Sowell of Emotion

Thomas Sowell: After months of watching all sorts of political polls, we are finally just a few weeks away from actually beginning to see some voting in primary elections. Polls let people vent their emotions. But elections are held to actually accomplish something.

The big question is whether the voters themselves will see elections as very different from polls. If Republican voters have consistently delivered a message through all the fluctuating polls over the past months, that message is those voters’ anger at the Republican establishment, which has grossly betrayed the promises that got a Republican Congress elected.

Whether the issue has been securing the borders, ObamaCare, runaway government spending or innumerable other concerns, Republican candidates have promised to fight the Obama administration’s policies — and then caved when crunch time came for Congress to vote.

The spectacular rise, and persistence, of Republican voter support for Donald Trump in the polls ought to be a wake-up call for the Republican establishment. But smug know-it-alls can be hard to wake up.

Even valid criticisms of Trump can miss the larger point that Republican voters’ turning to such a man is a sign of desperation and a telling indictment of what the Republican establishment has been doing for years — which they show pathetically few signs of changing.

Seldom have the Republicans seemed to have a better chance of winning a presidential election. The Democrats’ front-runner is a former member of an unpopular administration whose record of foreign policy failures as Secretary of State is blatant, whose personal charm is minimal and whose personal integrity is under criminal investigation by the FBI.

Meanwhile, the Republicans have fielded a stronger set of presidential aspirants than they have had in years. Yet it is by no means out of the question that the Republicans will manage to blow this year’s opportunity and lose at the polls this November.

In other times, this might just be the Republicans’ political problem. But these are not other times. After seven disastrous years of Barack Obama, at home and overseas, the United States of America may be approaching a point of no return, especially in a new age of a nuclear Iran with long-range missiles.

The next President of the United States will have monumental problems to untangle. The big question is not which party’s candidate wins the election but whether either party will choose a candidate that is up to the job.

That ultimate question is in the hands of Republicans who will soon begin voting in the primaries. Their anger may be justified, but anger is not sufficient reason for choosing a candidate in a desperate time for the future of this nation. And there is such a thing as a point of no return.

Voters need to consider what elections are for. Elections are not held to allow voters to vent their emotions. They are held to choose who shall hold in their hands the fate of hundreds of millions of Americans today and of generations yet unborn.

Too many nations, in desperate times, especially after the established authorities have discredited themselves and forfeited the trust of the people, have turned to some new and charismatic leader, who ended up turning a dire situation into an utter catastrophe.

The history of the 20th century provides all too many examples, whether on a small scale that led to the massacre in Jonestown in 1978 or the earlier succession of totalitarian movements that took power in Russia in 1917, Italy in 1922 and Germany a decade later.

Eric Hoffer’s shrewd insight into the success of charismatic leaders was that the “quality of ideas seems to play a minor role,” What matters, he pointed out, “is the arrogant gesture, the complete disregard of the opinion of others, the singlehanded defiance of the world.”

Is that the emotional release that Republican voters will be seeking when they begin voting in the primaries? If so, Donald Trump will be their man. But if the sobering realities of life and the need for mature and wise leadership in dangerous times is uppermost in their minds, they will have to look elsewhere.

Former governor Sarah Palin is an intelligent person, contrary to how liberals have tried to portray her. So it seemed to me that, if anybody could explain why they were promoting the candidacy of Donald Trump, it would be Governor Palin.

But I listened in vain for any evidence or logic that would provide a reason to vote for Donald Trump for the office of President of the United States. There were lots of ringing assertions, just as in Trump’s own speeches, but no convincing facts or demonstrable reasons.

After all these months, no coherent plans have emerged from the rhetoric of “The Donald”– just sweeping boasts about all the things he says he will achieve. But boasts about the unknown future are hardly reassuring.

However puzzling the fervent support for Donald Trump may be today, given how little basis there is for it, such blind faith is not unique in history. Other dire or desperate times have produced other charismatic leaders to whom desperate people have turned, with hopes of deliverance.

Trump is certainly different from establishment Republicans, but it that enough?

Things were appalling in 1917 Russia, when people turned to Lenin to try to get them out of a disastrous war abroad and a bitter economic situation at home.

The fact that Lenin was quite different from the czar who had led the country into catastrophe might have seemed promising to some people. He was also different from the ineffective Kerensky government that failed in its brief months in office. But the totalitarian government that Lenin established proved to be even worse than its predecessors.

The idea that someone quite different from those who led a nation into disaster can be expected to produce an improvement is a non sequitur that has seduced many people in many places and times.

Germany’s Weimar Republic was nobody’s idea of an ideal government but Hitler’s reign that followed was far worse in every way. Many Americans denounced the rule of the Shah of Iran, but he was never a worldwide sponsor of terrorism, like those who replaced him.

A pattern that would appear in many other places and times was one in which people’s hopes became focused on someone new, charismatic and with ringing rhetoric– but utterly untested for the job of governing a nation.

That is where we are today.

The Republican field of candidates has had a number of people with experience governing at the state level, so that they have a track record that we could scrutinize. But the media obsession with Trump has left little time for weighing the pros and cons of those governors.

Some of them have already had to withdraw before we learned whether their qualifications were good, bad or indifferent. This may be a misfortune for their political careers but it can turn out to be a disaster for the country, if it leaves the field open only to people whom we must judge solely on the basis of their rhetoric.

There are still some governors left in the running, but they are not among the candidates who have the highest support in the polls, where most have received the support of fewer than 10 percent of the voters polled.

Former governor Jeb Bush looked like the front runner at the outset, especially with his impressive amount of money in his campaign chest. But it is not nearly as easy to buy an election as some commentators seemed to think, so perhaps we can take some solace from the discrediting of that notion.

We might also take some solace from the support received by Dr. Ben Carson, despite the media-fed notion that conservatives are racists. Even after his brief time leading the candidates in the polls has passed, Dr. Carson remains the candidate with the highest favorability rating among Republican voters who were polled.

But there are few other things to feel positive about as the primaries approach. Common sense by the voters may be the best we can hope for. And that can save the day, after all. In fact, they may be all that can save the day.

Advertisements

You Just Might Be A Liberal…

Are you not sure that you’re a liberal? Well, there’s an easy way to find out. You might be a liberal if…

1) ….Your newspaper calls people “bigoted” for being worried about bringing Syrian refugees to America, but you won’t run pictures of Muhammad because you’re afraid Muslims might kill you for it.

2) ….You think every man accused of sexual assault is guilty until proven innocent except Bill Clinton.

3)….You insist that anyone who questions global warming hates science even though you don’t understand any of the science behind it yourself and you say we have to do something about climate change primarily because you want to impress your liberal friends.

4) ….You are terrified that holding terrorists at Guantanamo Bay who are trying to murder Americans might make the other terrorists who are trying to murder Americans mad.

5) ….You believe there’s a “Republican War on Women;” yet you are okay with aborting baby girls for any reason, think any man who says he identifies as a woman should be able to use the women’s bathroom and you want to put Bill Clinton back in the White House.

6) ….You claim to constantly hear Republican “dog whistles” that 99% of the population misses; yet you’d deny you’re racist for insisting that black Americans aren’t competent enough to get an ID to vote.

 

7) …You think there’s a possibility that Obama might be able to have a productive conversation with radical Islamists who want to kill us, but dialogue with the NRA is impossible.

8)….You believe Hillary Clinton is telling the truth. About anything. Ever.

9) ….You simultaneously believe the police are violent trigger-happy racists who shoot people for no good reason and that we should disarm the populace so that only the government has guns.

10) ….You went to a talk given on your campus by a conservative just so you could scream at him for “invading your safe space.”

11) ….You think Chris Kyle was a monster for killing so many enemies of America while Bowe Bergdahl deserves to be treated with respect and compassion after deserting his unit.

12) ….You believe you’re a caring and compassionate person because you advocate giving other people’s money away to people you hope will vote for candidates you like.

13) ….You believe that anyone who dislikes Barack Obama must hate him because he’s a minority, but your hatred of Ted Cruz and Clarence Thomas is perfectly justifiable.

14) ….You think you are a sophisticated person with a deep understanding of complex political issues, but sum up every one with some variation of, “Republicans are evil, racist, and they hate you while liberals like me are nice!”

15) ….You think it’s vitally important to increase the number of Muslim immigrants coming to America so they can inform on all the other Muslims who are planning terrorist attacks.

16) ….You blame the Republicans for the failure of Obamacare even though none of them voted for it.

17) ….Your first response to a terrorist attack committed by radical Islamists who’ve sworn allegiance to ISIS is to try to disarm every law-abiding gun owner in the country.

18) ….You think an unemployed, white factory worker who’s struggling to feed his family has some sort of racial privilege compared to Barack Obama, Melissa Harris Perry or Al Sharpton.

19) ….You say fences don’t work and gun-free zones do, but if Republicans wanted the fence around the White House taken down and demanded that the Secret Service be disarmed, you’d accuse them of trying to get Obama killed.

20) ….You believe Bruce Jenner is a woman, Rachel Dolezal is black and Elizabeth Warren is an Indian.

21)  Food in any way can be a “microagression” based on race, religion, sex, or ethnicity.

22) Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. Guns kill people so getting rid of Guns will kill less people.

23) The Power of Life and Death is “Pro-Choice”.

24) Any immigration is good no matter how it was done and anyone opposed to any immigration of any kind is “racist”.

25) A Religion is a Race, unless they are Christians, then they are just bigots.

26) Utter the word “islamophobia” and mean it.

27) Anything with a (D) after their name is ok and can do anything they want because it’s better than they alternative.

28) Democrats Lie, but it’s your fault not theirs.

29) A Tax is a Penalty, even after it’s ruled a Tax it’s still a Penalty.

30) “What Difference Does it Make?”

31) It was the fault of a You Tube Video.

32) That the Media is not biased and that people like Hillary and Barack are “moderates” and any Republican is “extreme”.

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel
Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell
Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley
Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

You Don’t Need to Know

In a call with senior Obama administration officials Tuesday evening, several governors demanded they be given access to information about Syrian refugees about to be resettled by the federal government in their states. Top White House officials refused.

The Agenda is The Agenda. You are not allowed to change that.

It’s not like Obama cares if you disagree with his Agenda.

It’s on a need to know basis, and since you are not of “the body” you don’t need to know.

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Over a dozen governors from both parties joined the conference call, which was initiated by the White House after 27 governors vowed not to cooperate with further resettlement of Syrian refugees in their states. The outrage among governors came after European officials revealed that one of the Paris attackers may have entered Europe in October through the refugee process using a fake Syrian passport. (The details of the attacker’s travels are still murky.)

The administration officials on the call included White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas, State Department official Simon Henshaw, FBI official John Giacalone, and the deputy director of the National Counterterrorism Center John Mulligan.

On the call several Republican governors and two Democrats — New Hampshire’s Maggie Hassan and California’s Jerry Brown — repeatedly pressed administration officials to share more information about Syrian refugees entering the United States. The governors wanted notifications whenever refugees were resettled in their states, as well as access to classified information collected when the refugees were vetted.

“There was a real sense of frustration from all the governors that there is just a complete lack of transparency and communication coming from the federal government,” said one GOP state official who was on the call.

The administration officials, led by McDonough, assured the governors that the vetting process was thorough and that the risks of admitting Syrian refugees could be properly managed. He added that the federal government saw no reason to alter the current method of processing refugees.

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

President Barack Obama lashed out Wednesday at Republicans who insist on barring Syrian refugees from entering the U.S., deeming their words offensive and insisting “it needs to stop.”

“Apparently they’re scared of widows and orphans coming into the United States of America,” Obama said.

Mocking GOP leaders for thinking they’re tough, Obama said overblown rhetoric from Republicans could be a potent recruitment tool for the Islamic State group. He insisted the U.S. process for screening refugees for possible entry into the U.S. is rigorous and said the U.S. doesn’t make good decisions “based on hysteria” or exaggerated risk.

“We are not well served when in response to a terrorist attack we descend into fear and panic,” the president said. (Townhall)

The Agenda is The Agenda. My Reality is the one one. Anything else is just stupid and not worth my time. So shut the f*ck up and do as you’re told!!

Florida governor Rick Scott asked McDonough point blank if states could opt out of accepting refugees from Syria. McDonough said no, the GOP state official said.

In a readout of the call Tuesday night, the White House said that several governors “expressed their appreciation for the opportunity to better understand the process and have their issues addressed.” The White House noted that “others encouraged further communication” from the administration about the resettlement of refugees. 

In other words, they can go fuck themselves. I’m going to do it anyways.

“I understand why Americans have been particularly affected,” he said.

I just don’t care.

Hassan, one of two Democrats to challenge the administration on the call, had already come out in favor of halting the flow of Syrian refugees to the United States. She expressed anger that state officials aren’t notified when Syrian refugees are resettled in their territory.

Brown said he favored continuing to admit Syrian refugees but wanted the federal government to hand over information that would allow states to keep track of them, the GOP state official said.

McDonough responded to Brown that there was currently no process in place to give states such information and the administration saw no reason to change the status quo. The non-governmental organizations that help resettle the refugees would have such information.

Brown countered by noting that state law enforcement agencies have active investigations into suspected radicals and that information about incoming Syrian refugees could help maintain their awareness about potential radicalization. He suggested the U.S. had to adjust the way it operates in light of the Paris attacks.

McDonough reiterated his confidence in the current process. While promising to consider what Brown and other senators had said, he emphasized that the administration had no plans to increase information sharing on refugees with states as of now.

Top GOP senators echoed the concerns of governors Tuesday. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr joined House Speaker Paul Ryan’s call for a “pause” in the flow of Syrian refugees, which is intended to include 10,000 people by 2016. McConnell said “the ability to vet people coming from that part of the world is really quite limited.”

Democratic senators are split on the issue. Senators Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein said Tuesday there may be a need for a pause in accepting Syrian refugees but they both wanted to hear more from the administration about the issue. Sen. Dick Durbin said that refugees aren’t the primary source of concern. He pointed to the millions of foreign visitors who enter America each year.

“Background checks need to be redoubled in terms of refugees but if we’re talking about threats to the United States, let’s put this in perspective,” he said. “Let us not just single out the refugees as the potential source of danger in the United States.”

The White House is trying hard to engage governors and lawmakers. Top administration officials held several briefings about the issue Tuesday on Capitol Hill. But if they don’t agree to share more with state and local politicians, the opposition to accepting Syrian refugees could quickly gain ground. (Bloomberg)

And your King’s petulance will grow louder.

30 states now refuse to accept #SyrianRefugees after #ParisAttacks but State Dept. says they may have no choice.

Fundamentally, the biggest problem is that no one trusts Obama and his “Vetting process” because it’s entirely politically and ideologically driven and he doesn’t actually care what you think.

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell
Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

 

Ministry of Truth Moderates?

I still don’t understand why the GOP has the Liberal Media moderating their debates. I just don’t get it. And apparently last night it showed.

I didn’t watch it for precisely the reason that apparently happened. The Liberal Media wanted to incite a fight and make the GOP look bad.

It’s like asking the Wolf to guard the chicken coup. The Big Bad Wolf to watch the sheep.

It’s idiotic. And apparently last night it showed.

‘The questions asked so far illustrate why the American people don’t trust the media. This is not a cage match,’ Cruz said 

‘Look at the questions: “Donald Trump, are you a comic-book villain?” “Ben Carson, can you do math?” “John Kasich, will you insult two people over here?” “Marco Rubio, why don’t you resign?” “Jeb Bush, why have your numbers fallen?”‘ 

‘How about talking about the substantive issues that people care about?’

Cruz earned the night’s loudest single wave of applause for that outburst. 

Rubio followed him with additional slams on the U.S. political press corps after Trump demanded an end to ‘scam’ super PACs that ‘are causing some very bad decisions to be made by some very good people.’

‘The Democrats have their own super PAC,’ Rubio claimed. ‘It’s called the mainstream media.’ 

You just now figured that out? Really??

“The CNBC moderators acted less like journalists and more like Clinton campaign operatives.  What was supposed to be a serious debate about the many issues plaguing our economy was given up for one Democratic talking point after another served up by the so-call ‘moderators.’  They clearly war-gamed this thinking that a relentless series of personal attacks on the candidates would somehow drive their ratings and help Hillary Clinton.

The CNBC debate will go down in history as an encyclopedic example of liberal media bias on stage.  The audience roared its disdain for these so-called ‘journalists,’ and all of America heard it.  CNBC should be embarrassed for their pitiful display of partisan liberal media bias and apologize to the GOP candidates and the American people.”– Brent Bozell

Except by the Liberal Media itself I bet. 🙂

“Congressional Republicans, Democrats and the White House are about to strike a compromise that would raise the debt limit, prevent a government shutdown, and calm financial markets of the fear that a Washington crisis is on the way. Does your opposition to it show you’re not the kind of problem-solver that American voters want?” CNBC anchor Carl Quintanilla asked the presidential candidate.

That’s questions more loaded than a drunk at bar at 2am. And more slanted than the drunk trying to walk home afterwards!

“So you don’t actually want to hear the answer, John?” Cruz called out the anchor. “You don’t want to hear the answer, you just want to incite insults.”

“You used your time on something else,” a dismissive Harwood said.

Which was: “The questions being asked shouldn’t be trying to get people to tear into each other, it should be what are your substantive solutions to people at home,” Cruz said before getting cut off.

“You’re not interested in an answer,” Cruz scolded.

No, he really wasn’t. He wanted to incite insults and violence to make you look bad. That was his job.

A half-hour after the debate ended, CNBC had turned off the TV monitors in the press filing center, effectively hiding its own post-debate broadcast coverage from the hundreds of reporters who traveled to cover the event.

Frank Luntz, the legendary Republican pollster, hosted a focus group during the debate as he has for each of the other Republican intra-party clashes.

’23 of tonight’s 26 focus group participants watched all three broadcasts.,’ he tweeted. ‘They ALL said @CNBC mod[erator]s were the worst.’

Why do you have The Ministry of Truth running your Debates? It makes NO sense!

And New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who had few spotlight moments, lit into the moderators for asking a question about whether the federal government should regulate pay-for-play fantasty football competitions online.

‘Wait a second,’ he said, firing rhetorical bullets at the CNBC anchor desk: ‘We have $19 trillion in debt, people out of work, ISIS and al Qaeda attacking us – and we’re talking about fantasy football?’ 

The Liberals don’t want you talk about those things that THEY fucked up. Why the hell would they want that?

Inanities is what they do best.

‘How about we get the government to do what they’re supposed to be doing?’ an agitated Christie shouted. ‘Enough on fantasy football. Let people play! Who cares?’ 

Moments earlier, Christie had lit into moderator John Harwood for interrupting him in mid-answer. 

‘Even in New Jersey,’ he said, ‘what you’re doing is called “rude”.’ 

The network’s chief moderator, John Harwood, found himself in trouble early for claiming Rubio’s tax plan was the subject of an aggressive takedown at the hands of the nonpartisan Tax Foundation.

He told the debate’s audience that the organization scored the Rubio plan ‘and concluded that you give nearly twice as much of a gain in after-tax income to the top one-percent as to people in the middle of the income scale.’

So the moderator is preaching partisan BS instead of asking questions, ghee, why didn’t you see that coming GOP? The Ministry of Truth is there to make you look bad and to plant questions that are slanted so far to the left they are one dimensional.

‘Since you’re a champion of Americans living paycheck to paycheck, don’t you have that backward?’ Harwood asked him.

‘No,’ Rubio corrected him. ‘You wrote a story on it. You had to go back and correct it.’

‘No, I didn’t,’ Harwood insisted.

Harwood, though, tweeted his correction on October 14. 

‘Tax Foundation says Rubio benefits lowest 10% proportionally more than top 1%,’ that tweet read. 

A “Narrative” correction? 🙂

image1

The Ministry of Truth has an agenda. and a Narrative. But yet let them “moderate” your “debate”?

Why?

The Colorado debate began with a round of navel-gazing as CNBC host John Harwood asked the 10 assembled candidates, job-interview style, to describe their biggest weaknesses.

WTF!

Would they ask Hillary or Bernie Sanders that question? Really??

QUOTH THE DONALD: ‘I am now in Colorado looking forward to what I am sure will be a very unfair debate!’ (Daily Mail)

Ya Think! 🙂

Media critic Howard Kurtz analyzes the behavior of the CNBC debate moderators, particularly John Harwood, on FOX News’ Kelly File:

KURTZ: Megyn, this was an absolute trainwreck for CNBC. Many of the moderators’ questions seemed to be snide, hostile, condescending, borderline insulting. And let me just make clear: I’m totally in favor of tough and provocative questions. When you do that, sometimes audience doesn’t like it, sometimes the candidates don’t like it. But a lot of the questions were not drilling down on facts or record or policy. When John Harwood says Trump, comic book campaign, or do you have the moral authority to be president? When Carl Quintanilla asked Marco Rubio — who had a good night by the way — are you a young man in a hurry? Shouldn’t you wait a few years to run for president? It just validated what a lot of people think about the mainstream media — and this channel is affiliated of course with NBC News — that they cannot be fair to Republicans.

WHY WOULD YOU EXPECT THEM TO BE?

That’s the question I want answered.

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy
Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

On The Cusp of 2014

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Victor Davis Hanson: That the president of the United States serially lied over Obamacare earns a “duh.” The NSA mess warrants a “whatever.” Each time we witness something akin to the NSA, IRS, AP, and ACA machinations in the future, the supporters of the next untruthful or immoral president will no doubt offer in defense, “But Obama did worse and nobody cared.”

Thomas Sowell: Whenever we stand on the threshold of a new year, we are tempted to forget the hazards of prophecy and try to see what may lie on the other side of this arbitrary division of time.

Sometimes we are content to try to change ourselves with New Year’s resolutions to do better in some respect.

Changing ourselves is a much more reasonable undertaking than trying to change other people. It may or may not succeed, but it seldom creates the disasters that trying to change others can produce.

When we look beyond ourselves to the world around us, peering into the future can be a very sobering, if not depressing, experience.

ObamaCare looms large and menacing on our horizon.

This is not just because of computer problems, or even because some people who think that they have enrolled may discover at their next visit to a doctor that they do not have any insurance coverage.

What ObamaCare has done, thanks to Chief Justice Roberts’ Supreme Court decision, is reduce us all from free citizens to cowed subjects whom the federal government can order around in our own personal lives, in defiance of the 10th Amendment and all the other protections of our freedom in the Constitution of the United States.

ObamaCare is more than a medical problem, though there are predictable medical problems — and even catastrophes — that will unfold in the course of 2014 and beyond.

Our betters have now been empowered to run our lives, with whatever combination of arrogance and incompetence they may have, or however much they lie.

The challenges ahead are much clearer than what our responses will be.

Perhaps the most hopeful sign is that increasing numbers of people seem to have finally — after nearly five long years — begun to see Barack Obama for what he is, rather than for what he seemed to be, when judged by his image and rhetoric.

What kind of man would blithely disrupt the medical care of millions of Americans, and then repeatedly lie to them with glib assurances that they could keep their doctors or health insurance if they wanted to?

What kind of man would set up a system in which people would be forced by law to risk their life savings by divulging their financial identification numbers to strangers who could turn out to be convicted felons?

With all the time that elapsed between the passage of ObamaCare and its going into effect, why were the so-called “navigators” who were to be handling other people’s financial records never investigated for criminal convictions?

What explanation could there be, other than that Obama didn’t care?

Caring is not a matter of words.

“By their fruits ye shall know them” — not by their rhetoric, image or symbolism.

Those who have still not yet seen through Obama will have many more opportunities to do so during the coming year, as the medical, financial and other painful human consequences of ObamaCare keep coming out in ways so clear that not even the mainstream media can ignore them or obscure them.

The question then is: What can be done about it? Nothing can be done about Obama himself. He has three more years in office and, as he pointed out to the Russians, he will no longer have to face the American voters.

ObamaCare, however, has no such immunity. It is always hard to repeal an elaborate program after it has gone into effect. But Prohibition was repealed, even though it was a Constitutional Amendment that required super-majorities in both houses of Congress and super-majorities of state legislatures to repeal.

In our two-party system, everything depends on whether the Republicans step up to the plate and act like responsible adults who understand that ObamaCare represents a historic crossroads that will determine what kind of people we are going to be, for this generation and generations yet unborn — citizens or subjects.

This means that Republicans have to decide whether their top priority is internal strife among the different wings of the party — another circular firing squad — or whether either wing puts the country first.

A prediction on how that will turn out in the new year would be far too hazardous to attempt.

My Guess: Circular Firing Squad. After all, it’s all about them, not us.It’s FOR them, not us, or even U.S. 🙂

Welcome to ObamaWorld, Comrade. Now you don’t want to be a Thought Criminal Do you, Citizen?

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Food Stamp Nation

Welfare: SNAP, the U.S. food stamp program, has become a conduit for redistributing wealth and fundamentally transforming America, as welfare recipients now send food overseas and the White House markets to illegals.

But think of all the government dependent voters! 🙂

 

While the administration laments the distraction of “phony” scandals like Benghazi and Fast and Furious that leave real Americans dead, it trots out phony statistics about how well the economy is doing.

“And what is absolutely true is that we have come a long way since the depths of the Great Recession,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said at a recent press briefing. “We’ve created over 7.2 million private-sector jobs.” How many of those jobs are part-time is one of the many things Carney left out.

Under his failed economic leadership, America has suffered through weak economic growth and 54 months of unemployment over 7.5%, the longest stretch since records began being kept in 1948.

And with 14+ million new government dependent voters what’s not to like about 20 million illegals becoming legal dependents!! 🙂

Since February 2009, the first full month of Obama’s presidency, 9.5 million Americans have dropped out of the labor force. Nearly 90 million working-age Americans are not working today. Doing the math, 1.3 Americans have dropped out of the labor force for every job the administration claims to have created.

At the end of January 2009, 32.2 million Americans received Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) aid. As of April 2013, there were 47.5 million Americans on food stamps. Using the White House’s job growth number, the 15 million increase in recipients means more than two people went on food stamps for each job the administration says it has created.

That’s not the only statistic Carney won’t recite.

Under Obama, 1.6 million more Americans are collecting disability insurance. In February 2009, 9.33 million Americans received disability payments. Today, that number is 10.95 million.

Food stamps feed not only Americans, but also the world. As the New York Post reports, welfare recipients buy groceries with Electronic Benefit Transfer cards and pack them in giant barrels to send to relatives overseas. The U.S. spent $522.7 million on foreign aid to the Caribbean last fiscal year, government data show, but the figure does not include what New Yorkers alone pay using taxpayer-funded benefits to ship food to relatives in Jamaica, Haiti and the Dominican Republic.

The practice is so common, hundreds of 45- to 55-gallon containers line the walls of some supermarkets, ready to be packed with taxpayer-funded goodies.

Perhaps to spare the cost of sending food overseas, the administration is using food stamps to attract more to come here, even as the immigration debate rages. A flier given to the Mexican Embassy by the USDA highlights that “you need not divulge information regarding your immigration status in seeking this benefit for your children.”

“USDA and the government of Mexico have entered into a partnership to help educate eligible Mexican nationals living in the United States about available nutrition assistance,” the USDA explains in a brief paragraph on its “Reaching Low-Income Hispanics With Nutrition Assistance” Web page. “Mexico will help disseminate this information through its embassy and network of approximately 50 consular offices.”

As CNSnews reports, the Agriculture Department estimates that 101 million people take part in at least one of the 15 food programs offered by the agency, at a cost of $114 billion in fiscal 2012.

That compares with America’s 97.2 million full-time private-sector workers in 2012.

Food Stamp Nation is now larger than the entire U.S. private-sector work force.

That’s food for thought.

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

 

America’s Stupidiest

Democrats terrify Hispanics into thinking they’ll be lynched if they vote for Republicans, and then turn around and taunt Republicans for not winning a majority of the Hispanic vote.

This line of attack has real resonance with our stupidest Republicans. Which explains why Republicans are devoting all their energy to slightly increasing their share of the Hispanic vote while alienating everyone else in America.

It must be fun for liberals to manipulate Republicans into focusing on hopeless causes. Why don’t Democrats waste their time trying to win the votes of gun owners?

Because, “Vote for Me (Democrat), the other guy’s an asshole!” is working so well you don’t have to worry about ANYTHING you’re doing. You get a free pass because the other guy’s an asshole! 🙂

And the stupid, low-information moron will fall for it!

And the more informed voters will think, “god, that’s really stupid!”.

So you get a 2-fer and you can do anything you want because no one care what you’re doing… 🙂

As journalist Steve Sailer recently pointed out, the Hispanic vote terrifying Republicans isn’t that big. It actually declined in 2012. The Census Bureau finally released the real voter turnout numbers from the last election, and Hispanics came in at only 8.4% of the electorate, not 10% as claimed by the pro-amnesty crowd.

The sleeping giant of the last election wasn’t Hispanics; it was elderly black women, terrified of media claims that Republicans were trying to suppress the black vote and determined to keep the first African-American president in the White House.

Contrary to expectations, 10% more blacks voted in 2012 compared to 2008, even beating white voters, the usual turnout champions. Eligible black voters turned out at a rate of 66.2% vs. 64.1% of eligible white voters. Only 48% of eligible Hispanic voters went to the polls.

No one saw this coming, which is probably why Gallup had Romney up by 5 points before Hurricane Sandy hit, and up by 1 point in its last pre-election poll after the hurricane.

Only two groups voted in larger numbers in 2012 compared to 2008: blacks aged 45-64, and blacks over the age of 65 — mostly women.

In raw numbers, nearly twice as many blacks voted as Hispanics, and nine times as many whites voted as Hispanics. (Ninety-eight million whites, 18 million blacks and 11 million Hispanics.)

So, naturally, the Republican Party’s entire battle plan going forward is to win slightly more votes from 8.4% of the electorate by giving them something they don’t want.

As columnist Byron York has shown, even if Mitt Romney had won 70% of the Hispanic vote, he still would have lost. No Republican presidential candidate in at least 50 years has won even half of the Hispanic vote.

In the presidential election immediately after Reagan signed an amnesty bill in 1986, the Republican share of the Hispanic vote actually declined from 37% to 30% — and that was in a landslide election for the GOP. Combined, the two Bush presidents averaged 32.5% of the Hispanic vote — and they have Hispanics in their family Christmas cards.

John McCain, the leading amnesty proponent, won only 31% of the Hispanic vote, not much more than anti-amnesty Romney’s 27%. Amnesty is a gift to employers, not employees.The (pro-amnesty) Pew Research Hispanic Center has produced poll after poll showing that Hispanics don’t care about amnesty. In a poll last fall, Hispanic voters said they cared more about education, jobs and health care than immigration. They even care more about the federal budget deficit than immigration!

Also, note that Pew asked about “immigration,” not “amnesty.” Those Hispanics who said they cared about immigration might care about it the way I care about it — by supporting a fence and E-Verify.

Who convinced Republicans that Hispanic wages aren’t low enough and what they really need is an influx of low-wage workers competing for their jobs?

Maybe the greedy businessmen now running the Republican Party should talk with their Hispanic maids sometime. Ask Juanita if she’d like to have seven new immigrants competing with her for the opportunity to clean other people’s houses, so that her wages can be dropped from $20 an hour to $10 an hour.

A wise Latina, A.J. Delgado, recently explained on Mediaite.com why amnesty won’t win Republicans the Hispanic vote — even if they get credit for it. Her very first argument was: “Latinos will resent the added competition for jobs.”

But rich businessmen don’t care. Big Republican donors — and their campaign consultants — just want to make money. They don’t care about Hispanics, and they certainly don’t care what happens to the country. If the country is hurt, I don’t care, as long as I am doing better! This is the very definition of treason.

Hispanic voters are a small portion of the electorate. They don’t want amnesty, and they’re hopeless Democrats. So Republicans have decided the path to victory is to flood the country with lots more of them!

It’s as if Republicans convinced Democrats to fixate on banning birth control to win more pro-life voters. This would be great for Republicans because Democrats will never win a majority of pro-life voters, and about as many pro-lifers care about birth control as Hispanics care about amnesty.

But that still wouldn’t be as idiotic as what Republicans are doing because, according to Gallup, pro-lifers are nearly half of the electorate. Hispanics are only 8.4% of the electorate.

And it still wouldn’t be as stupid as the GOP pushing amnesty, because banning birth control wouldn’t create millions more voters who consistently vote against the Democrats.

Listening to Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus burble a few weeks ago on “Fox News Sunday” about how amnesty is going to push the Republicans to new electoral heights, one is reminded of Democratic pollster Pat Caddell’s reason for refusing to become a Republican:

No matter how enraged he gets at Democratic corruption, he says he can’t bear to join such a stupid party as the GOP. (Ann Coulter)

Me Either. 🙂

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez
Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell
Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

%d bloggers like this: