide the issue. Why are they waiting at the back doors of court houses so anxiously if public support for it is so strong? Why do they try and shut down debate so quickly by branding their opponents the moral equivalent of racists if their case is so manifestly clear? 
The bullying belies their confident pronouncements. Were the people on their side, they wouldn’t need to doctor “social science”to justify their propaganda. They wouldn’t need to use judicial activists to undo democratic results. They wouldn’t need to ignore the written Constitution in favor of a “living” one. 
At Tuesday’s Supreme Court hearing, Justice Samuel Alito, trying to calm the elite herd down, noted that cell phones have been around longer than gay marriage laws. Justice Scalia asked Ted Olson, the lawyer who seeks to overturn Proposition 8, when gay marriage crept into the Constitution as a right: “We don’t prescribe law for the future. We decide what the law is. I’m curious, when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868? When the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted?” 
Olson couldn’t give a date, to which Scalia replied: “Well, how am I supposed to know how to decide a case, then, if you can’t give me a date when the Constitution changes?”
This exchange highlights what a sham these cases are, and explains why gay-marriage activists don’t want a prolonged debate but a Roe-style judicial coup.


Tuesday, March 19, 2013

No, Elizabeth Warren, we can't go back in time....

Following up on the minimum wage fraud being pushed by the Left, we have Senators like Elizabeth Warren, who epitomizes the Demunist mentality at its most Commiecratic, making claims like this:

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) made a case for increasing the minimum wage last week during a Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions hearing, in which she cited a study that suggested the federal minimum wage would have stood at nearly $22 an hour today if it had kept up with increased rates in worker productivity.
"If we started in 1960 and we said that as productivity goes up, that is as workers are producing more, then the minimum wage is going to go up the same. And if that were the case then the minimum wage today would be about $22 an hour," she said, speaking to Dr. Arindrajit Dube, a University of Massachusetts Amherst professor who has studied the economic impacts of minimum wage. "So my question is Mr. Dube, with a minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, what happened to the other $14.75? It sure didn't go to the worker."

It is amusing to see dingbats like Elizabeth "Affirmative Action Paleface" Warren make these sort of claims. This is a common canard with the economically illiterate Left, that high wages and high corporate taxes can work just fine: "Back in the 1950's, we had 90% top earner tax rates, and everything worked well!"

It is amusing to see pipedreamers on the Left, who chide people on the right for “wanting to go back to the 1950′s” (culturally), instead want to go back to the 1950′s economically, when THAT world clearly no longer exists.

Let’s see now, in the 1950′s, the Cold War was a raging, there were no investment opportunities in Maoist China or Soviet Russia, the “emerging markets” were post-colonial battlefields, and Europe and Japan were rebuilding from the rubble. High corporate tax rates in the USA were feasible because there wasn’t anywhere else for them to go…..

As for wages, in a globalized economy, American workers can't pull down the wages today that they could in the 1950's, especially with the sort of immigration policies that Elizabeth Warren and her ilk are condoning.

Today, capital can move with the click of a mouse, so it really isn’t a surprise that Warren Buffett’s investments are taxed at a lower marginal rate than his secretary’s wages.
Moreover, what was the *real* tax rate in those glory days?

Many things were deductible back then that are no longer today, from “Meals And Entertainment” expenses at 100%, to Credit Card Interest, to Medical Expenses, which were not subject to an Adjusted Gross Income “floor” of 7.5%, which this Obama Administration has hiked up to 10%.

So the top marginal rate of 90 percent never actually happened to anyone.

And by the 1960's, after Kennedy's tax cut, no one ever paid 70% of their income in taxes either. When those rates were in effect they were offset by a wide variety of tax deductions that don’t exist now. For instance, we make a big deal out of the home mortgage interest deduction, but back then all interest was deductible — mortgage, auto loan, credit card! Detroit was making money hand over fist manufacturing shoddy cars with expensive union labor because a new car was a valuable tax shelter for the upper class, and even the middle class.

When you take out a loan, the initial payments are nearly 100% interest. So if you had a lot of money and wanted to pay less taxes, you would simply buy a new car every year and trade in the old one. Then your car payments became essentially fully tax deductible. The tax code was swimming with other tax deductions and there was a big industry in exercising them.

In other words, no one paid at a 70% tax rate. The 70% tax rate was what you paid on the small amount of money that you were unable to shelter.

Implementing the 1960s tax rates without the corresponding tax shelters would be a disaster for the economy. The high marginal tax rates had a side effect of encouraging economic activity that avoided the tax rates. Without the tax shelters, the high tax rates would hoover money out of the economy.

Real estate was also then a much bigger tax dodge than it is now. Depreciation – paper losses — could be deducted at a double declining balance rate (rather than today's more modest MACRS formula) from ordinary income until none was left. It was this reality that originally gave rise to the Alternative Minimum Tax in 1969, once intended only for a few thousand wealthy individuals, which now a pain in so many middle class backsides. Highly leveraged deals often produced tax losses to investments in ratios like ten to one.

"Mad Men" is just a TV show. To the extent that world ever existed, it *no longer exists*.

Anyone who tries to tell you the tax rates of the ’50s- ’70′s can be directly compared to today’s rates either doesn’t really know what s/he is talking about or is trying to mislead you.

Monday, March 18, 2013

Abolish the Minimum Wage!

That's right, abolish it entirely. No, wages won't drop that much, if at all, since people still need to be paid enough to not quit.

Why? Because I am a heartless guy? No, because the whole thing is an ecomomic swindle.

Mandating the minimum wage be raised, in the absence of bringing down the other costs of doing business, is nothing but an inflation trap for the suckers. If the producers just raise the prices of goods and services to make up for the additional payments they have to make, then what are the minimum wage workers left with? As the saying / song goes, we are left "running to stand still"....

So you think you can mandate more wages be paid out? And you think that those costs don’t get passed on to you as the end consumer?

Since this typically affects fast food workers, think about what has happened to the cost of said fast food, in just a few short years.

Remember the Carl’s Jr. “Six Dollar Burger” promo–a high end sit-down restaurant burger at a fast food half price? It isn’t half the formerly $6 price anymore, is it? Now it is about $6.

Soon the extra value fast food meals, which a few years ago were $5-$6 and are now about $8-$9, will be $12-$14.

And then those who demand “a living wage” will say they need even more.

“Running to stand still”, as the U2 song goes. They demand more wage money, but they never do anything to lower the cost of the inputs other than labor, in fact, they jack those up too, with various “green” mandates.

Stagflation, here we come.

That is from the worker's perspective. Now, for the small business owner's perspective:

"When your a small business owner & your paying out the ass for health insurance, your Judy trying to survive.
Sure, you can have a million dollar account but if your profit margin is 3% then what's the point of even staying around & employing people.

It's not just the "worker" that is the back bone of our country, it's also the people who have vision & drive to stick their necks out & get loans & contracts with the hope of building something."

The entrepreneurs are most impacted by these rules, and we wonder why they decide to seek their fortunes elsewhere. This is then called "Exporting jobs". Which begs the question of who really did the exporting. Who really drove the cost of labor, and other costs of doing business, way way up.

Monday, November 19, 2012

Tom McClintock: Do not change the GOP

In spite of a lost election, Tom McClintock reminds us it was a *narrow* loss, and that going wobbly will only fail. Emphasis in bold.

* * * * *

"I will begin with three incontrovertible truths about this election.

First, the same election that returned Barack Obama to the White House also returned the second largest House Republican majority since World War II - bigger than anything Newt Gingrich ever had.

Second, according to polls before, during and after this election, the American people agree with us fundamentally on issues involving the economy, Obamacare, government spending, bailouts - you name it.

Third, the American people are about to get a graduate level course in Obamanomics, and at the end of that course, they are going to be a lot sadder and a lot wiser.

That is not to say that there aren't many lessons that we need to learn and to learn well from this election, particularly here in California. But capitulation is not one of them.

Have we forgotten that just two years ago, Republicans campaigned on clear principles of individual liberty and constitutionally limited government? We took strong and united stands to oppose Obamacare, rein in out-of-control spending, roll back the regulatory burdens that are crushing our economy and yes - dare I say it - secure our borders? Have we forgotten that the result was one of the most stunning mid-term elections in American history: a net gain of 63 U.S. House seats, six U.S. Senate seats, 19 state legislatures, six governors and nearly 700 state legislative seats?

Now we're told, just two years later, after a net loss of just eight House seats, two Senate seats and a 2 1/2-percentage point loss of the White House, that we must abandon these principles or consign ourselves to the dustbin of history."
The first of the cold stove lids we are told not to sit on {issues where we are told we must capitulate} is illegal immigration. Republicans, they say, must accept the notion that our nation can no longer control its borders and we should declare amnesty for the 12 to 20 million illegal aliens now in this country. We should do so, we are told, because our position on border security has hopelessly alienated Latino voters who would otherwise share our values.

It is true that Latino voters are a growing part of the American electorate - making up ten percent of the vote in 2012, of which 71 percent voted for Barack Obama, according to the CBS exit poll.
Sean Trende is the senior political analyst for Real Clear Politics. Last May, he published an article addressing this argument directly. He made three points.

First, Latino voters are not a monolithic group on this issue. Citing 2008 exit polling, he noted that a majority of Latino voters "either thought that illegal immigration was fairly unimportant or thought that it was important and voted Republican."

And sensibly so. Mexican American U.S. citizens--shoved aside by illegals--would logically not be happy about what is going on! And *they* are the ones who will vote GOP, not the ethnic activist leftists.

So why are Latinos voting for Democrats? Very simply, he said, once you adjust for socio-economic status, Latinos vote pretty much the same as the general voting population. But because they are disproportionately poor, they tend to vote disproportionately Democratic. However, as they begin to work their way up the socio-economic ladder and assimilate into American society, they become more and more Republican.

Second, citing research from the Pew Institute, he pointed out that the wave of illegal immigration has now crested, and may actually be reversing. He noted that every immigration wave has followed this pattern. Those who stay become more and more assimilated and more and more Republican as the years go by.

As recently as 30 years ago, we used to hear a lot about the Italian vote or the Irish vote. We don't hear about that anymore because they have melted into the general population. The demographic tide, he said, is not running against the Republicans, but running with them.

Third, he points out that a very sizeable part of the Republican base is firmly opposed to illegal immigration, and that abandoning that position could be politically catastrophic. He reminded us, "In a large, diverse country, every move to gain one member of a political coalition usually alienates another member."

Heather MacDonald makes the same point in the aftermath of the election. She notes that 62 percent of Latino voters support Obamacare. They overwhelmingly support higher taxes to pay for a larger government and more public services. These are not voters who will suddenly flock to the Republican banner because we have reversed our position on border security.

That's not to say Republicans should ignore the Latino vote - far from it - and I will get to that in a few minutes. But to suggest that Republicans need to reverse themselves on a fundamental issue of national sovereignty and the rule of law is unprincipled, counterproductive, self-destructive and wrong.

Ironically, the issues where most Latino and African-American voters do agree with us are the social issues, like abortion and marriage -- but of course, we're told by the same naysayers that we should repudiate our position on these messy social issues.

Let's look closer at the polling on the social issues. According to exit polling by Public Opinion Strategies, it is true that five percent of voters last week said that the most important issue in their vote for President was their pro-choice/pro-abortion position. Five percent of the entire electorate is nothing to sneeze at.

But four percent of voters said that the most important issue in casting their vote for President was their pro-life/anti-abortion position. That's a statistical tie.

I have a question for you. How many of those hard-core, single-issue abortion-on-demand Obama voters will suddenly switch their votes to Republicans once we've renounced our position on this issue?
Now, here's a bonus question: how many of that four percent of the electorate who support us solely because of our pro-life position are going to stay with us once we have repudiated them?
It is important in politics to know the difference between addition and subtraction. Addition is what creates majorities and subtraction is what destroys them. In this single exercise, we have just subtracted four percent of the entire American electorate from our vote and added little or nothing.

Now, repeat this process on every other so-called social issue, and tell me if we will be better off or worse off for taking this advice.

With all this said, there is no blinking at the fact that we just lost an election that we should have won, and to pretend there's nothing wrong meets Einstein's definition of insanity. There's a great deal wrong and a great deal that we need to address.

The voters who appeared at the polls agree with us on Obamacare. According to the CBS exit poll, by a plurality of 49 to 44 percent, they want to repeal some or all of Obamacare.

They agree with us on the size of government. By a margin of 51 to 43 percent, they believe that government is "doing too many things better left to businesses and individuals."

They agree with us on taxes. By a resounding margin of 63 to 33 percent, they disagreed with the statement that "taxes should be raised to help cut the deficit."

Perhaps most telling of all, 52 percent of voters agreed "things in this country today are seriously off on the wrong track," and yet then voted to continue down that wrong track for another four years.

As Lincoln said, "The voters are everything. If the voters get their backsides too close to the fire, they'll just have to sit on the blisters a while." It is a painful experience; but it is a learning experience. And at the end of that experience, they emerge sadder but wiser and in time for the next election.

We are winning the issues. And that means over time we will be winning the votes -- but only if we stay true to our principles and true to the millions of Americans who are already with us and many more who may not consider themselves Republicans today - but who believe as we believe.

What was the single biggest political movement in 2009 and 2010? It was the much-maligned, politically incorrect Tea Party, which energized fully one third of the American electorate across party lines. Although 60 percent were Republicans, 20 percent were Independents and 20 percent were Democrats. Long before the Tea Party, we had another name for that phenomenon. We used to call it the "Reagan Coalition." But this year, those who tell us we need a bigger tent told the Tea Party to get out. And many did.
Who brought a tidal wave of young people into the party? It was the much maligned and politically incorrect Ron Paul, whose simple message of unadulterated freedom resonated deeply on college campuses. Eight thousand UC Berkeley students turned out last year to hear that message. But this year, those who tell us we need a bigger tent told Ron Paul and his supporters to get out. And they did. In fact, many of their votes went to Obama.

A well-intentioned supporter e-mailed me last week and said, "we've got to kick the religious right out of the party." I reminded him that we did that in 1976, when the religious right voted for Jimmy Carter.

My point is, you cannot build a majority by systematically ejecting the constituent parts of that coalition. You build a majority by adding to that coalition by taking your principles to new constituencies.

Working Americans of every race know instinctively that you cannot borrow and spend your way rich. We need to appeal to them.

Immigrants came to this country to escape the stultifying central planning and corrupt bureaucracies that ravaged their economies. We need to appeal to them.

For the first time in our history, young people face a bleaker future than their parents enjoyed. We need to appeal to them.

The very groups of voters most damaged by Obama's policies are those who voted for Obama - we need to appeal to them.

Not in the closing days of a campaign poisoned with partisanship - but right now.

We need to recognize that a large portion of our population is not familiar with the self-evident truths of the American Founding and has no compass with which to follow back to the prosperity, happiness and fulfillment that is the hallmark of free societies.

Without that clarion call - without a party of freedom willing to paint our positions in bold colors - I am afraid that as the economy suffocates under the avalanche of government burdens, intrusions, restrictions, regulations and edicts, people in their growing despair, will increasingly turn to the false hope that paternalistic government offers.

The only antidote to that is the self-evident truth of the American founding: that freedom works and we need to put it back to work.

Like it or not, we are at this moment the only party equipped to revive and restore those truths and take them to the millions of Americans who are desperately searching for them.

Great parties are built upon great principles, and they are judged by their devotion to those principles.

Since its inception, the central principle of the Republican Party can be summarized in a word: freedom. The closer we have hewn to this principle, the better we have done; the farther we have drifted from it, the worse that we - and the country - have done.

Dick Armey put it more simply: "When we act like us, we win, and when we act like them, we lose."


Monday, November 12, 2012

The Frogman's Prophecies

A great blog post from "The Dissident Frogman", a French expat, now in America, about what we have done to ourselves in this most recent election:

Now that a slight majority of American voters have caught the French, I will share visions of the times ahead with those who are still immune to this ghastly Western Occidental disease, and with the infected themselves.

Hear ye, hear ye, Great American Tribe: thou hast lost thy ways and hast forged thyself chains of iron. Hear the Revelations of the prophet Frogman, he who wandered through the barren wasteland of Europa under a wooden yoke and witnessed the terrible plight and dreadful blight that will now descend upon thee:

TO THE GLOATERS crowing over the comments sections of every conservative and Republican websites: burn through every gallons of that sweet euphoria as quickly and fully as you can, for it will very soon become stale and leave only the putrid taste of rot in your mouth. I know you, for I’ve seen your peers and walk among them in the Land of the Frenchmen. Tomorrow, the effects of your plebiscite will pierce through the exhilaration of your victory, and they will crush you as much as they afflict those you mock today.

Just as they did in France, the policies you champion will affect everyone’s standards of living, directly and indirectly. If you are wealthy today, your wealth will dwindle tomorrow. If you are already poor or believe yourself so, you will never rise and prosper.

Soon, just as the French did, you will realize that you’ve elected yourself servants of an unaccountable oligarchy courted by a small intelligentsia to which you will never belong, from which you will never profit and of which you can never get rid. Then, you will join the legions of what the French call les déçus de la Gauche, or "the Left’s disappointed"—Indeed, even in Left wing France, the Left never fails to disappoint its followers for it is made of and thrives on fallacy and deceit.

Just as the French, when you realize that the effects of the political model you tout today cascade and accumulate to the point where you have effectively handed that oligarchy a permanent majority that begins to feed on its pawns—you—it will be too late and your loss will be complete.

Understand this: I am not a US citizen nor a resident in the USA, so this is not the bitter retort of a sore looser. This is a prophecy from a foreigner who has seen your future because he lives in it: you, my friend, who laugh today will cry twice as much tomorrow.

TO THE VARIOUS BRANCHES OF LIBERTARIANISM, whether followers of the cranky Dr. Ron "The Bane of the Fed" or hipsters swapping commodity traders’ jokes on Zero Hedge as they wink-wink-nod-nod "wait for the Titanic to sink". You who decided against opposing the Eurobama Project rather than banking on the Romney & Ryan ticket who, despite all its shortcomings (whether real, perceived or invented) would nevertheless have been far more receptive to most Libertarian ideals and would have been easier to steer in the directions you favor than the Chicago Machinist will ever be, here is an enigma:

Have you ever heard about the French Libertarian Party?

Me neither. True, there’s a couple of pretenders to the title, but they are merely social clubs, where every now and then attendants get a tingling in the pants by quoting good old Ludwig Von Mises and Claude Frédéric Bastiat between connoisseurs. Their true distinctive feature when compared to the other French is that they won’t even bother entertaining any delusion of grandeur or relevance—they know they have no place in the French political process, and no chance to ever gain one.

So hear this, Friends of Gary the Third Party and other Principled Abstentionists: by choosing ideological purity over strategic thinking, you’ve effectively hedged your own political future in the one competing force that is most capable of propelling you into irrelevance and oblivion—as we say in France: Bravo!

Just as in France, once a majority of the US population—no matter how slim—has tasted the poisonous fruits of the State, they will demand the keys to the cornucopia and regard with disdain, scorn or hostility any soul brave or foolish enough to call it unsustainable and propose to lock the larder. The fact that you are right will not matter at all. Just as they do in France, the people will ask for more and tout de suite, never realizing or willing to acknowledge that they are effectively cannibalizing themselves and their offspring—as we’ve been saying in France for quite a while: Après moi le Déluge!

Thank in no small part to you, Obama now has more time to multiply the locusts, thus depleting your future ranks. You shall keep fancying yourselves as The Smart Ones, when compared to those Neanderthaloid Conservatives and Liberal Zombies, until one of you wonders aloud why the lights went off in the Libertarian cave, and hears only the echo in answer.

Understand this: I am not a US citizen nor a resident in the USA, so this is not the bitter retort of a sore looser. This is a prophecy from a foreigner who has seen your future because he lives in it: you, my friend, who didn’t oppose Obama today will be politically extinct tomorrow.

TO THE REPUBLICANS, INDEPENDENTS AND, YES, DEMOCRATS—after all, between Lot and his family, even in Sodom there were a few righteous—who saw that great Evil roaming the land, pledged to do anything in their power to stop him but ultimately couldn’t muster a big enough army.

Some of you believe that shifting demographics have now relegated the American Right to a permanent minority status, and that to regain the initiative, you must disown the "Right-wing nut jobs" and "move to the center". That notion would be stupid and self-defeating enough at face value, even if it wasn’t echoed by a slew of Left wing pundits, who smelled the blood and see your doubts as a unique opportunity to demolish you further.

For the results of such a ‘strategic’ move, one needs only to turn, once again, to France.

Look at the French Right. See it? Look harder, as it is now very difficult to distinguish from the Left. Back in 1981, when the French elected their first officially Socialist president in a long time, and the French Right went on a losing streak, collapsing at the polls under what was then dubbed la vague rose ("the pink wave". Rose in French meaning both the color pink and the rose flower, emblem of the French Socialists) they figured, quite cynically, that they had to give the voters whatever they demanded—and moved left. They are now only nominatively Right wing, yet are consistently chided and scorned by the French press as right-wingers, ultra conservative and free market fundamentalists.

In other words, the French "Right" is now always wrong, and only has herself to blame.

I am not going to lecture you on what Republicans and conservatives should or shouldn’t do—if you want patronizing political advice, ask any of the other 60 millions+ French, they’ll happily oblige—but in light of the rapid destruction of the French Right, I’ll just state the obvious: what you need to change isn’t your principles, it’s the narrative.

Some of you believe that societal collapse or civil war are coming soon hereafter, and advocate stocking supplies and ammunitions for the conflict they see ahead.

Truly, there isn’t such things as too much food and weapons, and yes, collapse and conflict could come to America. Yet it is not written.

The various flavors of Social Democrats who run Europe (into the ground, admittedly), and share so many features and aspirations with Obama have learned the mistakes of the less subtle autocrats who preceded them. If France can teach you one thing, it’s that Obama will never bleed you dry or push you beyond the threshold of revolt, only to the nearest edge of it: you are now more likely to bleed from a thousand cuts over a thousand years than to get a quick, if violent, resolution to the relentless assaults against your life, liberty and pursuit of happiness—snarky Libertarians who opted to let Obama squat in the Oval Office unopposed on the deluded notion that "it doesn’t matter" and will bring the fall of Leviathan sooner, may want to take notice.

Even the French have not yet managed to completely plunder and ruin their comparatively much weaker economy, and the good Lord knows they’ve been trying for the best of the last 80 years or so.

Just like in France, the rates of taxes, duties and fees unleashed upon the good folks of the US of A will not only augment, they will also metastasize over an incredibly varied and ever expanding range of products and services, in addition to your income and profits. You will suffocate under an unrelenting onslaught of new regulations, red tape and audits by a growing army of government agencies and bureaucrats all tasked with the mission of controlling that nothing passes through their nets, and punishing you ruthlessly for anything that does.

And still: you will live through it, and you will live well enough—for a given value of "well"—to never really have a legally and morally unquestionable motive to rise up in arms and go full scale de oppresso liber on the tyrant. This will not be, as many of you imagine when they think about France, North Korea only with more cheese, wine and broads who don’t shave their armpits. Instead, you will find yourself in a multi-generations limbo of "too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards"—as, ironically, a Libertarian once said.

Just like in France, this will turn you into a depressed, cynical and pessimistic people, until they finally manage to kill your spirit whole, and nearly everybody is on the dole.

That’s when they’ve won. They do not need to kill you, they just have to break you.

Understand this: I am not a US citizen nor a resident in the USA, so this is not the bitter augury of a sore looser. This is a prophecy from a foreigner who has seen one of your possible futures while living in it.

Yet you, my friend, are all that’s needed to change that destiny.

If, as some say, this is all about demographics, then look at demographics and rejoice: no matter the color of your collar, you are the the productive class, the entrepreneurial class, the creative class—quite literally, the working class—the likes and numbers of which France has never seen. You are guided by family morals and work ethics that are long gone in France, assuming they’ve ever existed here. And you are living under the cover of the most formidable declaration and system of self-governance, one that simply never existed in France.

Thus the only future I can predict is the one where you go French and surrender. You, and only you can turn this debacle around and me into a false prophet.

Sadly, some among you seem to have all but given up. Reading through your reactions in the comments at PJ Media, Breitbart, Hotair and others, I see cries that "the Republic is dead", and even claims—shocking claims, for this Americanophile—to burn the flag because "it doesn’t mean anything anymore".

Old Glory doesn’t mean anything, simply because you woke up last Wednesday to a measly 4 millions popular votes difference? A battle of nearly 121 million voters finds you outnumbered by four and hear, hear: the Republic is dead and the war is lost?

Try and tell that to those Americans who found themselves outnumbered and outgunned by far more disadvantageous enemy ratios, whether in a forest in the Ardennes, a hill in Korea, a valley in Vietnam or a mountain in Afghanistan. Try and tell them you’re considering giving up and burning the flag in despair.

Even though I am just a French, I am quite certain I can predict their reaction.

Once again, you don’t need a lecture from this Frenchman, but it seems to me that some of you, in the emotion of that unexpected electoral defeat, forgot this simple fact: America is always outnumbered.

This unique nation, founded not on feudal or religious fault lines but on a radical philosophy of individual freedom isn’t the norm in this world: it is an anomaly. If you needed a quick and simple reminder on the basis for American exceptionalism, there you go.

America is always outnumbered and, until the rest of the world sees the guiding light and builds shining cities on America’s model—if that day ever comes—America will always be outnumbered.

Yet it doesn’t matter: America’s strength isn’t in numbers, it’s in her soul.

Hear this final prophecy America: only one man can kill the Republic, and it isn’t Barack Obama. The one man who will kill your Republic is the one man who will last give up and renounce it.

Don’t you dare be that man.

Sunday, November 11, 2012

It's not 1980 anymore

Many patriots are left asking, "How could this happen? Surely people remember the Jimmuh Cartur disasters? How could another liberal fool get elected twice?"

However, the sad truth is that the American electorate has changed. Some of this is merely a new generation, or maybe two, coming of age without memory of The wretchedly liberal late 1970's. As one comment I ran across on Yahoo! News put it: "Dude, I wasn't even *born* when Jimmy Carter was president...."
For months, conservatives have been likening the conditions of the 2012 presidential race to that which saw the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. The American Spectator's own Jeffrey Lord proclaimed that President Obama could be beaten handily“because the past four years really have been Jimmy Carter's second term.”

Victor Davis Hanson of National Review Online put it this way: "What does 1980 tell us about 2012? Barack Obama, like Carter, can run neither on his dismal four-year stewardship of the economy nor on his collapsing Middle East policy."

Hanson went on to write: "The winner probably won't be decided by old video clips, gaffes, or even campaign money, but by turnout and the October debates --depending on whether incumbent Obama comes across as a petulant Carter and challenger Romney appears an upbeat Reagan. As in 1980, voters want a better president -- but they first have to be assured he's on the ballot."
This goes even more so for California. I remember joking on a chat board,, that the Jerry Brown for Governor campaign theme song should be "You're No Good" by Linda Rondstadt, and again, a good many younger readers did not understand what I was getting at.
Well, Obama did come across as petulant in the debates while Romney was upbeat. And yet it wasn't enough. At the end of the day, despite Obama's dismal economic record and an ineffectual Middle East policy, his well-oiled organization turned out his vote and Romney could not. Romney could not break through in key states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan nor could he put Ohio and Florida back in the Republican column.

And yet Obama didn't win on turnout alone. He won because America has changed. We're not in 1980 anymore.
At the dawn of the '80s, a critical mass of the American population knew what life was like in the Great Depression and WWII, understood the evils of Soviet communism and did not take kindly to American diplomats being held hostage. But when we have an education establishment that is skeptical of the use of American power and weans high school students on Howard Zinn's communist A People's History of the United States, should it come as a surprise that many shrug when an American ambassador is murdered? Still, Romney had not one but two chances to expose the folly of the Obama Administration's insistence the attacks in Benghazi were a result of a YouTube video, not a terrorist attack and twice he failed to do so.

In 1980, Americans would not tolerate rising unemployment. In 2012, not only is high unemployment accepted as a fact of life but receiving food stamps is encouraged. There was also no concept of gay marriage in 1980. In 2012, Obama endorsed gay marriage (albeit sooner than he wanted to on account of the loose lips of Joe Biden). Nor was it conceivable in 1980 that a sitting Commander-in-Chief's re-election campaign could have put out a commercial featuring a woman likening support for the President to the loss of her virginity. Thirty-two years ago, being wealthy and successful was considered something to aspire to and be proud of. Today, it is a source of bitterness, envy, resentment and, in some quarters, the very epitome of evil.

In the final analysis, it must also be remembered that a significant segment of the electorate was emotionally vested in Barack Obama in a way it never was with Carter -- and I'm not just talking about the mainstream media. Obama received a near unanimous vote from African-Americans and a substantial majority of Hispanics as well as people under 30 (especially women). That doesn't necessarily mean we've entered the permanent Democratic majority which Ruy Teixeira and John Judis wrote of a decade ago. It is certainly possible that America could again elect a conservative Republican President. But conservatives must recognize that the American electorate has changed and that 1980 has come and gone, never to return.
Moreover, demographics have changed. And NO, Hispandering with an amnesty or phony "comprehensive immigration reform", or a "DREAM" (sic) Act, won't change the voting trends. People with a favorable view of big government will vote for the Democrats, even the full blown Commierats. Victor Davis Hanson proves:
As far as the grand bargain, the Dream Act, comprehensive immigration reform, or whatever the rubric of the day that a clueless Republican establishment employs: just imagine the opposite to learn the truth. If the Republicans were to agree to amnesty for, say, two million who were brought here as children and are in school or in the military, do you really think the “Latino community” in response would celebrate and then also agree to deport those who did not qualify? Or do you imagine the deal would at least result in deportation for those entirely on public assistance or with a criminal record? Did the Reagan-era Simpson-Mazzoli Act amnesty lead to 1) an end to calls for amnesty, 2) closing the border, 3) a surge in Latino support for Republicans, or 4) none of the above?

Does a conservative message of lower taxes, less government, and fewer regulations really appeal to Latinos en masse, who define La Familia values as something that includes a big and paternalistic government, along the Spanish/European model? 
So family values are defined somewhat differently from the Republican silk-stocking view that Latinos are natural Republicans — if only (fill in the blanks). Again, I would like the Democrats to introduce the Dream Act, and then watch whether closed borders, E-Verify, and deportation of criminals were part of the deal. That is not to say one should not talk in softer tones and be magnanimous; but one is fooling oneself if one believes a cheap Dream Act endorsement would mean anything.
The truth is that the present system of illegal immigration is quite logical and thrives because too many are invested in it, well aside from corporate employers. California is a permanently blue state. Latino leaders, many of whom can no longer speak Spanish, represent a vast underclass of illegal aliens whose numbers warp all statistics on Latino achievement and become a permanent argument for set-asides, more government help, higher taxes (think: who just voted for California’s higher taxes?), affirmative action, and changing demography. Why simply give that up, and join a party of the melting-pot, up-by-the bootstraps, self-reliant, shrink-the-government types? To go to Parlier or Orange Cove is to drive through a maze of federal/state clinics and government facilities, many eponymously named by those who secured the government funding for them. No, I am sorry: I don’t see a natural Hispanic constituency for what Mitt Romney was trying to offer.
VDH concludes that once again, the Demunist Commiecrats played their class warfare card and the Republicans did not effectively respond:
I also confess that stupid ads like Lena Dunham’s sex-equals-voting-for-Obama ad and stupider ones like the African-American garbage collector, who said Romney never talked to him at the curb, worked. 
I sense the same misinformation about the “wealthy” and the “job creators:” Just think the opposite and the truth emerges. Most in the top brackets voted for Obama; eight out of the ten wealthiest counties did at least. Many of the people I know in Silicon Valley, who this year passed on the signs and bumper stickers, nonetheless voted for Obama. The fact is that the Democratic Party, to generalize, is largely now the subsidized lower classes who pay no federal income tax and receive a growing array of federal largess coupled with, on the other end, a technocratic blue-state elite making over $200,000 annually. If taxes go up under Obama, at least theirs will, too. Another truth: the Republican Party is basically made up of a shrinking middle class and upper middle class, flanked on both ends by Democrats who, for various reasons, on one end, either do not appreciate their success or, on the other, hate them for their hoity-toity, un-PC tastes and culture. Yet how strange that the two ends of the Democratic coalition have so little to do with each other — a partnership based on cynical opportunism on both sides. All that is missing are the Roman tribunes, or perhaps the wealthy demagogi.

What Lost the Election?

Marco Rubio would not have won the Latino vote this year. A ticket of Condoleezza Rice and Herman Cain would not have won the black vote. Bobby Jindal and Nikki Haley would not have won the Asian vote. Obama, in brilliant fashion, marketed himself as the above-the-fray great healer and our post-racial future, while his surrogates waged the most vicious race-, class-, and gender- divisive campaign in history. More likely, what lost the race for Romney — a decent and strong candidate — was instead the failure of the white working classes to turn out to vote en masse.

Why so? I was in Michigan, near the Ohio border, for all of September, and each night was stunned by the variations in the class warfare ads, mostly brilliant and effective in painting Romney as your kill-Detroit, wet-suited, jet-ski-setting, multi-home employer — a veritable John Kerry, John Edwards, or Ted Kennedy — and “us” as a disabled, homeless, starving, and out-of-work collective victim as a result. Millions, who did not prefer Obama, just stayed home and thought that they would pass on voting for the guy who had too much money and gave them their pink slips. In 2004 they saw Kerry as the wet-suited wind surfer; in 2012 it was Romney.