Like Slimey Cockroaches & their crooked President, Liberals Spread Disease

[Warph]

     

Thanks Al, But Next Time Invent the Internet

By Mark Baisley
9/2/2012


Former Vice President Al Gore recently expressed his newly developed opinion that the United States should dispense with the Electoral College formula for choosing the President and Vice President. Of course, this complex and enduring practice gets beat up every four years. It seems a bit convoluted, especially when considering that Americans will someday be able to cast their votes on a mobile device.

The Electoral College is very deliberately not a popular-vote method; that being one vote counted for every person voting. Rather, it comes from a place of time-honored wisdom that receives a certain validation whenever someone with the intellectual stature of Al Gore kicks it around.

The purpose in creating an electoral college was to give assurance to the smaller states signing up for the union that they would not be overwhelmed by the larger states. The practice continues to temper the effect of more populous cultures imposing their values onto the less populated states.

On election day, November 6, 2012, a total of 538 electoral votes will be cast for President and Vice President together. That number represents the total number of United States Senators and United States Representatives (Congress) plus three votes to represent the residents of Washington, D.C. So to win the Presidency, Barack Obama or Mitt Romney will need at least 270 electoral votes.

While each state is represented by exactly two U.S. Senators, the number of U.S. Representatives is set at a total of 435. Every ten years, the Census determines how many of those Representatives are allocated to each state. No state is to have less than one U.S. Representative.

So with two Senators and at least one Representative, no state will cast less than three electoral votes in the presidential election. There are seven states who hold that distinction; Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming. California is the heaviest elector with 55, nearly 50% higher than second-position Texas at 38. To see the number of electors allocated for all states... see Electoral College Allocation:

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/allocation.html

Washington, D.C. also weighs in with three electoral votes. It will likely always have just three votes. The Twenty-Third Amendment to the U.S. Constitution grants the residents of Washington, D.C. with electors "equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State."

Recognizing the U.S. Senators in the electoral college evens things out a bit among the states. But the winner-take-all vote from each state is what really makes the difference in the outcome. In 48 states, the nominee with the highest number of popular votes receives all of that state's electoral votes in a presidential contest. As this is determined by the constitutions of individual states, there are two exceptions to the winner-take-all rule. Maine and Nebraska each have a variation of "proportional representation" where the electoral votes can be split among the presidential nominees.

On four occasions in American history, the nominee who received the most popular votes lost the election. The most recent of these was Al Gore's narrow loss to George W. Bush in the 2000 election. Of course, if the condition never arose, this constitutional clause would be a moot concept.

In the case of a tie, where each nominee were to receive 269 electoral votes, the new members of the House of Representatives choose the President while the new members of the Senate choose the Vice President. Under a different set of rules in the 1800 election, it took thirty-six votes within the House of Representatives to finally arrive at Thomas Jefferson as the nation's third President. Albeit unlikely, a tie in the electoral college vote is a mathematical possibility this November, even when assuming that the red and blue states play out as predicted.

If you wish to play with your own outcome predictions, see the impressive website www.270towin.com. This site provides an interactive map of the fifty states, showing the distribution of electors and a running count for both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. The default map begins with 39 states presumed to be already predictably red for Republican and blue for Democrat. The default electoral counts are a competitively even 201 electors for Obama and 191 for Romney.

http://www.270towin.com/

For comparison, the 270towin website also offers historical maps of previous presidential elections. For Republicans who could use some encouragement, select Ronald Reagan's victory over Jimmy Carter in 1980.

While some updates to America's tried and true election system may be worth considering, the elaborate system given us by the Founders does prevent Wyoming from being controlled by California. So, thanks, Al. But, I recommend that you stick with more practical inventions, like the Internet.[/font][/size]

[Warph]

First the rain washed away Obama's 16-foot sand sculpture....



and now it may wash away his outdoor stadium speech.

Charlotte, N.C. Weather:


http://bokertov.typepad.com/btb/2012/09/contingency-plans.html

On Thursday, President Obama – and Vice President Biden – are slated to deliver acceptance speeches at the OUTDOOR Bank of America Stadium. The stadium seats just over 73,000.

Forecasts show the potential for rain and possibly thunderstorms on Thursday for Charlotte, creating the potential for the soaking of the tens of thousands of attendees and casting a cloud over the carefully-staged event.

So much for being able to lower the seas. Obama doesn't even seem to be able to control the rain. He has trouble even using an umbrella.

"There's been some conversations that the forecast is already predicting storms," one convention official said. While stressing that no decisions have been made, the official said: "Of course there's some conversations about contingency plans."

When asked to outline what options that plan might include, the source said, "We will only announce contingency plans in the event that an emergency/severe weather actually arises, so that we can be sure that we communicate only one plan, the one that is accurate and relevant to the situation at hand."

The most technocratic campaign ever is having "conversations about contingency" plans for an outdoor event that they planned on the coast during hurricane season. Why does anyone think that the future of America may not be safe in their hands?

But don't worry, in the event that a downpour begins, somebody will announce a contingency plan involving a trillion dollar bailout and some shovel ready jobs building levees out of the remains of Obama's giant sand sculpture.

America needs a contingency plan for another four years of Obama.


.....And then there is this:

In Virginia a few days ago, Obama said, "Just yesterday my opponent called my position on fuel efficiency standards extreme. I don't know, it doesn't seem extreme to me to want to have more fuel efficient cars. Maybe the steam engine is more his speed."

Actually steam engines and windmills are both part of Obama's green energy boondoggles.



In Iowa, Obama said, "What they offered over those three days was more often than not an agenda that was better-suited for the last century," Obama said. "We might as well have watched it on a black-and-white TV."

Sure the last century was only 12 years ago, but why would you expect "Mr. 57 States" to know that?

Under Bush in 2000, the national debt is half of what it was today. When adjusted for inflation, median household income in 2000 was actually higher than it is today.

And if we go back to the black-and-white TV era. In 1952 the unemployment rate was below 2 percent. The average cost of a house was $73,000 in today's dollars and a gallon of gas cost $1.62 in today's money. Also the artificial heart, the hovercraft, optical fiber and the polio vaccine were invented that year. What did we invent this year?

Maybe Obama should take a closer look at those black-and-white TV ideas. They seemed to work pretty well.

This fits the theme of Obama's "Forward" campaign. The progressive impetus to move forward, without perhaps considering that they may be leaving some good ideas that worked behind in the rearview mirror.

[Warph]

THIS DAY IN HISTORY: Surrender of Japan

by Dan Greenfield


On this day in history, Japan surrendered in a ceremony aboard the U.S.S. Missouri. At the ceremony General Douglas MacArthur delivered some of his most famous words, in a career filled with them.

It is my earnest hope, and indeed the hope of all mankind, that from this solemn occasion a better world shall emerge out of the blood and carnage of the past — a world dedicated to the dignity of man and the fulfillment of his most cherished wish for freedom, tolerance and justice," McArthur told the Japanese.

Over the radio, McArthur laid out an even more ambitious program.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/macarthur/filmmore/reference/primary/macspeech04.html[/font][/size][/b]

"Men since the beginning of time have sought peace.... Military alliances, balances of power, leagues of nations, all in turn failed, leaving the only path to be by way of the crucible of war. We have had our last chance. If we do not now devise some greater and more equitable system, Armageddon will be at our door.

The problem basically is theological and involves a spiritual recrudescence and improvement of human character that will synchronize with our almost matchless advances in science, art, literature and all material and cultural development of the past two thousand years. It must be of the spirit if we are to save the flesh."

No ambitious program to create a more equitable system succeeded. The United Nations is an ongoing and prolonged failure. No tremendous revolution in human character has occurred. And even if it had occurred, it would have availed little if America's enemies did not similarly experience a tremendous spiritual advance as well.
Six years later, McArthur, was delivering a very different sort of speech to Congress:

The Communist threat is a global one. Its successful advance in one sector threatens the destruction of every other sector. You can not appease or otherwise surrender to communism in Asia without simultaneously undermining our efforts to halt its advance in Europe.

War's very object is victory, not prolonged indecision. In war there is no substitute for victory. There are some who, for varying reasons, would appease Red China. They are blind to history's clear lesson, for history teaches with unmistakable emphasis that appeasement but begets new and bloodier war. It points to no single instance where this end has justified that means, where appeasement has led to more than a sham peace. Like blackmail, it lays the basis for new and successively greater demands until, as in blackmail, violence becomes the only other alternative.

[redcliffsw]

The Electoral College is very deliberately not a popular-vote method; that being one vote counted for every person voting. Rather, it comes from a place of time-honored wisdom that receives a certain validation whenever someone with the intellectual stature of Al Gore kicks it around.

Something is wrong with Al Gore.  His people were Confederate.  The founding fathers put the Electoral College there for a reason
and his great-grandfather served in the Confederacy from Tennessee for a reason too.  Now if his people were yankees or immigrants, that's no excuse - Gore ought to support the Electoral College.   

[Warph]

*** Artist Jon McNaughton Fine Arts *** 

http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/




Ben Miller of the Student Review talks with artist Jon McNaughton in his Provo gallery. McNaughton's politcally charged paintings recently went viral after BYU bloggers mentioned his artwork online. Audio by Ben Miller. Photos and editing by Derrick Lytle. Read the complete version at:  http://thestudentreview.org/?p=2475

"ONE NATION UNDER GOD"

"PEACE IS COMING"

"THE FORGOTTEN MAN"

"WAKE UP AMERICA"

"OBAMANATION"

"THE EMPOWERED MAN"

"ONE NATION UNDER SOCIALISM"[/color][/font][/size]

[Warph]

      Romney's Horse




So the Romneys are selfish for keeping a horse?

...And employing a groom with a family to support.

...And paying for feed that's sold by someone with a family to support

...And transported in trucks by someone with a family to support

...And manufactured in a factory by people with families to support from stuff that's grown by farmers with families to support.

...And having a barn built by construction workers with families to support with materials trucked by drivers with families to support
   from factories with workers with families to support.

...Sounds to me like that one horse has done more to put Americans to work than the horse's ass in the White House.

[Warph]

       



Dinesh D'Souza: Fact-Checking AP's Fact Check on '2016: Obama's America'

Published: September 03, 2012 @ 12:07 pm


A few days ago the Associated Press ran a news article by reporter Beth Fouhy charging that my film "2016" contains serious factual errors. Remarkably, for a news article, the reporter didn't bother to check with me or anyone else at the film. This was my first indication that something was deeply wrong with this article.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CVN_2016_OBAMAS_AMERICA_FACT_CHECK?SITE=AP

Let's look at the specific charges raised in the AP article.

First, it claims that I "never mention the explosion of debt that occurred under Obama's predecessor, Republican George Bush." This is simply false. The film quotes former Comptroller David Walker saying that the national debt exploded under both George W. Bush and Barack Obama. The film shows a clear graphic depicting the actual debt increase under both presidents, so that the viewer can compare them. The simple truth is that Bush's largest annual deficits were below $500 billion and Obama's lowest annual deficit was above $1 trillion. So Bush was a big spender and Obama an even bigger spender. This is made crystal-clear in the film.

Second, the AP article quotes me as saying that Obama has "done nothing" to prevent Iran from getting nuclear bombs. This is a deliberate misquotation. Actually in the film I recall a prediction that I made in my book The Roots of Obama's Rage. The prediction was that Obama "would do nothing significant" to prevent Iran from getting nuclear bombs. By omitting the word "significant," AP can then claim that Obama has taken some measures, including some modest sanctions, against Iran. But my point is that these measures are so weak that they cannot be expected to--and in fact haven't--deterred the mullahs in the slightest.

Third, the AP article "refutes" my contention that Obama is weirdly sympathetic to Muslim jihadis fighting against America by pointing out that Obama ordered the killing of Osama Bin Laden and has also approved drone strikes against Al Qaeda. My argument was based on the premise that Obama wants to close down Guantanamo and to extend constitutional rights to jihadis captured in Iraq and Afghanistan. I explained Obama's peculiar position by saying that he views these jihadis as freedom fighters seeking to liberate their countries from American occupation. As Obama has made clear, he views Bin Laden and Al Qaeda quite differently, as international gangsters who go abroad to kill innocent people. So my argument about Obama is quite consistent with his actions against Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

Fourth, the AP article claims that I misrepresent Obama's position on the Falkland Islands. Not true. The British position on the Falklands is that the islands belong to the U.K. The Argentine position supports negotiations over the control of the islands. Despite the special relationship between America and Britain, and despite the fact that Republican and Democratic presidents have supported the British position, the Obama administration has switched sides and now supports the Argentine position calling for negotiations. This is reflected in resolutions passed by the Organization of American States and backed by the United States.

Finally the AP article disputes the film's claim that Obama removed a Winston Churchill bust from the Oval Office. The AP article takes its cue from a White House blog that initially attempted to deny this and obfuscate the issue by claiming possession of a second bust. This second bust was supposedly under repair but has now mysteriously surfaced. But none of this changes the fact that one of Obama's first actions as president was to return the Oval Office bust of Churchill. Obama didn't just want to relocate it, he wanted it given back to Britain. That bust now sits in the home of the British ambassador. The film explains Obama's hostility to Churchill by noting that he was a champion of colonialism and ordered a crackdown on an anti-colonial rebellion in Kenya in which Obama's father and grandfather were both detained. So we know what Obama did, and we know why he might have wanted to do it. As for the original White House blog, the White House has admitted its inaccuracy and apologized.

So what's going on here? Certainly it's possible to debate the issues raised in the film. If AP wanted to commission a review or Oped article, that would be fine. But instead the news agency has published a crude and inaccurate attack masquerading as a news story. Evidently this fact-checking article required its own fact-checker. Perhaps AP can now regain some credibility in this matter by publishing an apology.

Dinesh D'Souza, narrator and co-director of the film "2016," is author of the bestselling new book "Obama's America."

[Warph]

        

Just how wrong did the media get Clint Eastwood?


Admittedly, I am late to evaluating Clint Eastwood's RNC performance. However, the fact that the pundit class is still critiquing it days later is one indicator of how shrewd it was as political theater. Accordingly, it is worth noting just how wrong some of the Eastwood analysis has been, even from those defending the speech.

The harsh, conventional wisdom about Eastwood's decidedly unconventional approach to the convention is that it was the ramblings of a senile old man. Even may of Eastwood's defenders have described it as rambling. This likely makes Eastwood's day.

After all, who is Clint Eastwood? He is one of the top actors, directors and producers of motion pictures in the world. Most of the world — and almost certainly everyone tuning in to the RNC Thursday night — knows this. Yet most of the analyses of his RNC appearance are based on the notion that we were not witnessing acting. That mass suspension of disbelief may be the highest tribute Eastwood will ever be paid as an actor. If you think the Eastwood on stage was the only Eastwood there is, watch him promoting J. Edgar on The Daily Show last November. I have little doubt he will be equally sharp promoting Trouble With the Curve in the next few weeks.

Moreover, as a director, Eastwood has a reputation of knowing exactly what he wants. Also, he does not prefer to do many takes: "The big question, for me, is how to do it *** so the actors can perform at their very best and with the spontaneity that you'd like to find so that the audience will feel like those lines have been said for the very first time, ever. Then you've got a believable scene." That approach is entirely consistent with Eastwood's talent as a jazz pianist, someone who enjoys improvising within a framework. The fact that Eastwood's performance was not loaded into a teleprompter does not mean it was unplanned.

If you doubt that Eastwood was not simply winging it, don't watch his performance — read the transcript. There may be no better indicator of just how intentional Eastwood's performance is than to compare the visual impression he gave with the text delivered.

Eastwood begins with a touch of Admiral James Stockdale, but Clint answers the question of why he is there. The fact is that everyone really knows why Clint is there — to make a political statement. But Eastwood, in mentioning that Hollywood is perhaps not as monolithic as the stereotype suggests, is making a subtle suggestion to the audience he wants to reach: you may be part of some left-identifying group, but it's okay to disagree and there may be other quiet dissenters in your group.

Eastwood then introduces the dramatic device of the empty chair, which in this context also echoes the political metaphor of the empty suit. This has been remarked upon, particularly as an echo of comedic dialogs from people like Bob Newhart, so I won't dwell on it here, although it reappears below.

Eastwood then proceeds to use this comedic device to deliver — as Mark Steyn noted in passing — some of the toughest political attacks on President Obama heard during the entire RNC. A number of the traditional speakers strove to play on swing voters' disenchantment with the failed promises of Hope and Change. But notice how tired and traditional that just sounded in your head. Mitt Romney (likely with help from a professional political speechwriter) did it pretty well: "You know there's something wrong with the kind of job he's done as president when the best feeling you had was the day you voted for him." But did anyone do it as powerfully and emotionally as Eastwood's segue from everyone — himself included — crying with joy at Obama's historic victory to the tears we now shed over 23 million still unemployed, which Clint bluntly called a national disgrace?

This was the first part of Eastwood's simple and effective argument. Eastwood points out — in a prodding, joking manner — that Obama was elected to bring peace and prosperity, but failed to bring either. That Eastwood may disagree with the GOP on some war issues is perfectly alright in this context, because, as suggested earlier and explored further below, Eastwood is not really targeting Republicans.

Eastwood then arrives at his Joe Biden joke: "Of course we all know Biden is the intellect of the Democratic party. Just kind of a grin with a body behind it." That last part is not accidental in a performance featuring an empty chair. But the first part is even more dangerous. For the last 3+ years, we have been accustomed to having Biden as safe material for humor, while Obama has been kept off-limits. Eastwood leverages the latter into the former, suggesting that Sheriff Joe is the real brains of the operation. Ouch! No wonder Team Obama got annoyed enough to respond.

           

Having delivered these punches regarding our dire situation with velvet gloves, Eastwood then does the softest of sells for the Romney/Ryan ticket. As Jesse Walker noted, it was almost more of a pitch for Not Obama. Again, there was nothing accidental about the nature or placement of this speech withing Clint's imagined dialogue.

Eastwood concludes by summing up the GOP case to undecideds and rebutting the main point Dems seem to advance for Obama. First, "[p]oliticians are employees of ours... And when somebody does not do the job, we got to let 'em go." Second, "we don't have to be metal [sic] masochists and vote for somebody that we don't really even want in office just because they seem to be nice guys or maybe not so nice guys if you look at some of the recent ads going out there."

He improvised within a structure, making a clear and concise case for dumping Obama.

Eastwood's approach to this performance was not accidental. Eastwood is — by reason of his resume — the foremost expert in the world on Clint Eastwood fans. Harry Callahan may have understood that a man has to know his limitations. Eastwood knows his... and he also knows his strengths. A man does not produce and star in dozens of Clint Eastwood movies without having thought deeply about and received the benefit of copious market research into what appeals to people about Clint Eastwood.

From the standpoint of political science, it would be fair to hypothesize that appeals to both disaffected and libertarian voters (which is something of a feat) in a way that Mitt Romney could never hope to do. More colloquially, it would be fair to suggest that Eastwood appeals to the sort of people who gravitated to H. Ross Perot in the Nineties. He appeals to people who distrust institutions, who think that conventional politics fails the American people. The sort of people for whom Harry Callahan, Will Munny, Frank Horrigan, Luther Whitney and Walt Kowalski have an emotional resonance.

So why would Eastwood deliver a conventional political speech? Had he delivered his material as a series of slick-sounding zingers, it would have been the sort of speech the media expected from Chris Christie's keynote address. But that would have been: (a) not in keeping with the Romney campaign's softer approach; and (b) diminishing and disappointing to Eastwood's target audience. Most of the chattering class failed to grasp this. Some on Team Romney failed to grasp this. But the evidence coming in, both anecdotally and from polling, suggests Eastwood still has his finger on the popular pulse in a way pols and pundits never will.

[Warph]

25 Questions about What the Hell has Happened to America

By John Hawkins
9/4/2012

When did...

1) ....Educated people become so unfamiliar with small business that they began to believe that a company will practically build itself as long as the government provides roads, street signs, and police?

2) ...Freedom change from something we should all be seeking to something we're supposed to be terrified to face without the government holding our hands?

3) ...We stop asking, "Can we afford this?" along with "Is this a good idea?" when it comes to government programs?

4) ...Demanding that people come to this country legally if they want to stay here and become citizens become too much to ask?

5) ....We start rewarding victims so richly for victimhood that we have to wonder if every unseen hate crime is real or a staged charade to receive public sympathy?

6) ...Sticking to the Constitution and living within our means become "extremism?"

7) ...The job of the press change from reporting the news to doing everything it can to help the Democratic Party?

8 ) ...It become okay to sue a company because some moron knowingly did something dangerous with the company's product and hurt himself? That's not negligence; it's Darwinism at work.

9) ...Protecting some barren tundra in Alaska become worth more than thousands of jobs, billions of dollars in wealth created, and lower prices at the pump for the American people?

10) ....Hollywood change from supporting the troops in foreign wars to undercutting the war and smearing the troops as dangerous, mentally unstable drones?

11) ...We stop caring if government programs worked or not as long as they sound compassionate?

12) ...Virginity, chastity, and believing marriage should be for life become "old fashioned?"

13) ...Witty sound bites start becoming more important than wise words?

14) ...We come to believe that we would never have to pay off our debt?

15) ...The comfort of Americans today start to become more important than giving future generations an opportunity to have a better and brighter future?

16) ....People stop becoming ashamed of taking welfare, school lunches, food stamps, receiving handouts, and living in their parents' basements?

17) ...Our first priorities in wars become not hurting enemy civilians and getting good press instead of protecting the lives of our troops and winning the war?

18) ...."tolerance" start to mean approval and disapproval become tantamount to hate?

19) ....Our immigration policies become centered on what's most convenient for illegal immigrants instead of what's best for the American people and those who want to come here legally?

20) ...It become okay for the Democrat Party -- which was behind slavery, segregation, lynchings, poll taxes, and Jim Crow laws -- to accuse Republicans of wanting to do those things? It must have been after most people forgot Democrats were behind all of those things and Republicans have always opposed them.

21) ...Debates about politics stop being about whether certain policies work or not and start centering on the intentions, motives, and personal characteristics of the person on the other side of the issue?

22) ...God's definition of marriage, the same definition that has been around for millennia, become discriminatory?

23) ..."Racism" change from an expression of hatred towards another race to an expression of disagreement with Democrats?

24) ...The "not" get removed from the first part of John F. Kennedy's famous quote, "Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country."

25) ...Borrowing money from the Chinese to spend on useless government programs that produce nothing become an "investment?"

[Warph]

         

          Obama's War on Black Families

Posted by Daniel Greenfield on Sep 4th, 2012

Similarly, the number of children on food stamps has reached its highest level since 1980, black illegitimate births have peaked at 72.5% of all black births, and sexually transmitted diseases are up — particularly for black kids, for whom chlamydia occurs 3.8 times more than for Hispanics and 7.5 times more than for whites. New York now aborts of 60% of its black babies, and LA high schools come equipped with Planned Parenthood clinics.

As Keith Riler points out, the stability of the family is tied to economic conditions. And when economic conditions degrade, family stability degrades. Job losses in the north helped create ghetto malaise and there is a whole new generation of ghettos being crafted with the expected increases in crime.

Once family stability has been degraded past a certain point, then it may no longer be recoverable, as chronicled in Charles Murray's Coming Apart.

Black families are faring worse than at any time in the last 25 years, and worse than at this point with President Obama than with Presidents G.W. Bush, Clinton, H.W. Bush, Reagan, and even Carter. These presidential comparisons span a period of almost four decades.

There should be nothing at all surprising about this development taking place under Obama. A quick survey of urban areas shows that black families have done worst of all under mayors who are also black Democrats, the group that expects the most from black voters and yet feels free to take their votes completely for granted.

The urban cycle of dysfunction in places like Detroit and Newark has now gone national with the same kind of leadership now in charge implementing the same kind of dependency solutions.

Yet another sad Obama achievement: 46.5 million Americans, more than the populations of Canada, Poland, Spain, or Australia, are now on food stamps.

This is the Chicagoization of America. For the first time, the entire country enjoys the same quality of leadership as Newark, Detroit or Chicago.