I have not posted anything in a long, long time, but I was reading a great piece by Marc Thiessen of AEI this morning and it reminded me of something I wrote almost seven years ago about world-class moron, Joe Biden. As all (eight) of you will remember, I mentioned a number of things that Uncle Joe had said which turned out to be spectacularly wrong.
I missed one.
The following is what Thiessen wrote verbatim: "When President George W. Bush came to office, he revitalized missile defense efforts and withdrew from the ABM Treaty. Democrats were more upset than the Russians. Sen. Joseph Biden declared "The thing we remain the least vulnerable to is an ICBM attack from another nation" adding "This premise that one day Kim Jong Il or someone will wake up one morning and say, 'Aha, San Francisco' is specious.""
Wow.
I think there is a business here. Pick a few of Uncle Joe's ramblings from the past and, assuming you can find someone to take the wager, bet on the diametrically opposite thing to occur.
And this guy might run for President in 2020. And the press will love him and never bring any of this up. What a country.
Talk to y'all again in seven years!
Friday, September 8, 2017
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
"A Very Difficult District for Democrats"
This just in. The Democrats lost a congressional seat (NY - 9) that they had previously held for almost 100 years - in a district where Democrats outnumber Republicans 3 to 1. It wasn't even that close (last I checked, Bob Turner beat David Weprin by a 53% to 47% margin). I laughed out loud when I read Debbie Wasserman Schultz's comment that "this is a very difficult district for Democrats". Say what? 100 years and 3:1? Where do these people come up with this stuff? If that is a difficult district, I shudder (in a good way, like Chris Matthews thinking of Barack Obama) to think of what is going to happen to the Democrats in 2012.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
You Call this Poverty?
I write this post from Manila, the Pearl of the Orient. Manila is not a bad place - I have seen worse, but let's face it, there is poverty all around me. Like Mexico City, Kathmandu, Bangkok, Buenos Aires or Paris (all cities that I know reasonably well), Manila has very wealthy enclaves (OK, maybe Kathmandu doesn't have one of those) that are a long baseball (Go
Giants, beat LA!) throw away from people living in abject poverty. And on this short trip I have seen a lot of the poverty and not much of the wealth.
So I was interested (I would say "surprised", but not much surprises me nowadays that comes from the MSM or a government agency like the Census Bureau) to see that there are record numbers of people living in "poverty" in the US (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/record-poverty-last-year-as-household-income-dips-2011-09-13). Of course how you define "poverty" is rather important, but that is not something the MSM wants to highlight for the most part. So check out the following article from two researchers from the Heritage Institute (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/09/13/understanding_poverty_in_the_us.html) that puts American "poverty" in context. The "poor" for the most part have big-screen TVs (most likely bigger than the one we have), computers, cars, shelter with a/c and heat and sufficient food. Is that really poverty? No, of course it isn't. It may not be as much as other people have, but it is not poverty. But isn't that the point of the left nowadays? To "level the playing field" so those with "more" (whatever that means) will "pay their fair share" (like we don't pay enough already).
I have rarely asked the question in my travels, but my assumption is that a substantial majority of the world's population would be overjoyed to live in the "poor" America that is being presented. And my assumption is that the answer to the "poverty" problem for many is to take more from the $200,000/year "millionaires" and make them pay their "fair share" to those who have less - in large part because they probably did not work very hard and are content to live as they do with government assistance.
I leave Manila today for Los Angeles and can't wait to get home to my poverty-stricken country. I just wish the MSM would highlight how good the "poor" have it in the US (good luck with that) and I laugh at people that take these "statistics" as a call to arms to "do something", which usually involves taking from those with more in order to make life more "fair".
Giants, beat LA!) throw away from people living in abject poverty. And on this short trip I have seen a lot of the poverty and not much of the wealth.
So I was interested (I would say "surprised", but not much surprises me nowadays that comes from the MSM or a government agency like the Census Bureau) to see that there are record numbers of people living in "poverty" in the US (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/record-poverty-last-year-as-household-income-dips-2011-09-13). Of course how you define "poverty" is rather important, but that is not something the MSM wants to highlight for the most part. So check out the following article from two researchers from the Heritage Institute (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/09/13/understanding_poverty_in_the_us.html) that puts American "poverty" in context. The "poor" for the most part have big-screen TVs (most likely bigger than the one we have), computers, cars, shelter with a/c and heat and sufficient food. Is that really poverty? No, of course it isn't. It may not be as much as other people have, but it is not poverty. But isn't that the point of the left nowadays? To "level the playing field" so those with "more" (whatever that means) will "pay their fair share" (like we don't pay enough already).
I have rarely asked the question in my travels, but my assumption is that a substantial majority of the world's population would be overjoyed to live in the "poor" America that is being presented. And my assumption is that the answer to the "poverty" problem for many is to take more from the $200,000/year "millionaires" and make them pay their "fair share" to those who have less - in large part because they probably did not work very hard and are content to live as they do with government assistance.
I leave Manila today for Los Angeles and can't wait to get home to my poverty-stricken country. I just wish the MSM would highlight how good the "poor" have it in the US (good luck with that) and I laugh at people that take these "statistics" as a call to arms to "do something", which usually involves taking from those with more in order to make life more "fair".
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
I Love MSNBC
What can be more interesting than watching MSNBC's very own Keith Olberman (I used to like him when he was a sarcastic sports reporter for KTLA) and Chris (I feel a shiver down my leg) Matthews trying to explain why Martha Coakley is going to lose to Scott Brown in Massachusetts?
Nothing.
God forbid these people would actually admit that the people in the bluest of all blue states (but in retrospect, is it?) would elect a Republican because they are sick of the liberal nonsense of Barack Obama and his crew. So it must be because Martha Coakley is boring or ran a bad campaign or the people are confused, or my favorite...because Obama hasn't been liberal enough!
I can only hope the Democrats continue to delude themselves that our country wants the liberal nonsense and shenanigans that Obama-mania represents. We need a Republican* Congress and Senate in 2010 to get the country back on track and that will do it.
So keep it up Keith and Chris. I am sure your 785 viewers really appreciate your hard work and objectivity.
*By Republican, I mean the good Republican kind and not the big-spending, just-as-bad-as-the Democrat kind of Republican.
Nothing.
God forbid these people would actually admit that the people in the bluest of all blue states (but in retrospect, is it?) would elect a Republican because they are sick of the liberal nonsense of Barack Obama and his crew. So it must be because Martha Coakley is boring or ran a bad campaign or the people are confused, or my favorite...because Obama hasn't been liberal enough!
I can only hope the Democrats continue to delude themselves that our country wants the liberal nonsense and shenanigans that Obama-mania represents. We need a Republican* Congress and Senate in 2010 to get the country back on track and that will do it.
So keep it up Keith and Chris. I am sure your 785 viewers really appreciate your hard work and objectivity.
*By Republican, I mean the good Republican kind and not the big-spending, just-as-bad-as-the Democrat kind of Republican.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Revisionist History Lives
Today's Post had a piece by a fellow who is saying that the US is on the right side of the Honduras affair. I posted a comment to his piece (see below) and if you want to see the piece itself (with a link to my response), go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/26/AR2009112602086.html. Makes for interesting and informative reading.
Mr. Schumacher's piece failed to point out that the US has been on the wrong side of this issue since day 1 and makes it seem like we had it right all along. I imagine Mr. Schumacher works for the State Department in the Department of Covering Up Stupid Things We Have Done (DCUSTWHD). Maybe the US should do the right thing and admit we made a mistake and acknowledge how the Hondurans are on the right path - maybe that will cause others in the world to validate the free and fair elections to be held by Honduras. I thought our foreign policy under Bush was pretty bad in a lot of ways, but under Obama we are plumbing new depths of ineptitude and silliness.
Mr. Schumacher's piece failed to point out that the US has been on the wrong side of this issue since day 1 and makes it seem like we had it right all along. I imagine Mr. Schumacher works for the State Department in the Department of Covering Up Stupid Things We Have Done (DCUSTWHD). Maybe the US should do the right thing and admit we made a mistake and acknowledge how the Hondurans are on the right path - maybe that will cause others in the world to validate the free and fair elections to be held by Honduras. I thought our foreign policy under Bush was pretty bad in a lot of ways, but under Obama we are plumbing new depths of ineptitude and silliness.
tlamb1 wrote:
This was a very nice rewriting of history - my compliments to the author. It is true to say that the United States is now on the right side of this sordid affair, but extremely misleading not to mention that it was on the wrong side for the entire period of time leading up to elections. The author neglected to mention that the State Department did everything it could to reinstate Zelaya over the wishes of the Honduran Supreme Court and Congress (a majority of which was from Zelaya's own party) based on his defying of the Honduran Constitution. The US cut off aid, froze assets and suspended visas - all in an attempt to force the small, poor, democratic nation of Honduras to bow to the will of Morales, Chavez, Ortega, Kirchner and their ilk. It was clear to anyone that was paying attention (but not State or Hillary Clinton or President Obama) that Zelaya was lawfully removed from his Presidency. The method by which he was removed from the country in the middle of the night did not play well for the world cameras, but in hindsight was done for the right reasons (i.e. to stop Zelaya from fomenting the riots that eventually occurred).
So now the State Department recognizes the error of its ways and they get a free pass? God forbid the State Department (and Mrs. Clinton and President Obama) admit it was wrong in the first place - perhaps that would help to further legitimize the election.
So now the State Department recognizes the error of its ways and they get a free pass? God forbid the State Department (and Mrs. Clinton and President Obama) admit it was wrong in the first place - perhaps that would help to further legitimize the election.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Man Bites Dog! Washington Post Op-Ed Writer Questions Obama Plan's Ludicrous Claims
I do some of my best thinking while running (too bad I don't run much anymore) and this morning I was wondering 1) how it can be that President Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, their fellow Democrats and their journalistic enablers can talk with straight faces about how the Obama health plan will lower the deficit, and 2) more importantly, how anyone can possibly believe that nonsense. The Wall Street Journal points this out with great regularity, but in the other paper I read (the Washington Post), other than pieces by Charles Krauthammer, George Will and Robert Samuelson, there are only glowing words and fluff pieces trumpeting the fantastic claims of Obama, et al, by the rest of the Opinion writers (Ruth Marcus, David Broder, Eugene Robinson, Anne Applebaum, Richard Cohen, the Post's editorial board, etc., etc., etc.)
I just opened up today's Post and read (twice - I didn't believe what I was reading the first time) a piece by predictably liberal stalwart David Broder (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/20/AR2009112002618.html). And what was he writing about? Well, read it for yourself, but he talks about two things I rarely (I would say "never", but I am not that into hyperbole) see liberals mention: 1) a (vast) majority of Americans are against the Obama plan, and 2) any talk of cost savings or deficit reduction are just that - talk, preposterous talk at that.
The good news is that maybe some on the left really do see the flaws in the Obama plan, and I imagine the Obama administration really knows how unpopular this legislation is. The bad news is that I don't think this makes a whit of difference to Obama, Reid and Pelosi - they will do whatever it takes and tell as many lies as they can to get this legislative monstrosity passed. But then the good news (and I firmly believe this) is that the Democrats are going to suffer greatly in the polls in 2010 and again in 2012. To paraphrase the immortal words of Carl Spackler "so we've got that going for us...which is nice". Let's just hope the Republican president and Congress can roll back the abortion the Democrats are cooking up for us.
[Note: I am still working off and on (more off than on, as I have been busy on other things) on a piece called "Hooray for Honduras" which I will post soon. The news about Honduras will be a bit dated when I post it, but a large part of the piece reflects on my time in Latin America and how Americans are really perceived there.]
I just opened up today's Post and read (twice - I didn't believe what I was reading the first time) a piece by predictably liberal stalwart David Broder (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/20/AR2009112002618.html). And what was he writing about? Well, read it for yourself, but he talks about two things I rarely (I would say "never", but I am not that into hyperbole) see liberals mention: 1) a (vast) majority of Americans are against the Obama plan, and 2) any talk of cost savings or deficit reduction are just that - talk, preposterous talk at that.
The good news is that maybe some on the left really do see the flaws in the Obama plan, and I imagine the Obama administration really knows how unpopular this legislation is. The bad news is that I don't think this makes a whit of difference to Obama, Reid and Pelosi - they will do whatever it takes and tell as many lies as they can to get this legislative monstrosity passed. But then the good news (and I firmly believe this) is that the Democrats are going to suffer greatly in the polls in 2010 and again in 2012. To paraphrase the immortal words of Carl Spackler "so we've got that going for us...which is nice". Let's just hope the Republican president and Congress can roll back the abortion the Democrats are cooking up for us.
[Note: I am still working off and on (more off than on, as I have been busy on other things) on a piece called "Hooray for Honduras" which I will post soon. The news about Honduras will be a bit dated when I post it, but a large part of the piece reflects on my time in Latin America and how Americans are really perceived there.]