Friday, September 27, 2013

there are people with whom I am friends with on Facebook.... because they don't know anything about how political stuff works but they were hired to teach younger people how political stuff works.

And I want to know what they think they know.  Which doesn't usually resemble much in the way of truth, the real world, etc.  but I wasn't put here on this earth to get into silly internet fights, make them see the world as it is, because in the end I will lose access to their respective perspective and minds will not be changed.

Wednesday, September 25, 2013

John McCain versus Ted Cruz

I am not a fan of John McCain and I do not support John McCain but I recognize the truth in his words in one respect: we lost. We lost and the result of our string of defeats between 2008 and 2012 in the places and events where victory counted the most have resulted in terrible consequences: the Democrats get to have their way with our economy and our health care programs, our government and our way of life. Our failure to defeat the villains means our liberty is forfeit. Elctions have consequences. Those consequences mean that by losing the election we lost liberty. The extended speech by Ted Cruz will not retrieve our lost liberty.

Ted Cruz speech - The Miracle of Freedom - May 11, 2013

Imprimis May 2013 Volume 42, Number 5

May/June 2013

Ted Cruz
United States Senator

The Miracle of Freedom

In 2012, Ted Cruz was elected as the 34th U.S. Senator from Texas. Prior to that, he served for five years as Solicitor General of Texas and was for five years a partner at one of the nation’s largest law firms. He has authored more than 80 U.S. Supreme Court briefs and argued 43 oral arguments, including nine before the U.S. Supreme Court. He has also served as Director of the Office of Policy Planning at the Federal Trade Commission and as Associate Deputy Attorney General at the U.S. Department of Justice. Senator Cruz graduated with honors from Princeton University and with high honors from Harvard Law School, and served as a law clerk to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court William Rehnquist.

The following is adapted from a speech delivered at Hillsdale College’s 161st Commencement, held in the College’s Biermann Athletic Center on May 11, 2013.

Today is a day of celebration. For you graduates, it’s a day to celebrate your hard work, your commitment, time, energy, passion, and prayers that you have put in to graduate from Hillsdale College. It’s also a day to celebrate the sacrifice and dedication your family has put in to get you here. I am honored to join you today—but let me say I fully recognize that the most forgettable part of this important day is going to be the politician delivering your commencement speech.
This morning I had the opportunity to tour your wonderful campus, and one of the highlights for me was the statue of Margaret Thatcher. I understand that when the statue was unveiled, she sent a letter of praise that read: “Hillsdale College symbolizes everything that is good and true in America. You uphold the principles and cherish the values which have made your country a beacon of hope.” I couldn’t agree more.
There are commencements being held on campuses all over the country this spring, but this one is different. Hillsdale, it is known across the country, is in a class by itself. Those graduating from other colleges are being told to go out and make something of themselves. But for the men and women receiving their degrees here today, expectations are higher. Because of the education you received here, you are uniquely prepared to provide desperately needed, principled leadership to your families, your churches, your communities, your country, and your fellow man. While other graduates have been exposed to college courses such as “Lady Gaga and the Sociology of Fame,” you have been grounded in an understanding of our Constitution and of the freedom it was designed to preserve.
* * *
Last month the world lost Baroness Thatcher, and in her honor I’d like to spend a few minutes discussing with you the miracle of freedom.

In the history of mankind, freedom has been the exception. Governed by kings and queens, human beings were told that power starts at the top and flows down; that their rights emanate from a monarch and may be taken away at the monarch’s whim. The British began a revolution against this way of thinking in a meadow called Runnymede in 1215. It was embodied in the Magna Carta, which read: “To all free men of our kingdom we have also granted, for us and our heirs for ever, all the liberties written out below, to have and to keep for them and their heirs . . . .” That revolution reached full flower in Philadelphia in 1787, in a Constitution that began from two radical premises.

The first is that our rights come not from kings or queens—or even from presidents—but from God. As the Declaration of Independence put it, “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Second, in the Constitution, America’s Founders inverted the understanding of sovereignty. Power comes not from the top down, but up, from “We the People,” and governing authority for those in political office is limited to set periods subject to elections. As James Madison explained in Federalist 51: “If men were angels, no government would be necessary . . . . In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”

Even from my short time in elected office, I can assure you there are no angels in Washington, D.C. And that is why Thomas Jefferson said the “chains of the Constitution” should bind the mischief of government. Only when government is limited are rights protected, the rule of law honored, and freedom allowed to flourish.
You who are graduating from Hillsdale are familiar with these ideas. As the late conservative writer and educator Russell Kirk observed, “Hillsdale does not subscribe to the notion that all books published before 1900 are obsolete. Against all odds, the College speaks up—as it did during the nineteenth century—for ‘permanent things.’ ” And with those as our foundation, what has freedom wrought?

* * *

Simply put, the American free market system is the greatest engine for prosperity and opportunity that the world has ever seen. Freedom works. No other nation on Earth has allowed so many millions to come with nothing and achieve so much. In the centuries before the American Revolution, the average human lived on between one and three dollars a day, no matter whether one lived in Europe, Asia, Africa, or North or South America. But from that point on—from the beginning of the American experiment—for the first time in human history, per capita income in a few countries began to grow rapidly, and nowhere more so than in the United States.

Over the last two centuries, U.S. growth rates have far outpaced growth rates throughout the world, producing per capita incomes about six times greater than the world average and 50 percent higher than those in Europe. Put another way, the United States holds 4.5 percent of the world’s population, and produces a staggering 22 percent of the world’s output—a fraction that has remained stable for two decades, despite growing competition from around the world.

This predominance isn’t new. The late British economist Angus Maddison observed that American per capita income was already the highest in the world in the 1830s. This is a result of America’s economic freedom, which enables entrepreneurs and small businesses to flourish.

Today the U.S. dollar is the international reserve currency. English is the world’s standard language for commerce. The strength of our economy allows us to maintain the mightiest military in the world. And U.S. culture—film, TV, the Internet—is preeminent in the world (although for many of our TV shows and movies, perhaps we owe the world an apology). A disproportionate number of the world’s great inventions in medicine, pharmaceuticals, electronics, the Internet, and other technology come from America, improving, expanding, and saving lives. America was where the telephone, the automobile, the airplane, and the iPhone were invented. Americans were the first to walk on the moon.

But most importantly, freedom produces opportunity. And I would encourage each of you to embrace what I call opportunity conservatism, which means that we should look at and judge every proposed domestic policy with a laser focus on how it impacts the least among us—how it helps the most vulnerable Americans climb the economic ladder.

The political left in our country seeks to reach down the hand of government and move people up the economic ladder. This attempt is almost always driven by noble intentions. And yet it never, ever works. Conservatives, in contrast, understand from experience that the only way to help people climb the economic ladder is to provide them the opportunity to pull themselves up one rung at a time.
As President Reagan said, “How can we love our country and not love our countrymen, and loving them, reach out a hand when they fall, heal them when they’re sick, and provide opportunity to make them self-sufficient so they will be equal in fact and not just in theory?”

Historically, our nation has enjoyed remarkable economic mobility. About 60 percent of the households that were in the lowest income quintile in 1999 were in a higher quintile ten years later. During the same decade, almost 40 percent of the richest households fell to a lower quintile. This is a nation where you can rise or fall. It is a nation where you can climb the economic ladder based not on who you are born to, or what class you are born into, but based on your talents, your passion, your perseverance, and the content of your character.
Economic freedom and the prosperity it generates reduce poverty like nothing else. Studies consistently confirm that countries with higher levels of economic freedom have poverty levels as much as 75 percent lower than countries that are less free.

Thanks to America’s free market system, the average poor American has more living space than the typical non‑poor person in Sweden, France, or the United Kingdom. In 1970, the year I was born, only 36 percent of the U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning. Today, 80 percent of poor households in America have air conditioning; and 96 percent of poor parents say that their children were never hungry at any time in the preceding year because they could not afford food.

Now, of course, there is still need in America and throughout the world, and all of us should act to help our fellow man. But more and more government is not the way to do this. To insist otherwise is to ignore the fact that all major European nations have higher levels of public spending than the United States, and that all of them are poorer.

Nor are human beings happiest when they’re taken care of by the state. Indeed, areas under the yoke of dependency on government are among the least joyous parts of our society. The story of Julia that we saw depicted in last year’s election—the story of cradle-to-grave dependency on government—is not an attractive utopia. Men and women flourish, instead, when afforded the equal opportunity to work and create and accomplish.

I remember some time ago when former Texas Senator Phil Gramm was participating in a Senate hearing on socialized medicine, and the witness there explained that government would best take care of people. Senator Gramm gently demurred and said, “I care more about my family than anyone else does.” And this wide-eyed witness said, “Oh no, Senator. I care as much about your children.” Senator Gramm smiled and said, “Really? What are their names?”

* * *

It is precisely because economic freedom and opportunity outperform centralized planning and regulation that so many millions have risked everything for a chance at the American dream.

Fifty-five years ago, my father fled Cuba, where he had been imprisoned and tortured—including having his teeth kicked out—as a teenager. Today my father is a pastor in Dallas. When he landed in Austin, Texas, in 1957, he was 18. He couldn’t speak a word of English. He had $100 sewn into his underwear. He went and got a job washing dishes and made 50 cents an hour. He worked seven days a week and paid his way through the University of Texas, and then he got a job, and then he went on to start a small business.

Now imagine if, at that time, the minimum wage had been two dollars an hour. He might never have had the opportunity to get that dishwashing job and work his way through school and work his way up from there. I cannot tell you how many times I’ve thanked God that some well-meaning liberal didn’t greet him when he landed in Austin and put his arm around him and say: “Let me take care of you. Let me make you dependent on government. Let me sap your self-respect—and by the way, don’t bother learning English.”

When I was a kid, my father used to say to me: “When we faced oppression in Cuba, I had a place to flee to. If we lose our freedom here, where do we go?” For my entire life, my dad has been my hero. But what I find most incredible about his story is how commonplace it is. Every one of us here today has a story like that. We could line up at this podium and each of us tell the story of our parents or grandparents or our great, great, great grandparents. We are all children of those who risked everything for liberty. That’s the DNA of what it means to be an American—to value freedom and opportunity above all.

In 1976, Margaret Thatcher delivered her “Britain Awake” speech. In it, she said: “There are moments in our history when we have to make a fundamental choice. This is one such moment, a moment when our choice will determine the life or death of our kind of society and the future of our children. Let’s ensure that our children will have cause to rejoice that we did not forsake their freedom.”
If we don’t fight to preserve our liberty, we will lose it. The men and women graduating here today, blessed with a world-class liberal arts education and a Hillsdale love of learning, are perfectly situated to lead the fight, to tell and retell the story of the miracle of freedom to so many Americans—so many young Americans in particular—who’ve never heard that story from the media, or in their schools, and certainly not from Hollywood.

Mrs. Thatcher continued: “Of course, this places a burden on us, but it is one that we must be willing to bear if we want our freedom to survive.”

Throughout history, we have carried the torch for freedom. At Hillsdale, you have been prepared to continue to do so, that together we may ensure that America remains a shining city on a hill, a beacon to the world of hope and freedom and opportunity.

Thank you and God bless you.

Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.

the endof of the Ted Cruz Marathon speech

Wednesday, September 18, 2013

"I've skewered whites, blacks, Hispanics, Christians, Jews, Muslims, gays, straights, rednecks, addicts, the elderly, and my wife" -- Jeff Dunham

Tuesday, September 17, 2013

drink when you hear the word Communist

It's part of the drinking game!

your partisanship solves nothing stupid

Dear liberal friends: the massacre in DC did NOT HAPPEN because we lack MORE control on guns (you know, in DC, where guns are basically banned, and the naval yard is where nobody has weapons...).

Dear conservative friends: Clinton-era gun control policies restricting weapons on bases DID NOT KILL THOSE MURDERED TODAY. Some psycho with lawfully acquired weapon(s) did.

Seriously, people. Can we stop making EVERYTHING about whose policies might have contributed to the blame? People died today. Parents aren't going home to their kids. DC lived in terror today. I have friends who were within blocks of the tragic scene. It's like we're incapable of letting the bodies get removed from the scene before we start pointing fingers at ANYBODY BUT the shooter! Come on. Get real.
-- Laura Gatz

Monday, September 16, 2013

a Peanut clip from Jeff Dunham's "Arguing With Myself"

moonlight does not kill vampires because

Because it's reflected and emitted radiation (termed radiosity) from a celestial body at a low temperature and thus has a different frequency and properties than the radiation originally emitted from the very high temperature of the surface of the sun. Sheesh!

Statesmen versus Politicians

I am going to start with this article I stole from some long ago written tripod site by some guy named Mike North!

In My Humble Opinion

The Difference Between Statesmen and Politicians

     According to the World Book Dictionary, a politician is "A person who gives much time to political affairs; a person who is experienced in politics." A statesman is defined as "A person who is skilled in the management of public or national affairs." The difference in definitions is subtle, but the difference in practice is enormous.

     To use a football analogy, both Marion Campbell (former coach of the Atlanta Falcons) and Tom Landry (former coach of the Dallas Cowboys) were experienced coaches, and they devoted a great deal of time to their profession. Using the criteria for a politician, Campbell and Landry were equals. But while a politician is described as "experienced," a statesman is described as "skilled." Using that definition, Campbell was not in the same league as Landry.

     We are suffering from a drought of statesmen and a flood of politicians. It's like a diet full of calories with almost no nutrition. Statesmen are like vegetables. Many people don't like them, but they're good for you. Politicians are like too much ice cream. Yummy. I'll worry about the stomach ache later.

     The founders of this nation were not politicians. Many, like John Adams and James Madison had almost no political experience when they were elected to serve in the Continental Congress. Experience, no. But they had education, ideas, and conviction. Madison's silent labor and Adams' brilliant oratory did what all of the "experience" in the world could not. They gave us liberty and the most brilliantly devised system of self-government in history.

     Simple definitions aside, what is the difference between a statesman and a politician? A politician works with details. A statesman works with ideas. A politician debates over whether to raise the minimum wage by 50 cents instead of by 40 cents. A statesman, on the other hand, asks "If the government has the power to dictate the least I can make, don't they also have the power to dictate the most I can make?"

     A politician debates the cost of a plan. The statesmen questions the wisdom of the plan. A politician tells his constituents what he did for them. A statesman doesn't worry about what he can do for his constituents, because he's too busy trying to guarantee a future for his constituent's grandchildren.

     A politician follows the crowd. He lives and dies with his finger in the wind. Politicians maintain the image of leadership, but in reality they wait to declare a position until they see which is the most likely to get them re-elected. But as Woodrow Wilson once said, "If you think too much about being re-elected, it is very difficult to be worth re-electing."

     A statesman leads. A statesman doesn't bow to the screeching and wailing that often passes for opposition. The statesman follows the path blazed by John Adams, who said "Always stand on principle even if you stand alone," and by Congressman David Crockett, who lived by one rule: "Be sure you are right & then go ahead." That rule eventually cost Crockett his life.

     I suppose that politicians are like hornets and mosquitoes. We may never understand why we have to endure them, but they, like the poor, will always be with us. Statesmen are almost like dinosaurs though, doomed for extinction if not already extinct. The small (and small minded) survive and thrive, while the great and noble go by the wayside.

     Our amazing nation was founded by statesmen. Men of noble, though not perfect character. Men who held principle and ideology in such great esteem that no threat of pain or death could deter them from their dream of a constitutional republic guaranteeing liberty and justice for all. Such leaders are necessary to preserve that dream. But we don't seem interested in liberty and justice for all. We seem more interested in prescriptions and paychecks for all, regardless of who might have to foot the bill.

     Like many in the arts, the Greek playwright Euripides addressed social and political issues in his work. He theorized that people get the government that they deserve. Euripides was right. We don't want leaders, we want nannies. We may gripe, moan and complain about politicians, but we continue to ensure their survival. All they have to do is tell us what we want to hear, promise to "bring the money home" from Washington or Atlanta, and remember our names the next time they see us.

     We think we strike a hard bargain for our votes. But what's a few billion in entitlements and pork projects to an ambitious candidate? Statesmen earn votes, politicians buy them. After all, John Randolph said it best: "That most delicious of all privileges -- spending other people's money."    

All original material on this site is protected by Copyright  Ó 2000-2003, D. Michael North
I have more to say and more to find but ultimately my point will come out the same, that in the colloquial use the only difference between a statesman and a politician is whether or not whoever is using the word likes the person that he or so she is referring to.

the comments are not the news

The media treats morons' comments on social media as news. The comments are not the content.
Can we stop doing this? There’s a disturbing trend in news recently where someone’s accomplishment is mentioned in only in passing but the bulk of the story is dedicated to the fact that Someone Said Something Ignorant About It On Twitter... these sentiments are problematic. But are they so newsworthy? Do they really deserve second billing? It’s almost a formula now: “[Person of X Background] does [Remarkable Thing], People On Twitter Are Jerks About it.” Followed by the story, “Person Who Did Remarkable Thing Comments on Hateful Comments.” For decades, in the privacy of their living rooms, people have said ignorant things when something happened on TV. This is not news, even if the second-screen experience means that the living room now includes the equivalent of carving your offhand mutterings unalterably into stone. I understand that some of the thinking behind this is that publicity will shame these people. But I don’t think inserting their bile so prominently into this kind of coverage is working. Dave with 6 friends said something racist? Does it make a sound? Give me the old way, when the only people forced to know about these things were the unfortunates who were in the living room with him. Now that kind of hateful muttering winds up online and somehow merits a national reaction from its target. And, frankly, it doesn’t.... I really hoped, after we wound up making an 11 year-old boy comment on the racist tweets that greeted his performance of the national anthem, that we might have taken a second to think, “You know, maybe the best way of dealing with this kind of comment is not to dignify it by rubbing it in the face of the person who just did a nice thing for us.” This isn’t the story. It’s the comments. Never read the comments.
Most primitives on YouTube will tell you that.

how Obama and Putin respectively prepared for power

From the American Thinker, claiming our President to be less than he asserts to be
He was a reasonably bright guy but not the "brilliant" author and savant white liberals thought him to be. His "luck" derived from the fact that he grew up almost exactly as those liberals had but in the body of a black man. Hearing him they heard themselves. Seeing him say what he said surprised them, validated them, delighted them with its very whiteness. Although they would be the last to admit it, they suffered conspicuously from what George Bush has called "the soft bigotry of low expectations."
In speaking of Obama in early 2007, Joe Biden framed those expectations with dunderheaded clarity. "I mean you got the first mainstream African-American presidential candidate who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy." Not to be out-patronized, Senate majority Leader Harry Reid found comfort in Obama's having "no Negro dialect." The always-observant Shelby Steele summed up the phenomenon, "Blacks like Obama, who show merit where mediocrity is expected, enjoy a kind of reverse stigma, a slightly inflated reputation for 'freshness' and excellence because they defy expectations."
Throughout his ascendancy, Obama has had to fake something else besides competence, namely a belief in America. This trumpery was on full display during Tuesday night's Syria speech. "When, with modest effort and risk, we can stop children from being gassed to death and thereby make our own children safer over the long run, I believe we should act," said Obama at the conclusion of his disjointed speech on September 10. "That's what makes America different. That's what makes us exceptional."
Exceptional? As Russia's Vladimir Putin promptly made clear in a taunting New York Times op-ed, Obama did not believe in American exceptionalism any more than he did. Indeed, Putin's old KGB pals had been working to undermine that belief since the agency's creation.
Obama's rise was, in no small part, a testament to the KGB's success. From his childhood on, Obama had been learning that just about the only thing exceptional about America was Barack Hussein Obama. In Hawaii, his communist mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, reinforced his mother's casual anti-Americanism. "You're not going to college to get educated. You're going there to get trained," Davis reportedly told Obama. "They'll train you so good, you'll start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that shit."
Obama drank deeply from Davis's well. In his acclaimed 1995 memoir, Dreams from My Father, Obama described the Americanization of Hawaii in Marxist terms as an "ugly conquest." Missionaries brought "crippling diseases." American companies carved up "the rich volcanic soil" and worked their indentured laborers of color "from sunup to sunset."
After hitting the mainland Obama surrounded himself with Davis's spiritual heirs. "I chose my friends carefully," he wrote in Dreams. "The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets." With his new friends, Obama discussed "neocolonialism, Franz (sic) Fanon, Eurocentrism, and patriarchy" and flaunted his alienation. Dr. John Drew has confirmed that the Obama he met at Occidental College was a "Marxist planning for a Communist style revolution."
The literary influences Obama cited include radical anti-imperialists like Fanon and Malcolm X, communists like Langston Hughes and Richard Wright, and tyrant-loving fellow travelers like W.E.B. DuBois. "Joseph Stalin was a great man," DuBois wrote upon Stalin's death in 1953. "Few other men of the 20th century approach his stature." In Dreams, Obama gave no suggestion that this reading was in any way problematic or a mere phase in his development. He moved on to no new school, embraced no new worldview.
In April 2009 in Strasbourg, France, in response to a question about America's role in the world, Obama let that worldview slip through. "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism," he said. In other words, he did not believe in American exceptionalism at all.
In these last few months, the world has seen what happens when an intellectual lightweight with no fixed principles beyond the vestigial Marxism of his youth faces off against an unscrupulous post-Marxist survivor like Putin. For those paying attention, it wasn't hard to predict.
In 1975, when Obama was goofing off through his freshman year at an elite Hawaiian prep school, twenty-two year old Putin joined the KGB. The opportunistic Putin stayed with "the organs" until 1991 when he schemed his way out of the abortive KGB-backed putsch against Mikhail Gorbachev. "As soon as the coup began," said Putin later, "I immediately decided which side I was on." That same year Obama -- in his own words, "someone who has undoubtedly benefited from affirmative action programs during my academic career" -- secured an unearned berth in the Ivy League at Columbia University,
In 1995, both Putin and Obama got political. The wily Putin, always one step ahead of the law, took control of the Saint Petersburg branch of the pro-government Our Home Is Russia political party. In 1995, terrorist emeritus Bill Ayers, recognizing Obama's puppet potential, finished writing Obama's memoir, got Obama appointed chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge grant, and held a fundraiser for his state senate run in his Chicago home.
For the next eighteen years, the resourceful Putin finessed his way through the occasionally lethal minefield of Russian politics. Obama meanwhile was wafted aloft by his own breezy rhetoric and the overheated passions of his deluded followers, including, unfortunately, most of the mainstream media.
When Putin shot Obama's balloon down over Syria no one should have been surprised. As America first learned at Benghazi, you can fake your way through college, fake your way through the Senate, even fake your way through the presidency, but you can't fake your way through a civil war in the Middle East.
It is safe to say that Putin prepared to hold, take, and wield power in a personal and definitive way, far different than the path of his American counterpart, who was always the beneficiary of a patron at one point or another without the benefit of personal strength of will.

To be Conservative is to be Prudent

Burke agrees with Plato that in the statesman, prudence is chief among virtues. Any public measure ought to be judged by its probable long-run consequences, not merely by temporary advantage or popularity. Liberals and radicals, the conservative says, are imprudent: for they dash at their objectives without giving much heed to the risk of new abuses worse than the evils they hope to sweep away. As John Randolph of Roanoke put it, Providence moves slowly, but the devil always hurries. Human society being complex, remedies cannot be simple if they are to be efficacious. The conservative declares that he acts only after sufficient reflection, having weighed the consequences. Sudden and slashing reforms are as perilous as sudden and slashing surgery.
-- Russell Kirk

Any action that is imprudent, like choosing who you support for the President three years early, is not that of a Conservative.  So anyone that says that Ted Cruz or Rand Paul is their choice for President of the United States as early as April of 2013 is lying to themselves and you everytime he or she claims to be Conservative.

I hope those people read this.  I hope they eventually have the truth reach their souls.  I want them to know without the ability to escape.

Transformative Europe as Cartographical History

Limelight versus Leadership

Anonymous said...

Todd Courser is constantly running for some office. Like Anthony Weiner, he can't seem to see himself not in the limelight but at least Anthony Weiner has done some work in his party. Todd runs for office then disappears, runs again and disappears again. Speaking with the tea party advocates in his own communities, the joke has been that Todd loses and then runs for the next highest office. Todd could have a lot to offer if he did things the right way. With Todd he has not been involved in the tea party movement outside of trying to get them to support and fund him for his run for offices. It was his lack of credentials that had tea partiers supporting Bobby Schostak when many did want someone else. Todd needs to be more involved in doing the leg work like most tea partiers have done. Knocking on doors, making calls, basically learning and attending some meetings other than to promote himself. Todd Courser is not the leader of the Tea Party in Michigan, although he thinks he maybe. What has he done to qualify himself as a leader. Voters need to ask what organizations has Mr. Courser lead and been successful at to call himself a proven. He hasn't done anything in the Republican Party or tea party for that matter.
The problem I have with Todd Courser (and I have no real issue with the man otherwise, egotist and/or nutjub he may or may not be) is that I'm terrified that the citizenry's apprehension or aversion to the functional incumbent may become so strong at any one point that they vote for Todd Courser as an alternative.

The majority of the votes that Mr Courser accumulated at the state convention of Winter 2013 is as a result of those people acting against Bob Schostak.  The unfortunate result, however, could have been Mr Schostak being replaced by the alternative choice on that ballot, which only ends to the Chairman of the Michigan Republican Party being someone incapable of performing the requisite tasks attached to the role.

Mr Courser runs for various offices and positions he is unqualified to fulfill (if elected) because of ego.  People vote against him because they want someone that can actually perform the job.  People vote for him because the people that can actually perform the job fail to fit an ideological prejudice.

The answer of course to "what he has he done to qualify himself as a leader" usually ends up being the number of e-mail addresses that he has collected.  That is not actual leadership, but it has convinced Joan Fabiano that she is a statewide leader.

Wednesday, September 11, 2013

an observant person...

is impressed by 9/11 "truthers". It takes a special talent to read conspiracy websites, parrot talking points that were put together by nutjobs, then proudly proclaim yourself an "independent thinker". Give it a rest today. Honor the dead. Tomorrow you can go back to looking for Zionist-controlled UFO's.

Tuesday, September 10, 2013

Drunk Feral Pig versus Cow

Don't get drunk before you start the fight.
The swine drank 18 beers on its bender in Port Hedland, Western Australia, according to ABC News.
The alcohol also made the pig hungry and was seen looking through rubbish bags for something to eat.
‘In the middle of the night these people camping opposite us heard a noise, so they got their torch out and shone it on the pig and there he was, scrunching away at their cans,’ said a camper who had witnessed the hog’s shenanigans.
If this wasn’t bad enough the animal then got into fisticuffs with a cow and came off worse in the exchange.
‘Then he went and raided all the rubbish bags,’ the camper added.
‘There were some other people camped right on the river and they saw him being chased around their vehicle by a cow.’
I wonder if the pig could have won the fight sober.

Colion Noir's response to Sarah Silverman's Black NRA

There’s a funny or die video where Sarah Silverman facetiously advocates the start a BLACK NRA, if you haven’t watched it, the video makes its pretty clear that Sarah Silverman has the comedic acuity of a possum, than again, what do you expect from Alanis Morissettes’s, female discharge obsessed,suggestively slow, twin sister?

Shouldn’t David Allen Grier be playing bingo somewhere, let it go man. Ron Funchus is nothing more than Rick Ross’s mouth breathing body double, and but for his work on the Chappell show, who is Ron Brennan? Deon, being from Chicago, i’m sure you know good people who live in war torn south side Chicago who are not criminals, but I guess you’re too busy making jokes about gun control to remember the black church going woman who can’t afford to leave, but goes to church every Sunday, or the young black male who works overtime to support his family and doesn’t gang bang, but because of economic reasons can’t move out, but legally has a gun to protect his family.
Everyone in this video is guilty of promoting the idea that all young black men are criminals to be feared, because god forbid the second amendment apply to everyone, that would mean even young black men can own guns too,  obviously that should scare every white person in America to vouch for more gun control!
Are there white people who don’t want black people to own guns, yes, their names are Mayor Bloomberg and Diane Feinstein.
And last I checked, the NRA advocated gun rights for everyone.
Sarah Silverman spews more racism in an hour long stand up than most KKK members do in their lives, but she has the comedian plausible deniability card so, she gets away with.
Now I’m forced to sit here and listen to her talk “at” me like like a bumbling idiot who is only moved by emotion instead of rational thought. Yes, I said talk to me, because this video wasn’t made for the NRA, it was made for black people. This is a race baiting video of the highest order.
Take a volatile social issue like the second amendment, subtly imply that the largest organization in defense of that amendment is racist, and then swipe your comedian plausible deniability card so you can wrap it in satire without consequence. Then throw in a few black comedians who are largely disconnected from the issue but who are desperately trying to remain relevant, and send it out to play on  perceived insecurities of blacks and the historical racist undertones of gun ownership in this country.
Isn’t that ironic!?
Slow clap for Alanis Morrisette, slow clap.
Keep in mind the only people making racial distinctions are the ones in this video.
To Sara Silverman and the rest of the patronizing, self righteous yahoos, who feel that they can simply tug at my skin color in order to get me to agree with them and then Make light of the issues Blk ppl deal with by making jokes about a Black NRA hahahah, go play in traffic,. All of the young black men I know and hangout with use logic to make decisions, so give me back my race because its not for you to use to make dumb ass videos with.

an apology demanded

If you actually voted for this President you owe the rest of the country an apology....
-- Brian Griffiths

Bill Nye the Science Guy 20th Anniversary

Bill Nye The Science Guy celebrates that twenty years ago one of my favorite after school television shows premiered.  I was eleven.

I see no reason to celebrate.  In the years since the show began and filled a half hour of each of my afternoons with fun and learning the series was cancelled and replaced by absolute crap, boatloads of inferior product, methodology, and knowledge.

Today he can celebrate good memories.  I see something I don't have on tv now.

I feel curmudgeonly.

Saturday, September 07, 2013

South Florida Bulls
Spartan Stadium, East Lansing, Michigan
today, 12:00 PM (ET)
South Florida
Michigan State

Day: Saturday
Date: Sept. 7, 2013
Location: East Lansing, Mich.
Time: 12:00 p.m. ET
Spartans Host South Florida In First-Ever Meeting


Radio:   Spartan Sports Network