Thursday, September 10, 2009

I have a gift

To again back up Thomas Sowell and the post below, "I Have A Gift"

To quote it is to be it:

Early in the campaign, in January 2007, a New York Times reporter wrote a story about Mr. Obama's time as president of the Harvard Law Review. It was there, the reporter noted, "he first became a political sensation."

Here's why: "Mr. Obama cast himself as an eager listener, sometimes giving warring classmates the impression that he agreed with all of them at once." Also: "People had a way of hearing what they wanted in Mr. Obama's words."

Harvard Law Prof. Charles Ogletree told how Mr. Obama spoke on one contentious issue at the law school, and each side thought he was endorsing their view. Mr. Ogletree said: "Everyone was nodding, Oh, he agrees with me."

The reason I have never forgotten this article is its last sentence, in which Al Gore's former chief of staff Ron Klain, also of Harvard Law, reflects on the Obama sensation: "The interesting caveat is that is a style of leadership more effective running a law review than running a country."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, in a book out next week, tells of congratulating freshman Sen. Obama on a phenomenal speech. Without a hint of conceit, Mr. Obama replied, "Harry, I have a gift."


I have a gift indeed.

A fuller quote can be found here:

In a 15-page epilog to the paperback version of Reid's book, The Good Fight, coming out May 5, the Nevada Democrat writes of "The Obama Era.'' A copy of the epilog was provided to the Associated Press.

Reid writes of being impressed with Obama when the then-freshman delivered a speech about then-President George W. Bush's war policy.

"''That speech was phenomenal, Barack,' I told him,'' Reid writes. "And I will never forget his response. Without the barest hint of braggadocio or conceit, and with what I would describe as deep humility, he said quietly: 'I have a gift, Harry."'


The man is gifted. It doesn't matter if it is 47 million or 30 million uninsured. He has a gift.

What the hell do you have? Sphere: Related Content

You Lie!

The House Bill Does Cover Illegals

I also wanted to add here that I have no "photos of tila tequila naked".

That also includes "photos of tila tequlia with a donkey"

Or even Tila Tequila with wild pigs. Though I would pay to watch that. Sphere: Related Content

Don't take him seriously.

Obama: I used to say 47 million uninsured. Now, it's 30 million.
Byron York

A few weeks ago it was 47 million. Now it is 30 million.

That is not the work of serious man. I am not meaning that he is not serious in his goals. He is dead serious. I believe that. But in his words he is not a serious man. Trust deeds and not words, and read the Thomas Sowell article below again.

Powerline says:

At this rate, if we can wait until November, the problem may resolve itself.


Which I thought was seriously hilarious.

And this also:

JOHN adds: The number of "uninsured" who have suddenly disappeared amount to three and a half times the population of the State of Minnesota. You get the feeling that Barack Obama is a person to whom numbers don't mean much. He's not someone you would put in charge of a business.


He is simply not a serious man. You should not take his words seriously. What other conclusion can you arrive at? Sphere: Related Content

The Obama Speach To Congress: Listening to a Liar

Thomas Sowell is my favorite American.

Listening to a Liar
by Thomas Sowell

Why paraphrase Sowell? Do I have to? Can I sum it up better than he can? Why not just quote the whole damn thing? He is better at this than me. Check the link for the full article.

Also, I have a drinking problem. It agrees with me.

He starts out like this:

The most important thing about what anyone says are not the words themselves but the credibility of the person who says them.

The words of convicted swindler Bernie Madoff were apparently quite convincing to many people who were regarded as knowledgeable and sophisticated. If you go by words, you can be led into anything.

No doubt millions of people will be listening to the words of President Barack Obama Wednesday night when he makes a televised address to a joint session of Congress on his medical care plans. But, if they think that the words he says are what matters, they can be led into something much worse than being swindled out of their money.


I like the analogy of the snake oil salesman and the pyramid scheme. Bernie Madoff had a pyramid scheme. The United States Government and our national debt is one big Ponzi scheme. I hope I die before the whole thing falls. It will fall, and the collapse is going to be spectacular.

Back to the action:

One plain fact should outweigh all the words of Barack Obama and all the impressive trappings of the setting in which he says them: He tried to rush Congress into passing a massive government takeover of the nation's medical care before the August recess-- for a program that would not take effect until 2013!

Whatever President Obama is, he is not stupid. If the urgency to pass the medical care legislation was to deal with a problem immediately, then why postpone the date when the legislation goes into effect for years-- more specifically, until the year after the next Presidential election?

If this is such an urgently needed program, why wait for years to put it into effect? And if the public is going to benefit from this, why not let them experience those benefits before the next Presidential election?

If it is not urgent that the legislation goes into effect immediately, then why don't we have time to go through the normal process of holding Congressional hearings on the pros and cons, accompanied by public discussions of its innumerable provisions? What sense does it make to "hurry up and wait" on something that is literally a matter of life and death?


What is up with that? A month ago we needed to adress this "crisis" before the August recess. It was that important. A thousand page bill that nobody had read was ploped upon the Congressional desks with a Presidential mandate that we need to do this now.

Tonight he talked about how we have years to work out the kinks. What happened between then and now. Why should we pass something this year if we are working out the kinks for years to come, yet alone when the damn behemoth is actually implemented.

Madness. And he wants you to believe him as a serious man. He is not a serious man, not if you take him at his word. This didn't need to be done last month.

Again, back to the Thomas Sowell action:

If we do not believe that the President is stupid, then what do we believe? The only reasonable alternative seems to be that he wanted to get this massive government takeover of medical care passed into law before the public understood what was in it.

Moreover, he wanted to get re-elected in 2012 before the public experienced what its actual consequences would be.

Unfortunately, this way of doing things is all too typical of the way this administration has acted on a wide range of issues.


Thomas Sowell is preaching to the choir here. Can I get an AMEN!

Halleahluya!

Obama was saying this needed to been done now. Inaction would cause us great peril. To not act on such a crisis would betray America! Or whatever, nobody even had a chance to read the bill. Have you heard that story before?

Sowell provides an easy answer to that question:

Consider the "stimulus" legislation. Here the administration was successful in rushing a massive spending bill through Congress in just two days-- after which it sat on the President's desk for three days, while he was away on vacation. But, like the medical care legislation, the "stimulus" legislation takes effect slowly.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that it will be September 2010 before even three-quarters of the money will be spent. Some economists expect that it will not all be spent by the end of 2010.

What was the rush to pass it, then? It was not to get that money out into the economy as fast as possible. It was to get that money-- and the power that goes with it-- into the hands of the government. Power is what politics is all about.

The worst thing that could happen, from the standpoint of those seeking more government power over the economy, would be for the economy to begin recovering on its own while months were being spent debating the need for a "stimulus" bill. As the President's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, said, you can't let a crisis "go to waste" when "it's an opportunity to do things you could not do before."


I am begining to see a pattern here. Maybe Obama is up to something.

There are lots of people in the Obama administration who want to do things that have not been done before-- and to do them before the public realizes what is happening.

...

What Barack Obama says Wednesday night is not nearly as important as what he has been doing-- and how he has been doing it.


I end as I begin.

Thomas Sowell is my favorite American. Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

Violence in DC Public Schools

I got this link from Jay P. Greene's blog

Maybe they need a voucher program:

Jonetta Rose Barras: School safety in the District
Washington Examiner

The Metropolitan Police Department received 3,500 reports of crime in D.C. Public Schools -- including homicides, sex offenses, robberies and assaults -- during 2007-2008, according an Aug. 24 report by The Heritage Foundation and the Lexington Institute.


That is how the police department reports the crime numbers. Let's see how the schools report the same numbers:

The Office of the State Superintendent of Education, which is responsible for analyzing incident reports, appears to be out of touch or playing with the numbers. Chad Colby, agency spokesman, said there was a decrease in violent crimes reported in DCPS and public charter schools for the same time period "as reported by the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department." He provided a chart showing 60 violent crimes in DCPS in 2006-2007 and 40 in 2007-2008.


You need a bablefish to interpret the language of the State Superintendent of Misinformation Education.

Some more glowing facts:

The U.S Department of Education "Indicators of School Crime and Safety," released earlier this year, noted 11.3 percent of D.C. high school students told of " 'being threatened or injured with a weapon while on school property' the previous [2008] school year -- a rate well above the national average." (Anacostia Senior High, Ballou, Cardozo, Coolidge, Dunbar, Eastern, Roosevelt and Springarn had a total of 7,813 students during the 2007-2008, according to audited data used by Heritage/Lexington. Eleven percent comes out to 859 threatened or injured students.)


Those numbers are shocking. I couldn't imagine sending a child to one of those schools.

It doesn't get any better for the elementary schools...

Safety at elementary schools was no better. There were 60 incidents reported at Moten Elementary; with a population of 275, the rate was 21.8 incidents per 100 students. At Webb, the rate of violence was 22 incidents per 100 students, according to Heritage/Lexington.


It is amazing that anyone could make it out alive AND become a productive citizen. Talking about a stacked deck. We need to reinstate and expand DC Vouchers now.

And what is the offical take of the The Office of the State Superintendent of Misinformation Education? "OSSE has not found any persistently dangerous schools."

Incredible. If we were not talking about something as serious as violent acts against children a farcical statement like that would be enough to make you spit out your drink all over the keyboard.

Heritage Study Here

Jay P. Greene's blog here


-----------------------------
Also found through Jay's blog:

So We Can't Have Single Payer for Health Care, But How About Single Payer for Education?

Arianna Huffington embraces school choice under the guise of "Single Payer for Education".

I don't often get a chance to agree with Arianna Huffington, but today I salute her efforts for school choice. Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, September 6, 2009

Van Jones, Continued

Jimmie at the Sundries Shack

There are three things that struck me about this story.

1) There wasn’t a single left-wing crackpot conspiracy that Jones didn’t believe, from “Bush knew” to “The CIA is poisoning black people” to “Mumia-Abu Jamal was framed”. Jones showed no independent thought at all. You could get a perfect summary of his political beliefs by reading the signs and banners at an International ANSWER rally. The idea that someone so utterly hidebound in his political thought could ever be in charge of an innovative and dynamic “green jobs” economy is laughable. So how did he end up in the White House? How did he get past the most intrusive vetting questionnaire in the history of vetting questionnaires? Well, it’s pretty clear that the White House thought him perfectly mainstream, which should tell you all you need to know about today’s Democratic Party.

2) Jones picked a really bad time to become a communist. According to Jones, he converted in prison in the early 1990s, not all that long after the Soviet Union collapsed and the Berlin Wall fell. By that point, communism was a thoroughly and loudly discredited political and economic system which had never been successful anywhere it had ever been tried. People were so eager to flee communism that they tore down a wall with their bare hands to get away from it just a couple years before Van Jones declared it an awesome life philosophy. In other words, Van Jones went running toward a completely failed political ideology at the same time that most everyone who had ever followed it was running in the other direction. His conversion was like someone deciding to become the Detroit Lions biggest fan the week after the team went 0-16.

3) Isn’t it something that the MSM spent less time digging into Van Jones’ background than it did Joe Wurzelbacher’s? If the New York Times and the Washington Post had spilled half the ink the man named to an important and highly visible government post as it did on a plumber who dared to ask a question of a Presidential candidate who showed up on his front lawn one day, Jones would have resigned long before now.


Quoted either for truth or bottom shelf vodka. I can't tell which at this point but I thought that was awesome. If not maybe I have a drinking problem.

----------------------------

Also a link to something else:

Amity Shlaes: The Forgotten Man, a review by C.J. Maloney at the Mises Institute. Sphere: Related Content

Little Green Footballs highlights Cincy Tea Party "Truther"

Cincinnati Tea Party Organizer: A Truther

LGF highlights

One of the main organizers, and a featured speaker, is Jason Rink. Here’s his bio from the official site:

Jason Rink

Jason Rink is one of the founders of the Ohio Freedom Alliance and is the Director of Education and Outreach for the group. “Today’s Ohio Liber-TEA Party is not about partisan politics. It’s not an anti-Obama rally. It’s not an anti-tax rally. It’s a pro-freedom rally. Our goal is to gather together like-minded citizens from around Ohio to promote three ideas: liberty, unity, and sovereignty. We want to empower citizens to enact changes in government through education and political action.”

Jason is a contributing author in the recently published biography of Congressman Ron Paul, Ron Paul: A Life of Ideas. Jason’s work has also been featured on the website LewRockwell.com.


Lovely! A highly placed Ron Paulian, and an associate of racist paleocon Lew Rockwell!

And Rink is also ... you guessed it ... a Truther. 9/11 Equations: The Math of Propaganda « Think Rink.


For the record, I am a moderate “twoofer.” I believe that the 9/11 Commission Report contains some serious omissions and inaccuracies. This troubles me. Is smells like a whitewash. I don’t claim to know who did what, or how it really happened. That’s precisely the problem. I want to know and so do the other 68% of Americans who suspect we aren’t getting the whole truth. We need a new, independent investigation.

No matter where you fall on the issue, you have to admit that the broad brush by which the mainstream media, and frankly a lot of “diggers,” paint everyone within the 9/11 Movement is completely biased. Granted, the zeal of some Truthers can come off as a bit abrasive. And there are some far-out theories concerning holograms and laser beams. But, this does not represent the majority. In fact, the diversity of people who are calling for a new investigation ranges from university professors to structural engineers to members of the FDNY to family members of those who died on that day. It is a vast a varied bunch. They deserve to be heard.

In most cases the ”twoofers” are usually those who have nothing to gain, and everything to lose. Even though prior to being labled a 9/11 “nutjob,” the impeccable credentials of many of these scholars have never been questioned, and their contributions to their respecive fields of study praised. This makes absolutely no sense, unless you factor in the simple equation as I have presented above. No matter who you are or what your credentials, the strategy is always the same. Attack the character of the messenger, not the facts of the message.


I won’t be holding my breath waiting for the same bloggers who are screaming for Van Jones’ head to denounce the Cincinnati Tea Party — even though one of the main organizers is a self-admitted 9/11 Truther. But the hypocrisy is rather stunning.


Jason Rink was a speaker at a Cincinnati Tea Party event. I do not think he is one of the main organizers, as LGF claims.

LGF doesn't care for Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell or Glenn Beck either. I link to Rockwell. Those guys are pretty extreme even for moderate libertarians, but I enjoy sampling it and they make good arguments. I am also a huge fan of "Dr. No". I was for Romney in the last election, but my heart goes out to Ron Paul.

I have attended the Cincinnati Tea Party events. I had no hand in organizing them. I have also denounced Van Jones and rejoiced with glee at his downfall. Should I feel like a hypocrite when it turns out I attended an event where a truther spoke? If not, is that stunning hypocrisy?

There is plenty not to like about Van Jones, and in some ways I might have been considered a "truther" myself. For example, what in the hell was in Sandy Berger's pants? I don't think we got an answer to that. And why didn't the 9/11 commission even investigate if 9/11 was state sponsored? (not the United States) It didn't seem like that was covered.

And the people in the comments section ravage Ron Paul. What about the big tent? Colin Powell is a proud member of the party. So is Ron Paul. We need to reach out to the Powells as well as the Pauls. I don't get how Ron Paul and the people that follow him are so crazy and toxic.

I used to read a fair amount of LGF. It has been a few years. It appears that site has changed a bit. Maybe Ron Paul's defenders were so ardent in posting a defense on the site that they got sick of them.

Since I am a fan of Ron Paul it should be no surprise that I am fine with fans of Ron Paul at tea parties. But what is the rationale at trying to keep them out or to marginalize Ron Paul? Sphere: Related Content