Sabtu, 12 November 2011

Clipping blog

Clipping blog


Occupy Whatever is Quickly Becoming Occupy Morgue

Posted: 11 Nov 2011 09:35 AM PST

The Occupy Whatever has sent another person to the morgue. According to local media reports, an unidentified man died from a gunshot wound just a day or so ago. The protesters prevent local media from reporting on the incident as it happened and even beat a cameraman so badly that he had to be hospitalized.

The Mayor of Oakland responded with a plea for the protestors to voluntarily disband that was as pathetic as anything I’ve ever seen from an elected official.

So the fatal shooting near Occupy Oakland last night has finally pushed Mayor Quan to call for the camp to be shut down…voluntarily. She sent an open letter asking the Occupiers to leave peacefully last night, which they promptly ignored. After what happened last time Quan sent the police in to clear out the park, will she have the guts to do it again? We can only hope, but somehow, I doubt it:

We asked the mayor's spokesperson what's going to happen if people don't leave voluntarily and she did not answer the question. By the way, a recent Chamber of Commerce poll found that 73 percent of those surveyed disapprove of Quan's handling of Occupy Oakland.

With two-thirds of Oakland voters also fed up with the protests, the mayor's reelection chances all but hinge on shutting down the protest – or at the very least figuring out a way to maintain peace and order among the protesters.

I have talked a few times about the need to elect citizen legislators, and this is just another reason why. Mayor Quan has been very concerned about her political standing among the progressive left because she can not get re-elect without their support. How long, though, do you believe the ongoing crime feat known as Occupy Oakland would have gone on if the city had a Mayor less interested in climbing the political ladder and more interested in delivering good governance to the people of Oakland?

TwitterFacebookStumbleUponGoogle BookmarksDeliciousFriendFeedTechnorati FavoritesGoogle GmailRedditWordPressShare

Kamis, 10 November 2011

Clipping blog

Clipping blog


Nationals’ Catcher Ramos Kidnapped in Venezuela

Posted: 10 Nov 2011 07:49 AM PST

This is not the kind of story I expected to see today.

Washington Nationals catcher Wilson Ramos was kidnapped from his home in Valencia, Venezuela, on Wednesday, a source close to Ramos' family confirmed to The Washington Times.

Ramos, 24, was with his family at the time of the incident but was the only one taken. The source said the family had informed police and was awaiting a call from kidnappers..

Ramos was preparing to play for Tigres de Aragua, a Venezuelan Winter League team, this week while spending his offseason at home in Valencia with his family.

According to a report in El Nacional and another in El Siglo, Ramos was approached by four "heavily armed gunmen" near his home around 7:30 p.m. Venezuelan time.

While a kidnapping is a big deal here in the United States, it is commonplace in Venezuela. Indeed, it is a major source of income for criminal gangs. In most cases, the victim is taken for ransom money and released unharmed after the criminals are paid. An “express kidnapping” can net the perpetrators $25,000 on the low end but the ransom can rise to as much as $2 million dollars, according to the director of the Venezuelan Observatory of Violence. Ramos, as a Major League baseball player, could fetch a far larger ransom than a businessman plucked at random off the street.

I hope the authorities catch the kidnappers and that Ramos returns to his family soon and without a dime of ransom paid. We are talking about a nation run by the wicked and corrupt Hugo Chavez, who may have suppressed the true number of kidnappings in the country last year, though, so adjust your own hopes accordingly.

Attention Denver, You Have Bloggers Inbound!

Posted: 10 Nov 2011 06:10 AM PST

Blogging will be light today because I’m headed to Denver for Blog Con 2011. FreedomWorks is the event host and this is the second year I’ve been (it’s also, coincidentally, the second year there has been a Blog Con). I usually don’t get to travel for conventions like this, but thanks to some help from a gracious sponsor (who wishes to remain very anonymous), I’ll be on a plane this afternoon (after running the TSA gauntlet) and a few hours later I’ll be in the Mile High City. I’ll be back Sunday night, Lord willing, and we’ll all get back to normal.

I do hope do get a couple few posts written while I’m there, but because I’m packing light, my iPad will be the blogging tool of choice. I’ve not used it for that purpose much, but the WordPress app looks a lot more user-friendly and powerful than it did several months ago and I think it’ll work just fine. There is also a chance I might do a little podcasting from the Con, if not for The Delivery then perhaps with someone else. If not, I’ll keep my Twitter feed hot with pictures and snippets of goodness. I’m going to play the weekend by ear and see what opportunities arise.

 

Rabu, 09 November 2011

Clipping blog

Clipping blog


Why Does President Obama Hate Christmas?

Posted: 08 Nov 2011 10:26 PM PST

Just when you think our President can’t descend one more inch into the unfathomably deep well of ridiculousness, he exceeds all expectations and drops a whole foot. Recently, our President promised that he would not wait for Congress to save us from our economic morass. Swelled by progressive might and accompanied in his own head (no doubt) by action theme music from a Michael Bay movie, he took us one step closer to economic prosperity with an announcement from the Department of Agriculture that there will henceforth be a 15 cent tax on sales of fresh Christmas trees.

No, I’m not kidding. Barack Obama has decided that our economic recovery will begin with a tax on Christmas. Let David Addington of the Heritage Foundation tell you the tale.

In the Federal Register of November 8, 2011, Acting Administrator of Agricultural Marketing David R. Shipman announced that the Secretary of Agriculture will appoint a Christmas Tree Promotion Board.  The purpose of the Board is to run a "program of promotion, research, evaluation, and information designed to strengthen the Christmas tree industry's position in the marketplace; maintain and expend existing markets for Christmas trees; and to carry out programs, plans, and projects designed to provide maximum benefits to the Christmas tree industry" (7 CFR 1214.46(n)).  And the program of "information" is to include efforts to "enhance the image of Christmas trees and the Christmas tree industry in the United States" (7 CFR 1214.10).

To pay for the new Federal Christmas tree image improvement and marketing program, the Department of Agriculture imposed a 15-cent fee on all sales of fresh Christmas trees by sellers of more than 500 trees per year (7 CFR 1214.52).  And, of course, the Christmas tree sellers are free to pass along the 15-cent Federal fee to consumers who buy their Christmas trees.

Acting Administrator Shipman had the temerity to say the 15-cent mandatory Christmas tree fee "is not a tax nor does it yield revenue for the Federal government" (76 CFR 69102).

As Addington notes, this “fee” is unavoidable. Christmas tree sellers must pay it. It does produce revenue for Washington, otherwise it couldn’t pay for the brand new Christmas Tree Promotion Board. It’s a tax.

Here’s the real outrage. Fifteen cents isn’t a lot. Most people won’t notice that the price of their lovely-smelling fresh Christmas tree went up a little bit. We’ll swallow this new Obama tax and probably forget all about it before the Christmas season is even over. But Barack Obama will have grown our Brobdingnagian government a little bit larger with a program that none of us need or want and that won’t sell one more Christmas tree in this year or any other. We will have yet another bureaucracy, buried like a tick in the body politic, that will only bloat up larger and larger even after Barack Obama is gone. Before long, the big-government politicians in Washington will consider the Office for the Advancement of Holiday Foliage a necessary function and will fight for it even as our deficit climbs to heights that even the National Christmas Tree would envy.

Look, I know we’re all caught up with the ongoing Herman Cainwreck, but for goodness sake, Barack Obama just dropped a tax on Christmas trees. If you want a better example of what is at stake in the election a year from now, you simply will not find it. If they are on the ball (and, let’s face it, they probably aren’t), the folks at Republican Party HQ are already at work on a campaign ad on this issue. Heck, it practically write itself: “Barack Obama loves taxes so much he’ll even tax your Christmas Tree”.

Ho ho ho, folks. Merry Hopenchangey Christmas.

UPDATE: I’m sorry, folks, but I’m not done with this one. How did the Obama administration suddenly come upon the idea that the Christmas Tree industry was the one area of our entire economy that absolutely, positively needed a shot in the arm? Unless something has radically changed in the past few years, Christmas Trees practically sell themselves. It’s not like our brave, domestic tree merchants have seen their sales eaten away by cheap Holiday Shrubberies from China and Central America. We still celebrate Christmas. We still buy trees, yes even fresh trees. Why in the world do we need this office of life-sucking bureaucrats?

For that matter, why do we need a Acting Administrator of Agricultural Marketing? Do we not have a vibrant agriculture industry capable of marketing itself?

You know the answers to all those questions. I do, too. The one question I can’t answer is this: For how much longer will we continue to put up with this big government crapulence?

Selasa, 08 November 2011

Clipping blog

Clipping blog


WaPo Blogger Flunks Cash for Clunkers

Posted: 07 Nov 2011 12:03 PM PST

I can not imagine how much pain the Washington Post must be in today. Brad Plumer, one of Ezra Klein’s co-blogging team, wrote a detailed and pretty fair blog post this morning about the failure of the Cash for Clunkers program.

Okay, the post wasn’t quite as hard-hitting as it could have been. Plumer is still stuck with the belief that any check the government writes to a citizen is stimulus, even if the citizen was going to spend their own money anyhow. In reality, added about $3 billion to our debt for a very small short-term benefit. The program also drove used car prices up severely, which put them out of the reach of many middle class and poor families.

Still, I consider it a pretty big deal when anyone on the left concludes that a cherished big government program didn’t work. While Plumer didn’t detail all the reasons Cash for Clunkers was an expensive boondoggle, at least he admitted its failure. Maybe he can work on an analysis of the Vote Buying Act Stimulus Bill next.

Senin, 07 November 2011

Clipping blog

Clipping blog


The Delivery Presents – So, You Want to Be A Star?

Posted: 07 Nov 2011 06:30 AM PST

What can I say about Episode 119 but that the world is flat-out nuts and I’m glad for it because if it was sane, I wouldn’t have a show. A couple in Hawaii lost their child for a night over a chicken salad sandwich and some well-regarded MSM reporter drooled lustily all over Barack Obama (thankfully, not in person). The latter isn’t quite as rare an event as you might imagine, if you still believe the media consider themselves in an adversarial relationship with the government. Fortunately, I am here to speak truth to power, or whatever hip revolutionaries do these days.

I did run one of the first half topics into the second half. That Barack Obama column was just that funny.

Oh, I also spent a Saturday playing Social Media Guru and has a really good time while doing it. You know, I could get used to doing something a lot like that for a living. Do you hear that, organizations that need a savvy and enthusiastic social media guy? That took up the rest of the second half, along with a few thoughts about being a star. That’s where the football came into the conversation, but don’t despair if you don’t like sports. You will, I think, like what I had to say.

The Delivery - Episode 119

TwitterFacebookStumbleUponGoogle BookmarksDeliciousFriendFeedTechnorati FavoritesGoogle GmailRedditWordPressShare

This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now

Clearing the Browser Tabs – Government Opacity Alert Monday Edition

Posted: 07 Nov 2011 06:10 AM PST

We’ve found more guns “walked” by the administration as part of Operation Fast and Furious (via memeorandum). Police seized two of over 2,000 missing weapons from a couple members of the Sinaloa cartel right here in the United States. By anyone’s best estimate, we’re still missing about 1,500 guns. That number would be a lot more certain if the Obama administration would come clean on how many guns they gave to the drug cartels.

While I’m on the whole “coming clean” subject, the administration last week refused to honor a Congressional subpoena for documents related to SolyndraScam. The White House said the subpoena was “unprecedented and unnecessary” and questioned the committee’s sincerity to get to the bottom of the scandal (both links via memeorandum). Perhaps the President doesn’t want Congress to know how much they knew about the lavish bonuses given to Solyndra executives even as the company was headed down the drain along with over $500 million dollars of our money. Folks, I’ve seen government transparency. This isn’t it.

But let me go back to Fast and Furious for a moment. The MSM has done quite a lot to try to bury the story under a mount of misinformation. Take this headline from a CNN story as an example: “‘Fast and Furious’ flap likely to linger”. You can use a lot of words to describe an operation that sent some 2,000 guns out of the sight of law enforcement officials, but “flap” isn’t one of them. This is either lazy or deceptive reporting. I can’t tell you which is the case but I know we shouldn’t condone it.

And now, links!

TwitterFacebookStumbleUponGoogle BookmarksDeliciousFriendFeedTechnorati FavoritesGoogle GmailRedditWordPressShare

Who Would Jesus Protest?

Posted: 06 Nov 2011 08:13 PM PST

Want a quick test to see if someone knows the Bible? Ask them if Jesus would be out protesting at Occupy Wall Street (#OWS) today. The contention from some religious authorities and media outlets is that Jesus would be right there among the unwashed masses clamoring for free college tuition and a unicorn in every backyard.

That is simply not true.

Jesus cared not one whit about government except insofar as its officials abused their positions to assume positions of religious power. Even then, Jesus didn’t call out the Pharisees for their abuses of secular power but for how they used their power to mislead the people on spiritual matters. Jesus’ famous “Render unto Caesar…” comment was both an utter refusal to play the political game and a reminder to his followers of his true mission. Jesus did not come to Earth to bring political revolution, but spiritual.

When Jesus chased the moneylenders our of the temple, he didn’t do so because they lent money but because they corrupted His Father’s house. Here is the account, from John 2:13-16.

And the Jews’ passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:
And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables;
And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise.

Again (though some scholars believe this and the accounts in the other two gospels describe a second incident), from Luke 19:45-48:

And he went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold therein, and them that bought;
Saying unto them, It is written, My house is the house of prayer: but ye have made it a den of thieves.

Let me toss in a few questions at this point. If Jesus truly detested the moneylenders, why didn’t he continue to pursue them all the way to their places of business? Why didn’t he gather his followers — a considerable number, by the way, since this incident happened right after his triumphal entry into Jerusalem — and protest outside the exchange houses? In short, if Jesus was angry at the moneylenders for their predatory usury practices, why didn’t he #OccupyJerusalem?

He didn’t, because that wasn’t his goal. It’s not the goal of the Bible either to build large government institutions to advance social equality or “social justice”. There is, in fact, no Biblical basis for government-based charity for the poor. Every instance of charity you see in the Bible involves individuals or the church. Remember, when Jesus told the rich young ruler to sell his possessions, he did not tell him to give the money to the government but directly to the poor.

Further, Jesus specifically endorsed profit with the Parable of the Talents in Matthew 25:14-30. In the parable, a rich man gave money to three of his servants — 5 talents to one servant, 2 to the second, and 1 to the third — and went out of town. When he returned, he demanded an accounting from his servants. The servant with five talents had invested it and made five more. His master was pleased and rewarded him. Likewise the servant who was given two talents made two more and was also rewarded. The third servant, however,  took his one talent and buried it. He did not lose it, but he did not increase it either. What happened to that servant? His boss called him “wicked and slothful”, took away his money and gave it to the servant who has earned the most. The lesson from Jesus? Those who have will get more and have abundance. Those who have not, and make not, will have theirs taken away. Note that Jesus did not condemn the rich man for rewarding his profitable servants and punishing the unprofitable one. On the contrary. He even had the rich man scold the unprofitable servant for not giving that one talent to the moneylenders so that when he returned, he could have at least gotten his talent back with profit from the interest.

Again, Jesus did not take a choice opportunity to condemn profit-making, even the rather harsh methods used by moneylenders of his day.

But did Jesus talk about government? Not directly, though he did provide a model for how a person should conduct themselfes. In Mark 10:42, Jesus specifically pointed out earthly authorities who “excercise lordship” over those they governed. In the following verses (43-44) Jesus then turned that model upside-down and said that the greatest in his spiritual hierarchy must serve all. In other words, Jesus eschewed those who exercised power and told his followers that the “great” should “minister” to those under them. Is this a specific statement about government? No as such, but Christians used it as a model for representative democracy.

So if Jesus didn’t eschew profit, can we find some passage where the Bible does have something we can apply what has happened on Wall Street and elsewhere these last few weeks? As it happens, it does. The Apostle Paul wrote to the church in Thessolanica: “…if any would not work, neither should he eat. For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.” Disorderly? Working not at all? Busybodies? Sure sounds like the Occupy Whatever protesters to me.

Throughout Jesus ministry he taught each of us to give as we have received, but never, ever to demand what we have not earned. That is a worthwhile lesson for all of us, but it is not one that we can compel by governmental force or mob rule.

Note: This originally appeared as a “Twitter rant” on Saturday. A couple folks suggested I expand it a bit into a blog post. You can read the original tweets in sequence right here on Storify.

 

Hey Hey! Ho Ho! Let’s Push An Old Woman Down Some Stairs!

Posted: 06 Nov 2011 03:40 PM PST

I have run out of adjectives to describe the Occupy Whatever movement. They are a collection of uncontrollable mobs filled with violent criminals, rich kids overflowing with whiny entitlement and very little wisdom, and professional agitators,

One of their more popular chants is “This is what democracy looks like”. Well, their version of democracy is exactly what our Founders wanted to prevent when they eschewed direct democracy: rule of the violent mob.

Most of the footage for that video, from what I can tell, was taken during the Defending the Dream summit, put on by Americans for Prosperity. Stacy McCain was at the summit and got video of the assault on the DC Convention Center (you can see all of Stacy’s summit coverage here). What you’ll see, basically, is a mob of people trying to prevent peaceful American citizens from leaving the convention center with children as human barricades. They surrounded an unsuspecting couple who were trying to smoke a quick cigarette outside, interfered with traffic around the event, and eventually turned to harass a reporter from the Daily Caller while she attempted to report from the scene of the protest. That reporter, Michelle Fields, has asked her employer not to assign her to cover any more of the DC protests because she (rightfully, IMO) fears for her safety. In other footage, the OWS cretins attacked a wheelchair-bound old woman in their zeal to stick it to the rich fat cats who run the government in Washington.

So, let’s sum up. Occupy DC protestors did not protest the White House, the Capitol, or the K Street lobbying firms. Instead, they went out of their way to protest a small conservative dinner. While they were there, they put young children in danger, ticked off residents of the city who were just trying to go about their business, threatened and intimidated a reporter, injured at least one elderly woman, and physically threatened several other people.

How noble.

Here is the real question, though. We have been told repeatedly that these Occupy Whatever protests are non-partisan and spontaneous expressions of righteous rage by “the 99 percent”. But if that’s true, why did Occupy DC choose to protest a conservative dinner that 99 percent of the residents of DC didn’t even know was happening? The DC Convention Center is many blocks from McPherson Square, the “staging area” for Occupy DC. In fact, the White House is about half the distance away and K Street is, well, right there. Odd, don’t you think?

It’s not so odd, though, once you know that at least four different federal employees’ unions have thrown their vast political power and wealth behind Occupy DC. Make no mistake, folks, Occupy Whatever isn’t some spontaneous grassroots gathering of political newbies intent on making their voices heard. They are a mob, backed to the hilt by the Democratic Party and whipped up by professionals and career malcontents.

And their mayhem is not yet done.

UPDATE: Stacy’s full account of his evening with the Occupy Whatever goons is now up at the American Spectator’s site.