The Daily Gouge, Tuesday, March 26th, 2013

On March 25, 2013, in Uncategorized, by magoo1310

It’s Tuesday, March 26th, 2013…and frankly, we’re busy, buried and beat.  So we’re taking a wee bit of a break today, and going with a somewhat shortened format.

Now, here’s The Gouge!

First up, a forward from Jeff Foutch which informs any thinking individual things aren’t as bad as they seem…they’re one HELLUVA lot worse!  It’s long…and it’s from NPR (collective “GASP!!!”; still, consider it mandatory reading, as it’s that good:

Unfit for Work

The startling rise of disability in America



Maybe by a private insurer…but not by Uncle Sam!

Thus Progressivism has perverted what was intended by the Founding Fathers as the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave into the Land of the…


…Freeloader and Home…


…of the Gravy Train.  Allllll aboard; next stop, Cyprus!

And next up, courtesy of, Mark Davis describes what’s on The Dear Misleader’s menu, as…

Obama Delivers Recipe For Disaster in Israel


A girl holds up a sign as U.S. President Barack Obama speaks at a campaign rally at Eden Park in Cincinnati

“Forward”; precisely where Obama wants to move Israel…right into the gas chambers.

You can’t blame President Obama for making a beeline to a convention hall filled with students during his Israel trip. If there is any group that has shown a particular susceptibility to his snake oil, it is the soft, impressionable minds of those at the cusp of adulthood. We can only hope that Israeli students are less gullible than their American counterparts.

The president’s wish is for Israelis to lose their resolve against Palestinian terrorism, to shrug and just let a Palestinian state sprout in their midst. For the record, there are plenty of Israelis willing to do just that, which has confounded me for years. How is it that I, an American Christian, am more vigilant about the security of Israel than some Israeli jews?

Polls show that many young Israelis are more skeptical of the “two-state solution” than their parents. I hope so, but I wonder if Israel has the time for these youngsters to grow up, achieve power, and spread the kind of clarity currently offered by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Meanwhile, I hope Netanyahu is eating right and hitting the treadmill often. At 63, he needs to be around a very long time to awaken some of his own people and educate current and perhaps future American presidents.

To be bipartisan about this, the Bush administration bought into this two-state nonsense, willingly marching Israel toward shared space with a freshly-created country that would surely be peppered with leadership flavored by Hezbollah and Hamas.

This is, as they say in international affairs, crazy.

I know it is hard to tell long-suffering Palestinians (Suffering which is of their own creation) that their propensity to elevate leaders of a terrorist bent is a deal-breaker for any group looking for its own country. It is even harder to deliver the ultimate clarity– that there is in fact no basis in logic or history for a new nation called Palestine, carved from the soil of Israel.

There is already a Palestinian state in the region. It’s called Jordan. (Who, for those interested in historical fact, has repeatedly refused the “long-suffering Palestinians” a home.) If geography is a sticking point, any Palestinian seeking to remain on Israeli soil can be assured of a life far more promising under Israeli governance than the violent third-world lives they lead in the West Bank and Gaza, lands handed over to them in the most recent phony offer of land for peace.

It’s never enough. if Israel, a tiny slice of land surrounded by millions of square miles of people longing for its extinction, will just give up a little more territory, then, finally, there will supposedly be peace. So goes the scam. How many times will people fall for this? How many times will Israelis listen to leaders, from America and among their own ranks, who recommend such a suicidal march?

The president’s Thursday remarks to the Israeli students were vintage Obama. “It is not fair,” he said, invoking his favorite conceit, “that a Palestinian child cannot grow up in a state of her own, and lives with the presence of a foreign army that controls the movements of her parents every single day.” Putting aside the reference to Israeli troops on technically Israeli land as “foreign,” I suppose this belongs on the “unfairness” list with the Cherokee child who is not growing up in an America where the white man was chased into submission, or the Alabama child who is not growing up under a confederate flag. History does not provide what every faction wants.

In the recent history of the Middle East, the Arab attempt to subjugate Israel was shut down in 1967. There has been no intervening war in which Palestinians have militarily seized Israeli land. They have not had to. It has been given to them by politicians deluded into thinking “peace” can be achieved by concession after concession after concession.

So how is that working out? Rockets are sailing over the heads of Israelis even as an American president visits, pushing coexistence with the people launching them.

Obama is right– the younger generation of any nation can make a difference. He has succeeded in prodding American kids toward the culture of dependency he seeks to establish at all levels in his own country. Now he aims to infuse Israeli youth with his brand of appeasement and acquiescence. Just as millions of Americans are blind to the financial ruin just around the bend if we ignore our spending crisis, far too many Israelis are insufficiently alarmed by the dangers of a further walk down the hazardous road leading to a cobbled-together Palestinian state.

Things do change on the world scene. if the Palestinians show a penchant for electing leadership without blood on its hands, if the rockets fall silent and if the Palestinian coziness with Iran can subside for, let’s say, five years, that might be a signal that maybe– maybe– we can begin to think about a Palestinian state if that passion still exists.

But to harbor that notion prematurely, to press for such a state today with a blindness to its disastrous prospects for Israeli and thus American security, is to ignore history and invite its long, bloody repetition. We should hope that this is grasped by future generations of Israelis– and future American presidents.

OBAMA IS A WOLF IN sheep'S clothing

Oh…did the Press forget to mention he’s very pro-Israel?!?

Since we’re on the subject of America’s sold-out Fourth Estate, let’s turn to today’s installment of the “MSM Bias…WHAT Bias?!?” segment, courtesy of Mark Krikorian writing at NRO‘s The Corner, as we join the once-proud Old Grey Hag for…

Adventures in Manipulative Polling 


Amnesty Support Poll

Brookings has put out the latest example of bogus immigration polling. Here’s the New York Times lede:

Nearly two-thirds of Americans favor giving illegal immigrants in the country an opportunity for legal status with a path to citizenship, according to a poll published Thursday by the Public Religion Research Institute and the Brookings Institution. Support for an earned path to citizenship for those immigrants came from 71 percent of Democrats and also a majority, 53 percent, of Republicans, the poll found.

Oh, my. I guess our goose is cooked, the end is near, we’ve reached the tipping point for amnesty.

But, before starting to look for a new job, just for giggles I decided to see what the actual question said. You have to get to p. 53 of the report to find it, and here are the only options offered to respondents:

The best way to solve the country’s illegal immigration problem is to secure our borders and arrest and deport all those who are here illegally

The best way to solve the country’s illegal immigration problem is to both secure our borders and provide an earned path to citizenship for illegal immigrants already in the U.S.

You remember the presidential candidate proposing that we “arrest and deport all those who are here illegally,” don’t you? No? That’s because there wasn’t one. And yet almost every establishment poll asks the question this way, contrasting cattle cars full of weeping babies to the option of “earning” status by working hard, paying back taxes, and rescuing stranded kittens.

We did a poll last month with more neutral and honest wording. (I’m afraid it wasn’t featured in the New York Times.) Here’s the wording of our comparable question: “Would you prefer to see illegal immigrants in the United States go back to their home countries or be given legal status?” The results were 52-33 for going back home.

In a related item, brought to us by, Al Delgado says…

Sorry, GOP! Immigration Reform Won’t Win You The Latino Vote



Holy chit and ah chi wawa; GOP no can compete wit Santy Bama!

There are those who support – whether enthusiastically or reluctantly so – immigration reform on compassionate grounds or out of a desire to fix our broken system (border control; greater enforcement; changing our evaluation methods for who gets in and who doesn’t, etc.). Fair enough.

But let’s be blunt: political gain is the driving factor. It’s no surprise that the three Republicans most publicly discussing the issue are all 2016 contenders: Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, and Jeb Bush.

We conservatives are told – by GOP strategists and consultants – that immigration reform is the key to winning the Latino vote. Like a poor sap eager for some — any! — good news about the future, we lap it up. “Yes, yes!” we exclaim, nodding with the same wild-eyed excitement of Dr. Frankenstein watching his creation spring to life. “If only we implement immigration reform, the Latino vote is ours for the taking!”

But such is a fallacy, a silly hope with no basis in reality. As a Latina, allow me to explain why:

Latinos will resent the added competition for jobs. The current unemployment rate among Latinos wavers around a staggering 10%. Few mention this when discussing immigration reform. There is instead a knee-jerk (and unwittingly condescending) image of the Latino illegal immigrant strictly as a migrant worker or dishwasher who does the jobs others will not do. If legalized, he therefore has no impact on depriving another American of employment, as he does those jobs legal Americans – Latino or otherwise – will not do. Another image is that of she already employed as a nanny or housekeeper, and the work permit would simply enable her to come out of the shadows but affect no one else in the job market. Sure, there is much truth to this — but such is not the case across the board. Consider my friend, “Maria” – Maria is a 27-year-old here illegally from Colombia who overstayed a tourist visa. Well educated, well spoken, and fluent in English, if granted a work permit Maria plans to apply for a clerical position. Would she not be competing with “Alexis,” a 23-year-old Latina citizen born and raised in America, who has been seeking the same type of position for months? How does granting Maria a work permit help —  or hurt — Alexis? How will Alexis and other unemployed Latinos feel about granting work permits to millions, in an already extremely competitive job market? The only special interest group who wins here is big business / employers – who are now faced with even more applicants from which to choose and, thanks to the increased competition, can now offer lower wages.

Those favorably affected don’t vote – and won’t for a long time. The Latinos granted legal status, work permits, and eventual citizenship — whose gratitude would presumably fuel these ‘new GOP voters’ — won’t actually become citizens able to vote for at least a decade. So, even assuming immigration reform would result in a sizeable chunk of these grateful Latinos voting for the GOP… it would be for the 2024 election. Who knew we were planning so far ahead! (Certainly NOT the GOP!)

Latinos who are already citizens – and vote – don’t actually care much about immigration reform. Of course, you won’t hear that from Latino pundits or Spanish-language networks, for whom immigration reform equals TV appearances and, in the latter’s case, skyrocketing ratings (don’t forget, Spanish language television shows are viewed heavily by illegal immigrants – it’s thus no surprise that they play up immigration reform as critical.) In reality, a 2012 Gallup poll found only 12% of registered Hispanic voters cited immigration policy as their top priority. And, on a list of a half-dozen issues in a 2012 USA Today poll, second-generation Latinos rated the immigration issue dead last on their list of priorities. A Latino Decisions poll earlier this month, however, claimed 58% of Latino voters “now rate immigration reform as the most important issue they want Congress and the President to address.” Worth noting, however, is the phrasing: considering an issue a ‘top issue facing Congress’ does not necessarily equal a priority. (Also worth noting: the poll was conducted, in part, with the SEIU and the National Council of La Raza.)

The GOP won’t even get the credit. The Gang of 8’s legislation will be a bipartisan bill – so why would the GOP get the credit? And, though bipartisan, it would be signed into law by President Obama. Thus, the overarching achievement, historically and in most uninformed voters’ perception, would ultimately be credited to him – not to Rubio or any GOP senator who pushed it. While Rubio does all the legwork, it will be Obama who receives the glory.

No, Bush never received 44% of the Latino vote. In the GOP ‘autopsy’ report released this week, the section on Hispanics optimistically cites the oft-repeated claim that George W. Bush won a record-setting 44% of the Hispanic vote in 2004 – the idea being: “We did it once, we can do it again!” But the truth is ‘Dubya’ never received that high a percentage of the Hispanic vote.  No Republican ever has. In fact, many estimates place Bush’s share somewhere in the high 30’s or at an even 40% instead.

The GOP will be blamed for the enforcement mechanisms. Rubio and Rand both stress the need for a review of whether enforcement and border security is running smoothly. So, when these measures fail to live up to their expectations (inevitable), and Republican senators have to apply some brakes or tighten the border (Democrats won’t), any good will earned by the GOP goes out the window and it is once again ‘the anti-immigrant party.’

Immigration reform is unlikely to gain the GOP any actual converts. The aforementioned Latino Decisions poll found 43% of Latinos who voted for Obama said “they would be more likely to vote GOP in the future if the party takes a lead role on immigration reform.” Some have used this finding as evidence that immigration reform could win the GOP converts. But take a close look. Even assuming the poll’s accuracy, what it shows is not even a majority (only 43%) of Latino Obama-supporters would even potentially be swayed by immigration reform.

The GOP may lose some conservatives. A significant portion of registered Republicans abstained from casting a vote this past election. Why is anyone’s guess – some speculate it is because Romney was not conservative enough to galvanize the skeptics. Will legalizing 11 million be yet another blow to certain conservatives, causing them to throw their hands up in frustration and abstain, particularly those conservatives in states bearing the highest cost of immigration, such as California or Florida? Will the GOP experience a net gain in voter turnout – or a loss – from this move?

Is there a single reliable poll or study actually proving the myth that the GOP’s “harsh rhetoric” on illegal immigrants… has driven away a significant portion of the Latino vote? This week, I reached out to several Latino friends who voted for Obama, seeking to ascertain whether GOP ‘rhetoric’ or so-called ‘anti-immigration’ stances had indeed driven them away. Answer? No. Not a single one cited any particular problem with the GOP’s stance or rhetoric. In fact, they weren’t even casting a vote against the GOP (one even shrugged and noted Romney “seemed like a good guy”) – but rather casting a vote for the Democrats. It came down to… surprise, surprise… government benefits (one also mentioned unions and another a weariness of wars abroad and her concern for enlisted relatives). (Who likely would be unemployed outside the Military.)

The 1986 amnesty did nothing to gain the Latino vote. If immigration reform will win us the Latino vote, riddle me this: Why is it, following Reagan’s generous 1986 amnesty, the GOP’s share of the Latino vote decreased? (In the pre-amnesty 1984 election, 34% of Latinos voted Republican; in the post-amnesty 1988 election, only 30% did.) What about amnesty-hawk McCain? He only received 30%, fairing only 3 points higher than Romney (who was widely considered the most anti-immigration candidate of the primaries).

No, Latinos are not ‘natural conservatives.’ The immigration reform proponents often cite Reagan’s “Hispanics are conservative, they just don’t know it yet.” The logical conclusion that follows is: ‘If not for our pesky stance on illegal immigrants, Latinos would vote Republican.’ It’s a pleasant idea, and one worth exploring, but not necessarily backed by data. A 2012 Pew poll found that 75% of Hispanics “prefer a big government which provides more services” rather than a small government providing fewer services. (Meanwhile, only 41% of the general American public held this view.) And how did it break down generationally among Latinos? A whopping 81% of Latino immigrants held the pro-big-government stance, with the percentage only dropping to 72% amongst second-generation Latinos. So much for Reagan’s rosy view.

So, GOP, let’s not get carried away ala Dr. Frankenstein, maniacally steamrolling ahead under mistaken assumptions, faulty statistics, and crazed optimism. There are several ways to reach out and embrace the Latino community (another column, another day!) that will actually result in increasing the GOP’s share of this rapidly-growing group. But immigration reform is not the key. One may support this arguably noble endeavor for a variety of valid reasons – but thinking it will result in an influx of Latinos to the GOP? Well, that has about the same chance of success as the good doctor did.

Then there’s today’s Muslim Minute, courtesy of‘s Katie Pavlich {EDITOR’S NOTE: Katie’s original headline used the term “hate”; we changed it reflect the poll’s less-strident terminology}:

Muslim Opinion of America Declines More Under Obama Than It Did Under Bush



Remember when President Obama gave that big speech in Cairo at the beginning of his first term essentially calling Americans bigots for not “understanding” the Muslim world? And remember when Obama promised to clean up the so-called mess left behind by President George W. Bush when it came to the American image and relationship with the Muslim world? According to a new poll, the Muslim world has an even less favorable view of the United States under Obama than it did under Bush:

Despite downgrading the trip, many see Obama’s arrival as the sequel to his 2009 visit to Cairo, where he announced a “new beginning” with the Muslim world. Four years later, that doesn’t auger well for renewed efforts in Israel and the West Bank. According to the latest survey by the Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project, confidence in Obama in Muslim countries dropped from 33% to 24% in his first term. Approval of Obama’s policies declined even further, from 34% to 15%. And support for the United States in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Pakistan is lower today than it was in 2008 in the closing year of George W. Bush’s administration.

In his Cairo speech, Obama pledged a relationship between America and Muslims around the world “based on mutual interest and mutual respect.” But in 2013, interests are diverging, and respect is in short supply.

It’s almost as if, after fours years of the same tired tripe, like old Duke…


…the world’s finally recognizing The Obamao for what he is.

Turning to today’s Money Quote, courtesy of the WSJ, Ted Olson gives us yet another reason to wish he’d been occupying Barbara’s seat:

Opening to them participation in the unique and immensely valuable institution of marriage will not diminish the value or status of marriage for heterosexuals, but withholding marriage causes infinite and permanent stigma, pain and isolation. It denies gay men and lesbians their identity and their dignity; it labels their families as second-rate.

Yeah…you know; like the effect the name “Redskins” has on a similarly miniscule minority of useless activists wasting the planet’s oxygen.

On the Lighter Side…


And in the “What Goes Around Comes Around” segment:

Texas woman’s home burned down by snake she set on fire


snake fire

Authorities say a northeast Texas woman recently learned a hard lesson: Don’t try to kill a snake by setting it on fire. The woman was cleaning the yard outside a home near Texarkana Wednesday night when she spotted a snake. Bowie County Sheriff’s Capt. David Grable says she poured gasoline on the snake to try to kill it. Her son then dropped a lit match on the snake.

The engulfed snake slithered into some brush nearby the home. Grable says the brush ignited and started a fire that destroyed the home and damaged one next door. Both homes were vacant, and no one was injured.

Grable says most snakes are harmless if left alone.

Thank you, Captain Obvious.  As for woman’s story, doesn’t everyone pour gasoline on snakes to kill them?!?  Here’s betting her insurance company will require a little bit more than her word prior to paying.

Finally, speaking of bizarre, we’ll call it a day with a rather intriguing tale (of the “fairy” variety) ripped from the “Just Desserts” section of the Crime Blotter:

California chef who confessed to cooking wife gets 15 years to life



“I…urp!…ate her liver with some fava beans a nice chianti!”

A chef who told police he cooked his wife’s body in boiling water was sentenced Friday in Los Angeles to 15 years to life in prison for second-degree murder. But in a new twist, he told a judge the story, which could have been a script for a horror movie, was a lie.

David Viens gave a rambling, 45-minute speech during his sentencing hearing, saying that when police questioned him two years after his wife’s disappearance, he was hallucinating and therefore, made up the story about cooking his wife. “I loved my wife. I didn’t cook my wife,” Viens said. “I’d like the opportunity to testify.” Viens, 49, was convicted in September of killing of 39-year-old Dawn Viens in 2009. Her body was never found.

David Viens said the story he gave authorities came after he had been in surgery for injuries he suffered when he jumped off a cliff. (Why didn’t you just say so in the first place?!?) Most of the bones in his body were broken and he has been in a wheel chair since then. “I’m hallucinating the whole time I’m there,” he said of the interview. “I’d been on an operating table 12 hours.” Authorities said Viens leaped off the cliff after learning he was a suspect in the case.

In the recorded interrogation presented at trial, Viens said he had argued with his wife of 17 years, taped her hands and feet, duct taped her mouth and went to bed. When he awoke, he said, she was dead. He told police he then cooked her body for four days to get rid of evidence.

Superior Court Judge Rand Rubin noted that within two weeks after his wife’s disappearance Viens had a new girlfriend living with him and went on with his life. Acting as his own lawyer, Viens argued that he had inadequate representation by his attorney and asked for a new trial.

15-years-to-life our arse; the only thing on this guy’s plate should be worrying about what cook himselffor his last meal…and that right soon!