It’s Wednesday, March 30th, 2016…but before we begin, submitted for your perusal, two headlines which tell you just how far U.S. standing in the world has fallen under The Dear Misleader:
Not only is this recognition of Obama’s impotence, but, adding insult to injury, Putin’s planning…
“Up yours, you ineffectual, effeminate Islamofascist!”
Oh,…and don’t let the door…
…hit Moochie in her ample ass on your way out. Hells bells, instead of these two parasites feeding off the taxpayer teat ’til death do blessedly us part, they should tried for treason and summarily shot. Any question how we really feel?!?
Now, here’s The Gouge!
Since we’re on the subject of living off the taxpayer teat, we lead off the midweek edition with this ironic item from the WSJ:
Translation: “To each according to the dictates of free-spending Dimocrats across the country.”
“Our guess is that most Yale University professors are proud to be progressives. Well, they are now getting the chance to live their convictions as Connecticut Democrats attempt to soak Yale’s rich endowment.
Facing a $220 million budget shortfall, Democrats in Hartford have proposed taxing the unspent earnings of university endowments with more than $10 billion in assets. Only Yale’s $25.6 billion endowment—the country’s second largest after Harvard—fits the tax bill. Yale’s tax-exempt investments earned $2.6 billion last year, eight times more than the University of Connecticut’s $384 million endowment. Oh, the inequality!
…Other tax-exempt nonprofits such as University of Bridgeport, United Way of Greater New Haven and Fairfield University have rallied to Yale’s defense because they realize they will likely be hit up next. There’s no entity too small to tax in Connecticut.
The bill sets a terrible precedent for contract rights since Yale’s charter dating to 1818 shields the university from taxation. In Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a university charter is protected from impairment. No one is safe when progressives run out of other people’s money.“
As the Iron Lady so eloquently observed, and Connecticut is proving…
Next up, as Jeremy Carl notes at NRO., the Republican equivalent of Festus…
…on Gunsmoke continues to confound the efforts of the one who actually knows what he’s doing:
“The campaign of John Kasich is a joke, and not a particularly funny one, unless you like humor at the expense of the GOP and conservatism. Yet the media and GOP establishment has largely failed to call Kasich out. But with his embarrassing losses in Utah and Arizona yesterday (incredibly, he lost the latter even to Rubio, who has been out of the race for a week now), it is long past time to throw Kasich’s campaign into the ash heap of history.
The media plays up Kasich’s candidacy for two reasons: First, Kasich has taken more-liberal positions during the campaign, and has criticized the tone and substance of more-conservative candidates. And the media love Republicans who criticize other Republicans from the left. Second, the media know that, as Mitt Romney recently said, “A vote for Kasich is a vote for Trump.” The liberal media would love to have Trump as the nominee because he embodies their caricatures of Republicans, because he is entertaining copy, and, most important, because he will almost certainly deliver a victory to their preferred candidate, Hillary Clinton. While Cruz and Clinton are roughly in a dead heat in RealClearPolitics polling averages, Trump trails Clinton by a whopping ten points.
While it is certainly possible that any GOP candidate could beat someone with Clinton’s obvious weaknesses, it seems far more likely that Trump would send the GOP down to an ignominious Mondale-style defeat which, when combined with Trump’s dissents from traditional GOP positions on a host of issues, will leave the party adrift and decimated. For the liberal media, this is a dream scenario: Great copy and a catastrophic Republican defeat that will ripple down the ballot to Congress and the state elections.
But if the media’s motivations for promoting Kasich’s Potemkin campaign are obvious, it is harder to intuit the motivations of the GOP establishment other than to assume that their visceral distaste for Cruz has completely overwhelmed their ability to think rationally about their own interests or those of their party.
…For the GOP nomination right now, there are only two choices, Trump and Cruz. Anyone who believes otherwise, including Kasich and his enablers, is in fantasyland. Any action taken that does not help Cruz helps Trump. Any endorsement that does not go to Cruz is, de facto, an endorsement of Trump. Any candidate, such as Kasich, who takes votes or attention from Cruz, aids Trump.
Right now, there are large numbers of political insiders and major GOP officeholders who are, through action or inaction, implicitly endorsing Trump. Perhaps for some of them, a Cruz candidacy and a Trump candidacy would be equally awful for the GOP and conservatism. Given their respective records, I find such a view profoundly mistaken. (Not to mention utterly illogical.) But regardless, they will own their decision come November and for many years to come. Conservatives should have long memories about how party leaders behave in the coming weeks, and they should demand party leaders do everything in their power to stop Kasich from trolling the Republican primary.
It is long past a time for choosing.“
In a related item, Jonah Goldberg offers a dire assessment of what’s ahead for the Grand Old Party absent a unification behind Ted Cruz…and perhaps regardless of same:
It’s the End of the Line for GOP as We Know It
“Nominating Donald Trump will wreck the Republican party as we know it. Not nominating Trump will wreck the Republican party as we know it. The sooner everyone recognizes this fact, the better. (Only if Trump decides to swing the wrecking ball…and then only if the Trumpeteers support him swinging it.)
Denial has been Trump’s greatest ally. Republicans and commentators didn’t believe he would run. They didn’t believe he could be an attractive candidate to rational people, no matter how angry with “the establishment” voters said they were. They — which includes me — were wrong.
The denial lasted longer for some than others. Long after many observers had come to the realization that Trump was the front-runner, Jeb Bush’s super PAC, Right to Rise, believed Bush’s real rival was Marco Rubio. It spent $35 million trying to destroy Rubio before it dropped its first $25,000 attacking Trump.
Over the weekend, Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus showed the first public signs of acceptance about what’s in store for the party. He finally acknowledged that the Republican nominee was probably going to be determined on the convention floor in Cleveland. Priebus explained, rightly, that the rules are the rules, and that if Trump can’t secure the required 1,237 delegates before Cleveland, it’s anyone’s game. “This is a delegate-driven process,” he told CNN’s Dana Bash. “The minority of delegates doesn’t rule for the majority.”
Trump’s response to this floor-fight talk was to vomit up the usual word salad. “All I can say is this, I don’t know what’s going to happen,” Trump told ABC’s This Week. “But I will say this, you’re going to have a lot of very unhappy people [if I’m denied the nomination]. And I think, frankly, for the Republicans to disenfranchise all those people because if that happens, they’re not voting and the Republicans lose.” Even through the syntactical fog, Trump’s point is clear: If he can’t reach 1,237, he should get the nomination anyway. Because he is Trump. If that doesn’t happen, his supporters will stay home, defect from the party, riot, or all three.
“Was it something we said…like essentially advocating for uncontrolled illegal immigration?!?”
And he’s right. Not about deserving the nomination even if he doesn’t have the delegates. That’s typical Trumpian whining. But he’s right that if he’s denied the nomination, many — not all, but many — of his supporters will bolt from the convention and the party.
Left out of Trump’s unsubtle threat: Many anti-Trump Republicans will desert the convention and the party if he’s not denied the nomination.
…Trump’s cheerleaders insist that he’s a symptom of long-simmering maladies on the right. I’m persuaded (even though I think Dr. Trump’s remedies are nothing but snake oil). Even now, too many GOP leaders think Trump’s success is purely a result of his brash personality, and nothing more. But only when we accept that a terrible diagnosis is real is it possible to think intelligently about our options. To wit: This ends in tears no matter what.
Get over it and pick a side.“
Any way you cut it, Cruz, while not perfect, is infinitely preferable to Trump; if for no other reason than the our next President won’t just be appointing Antonin Scalia’s replacement, but likely three more justices as well. Add to that the fact The Donald isn’t even really a Republican, let alone a Conservative, and suddenly his quixotic quest to have Mexico finance a border wall pales in significance next to the chance to shape a Constitutionalist Court for the next thirty years.
Meanwhile, back at the strip club in the Taj Mahal…
“…The Texas Senator narrowly leads in recent Badger State polling and just landed the endorsement of Scott Walker, who is extremely popular among Wisconsin Republicans. Trump, as is his wont, responded to Walker’s decision by blasting the governor’s record. First, he regurgitated the debunked Democratic attack that Walker racked up a multibillion-dollar deficit, a blatant falsehood that Trump blamed on Time magazine during yesterday’s Sykes interview. Using inaccurate left-wing talking points to slam Walker wasn’t his fault, the candidate told the host’s large statewide audience, because all he did was was repeat what Time had written back then. Over to you, Washington Post fact-checker:
The only time that the $2.2 billion figure has appeared even on Time’s website is after the magazine published a transcript of the second Republican debate, on Sept 16 — and quoted Trump as jabbing at Walker: “In Wisconsin, you’re losing $2.2 billion right now.” He added: “You were supposed to make a billion dollars in the state and you lost $2.2 billion. You have right now a huge budget deficit. That’s not a Democratic talking point, that’s a fact.” But here’s the rub: weeks before Trump uttered the claim at the September debate, fact checkers had already called him out for using it. On July 28, PolitiFact Wisconsin gave Trump a “mostly false” for making this claim in a campaign event. And on July 29, FactCheck.org published an article titled “Wisconsin’s Trumped Up Deficit.” Both fact checks made similar points: Wisconsin, under state law, is required to have a balanced budget. There had once been a projected budget shortfall of $2.2 billion over two years, back in November 2014, after an earlier projection of a $1 billion surplus. But the shortfall was never a deficit — because the law requires a balanced budget. Indeed, on July 12, two weeks before Trump made the comments that were fact checked, Walker signed into law a two-year balanced budget.
The only time that number appeared in print at Time was when they quoted…Donald Trump. And the broader point he was using to pummel Walker had been disproven multiple times. So by repeating the Democrat-approved smear, Trump was either knowingly lying, or he was too lazy and ill-informed to understand the truth. Both options seemed plausible at the time, but not anymore. Less than 24 hours ago, he was called out for the misstatements, for which he blamed the media. The very next day, he repeated the misstatement. There’s your answer to the ‘lie vs ignorance’ question…”
Here’s the juice: as Ben Shapiro notes in our Video of the Day (accessible through Link #2 at the top of the page immediately under our Quote of the Day), The Donald not only lies; rather, like The Great Prevaricator, his entire life is a lie.
Sorry, we’ll take a solid Conservative Senator who plays hard-ball politics over a serial Liberal liar…
…any day of the week! P.S. Were we Ted Cruz, this photo would form the basis of an attack ad from now until the convention in Cleveland.
But there’s lies, damned lies…then Hillary and The Donald…and THEN there’s the MSM, none of which will provide you the clarity the Governor of North Carolina does in differentiating between…
And by the way, it’s already happened!
“2. Does this bill take away existing protections for individuals in North Carolina?
- Answer: No. In fact, for the first time in state history, this law establishes a statewide anti-discrimination policy in North Carolina which is tougher than the federal government’s. This also means that the law in North Carolina is not different when you go city to city.
9. Why did North Carolina pass this law in the first place?
- Answer: The bill was passed after the Charlotte City Council voted to impose a regulation requiring businesses to allow a man into a women’s restroom, shower, or locker room if they choose. This ordinance would have eliminated the basic expectations of privacy people have when using the rest room by allowing people to use the restroom of their choice. This new local regulation brought up serious privacy concerns by parents, businesses and others across the state, as well as safety concerns that this new local rule could be used by people who would take advantage of this to do harm to others.
In fact, the Charlotte City Council tried to pass this ordinance before but failed, and passed the same ordinance in February of 2016 despite serious concerns from state officials, business leaders and other concerned citizens…”
Imagine that: Republicans want to prevent perverts from gaining easy access to women’s restrooms?!? How medieval can you get?!?
Since we’re on the subject of medieval, as today’s edition of the Environmental Moment details, courtesy of Jazz Shaw writing at (appropriately enough) Hot Air.com, the Dark Ages is just where the Environazis want to take us:
“…For today’s recommended reading, I would highly endorse this article from Alex Epstein at Forbes, titled “Why Green Energy Means No Energy.” The author covers some of the uncomfortable realities of the energy needs of not only our nation, but our species, and how those who seek to curb energy use are really fighting against the rise of civilization. Epstein points out that fossil fuels, nuclear and hydroelectric are the only mass forms of practical energy which can meet our global needs, but these are precisely the types which the Greens oppose most strenuously.
Why does the green movement oppose every practical form of energy?
There is only one answer that can explain this. Greens oppose every practical form of energy not out of love for the non-existent virtues of solar and wind energy, but because they believe practical energy is inherently immoral.
It’s in their philosophical DNA.
To “be green” means to minimize our impact on nature. In the green philosophy, the standard of value, the metric by which we measure good and bad is human nonimpact—does an action make our environment more or less altered by humans?
If we take that idea seriously, then practical energy is not a good thing.
The major complaint of the Greens is that we produce too much CO2. But what has this production done in terms of the human condition over the course of recorded history? The author provides one simple chart which you should keep in your virtual pocket for future reference.
Some of the key figures in the history of the Greens have made their intentions clear over the years, and Epstein revisits a few of their golden oldies. Among the best examples offered are the responses of green energy proponents during the period when we thought we were close to making nuclear fusion power a reality. (A fantastic idea which may still someday come to fruition, but for the time being seems to be completely stalled at a technological barrier we can’t overcome. It still takes more energy to run a fusion reaction than can be sustainably produced from it.) If it had worked we could have provided most of the stationary power the world would need while fueling it with water. (Hydrogen, actually.) So how did the Greens respond to this prospect back in the 80s and 90s?
There are some quotes from a story in the Los Angeles Times called “Fear of Fusion:
Leading environmentalist Jeremy Rifkin: “It’s the worst thing that could happen to our planet.”
Paul Ehrlich: Developing fusion for human beings would be “like giving a machine gun to an idiot child.”
Amory Lovins was already on record as saying, “Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.”
Fusion energy would produce no carbon. It would require no mining of materials from under the ground or the cutting down of rain forests. It would produce helium. (We’re not actually running out of helium as you may have heard, but it is scarce.) So what was the basis of the objections raised by these green energy warriors? We simply can’t be trusted with it. Who knows what mischief we might get up to with all of the clean, low priced energy?
The fact is that it is only our mastery of technology which has facilitated the rise of man. Without vast energy resources available, our planet couldn’t support anywhere near the human population which now rides around on our blue marble in space. (Some estimates have indicated that if we cut off all the liquid and electrical energy the global population would need to be reduced by 75% or more.) The Greens are pining for a world which resembles the one which existed when people were still figuring out how to control fire and possibly create the wheel. But they would likely be horrified to discover how short, brutal and harsh life was for people back in the “good old days.”“
By the way, as this next graphic forwarded from Jeff Foutch details, even were the internal combustion engine to miraculously disappear tomorrow, the world’s dependence upon oil would continue unabated:
“Not as simple as you think”?!? Try will-nigh impossible!!!
And here’s a good one brought to us by The Daily Signal:
“As every ten-year-old who ever got a sweater for a birthday present has been told, “It’s the thought that counts.” That seems to be the guiding principle at the Department of Energy and the California Public Utilities Commission when it comes to solar power. (Along with most every other Progressive policy!)
The latest example is the $2.2 billion Ivanpah solar thermal plant in California. (Note: Solar thermal plants do not use solar panels to directly convert sunshine to electricity, they use sunshine to boil water that then drives conventional turbines.)
Here’s the story so far, Ivanpah:
- Is owned by Google, NRG Energy, and Brightsource, who have a market cap in excess of $500 billion
- Received $1.6 billion in loan guarantees from the Department of Energy
- Is paid four to five times as much per megawatt-hour as natural-gas powered plants
- Is paid two to three times as much per megawatt-hour as other solar power producers
- Has burned thousands of birds to death
- Has delayed loan repayments
- Is seeking over $500 million in grants to help pay off the guaranteed loans
- Burns natural gas for 4.5 hours each morning to get its mojo going
Brightsource, which is privately held, is owned by a virtual who’s who of those that don’t need subsidies from taxpayers and ratepayers.
In spite of all this, Ivanpah has fallen woefully short of its production targets. The managers’ explanation for why production came up 32 percent below expected output was the weather. In addition to raising questions about planning for uncertainty, it is not all that clear how a nine percent drop in sunshine causes a 32 percent drop in production.
More bizarrely, the natural gas used to get the plant all warmed up and ready each day, would be enough to generate over one quarter of the power actually produced from the solar energy. Sorry, let’s not be haters…”
No…LET’S: ALL Liberals, along with ALL their policies…and their progeny!
On The Lighter Side…
Finally, we’ll call it a wrap with this installment of Educated Billionaire Idiots on Parade, courtesy of the U.K.’s Express, as…
“The Facebook founder said atrocities in Belgium, Pakistan and Turkey were all designed to sow seeds of hatred between different communities. He said: “Each of these attacks were carried out with a goal to spread fear and distrust, and turn members of a community against each other.”
The “only sustainable way to fight back” against the sickening attacks is to “create a world” where everyone “feels cared for and loved“, he added…”
Further proof being a billionaire requires no common sense or grasp of reality whatsoever. Here’s a thought: we invite Zuckerberg to take his wife and baby over to Syria and personally deliver his message of love to the greatest source of seething hatred on the planet.
Yeah…and Barry’s gonna go to church next Sunday instead of playing golf!
Magoo
Loading ...
You must be logged in to post a comment.