Donald Trump isn't backing down. Here he was interviewed by Newsmax.
"I don't ask for a birth certificate"-Lawrence Taylor
Thursday, March 24, 2011
The Can Do Spirit
Many of us saw this image of a destroyed stretch of highway in Japan. If you didn't see it you missed it. Three days later it looked like this.
It is now complete.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
"I think he probably was" (born in the United States), concedes Donald Trump.
Even the flaky audience of the view seemed to agree with Donald Trump that President Barack Obama should show his birth certificate. Can Trump get away with saying that Barack H. Obama is "probably" what he says he is? Can he use words such as "fraud" and "scandal" in the context of the missing birth certificate? No one ever thought John Mc Cain was a great campaigner but only now do we see how weak he was to accept a photo shopped certificate of live birth as proof of citizenship. Reflecting on the mood of the country in November of 2008 there probably wasn't much Mc Cain could have done. Obama had convinced a gullible electorate that after sitting in Rev. Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years he hadn't heard a word he had said and that William Ayers was just an acquaintance from his neighborhood. But Mc Cain should have tried harder.
By August of 2010, according to the Pew poll, only 34% of the public thought Obama was a Christian, 18% thought he was a Muslim, and 43% didn't know his religious affiliation. Of course the main stream media passed this off a bad press, the result of Republican propaganda. Now here comes Donald Trump demanding to see proof of eligibility and, by God, I'll bet he gets traction. He doesn't have to win the primary to make his point but as he repeats this demand in speeches and debates other Republicans will follow. By the general election birthers will be chic in the public's eye if not in the eye of an adoring media.
Even the flaky audience of the view seemed to agree with Donald Trump that President Barack Obama should show his birth certificate. Can Trump get away with saying that Barack H. Obama is "probably" what he says he is? Can he use words such as "fraud" and "scandal" in the context of the missing birth certificate? No one ever thought John Mc Cain was a great campaigner but only now do we see how weak he was to accept a photo shopped certificate of live birth as proof of citizenship. Reflecting on the mood of the country in November of 2008 there probably wasn't much Mc Cain could have done. Obama had convinced a gullible electorate that after sitting in Rev. Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years he hadn't heard a word he had said and that William Ayers was just an acquaintance from his neighborhood. But Mc Cain should have tried harder.
By August of 2010, according to the Pew poll, only 34% of the public thought Obama was a Christian, 18% thought he was a Muslim, and 43% didn't know his religious affiliation. Of course the main stream media passed this off a bad press, the result of Republican propaganda. Now here comes Donald Trump demanding to see proof of eligibility and, by God, I'll bet he gets traction. He doesn't have to win the primary to make his point but as he repeats this demand in speeches and debates other Republicans will follow. By the general election birthers will be chic in the public's eye if not in the eye of an adoring media.
Monday, March 21, 2011
An Anti-Bono African
A Republican presidential candidate could help him or herself immensely by hiring
Dr.Dambisa Moyo as the campaign's economic advisor. Eminently lucid and uncommonly articulate Dr. Moyo is perhaps the best public spokesman for capitalism since Milton Friedman. Born in Zambia and possessing a resume that includes The World Bank and Goldman Sachs, Dr. Moyo attacks foreign aid to Africa in her first book, Dead Aid .
In her second book, How The West Was Lost, Moyo examines the problems of public debt and pension obligations and 50 years of bad economic policy.
Dr. Dambisa Moyo hold a PHD from Oxford, two master degrees, and a BS in chemistry. These two videos are long for a post such as this but they are well worth the time spent.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
"How's The Cover-Up Going?"
I believe Obama was probably born in Hawaii. I believe his citizenship might have been sacrificed when he was adopted by Indonesian national, Lolo Soetoro adopted him and thus, made him an Indonesian citizen. But I am trusting the legal judgment of Phillip Berg on this matter and he has a titanic ax to grind (Hell hath no fury like a Hillary supporter scorned.) But what I can tell you--and what we all know if we are not under the spell of the MSM--is that an ongoing elephant print cover-up has taken place. And the cover-up is ongoing.
Jay Severin, the sometimes silly but often provocative Boston radio host speculates that the entire Birther movement was created and is maintained by Obama's puppeteers. Severin mused that the Obot braintrust might have occluded everything to cover up something relatively small (but something that nonetheless could render the Chosen One unelectable.) As well, they maintain and expose the least credible finger pointers (9/11 inside jobbers, Alan Keys, "Coast to Coast" guests, etc.) What tidbit could the Obots be hiding?
I suspect that that the cover-up involves something pedestrian. What if Obama did poorly in math or economics? Or quite possibly he never studied even a semester of economics. What if, he wrote theses that promoted an anti-American viewpoint? What if, dare we ask the question, Obama was an affirmative action entrant at Occidental, Columbia or Harvard? Would that information affect his presidential bid? I suspect it would.
Here is a good overview of the EXTENT of the cover-up.
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=100613
A few items need to be re-emphasized.
FOX NEWS INTERVIEWED 400 OF HIS COLUMBIA CLASSMATES, NONE OF WHOM REMEMBER HIM!
This is absurd. Columbia usually graduates about 1800 students/year. 400 of them have NO recollection? Not to be politically incorrect but Obama was not of a demographic that could easily camouflage itself. He was tall, dark and handsome. Was he also invisible?
Now for the usual grumbles. "Fox News. Fie! Fie! Fie! Glenn Beck. Right wing. blah blah blah."
Well, the precious NYT and the impeccable NPR and the Tiffany Network fared no better at finding college chums. I don't know if they looked. But if they did, they did not share their results with us.
NO SCHOOL RECORDS FROM KINDERGARTEN TO LAW SCHOOL. None!!! Yes, we know where he attended school but we don't know anything else about him, including who financed his education.
If there is not already enough secrecy, let us remind ourselves that Obama passed over lucrative employment to land himself in the lofty position of community organizer. One could argue that he was placing principle over personal profit. But one could just as easily argue that he had procured a position because his employer would not inquire into his background or keep tabs on his job performance. To paraphrase someone famous, he sought out a job "with no actual responsibilities." And no paper trail.
Hide everything and hide the witnesses as well. In the first 232 years of America, an independent press would have made a cloaking device for an office this large, impossible (Next to Obama, the 1960 JFK looks utterly transparent.) But we have seen our mainstream press betray truth itself. We used to have relatively honest news media. No more.
The royal juggler is keeping a lot of plates in the air. Eventually--we all agreed--one of those fine pieces of fine china would hit the concrete floor and CRASH!!! Or so we thought.
Maybe we were wrong. Let's give credit where it's due. Obama's juggler is the greatest spinmaster in US History. He might just keep the plates spinning forever.
Jay Severin, the sometimes silly but often provocative Boston radio host speculates that the entire Birther movement was created and is maintained by Obama's puppeteers. Severin mused that the Obot braintrust might have occluded everything to cover up something relatively small (but something that nonetheless could render the Chosen One unelectable.) As well, they maintain and expose the least credible finger pointers (9/11 inside jobbers, Alan Keys, "Coast to Coast" guests, etc.) What tidbit could the Obots be hiding?
I suspect that that the cover-up involves something pedestrian. What if Obama did poorly in math or economics? Or quite possibly he never studied even a semester of economics. What if, he wrote theses that promoted an anti-American viewpoint? What if, dare we ask the question, Obama was an affirmative action entrant at Occidental, Columbia or Harvard? Would that information affect his presidential bid? I suspect it would.
Here is a good overview of the EXTENT of the cover-up.
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=100613
A few items need to be re-emphasized.
FOX NEWS INTERVIEWED 400 OF HIS COLUMBIA CLASSMATES, NONE OF WHOM REMEMBER HIM!
This is absurd. Columbia usually graduates about 1800 students/year. 400 of them have NO recollection? Not to be politically incorrect but Obama was not of a demographic that could easily camouflage itself. He was tall, dark and handsome. Was he also invisible?
Now for the usual grumbles. "Fox News. Fie! Fie! Fie! Glenn Beck. Right wing. blah blah blah."
Well, the precious NYT and the impeccable NPR and the Tiffany Network fared no better at finding college chums. I don't know if they looked. But if they did, they did not share their results with us.
NO SCHOOL RECORDS FROM KINDERGARTEN TO LAW SCHOOL. None!!! Yes, we know where he attended school but we don't know anything else about him, including who financed his education.
If there is not already enough secrecy, let us remind ourselves that Obama passed over lucrative employment to land himself in the lofty position of community organizer. One could argue that he was placing principle over personal profit. But one could just as easily argue that he had procured a position because his employer would not inquire into his background or keep tabs on his job performance. To paraphrase someone famous, he sought out a job "with no actual responsibilities." And no paper trail.
Hide everything and hide the witnesses as well. In the first 232 years of America, an independent press would have made a cloaking device for an office this large, impossible (Next to Obama, the 1960 JFK looks utterly transparent.) But we have seen our mainstream press betray truth itself. We used to have relatively honest news media. No more.
The royal juggler is keeping a lot of plates in the air. Eventually--we all agreed--one of those fine pieces of fine china would hit the concrete floor and CRASH!!! Or so we thought.
Maybe we were wrong. Let's give credit where it's due. Obama's juggler is the greatest spinmaster in US History. He might just keep the plates spinning forever.
Monday, March 14, 2011
The Vanishing Shrewd Democrat
For most of my life I saw Democrats as more politically adept than their Republican opponents. I don't think LBJ was smarter than Barry Goldwater, but he was certainly more shrewd.
Of course I was generally uncomfortable with the win at all costs mentality that emphasized sentiment over reason and promoted a bias for simplicity. These were the actions of morally-compromised people and it is one of the reasons I was turned off by politics for so many years. If that is what is required to win, I wanted no part of it. None.
But in my disgust I begrudgingly respected the Dems for their amoral political instincts. The Dems were better at politics because it was second nature to them. They ran political machines and they were supported by (and they supported) powerful political families. The GOP had the Bushes and that's about it. The Dems had the Kennedys, the Daleys, the Browns, the Cuomos and on and on and on. They even got the Rockefellers to jump ship.
But somewhere along the way, the shrewd Dem fell by the wayside. They no longer heard or listened to the people. They could not be bothered by that vox populi nonsense. Now, they only listen to each other.
The shrewd Dem started to vanish as liberalism gave way to elitism. I still cringe when I hear radio hosts rail against liberalsim. Why not denounce the passenger pigeon? Political semantics is a subject I hope to address when I can once more blog daily.
The Dems just don't play the game very well anymore. Some pundits attribute this to the longstanding favoritism that the news media extended to them. When alternative media emerged, the pampered house pets had a hard time competing with those unkempt beasts emerging from the forest. The pet owners denounced the beasts and jumped into the fray. How dare they play rough up Fluffy.
No politcal candidate in US history has been coddled like Barack Obama. No one has ever been handed a Nobel Prize based on his or her potential. No one was ever awarded a Nobel Prize based on fifteen days in office. Fifteen days of photo ops and smiles. Arafat had to promote terrorism for decades to win his prize. Al Gore had to advance a calculated fraud and write a silly ass book and promote a horse shit movie and break his back on the arduous six-figure lecture circuit to win his prize. And Obama gets his after fifteen days in office. Where is the justice?
Conservatives love to point out that Reagan won without talk radio, Fox News and the Internet. Point taken. But in the old days the Dems did not have George Soros in their corner. In the words of Bernard Goldberg the media routinely "put their thumb on the scale" but there was no "Big Slobbering Love Affair" either. NPR, AP, NYT, the alphabet networks did not advocate for Jimmy Carter or Fritz Mondale or Michael Dukakis 24/7. They did not use non-news affiliates to derogate Republicans and conservatives. The press was brutal with Jimmy Carter and Chappaquiddick was not water under the bridge (forgive me) in 1980.
I maintain that the Dems lost their savvy because they are prissy elitists who always look over their shoulder for help from their priveleged sponsors. But the whys are not as important as the whats. Let's examine their flubs. Perhaps the greatest political blunder I have ever witnessed was the White House and Pelosi antagonizing the Tea Party. Bill Clinton would have hugged these wonderful Americans and had us believing he personally started the movement. Not so the current bunch of donkeys.
But Clinton fought his way to the top and he understood the little people in a way that the Obama wing never will. For all his many warts, Clinton was not overtly contemptuous of the American people. The same cannot be said of the guy who coined the phrase "bitter clinger."
From a political perspective, the Tea Party should have been co-opted. Instead, it was ridiculed. Dohhh. Then there was Obamacare. I have never seen a greater display of arrogance in my life and I hope I never again see anything like it. Legitimate concerns were met with a picket line of middle fingers. A smart politician would have at least feigned listening. They would have extracted the unpopular elements from the bill and left the popular items intact. As we know, that is not what happened.
Then came the shellacking and Obama went to Hawaii to reflect. Supposably he reinvented himself. Then he submitted the porkiest, fattest, most reckless, most irresponsible budget ever proposed. His poll numbers had recovered but they slid back to baseline after his budget was submitted.
Was Obama a slow learner or was he just contemptuous of average Americans? Either way, he and his braintrust did not exhibit the shrewdness and flexibility we had come to expect from his party. And it wasn't just Obama who had a case of the stupids. Over the past two months the Democrats have lead acts of political theater in just about every state house that just will not resonate with most voters.
I will credit the Dems with one clever tactic. They dispensed with the factory-made signs. They got the union peons to make homemade signs. Not as many seas of purple this time around. Brilliant.
But the Dems miscalculated once more. This was going to be the tinder that lit the mighty Donkey conflagration. I don't see it working out that way. For one thing, after a few days the prominent spokesmen were union officials and hacks. Signs reading "Blame Wall Street" were held in front of cameras. How long could Michael Moore and Jesse Jackson avoid the spotlight? Not very long as it turned out.
Of course the most obvious gaffe was the old hidden senator trick. When the going gets tough, the tough run to Illinois (Indiana Democrats would follow suit lead by the Wisconsin senators but with less publicity.) This maneuver does not win the hearts and minds of any but the journalistic class. Someone, somewhere, should be required to wear a dunce cap for a long time to come.
Getting past the stupid tactics, we arrive at a stupid strategy. Does anyone with a brain cell think state teachers are on average, underpaid? Most teachers work 180-185 days/year and some have generous benefit time to reduce their work year even further. Most eachers can retire after thirty years with a pension. In short, they have it made.
But our public schools are a disaster and everyone knows it. There is plenty of blame to go around but the fact is, higher salaries have not produced higher test scores. For a multitude of reasons, teachers just don't make very good poster children for the cause of worker empowerment.
We are witnessing the reign of the stupidest batch of Democrats we have ever seen. Obama/Reid/Pelosi lead their party over a cliff in 2010. As bad as the shellacking happened to be, it could have been much worse. 2012 is breathing down their necks and it remains to be seen if the Democrats will find a general to lead them.
I for one, do not see a leader emrging.
Of course I was generally uncomfortable with the win at all costs mentality that emphasized sentiment over reason and promoted a bias for simplicity. These were the actions of morally-compromised people and it is one of the reasons I was turned off by politics for so many years. If that is what is required to win, I wanted no part of it. None.
But in my disgust I begrudgingly respected the Dems for their amoral political instincts. The Dems were better at politics because it was second nature to them. They ran political machines and they were supported by (and they supported) powerful political families. The GOP had the Bushes and that's about it. The Dems had the Kennedys, the Daleys, the Browns, the Cuomos and on and on and on. They even got the Rockefellers to jump ship.
But somewhere along the way, the shrewd Dem fell by the wayside. They no longer heard or listened to the people. They could not be bothered by that vox populi nonsense. Now, they only listen to each other.
The shrewd Dem started to vanish as liberalism gave way to elitism. I still cringe when I hear radio hosts rail against liberalsim. Why not denounce the passenger pigeon? Political semantics is a subject I hope to address when I can once more blog daily.
The Dems just don't play the game very well anymore. Some pundits attribute this to the longstanding favoritism that the news media extended to them. When alternative media emerged, the pampered house pets had a hard time competing with those unkempt beasts emerging from the forest. The pet owners denounced the beasts and jumped into the fray. How dare they play rough up Fluffy.
No politcal candidate in US history has been coddled like Barack Obama. No one has ever been handed a Nobel Prize based on his or her potential. No one was ever awarded a Nobel Prize based on fifteen days in office. Fifteen days of photo ops and smiles. Arafat had to promote terrorism for decades to win his prize. Al Gore had to advance a calculated fraud and write a silly ass book and promote a horse shit movie and break his back on the arduous six-figure lecture circuit to win his prize. And Obama gets his after fifteen days in office. Where is the justice?
Conservatives love to point out that Reagan won without talk radio, Fox News and the Internet. Point taken. But in the old days the Dems did not have George Soros in their corner. In the words of Bernard Goldberg the media routinely "put their thumb on the scale" but there was no "Big Slobbering Love Affair" either. NPR, AP, NYT, the alphabet networks did not advocate for Jimmy Carter or Fritz Mondale or Michael Dukakis 24/7. They did not use non-news affiliates to derogate Republicans and conservatives. The press was brutal with Jimmy Carter and Chappaquiddick was not water under the bridge (forgive me) in 1980.
I maintain that the Dems lost their savvy because they are prissy elitists who always look over their shoulder for help from their priveleged sponsors. But the whys are not as important as the whats. Let's examine their flubs. Perhaps the greatest political blunder I have ever witnessed was the White House and Pelosi antagonizing the Tea Party. Bill Clinton would have hugged these wonderful Americans and had us believing he personally started the movement. Not so the current bunch of donkeys.
But Clinton fought his way to the top and he understood the little people in a way that the Obama wing never will. For all his many warts, Clinton was not overtly contemptuous of the American people. The same cannot be said of the guy who coined the phrase "bitter clinger."
From a political perspective, the Tea Party should have been co-opted. Instead, it was ridiculed. Dohhh. Then there was Obamacare. I have never seen a greater display of arrogance in my life and I hope I never again see anything like it. Legitimate concerns were met with a picket line of middle fingers. A smart politician would have at least feigned listening. They would have extracted the unpopular elements from the bill and left the popular items intact. As we know, that is not what happened.
Then came the shellacking and Obama went to Hawaii to reflect. Supposably he reinvented himself. Then he submitted the porkiest, fattest, most reckless, most irresponsible budget ever proposed. His poll numbers had recovered but they slid back to baseline after his budget was submitted.
Was Obama a slow learner or was he just contemptuous of average Americans? Either way, he and his braintrust did not exhibit the shrewdness and flexibility we had come to expect from his party. And it wasn't just Obama who had a case of the stupids. Over the past two months the Democrats have lead acts of political theater in just about every state house that just will not resonate with most voters.
I will credit the Dems with one clever tactic. They dispensed with the factory-made signs. They got the union peons to make homemade signs. Not as many seas of purple this time around. Brilliant.
But the Dems miscalculated once more. This was going to be the tinder that lit the mighty Donkey conflagration. I don't see it working out that way. For one thing, after a few days the prominent spokesmen were union officials and hacks. Signs reading "Blame Wall Street" were held in front of cameras. How long could Michael Moore and Jesse Jackson avoid the spotlight? Not very long as it turned out.
Of course the most obvious gaffe was the old hidden senator trick. When the going gets tough, the tough run to Illinois (Indiana Democrats would follow suit lead by the Wisconsin senators but with less publicity.) This maneuver does not win the hearts and minds of any but the journalistic class. Someone, somewhere, should be required to wear a dunce cap for a long time to come.
Getting past the stupid tactics, we arrive at a stupid strategy. Does anyone with a brain cell think state teachers are on average, underpaid? Most teachers work 180-185 days/year and some have generous benefit time to reduce their work year even further. Most eachers can retire after thirty years with a pension. In short, they have it made.
But our public schools are a disaster and everyone knows it. There is plenty of blame to go around but the fact is, higher salaries have not produced higher test scores. For a multitude of reasons, teachers just don't make very good poster children for the cause of worker empowerment.
We are witnessing the reign of the stupidest batch of Democrats we have ever seen. Obama/Reid/Pelosi lead their party over a cliff in 2010. As bad as the shellacking happened to be, it could have been much worse. 2012 is breathing down their necks and it remains to be seen if the Democrats will find a general to lead them.
I for one, do not see a leader emrging.
The Answer Is: This City Has The Most Billionaires in The World
What is Moscow, Alex?
Right you are Watson. According to Forbes anyway. This is mind-blowing. In 20 years capitalism has worked miracles in the old Soviet Union. The story is even more amazing when one considers that Russia started with next to no investment capital, a shoddy industrial base, political corruption, aand they have since experienced rampant terrorism and war.
Most Russians pay a flat rate of 13% income tax. http://www.worldwide-tax.com/russia/russia_tax.asp Team Less Regs/Lower Taxes has won another victory. As far as I know, they are undefeated.
Does anyone know of a match where Team High Tax/Massive Regs emerged victorious in the prosperity category? Let me know if you find one.
Right you are Watson. According to Forbes anyway. This is mind-blowing. In 20 years capitalism has worked miracles in the old Soviet Union. The story is even more amazing when one considers that Russia started with next to no investment capital, a shoddy industrial base, political corruption, aand they have since experienced rampant terrorism and war.
Most Russians pay a flat rate of 13% income tax. http://www.worldwide-tax.com/russia/russia_tax.asp Team Less Regs/Lower Taxes has won another victory. As far as I know, they are undefeated.
Does anyone know of a match where Team High Tax/Massive Regs emerged victorious in the prosperity category? Let me know if you find one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)