"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." (Pls note: This is a comedy site and I am a comedian, so don't take anything here seriously. It's all in jest, haha. For entertainment purposes only!)
Tuesday, October 6, 2015
Oregon, Guns, and Obama
The Oregon massacre was bad enough. Barack Obama made it even worse. Before anything was known about the event, he got in front of the cameras to politicize the tragedy and blame it on the tool used by the killer. That would be like blaming the holocaust on gas chambers, 9/11 on box cutters, and ISIS on scimitars.
There is a "first law of Obama", much like there is a first law of physics: "for every negative event, there is a politically convenient scapegoat to attack, which is designed to rally the liberal base but solve nothing. " For Oregon it's guns.
Not only did Obama attack guns as the culprit, he also attacked the country he leads as being the only developed country that experiences such events. He must not consider England, France, Norway, Switzerland, Russia, Finland, Germany, or Canada developed.
He may really believe our legal right to own guns makes us more violent. He seems blissfully unaware that we've always had guns, but we didn't always have this kind of violence. He's also blissfully unaware that some of the highest homicide rates, 1000% higher than ours, are in Central American countries that have no 2nd amendment and very few guns. Countries like Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Panama, and Mexico are some of the most violent in the world. Good thing Obama is not importing illegals from these countries. Oh wait, that's exactly what he's doing!
Look, I could talk about how Obama's disregard for life (ie: late term abortions) has contributed to a cheapening of the value of life and led to more violence, but that would be theoretical. What's not theoretical is that in Obama's first term, he and the Democrats had filibuster proof control of the entire government. They could have passed a total ban on guns if they wanted to. They did not, because even most Democrats know guns are not the problem.
The fact is we have some violent and insane people in our country, and their violence will not magically disappear if guns magically do. Ironically, the best way to minimize gun violence is to deregulate them. It is not a coincidence that killers like the Charleston guy, the Batman guy, the military base guys, and the school guys, all sought out gun-free zones to accomplish their evil.
Obama knows this, but sees a political opportunity. The damage that this cynical, petulant, arrogant, and divisive man is inflicting on our nation proceeds apace.
(This piece is a re-post of what I wrote after the Charleston shooting. I basically just changed the place-name to Oregon.)
Monday, October 5, 2015
The Star Wars Solution to Gun Violence
A liberal friend posed this question on Facebook. Of course, I took the bait:
Ok, I have a question. I’m going to put this out to republican legislators, and republicans in general. Let’s imagine for a brief second that you all have the power to enact and enforce laws to make our country a better place. Oh wait - you already have that power. Ok, let’s just suppose you’re willing to use it – for actually improving the quality of life in this country? That is the goal, correct? My question is: What would you suggest is a possible solution to this current crisis of mass shootings? They’re not just killing children of liberal families. Surely, you must agree that this affects us all? So, what do you suggest we do about it? We all can hear very clearly the objections to virtually any sliver of a mention of gun control, or regulation. We get that having an unfettered right to a gun, to any gun, is way more important to you than any reduction in senseless deaths. So, come up with another solution. Anything. We would love to hear how you all would solve this. You blame mental illness? Well, what would you do about that? What mental health initiatives are you willing to pay for? When can we start? I’m not even being rhetorical. I’m serious. What will you all do about this, other than to get in the way of fixing it?
My response:
Can't speak for Republicans, but I am familiar
with the libertarian (small "l") solutions for this. Let me
start by saying, "Long ago in a galaxy far far away..." Wait, before
I get to that, some of your premises need correcting: Republicans cannot make
laws. They would need 61 votes in the Senate which they've never had in modern
times. Democrats however, did have that for Obama's first two years and they
did...zip. Also, you are right, gun violence doesn't care which party you vote
for, but the vast majority of gun violence is in Democrat cities. (Chicago, New
York, Detroit, it's all the same street... add Baltimore, Nawlins, DC, etc.)
OK, back to Star Wars: Think of Darth Vader as the guy who brings a big gun
into a movie theatre intending to take out as many innocents as possible. Who
stops him? Not just the cops. No, an ordinary cat with a fast car and some big
guns of his own, named Han Solo, has the assist. In other words, qualified
regular Joes (like that guy Mintz!) with concealed carry permits could turn a
mass casualty gig into a less bigger deal. Still gonna have them though. (There
will always be idiots like the "I shot a man in Reno just to watch him
die" type.) Libertarians would also say, every one of these incidents has
an SSRI component, so prosecute any doctor as an accomplice who prescribes
SSRIs, or any mind altering drug, to a guy with an arsenal and a penchant for
first-person-shooter games (Another correlation). Also, libertarians would say
if you have private property and want a gun free zone, fine, but public spaces
should never be gun free.
UPDATE: Obama and Democrat response using the Star Wars analogy: Vader still gets his Death Star (the bad guys always keep their weapons!), and the rebels (cops) still have their Xwing fighters. Only Han Solo (the private citizen) has his guns confiscated. Under that scenario, Luke dies, the rebels are decimated, and the Death Star kills all the good guys. Obama, Democrats, and the gun ban advocates are naively taking Vader's side.
UPDATE: Obama and Democrat response using the Star Wars analogy: Vader still gets his Death Star (the bad guys always keep their weapons!), and the rebels (cops) still have their Xwing fighters. Only Han Solo (the private citizen) has his guns confiscated. Under that scenario, Luke dies, the rebels are decimated, and the Death Star kills all the good guys. Obama, Democrats, and the gun ban advocates are naively taking Vader's side.
Saturday, October 3, 2015
Friday, October 2, 2015
Let this sink in...
The Divider in Chief was at it once again after the Oregon school shooting yesterday, taking to the airwaves before anything was known about the incident, other than that it was horrific. Horrific was all he needed to continue driving a wedge to further his divisive and fruitless attempts at undermining the Bill of Rights.
Now we know something about the monster who fostered this tragedy. Turns out he is a mixed-race madman who has an acute hatred for Christians. And don't even get me started on the shooter...
Wednesday, September 30, 2015
Obama vs. Putin
Remember this from the last presidential election debates?
This takes on new significance now that Russia has begun bombing targets in Syria in defense of Bashar al-Assad. Meanwhile, we are in Syria too... bombing ISIS. Apparently, Russia demanded we remove our planes, but we refused.
Today, I heard Secretary of State John Kerry use the word "deconflict" when referring to our relationship with Russia in Syria.
In other words, both the US and Russia are in Syria, and we are in conflict!
Thank God Barack Obama is right about everything else, and can at least tell the difference between a hoax suitcase bomb and a clock. Oh, wait...
This takes on new significance now that Russia has begun bombing targets in Syria in defense of Bashar al-Assad. Meanwhile, we are in Syria too... bombing ISIS. Apparently, Russia demanded we remove our planes, but we refused.
Today, I heard Secretary of State John Kerry use the word "deconflict" when referring to our relationship with Russia in Syria.
In other words, both the US and Russia are in Syria, and we are in conflict!
Thank God Barack Obama is right about everything else, and can at least tell the difference between a hoax suitcase bomb and a clock. Oh, wait...
Wednesday, September 23, 2015
Fun with VW Memes
It's really hard to see the silver lining in the cloud enveloping Volkswagon. They have admitted to cheating on emission tests by using software that deliberately deceived consumers and governments alike. Their stock has dropped, sales will suffer, and their reputation may never be whole again. (As if being founded by Hitler wasn't bad enough.)
And in a case of perfect timing, Germany just welcomed up to 800,000 "Syrian refugees" because they were having trouble filling jobs at, among others, Volkswagon plants! Now they are stuck with the muslim refugees and God knows how many Germans who will be newly unemployed thanks to this mess.
For all of you socialists and anti-capitalists screaming, "See, this is what greedy capitalists do! They lie and destroy the environment!", remember that Volkswagon was started by the National Socialists in Germany (The Nazis). VW converted to private ownership in the 1960s, but by statute they need over 80% to get anything through their board of directors. To this very day, the government of Lower Saxony, Germany, owns a veto-proof 20.1% interest in Volkswagon. This gives the government effective override control of the board.
So, might as well have some fun at their expense, right?
(Updated)
2nd Update: 11/3/15 - Up until yesterday it was just the four cylinder VW TDI engines that were accused of having the "defeat device" software. VW admitted to as much. Now the EPA is claiming that the six cylinder models are also cheating their tests. VW is denying this for the first time in the controversy. Things are getting interesting...
I went to a VW dealer to see if they had any new information. They told me last month was their best month ever in sales! Thus proving there is no such thing as bad PR.
Tuesday, September 22, 2015
Saturday, September 19, 2015
Fun with Clock Memes
Too rich not to share...
(Update: By now everyone knows Ahmed was up to no good and made a fool out of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Mark Zuckerberg, and everyone else who bought into his hoax. Never one to know when he's been made a fool, Obama is following through on his invite of Ahmed to The White House.)
(The last one I got from Twitter user @JohnGGalt, the others are mine.)
Wednesday, September 16, 2015
Behind the Polls - The Alinsky Effect (UPDATED)
Analysts puzzling at the outsider surge in GOP polls may be missing something obvious. No doubt, everything they’ve said about the reasons for the Trump, Carson, Cruz, and Fiorina momentum is true. But, there is another way of looking at this that gets to the heart of the matter and sheds light on how other candidates, even establishment ones, can understand and learn from what’s going on.
The key is the Alinsky effect. For half a century the Left has been studying and internalizing the teachings of Saul Alinsky, the father of community organizing. The Right has largely ignored this development or pooh poohed it outright. For seven years, Obama used Alinsky tactics with great effect. The GOP has been unable to thwart any of the Obama juggernaut. In the last two presidential elections, John McCain and Mitt Romney were both steamrolled by obvious Alinsky tactics but seemed naively unaware of what was being done to them.
The GOP base has watched this slow-motion train wreck and has had enough. They are not just looking for a candidate this time, they are looking for a candidate who can turn the tables on the Alinsky tactics. They want a candidate who is both Alinsky-proof from attack and one who knows how to go on offense. The four outsiders with momentum, Trump, Carson, Cruz, and Fiorina are, not surprisingly, the ones who can best do this.
Trump probably never heard of Saul Alinsky but seems an intuitive Alinsky-ite himself. He wrote “The Art of the Deal”, a kind of a businessman’s “Rules for Radicals”. Attack him, he attacks back. Mock him, he mocks back. Personalize it, he calls you stupid, ugly, fat, and dumb. His supporters eat it up. The press cannot touch him. Mitt Romney would have made hundreds of apology speeches by now. Trump hasn’t made one. It’s pure Alinsky.
Ben Carson went so far as to mention Saul Alinsky in the last debate. He talks about Alinsky all the time. He gets it. He won’t fall for the tactics when they come. And he is un-Alinsky-able by resume. If he demonstrates an ability to turn the tables and go on offense, expect his star to continue to rise.
Ted Cruz has already demonstrated a playful ability to turn the tables on the Alinsky tactics used on him by both Democrats and Republicans. He has surely read Alinsky. He’s not as good as some of the others at the performance aspect, but his Alinsky bona fides are not a concern.
Carly Fiorina has also likely read Alinsky. She has been leading the Alinsky assault on Hillary Clinton from the GOP. She’s been funny, brutal, and unrelenting. Moreover, she’s done well on defense when attacked by the media and Trump.
The flip side of the Alinsky effect is what’s happening to some of those losing momentum, most notably Jeb Bush and Scott Walker. No one can question Walker’s resiliency in Wisconsin, but his ability to go on offense seems in question. Bush is questionable on both fronts. In addition, both have performance, policy and consistency issues.
I sincerely hope GOP voters have learned their lessons and will not nominate another sheep for the Alinsky slaughter. Then again, this is only one of the factors being weighed by the electorate. So far, it seems like an important one to GOP voters.
UPDATE: The Alinsky effect was on full display at last night's CNN debate:
Fiorina landed an Alinsky punch on Trump's face and, by all indications, won the CNN round.
Chris Christie proved, as he has in NJ, that he can play the Alinsky game as well as anyone. His performance and substance also won high marks.
Trump was his usual juvenile self, but his supporters don't seem to care as long as he delivers the Alinsky goods, and he did in spades.
Marco Rubio did well among GOP voters, but the Alinsky effect was not a factor. Rubio is a straight man, and a good one at that, but Saul Alinsky said, "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon...", which does not well suit a straight man.
Ben Carson revealed the limits of his experience, performance, and Alinsky offense abilities. Not his best outing.
Ted Cruz is another straight man, though he is Alinsky ready. He did well among conservatives, but his performance issues continue to hold him back.
Jeb Bush showed once again that he would be as effective against Alinsky tactics as was Mitt Romney. In other words, not at all.
Yes, there were others at the debate, but I'm focusing on the ones most affected by the Alinsky effect.
The key is the Alinsky effect. For half a century the Left has been studying and internalizing the teachings of Saul Alinsky, the father of community organizing. The Right has largely ignored this development or pooh poohed it outright. For seven years, Obama used Alinsky tactics with great effect. The GOP has been unable to thwart any of the Obama juggernaut. In the last two presidential elections, John McCain and Mitt Romney were both steamrolled by obvious Alinsky tactics but seemed naively unaware of what was being done to them.
The GOP base has watched this slow-motion train wreck and has had enough. They are not just looking for a candidate this time, they are looking for a candidate who can turn the tables on the Alinsky tactics. They want a candidate who is both Alinsky-proof from attack and one who knows how to go on offense. The four outsiders with momentum, Trump, Carson, Cruz, and Fiorina are, not surprisingly, the ones who can best do this.
Trump probably never heard of Saul Alinsky but seems an intuitive Alinsky-ite himself. He wrote “The Art of the Deal”, a kind of a businessman’s “Rules for Radicals”. Attack him, he attacks back. Mock him, he mocks back. Personalize it, he calls you stupid, ugly, fat, and dumb. His supporters eat it up. The press cannot touch him. Mitt Romney would have made hundreds of apology speeches by now. Trump hasn’t made one. It’s pure Alinsky.
Ben Carson went so far as to mention Saul Alinsky in the last debate. He talks about Alinsky all the time. He gets it. He won’t fall for the tactics when they come. And he is un-Alinsky-able by resume. If he demonstrates an ability to turn the tables and go on offense, expect his star to continue to rise.
Ted Cruz has already demonstrated a playful ability to turn the tables on the Alinsky tactics used on him by both Democrats and Republicans. He has surely read Alinsky. He’s not as good as some of the others at the performance aspect, but his Alinsky bona fides are not a concern.
Carly Fiorina has also likely read Alinsky. She has been leading the Alinsky assault on Hillary Clinton from the GOP. She’s been funny, brutal, and unrelenting. Moreover, she’s done well on defense when attacked by the media and Trump.
The flip side of the Alinsky effect is what’s happening to some of those losing momentum, most notably Jeb Bush and Scott Walker. No one can question Walker’s resiliency in Wisconsin, but his ability to go on offense seems in question. Bush is questionable on both fronts. In addition, both have performance, policy and consistency issues.
I sincerely hope GOP voters have learned their lessons and will not nominate another sheep for the Alinsky slaughter. Then again, this is only one of the factors being weighed by the electorate. So far, it seems like an important one to GOP voters.
UPDATE: The Alinsky effect was on full display at last night's CNN debate:
Fiorina landed an Alinsky punch on Trump's face and, by all indications, won the CNN round.
Chris Christie proved, as he has in NJ, that he can play the Alinsky game as well as anyone. His performance and substance also won high marks.
Trump was his usual juvenile self, but his supporters don't seem to care as long as he delivers the Alinsky goods, and he did in spades.
Marco Rubio did well among GOP voters, but the Alinsky effect was not a factor. Rubio is a straight man, and a good one at that, but Saul Alinsky said, "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon...", which does not well suit a straight man.
Ben Carson revealed the limits of his experience, performance, and Alinsky offense abilities. Not his best outing.
Ted Cruz is another straight man, though he is Alinsky ready. He did well among conservatives, but his performance issues continue to hold him back.
Jeb Bush showed once again that he would be as effective against Alinsky tactics as was Mitt Romney. In other words, not at all.
Yes, there were others at the debate, but I'm focusing on the ones most affected by the Alinsky effect.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)