Hyphenated American on the Jimmy Z show - August 2010

Jimmy Z was kind enough to invite me once again on his show to talk about the issues of the week.
It took me the a couple of minutes to get in the groove, but then my presentation became smooth and entertaining. Here are the topics that we discussed:


Military voters sold out by the Pentagon (and GOP should take it personally) • Obama going after your 401(k) • Bizarre arguments in support for Islamists and Hamasque at Ground Zero. Liberals and Islamists are playing with fire. • Per popular demand: Is Obama a Moslem? An honest analysis of a controversial issue. Plus - quick run through a few conspiracy theories popular during Bush’s presidency • Corruption and The Black Congressional Caucus •

All in all, I am satisfied with my appearance on the show, and I believe my [non-left wing] readers will enjoy it.

Having more fun than the government allows

As you know, I've started posting some of my letters on the Alexandria blog. I am also commenting on this blog quite often. As you may imagine my progressive thinking is not necessarily appreciated by everyone there, but it will pass - I am sure I will charm everyone there with my polite manners and diplomatic choice of words. In the meantime, I've posted a new letter there, and I have a feelling some of the people will enjoy reading it...

_________________________________________________________________


I've been having an interesting discussion with comrade Siarlys Jenkins, and he made the following peculiar observation:

They [bloody capitalists] don’t hire as a public service, they hire because they think they can make money out of hiring you. As long as the taxation rate is below 100%, they’ll get to keep more of that profit than if they didn’t hire you at all.

Our co-blogger was advocating a drastic increase in the taxation of profit (as long as the rate is below 100%, the capitalists will keep hiring folks and developing their business, right?), and he believes that it's obscene when anyone earns more than 1 million dollars. It was never explained why 1 million dollars was the cut-off sum (for example an afghan sheep herder may decide that making more than 50 thousand dollars is obscene and should be taken away to feed the poor in Kenya) - but that's a separate issue - and I suggest you read an article on my blog that explores this particular question. But the idea of maximizing the tax rate on profit intrigued me - I cannot deny that. In order to demonstrate the fallacy of Siarlys thinking, I composed a simple arithmetic problem. I am curious how many of the intellectuals on the Alexandria blog would be willing to spend the time to solve it. I would also appreciate people commenting on the result - why do they think the tax rate at which it becomes uneconomical to invest is lower than 100%.


I am thinking about investing $100. It’s a one time deal. If everything goes right (80% chance), I will profit $50 from it. There is a 20% chance that everything will go wrong, and my entire investment will be lost. At what tax rate for the profit will it become uneconomical for me to make this investment? Discuss the results.


I believe this little problem will be useful for two reasons. Firstly, it would allow the intellectual community of this blog to entertain themselves with a trivial mathematical problem (and who of us does not enjoy reading math books from time to time?). Secondly, this problem illustrates the complexity of the free market economy, and some ill-effects of taxation which may not be apparent at the first glance.

What's new, pussycat? #13

The world continues its slide to Armageddon - and my blog judicially chronicles the events leading us to the end of the world. A few thousand more years - and we may meet our Maker. But let's drop this defeatist talk and instead go around the world in 10 minutes.

Pentagon allows suppression of military vote
In a rather bizarre move (okay, who am I kidding - it was all expected), Pentagon allowed 5 states to ignore the law that protected the right of American armed forces to vote. The Move Act was written in such a way as to guarantee that American soldiers would have access to the voting ballots in time to be able to cast their vote. But apparently, the government bureaucracy understood that military vote could seriously weaken the President and his lackeys in Congress, and the states pushed the military for waivers. Currently, 5 states received the waiver from Pentagon - and these states are: Delaware, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island and Washington. As luck would have it - four out of five are run by Democrats - while only half of American governors were elected as Democrats. It is also quite coincidental that American military vote Republican, and - if you still believe in coincidences, our current president is a Democrat, and his lackeys are in control of Pentagon. It is also estimated that the suppression of military votes may have a considerable influence on the 2010 elections in some states - in short, it would benefit the Democrats. And this long list of coincidences reminded me of a quote from the movie "Godfather":

Tom, don't let anybody kid you. It's all personal, every bit of business. Every piece of shit every man has to eat every day of his life is personal. They call it business. OK. But it's personal as hell. You know where I learned that from? The Don. My old man. The Godfather. If a bolt of lightning hit a friend of his the old man would take it personal. He took my going into the Marines personal. That's what makes him great. The Great Don. He takes everything personal Like God. He knows every feather that falls from the tail of a sparrow or however the hell it goes? Right? And you know something? Accidents don't happen to people who take accidents as a personal insult.

I think it's the right time when American conservatives start treating accidents as a personal insult. I hope in January, when GOP takes over Congress, they listen to the voices of reason and start investigating what's going on in the White House, how the stimulus money, the TARP money was spent and what happened to Democrats who voted for the Obamacare. Let's turn on the light and see who starts running.


Obama is targeting your 401(k)
It's been prophesied that at some point liberals will try to nationalize your savings. Well, it seems like the Obama administration decided that there will never be a better moment. As Turkish from the movie "Snatch" would say:

Obama is gonna exploit the situation. He's gonna pull the taxpayer pants down, grease him up... and aim for penetration.

The U.S. Department of Labor is planning to have  joint hearing with the Department of the Treasury on whether government life-time annuity options funded by U.S. Treasury debt should be required for private retirement accounts, including IRAs and 401(k) plans. In short, Obama wants to nationalize 401(k) and IRA. After all, someone has to fund his expensive habits (and I am not talking about the trips to Spain and the golf games and the rock-star concerts in the White House). The usual suspects - government unions, interest groups are already on board - after all they need government funding too and someone has to pay for that. More details can be found here.



Ground Zero Hamasque may get government funding
As expected, the promoters of Hate-mosque on Ground Zero can now safely rely on getting government some government help. According to El Reuters: "The Muslim center planned near the site of the World Trade Center attack could qualify for tax-free financing, a spokesman for City Comptroller John Liu said on Friday, and Liu is willing to consider approving the public subsidy."

After all, our country is in tip-top financial state, we can afford to build a extremist mosque on the ground where 3,000 Americans were slaughtered by moslem terrorists. Obviously, if we refuse to do that,  moderate moslems will conclude that we are being islamophobic and they will very likely join Al Qaeda and try to kill us. Those moderate moslems are a very touchy bunch - peaceful, of course, but short-tempered as hell. Someone may even say they have an explosive temper - and we better not tempt them. As for me - I am waiting until American people fulfill Churchill's prediction "The Americans will always do the right thing . . . After they've exhausted all the alternatives." And by simple elimination we will find what we need to do. And again, I need to quote Turkish from the movie "Snatch":

It had previously occurred to me...


... that he'd taken the demise of his mother rather lightly.

For every action, there is a reaction.

And a pikey reaction...

... is quite a f*cking thing.

Well, the Moslem fundamentalists may think that Americans have taken the destruction of the World Trade Center and deliberate murder of 3,000 innocent civilians rather lightly. But as some history buffs know, an American reaction is quite a f*cking thing - just ask the Japs and the Krauts.

Whass up with Congressional Black Caucus?

I've been reading this article today, and it struck me - there may be a pattern here and I think I can discern it. Mind you, as an engineer, I am conditioned to notice patterns. So, lets take a quick look.

Case 1: "Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D., Texas), a long-serving congresswoman from Dallas, improperly awarded thousands of dollars in college scholarships from the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, violating nepotism and ethics rules by giving the funds to multiple relatives and the children of top aide Rod Givens."

Case 2: "Representative Charles Rangel (D-NY) is a twenty-term member of Congress representing New York’s 15th district [and a member of Congressional Black Caucus]. Rep. Rangel’s ethics issues stem from (1) improperly leasing four rent controlled apartments; (2) improperly using congressional stationery; (3) failing to report rental income from a vacation property; and (4) trading legislative assistance for contributions to the Rangel Center at City College. Rep. Rangel was included in CREW’s 2008 congressional corruption report."

Case 3: "Representative Jesse Jackson, Jr., is an eight-term member of Congress, representing Illinois’ 2nd district [and a member of Congressional Black Caucus]. Rep. Jackson’s ethics issue stems from his bid to be appointed to a vacant Illinois Senate seat and subsequently, the federal investigation of former-Governor Rod Blagojevich."

Case 4: "Representative Maxine Waters (D-CA) is a ten-term member of Congress [and a member of Congressional Black Caucus], representing California’s 35th congressional district. She is a senior member of the House Financial Services Committee. Rep. Waters’ ethics issues stem from a meeting she arranged between officials at the Department of Treasury and OneUnited Bank, a bank with which she has financial ties. Rep. Waters was included in CREW’s 2005 and 2006 congressional corruption reports for unrelated matters."

Case 5: "Senator Roland Burris (D-IL) is a first-term senator from Illinois [and a member of Congressional Black Caucus], appointed to the U.S. Senate in December 2008 by former Governor Rod Blagojevich to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of then President-elect Barack Obama. Sen. Burris’ ethics issues stem from the circumstances surrounding his appointment."

Case 6: "Representative Laura Richardson (D-CA) is a two-term member of Congress, representing California’s 37th congressional district [and a member of Congressional Black Caucus]. Rep. Richardson’s ethics issues stem from accepting favorable loans and her failure to properly report a loan on her financial disclosure statements. Rep. Richardson was included in CREW’s 2008 report on congressional corruption."

Case 7: And then we got Rep. William Jefferson, D-La, a member of Congressional Black Caucus, and the man infamous for stuffing 90 thousand dollars in the freezer in his Congressional office.

Quite coincidentally, 5 out of the 15 Most Corrupt Members of Congress of 2010 belong to the Congressional Black Caucus. In 2008, there were only 48 members in the Congressional Black Caucus, while there are a total of 535 men and women in the 2010 Congress. I am sure my readers can do the math and see that a member of Congressional Black Caucus is 4 times more likely to get into the List of the Most Corrupt Members of Congress than an average congress member. And, as you may imagine, Congressional Black Caucus is now asking Congress to curtail its ethics investigations and make them less transparent to the public.

I am curious if this analysis should result in some kind of disclaimer for the Congressional Black Caucus - for example they may warn congressmen that wish to join that the Black Caucus may significantly increase the chances of corruption and may possibly lead to long prison terms (which are undeniably bad for health). But leaving the jokes aside - why is this Caucus so irredeemably corrupt? The answer to this question is very simple - Congressional Black Caucus is a self-selected group of liberal politicians who adore corrupt Third World regimes, and who personally befriend totalitarian dictators like Castro and Hugo Chavez. Moreover, the Congressional Black Caucus is a symptom of a serious decease which affected the Black community and the Black leadership - the complete breakdown of moral character, standards of decency and integrity. That is not to say that "All Black People are corrupt" - far from it, of course. The Black community can be proud of its most outstanding members - Thomas Sowell, the leading intellectual of this century not just in America but the entire world, a famous economist Walter Williams, an upstanding and courageous Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and leading feminist and civil-rights leader Ayaan Hirsi Ali. But unfortunately, the Black community shuns its heroes and instead follows the scoundrels like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Barack Obama. Until this trend is reversed, the Congressional Black Caucus will continue to look more as a criminal enterprise than a union of Black intellectuals, and the black communities will continue to be poor, uneducated and dangerous. As the saying goes - we deserve the government we have, and unfortunately, the Black Community today fully deserves its congressmen. I hope I will live long enough to see the Black Community to break the chains of the ideas of perpetual victimihood and other liberal big-government crap. By all means, it will be a glorious day when we see this.

I made this prediction in January 2010

Sometimes it's fun to re-read my old posts. Here is one from January 22, 2010 (the link to the original is here).

Accusations of racism in the November 2010 elections


Today, president Obama is rapidly falling in the polls. It's easy to imagine that in November 2010, some Democratic congressmen will be trying to distance themselves from Obama as much as possible, and they will most likely proclaim their independence from the president. And it is also quite possible that Republicans will be running ads trying to link them with Obama. I imagine the ads saying something like "A vote for such and such candidate is a vote for the liberal policies of president Obama".


And this brings me to the second point. It is well-known that liberal politicians love to accuse their opponents of being racists. So, it is quite possible that in November 2010, some liberals will complain that the ads that link their candidates to Obama are racist, and that by invoking the image of Obama, the Republicans are simply appealing to the white racism and bigotry. This will be the re-run of their criticism of the Willie Horton ads - but this time, it will be Barack Hussein Obama who will be the boogie-man.


What do you think - is my prediction plausible?

Self-congratulation as a basis for economic policy

A careful observer will notice a certain meme in liberal writing - a meme of evil corporations exploiting poor helpless workers. For example, a liberal poster here claimed the 19th century coal mine owners were "further impoverishing workers and enriching owners". One question never asked (let alone answered) is why exactly the workers would leave their friends and relatives, their homes, villages and towns and move across the country in order to work for heartless mine-owners? Were they masochistic, or they saw certain benefits which are/were not apparent to the liberal by-standers?

And the second question, also rarely asked - did the mine owners improve the lives of those workers when they offered them jobs or did they make those lives more miserable? And if the answer to this question is "yes, indeed getting a job in the coal mine was a step up for workers", - does it mean that the mine owners did more good than evil - possibly more good than all the liberal do-gooders and busybodies ever dreamed of?

The liberal post also reminded me of an old story - back in 19th century the new immigrants who recently arrived to the NYC lived in horrible over-crowded, rat-infested apartments and the liberal busy-bodies eventually pushed through numerous laws that made such dwellings illegal. And what do you know - these ungrateful immigrants were upset at the do-gooders - apparently, the immigrants chose to live in overcrowded apartments so that they could save money and send it to their relatives in progressive Europe - or they used money to send their kids to better schools. It was also reported that poor immigrants and the house-owners would conspire against the government authorities and numerous inspectors with an explicit goal to continue living in the squalid conditions. Dumb bustards - instead of thanking the liberals, they cursed them! But in the end, with new laws and tough enforcement of these new laws (monitored not only by the government bureaucracy, but also multiple liberal activists and progressive reporters) the housing costs skyrocketed - and the ability of poor immigrants to save money was severely diminished.

All in all, as this story demonstrates that more evil than good comes from the attempts of well-meaning but ignorant and self-adoring liberals to improve the lives of the "masses". Apparently, freedom to choose can be beneficial to the common people - while leaving the self-important liberal activists without anything keep themselves busy with (and be outraged about). It should not surprise anyone that individual liberty (particularly in economic affairs) is hated by American liberals - it robs them of the right to feel morally superior.

An acute case of liberal affluenza

I've recently finished reading Thomas Sowell's latest book entitled "Intellectuals and Society". Among many interesting things, Professor Sowell noted certain patterns of liberal-slash-intellectual behavior - and it always amuses me to find the examples of such behavior in the media. Here are a few obvious examples from the article "Feeling the pinch? Cheer up – affluence made us miserable" recently published in a British newspaper. ...

1. An affluent liberal (who comes from a very prosperous family) believes that people don't really need wealth.

The author of the aforementioned article, Oliver James is a graduate of the most expensive and selective boarding school for boys in the world, Eton college. (For some perspective it is sufficient to note that Eton is popular with the British Royal Family; Princes William and Harry are Eton graduates.) After Oliver received a degree in Social Anthropology (what the hell is that?) at Cambridge University and a psychology degree from Nottingham University, he did a quick stint at Brunel University  and Cassel Hospital in Richmond. But a normal hard-working life was not for Oliver, so instead he became a movie producer for the government-run BBC (apparently, his connections from Eton and Cambridge helped him to get the necessary financial support by the government-run media outlet).  Oliver is an author of multiple books and documentaries criticizing "consumerism" - or, in other words, he is upset when the plebs dare to purchase colored TVs at the time when he had to sell one of his prize-winning horses. Oh, the injustice of free market economy!

2. The liberal in question makes far reaching pronouncements on how societies should operate, while demonstrating obvious economic ignorance.

In his article, Oliver mistakenly equates affluence with high indebtedness - which tells you how much this genius understands basic economics. On the other side, it's quite plausible that a man with Oliver's pedigree (British nobility no less) would think that truly rich people are up to their necks in debts (prostitutes and gambling are the main sinks of income for nobility in all countries) - in fact any one who comes off the pages of the Dickens's books would have reached same conclusions.

3. Same liberal asserts without any evidence that the time during right-wing president/prime minister was unusually egotistic and that economic liberty equals greed and is evil, while the economy run by the government is virtuous.

According to Oliver:

"Incubated in the 1960s, the virus [i.e. the attempt of the prols to improve their living conditions] was spread wider and in more virulent form by Mrs Thatcher and her Blatcherite successors (Blair and Brown). This selfish capitalism (free market economics) has greatly increased our likelihood of mental illness: we are twice as likely to suffer (23% of us) than our mainland Western European cousins (only 12%), who have relatively unselfish capitalist economies....

Less materialistically motivated populations tend to be more family and community minded. In societies like Denmark, for example, people are much more liable to be concerned about the well being of a child who seems distressed in public. If a wallet is dropped, it’s much more likely to be handed in. There are much higher levels of trust between people of all ages, less cynicism about government."

4.The liberal intellectual asserts that people don't need to earn more money - and anyone who does so is simply misguided, or suffers from what Marxists call "false consciousness".

Oliver puts it this way:

"...I believe there will be a gradual increase in the extent to which people come to realise that they do not need such high incomes if they spend less. As we rediscover the difference between real needs and false wants – confected by advertising and peer pressure – we will start to wake up and smell the coffee: compared with much of the population of the world, nearly all of us are incredibly wealthy. If we can just get on with enjoying that wealth through better family lives, intimate friendships, communities and enjoyable hobbies, we will be a whole lot more mentally healthy."

And true that - who would be more prepared to distinguish between the real needs and false wants of prols than Oliver James, a man who shared his bedbunk with British royalty? I cannot think of anyone else, honestly- his name is always the first in the list.

5.The future is bright if only people do exactly as the liberal tells them to

The article arrogantly proclaims - "The shift to healthier values – from having to being – will not happen suddenly." But what does Oliver believe are healthier values (I will ignore the false contradition between having and being)? Well, less wealth, less work, less personal responsibility. In short, Oliver wants adults to become more like children - and he means it literally.

"Instead of these materialistic values, we need goals and motives that are driven by real satisfaction of authentic needs. That means a greater concern with the pleasure of an activity for its own sake, rather than possible external benefits. Like children’s play, this kind of activity takes the person into a state of “flow”, where time passes without your noticing, a state of full absorption. I witness this in my children every day, but adults can have lives like that too. It’s often achieved by pursuing paid work that is interesting to you rather than seeking promotion or greater salaries – within a corporation, for example, putting interest in the work ahead of material or promotional gains. Oddly enough, that can actually lead to greater success, although it is not the goal."

It's evidently only a matter of time before liberal psychologists will declare competitiveness and desire to succeed as a new and dangerous mental disorder. As Beatles sang - "Back in USSR" - a country where a citizen who did not believe in the communist ideology was pronounced mentally sick, and was sent off to a psychiatric  hospital for compulsory medical treatment.

The true value of Oliver's insane pronouncements could be best understood if one were to imagine the Eton grad repeating these obnoxious claims in front of a janitor, a waitress or a mechanic. It would be interesting to see what would be the reaction of a working man who has to support a family - when he is advised to give up his bread-n-butter profession and instead emulate children and find some fun activity. After all - who wants to be a janitor? Just satisfy your authentic needs and find an interesting and engaging job. For example Oliver did just that - with a little help from his ancestors and millions of dollars from the government subsidies. This is surely beyond Marie Antoinette's "Let them eat cake" insanity - this is more akin to "Why do they need to eat bread - it is so fattening - let them pick a hobby instead".

The real question is - why does Oliver, a British blue blood, highly educated in liberal sciences would desire to suppress the people's desire to improve their living conditions? The answer is simple - and I will use slightly modified wikipedia's quotes to explain the root causes of Oliver's mental illness. Oliver has caught the "liberal affluenza".

Liberal affluenza:

liberal affluenza, n. a painful, contagious, socially transmitted condition of overload, anxiety and occasionally violent outburst resulting from either the dogged pursuit to control over people's life or envy of someone's achievements.

liberal affluenza, n. 1. The bloated, sluggish and unfulfilled feeling that results from desire to feel morally superior to others; 2. An unsustainable addiction to feeling of self-importance.

   

Proponents of the term consider that prizing of endless increase of one's power over other people's lives may lead to feelings of worthlessness and dissatisfaction rather than experiences of a 'better life', and that these symptoms may be usefully captured with the metaphor of a disease. They claim some or even many of those who became important members of political society will find the political success leaving them unfulfilled and hungry only for more power, finding that they are unable to get pleasure from the limited amount of influence they have on other people, and desire for more power may come to dominate their time and thoughts to the detriment of personal relationships and to feelings of happiness. The condition is considered particularly acute amongst those with inherited wealth, who are often said to experience guilt, lack of purpose and dissolute behavior, as well as obsession with holding on to power. Given the inability of those people to succeed on their own accord, they put particular emphasis on attacking and denigrating the people who achieved their position in life through hard work.

It's time for a bailout

I was watching Jon Stewart's show (see below) and one thought immediately crept into my paranoid Russian-Jewish-Cossack-Chinese mind: I think Obama will try to bail out the race card. I am sure the rev. Wright wing of the Democratic party is already working hard on this. Heh-heh-heh....

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Race Card Is Maxed Out
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Allow myself to introduce .. myself

A few weeks ago I was invited to mirror my posts on another blogsite – and an aspiring writer I was thrilled to share my work. My first 5 posts were clearly out of place for this mostly left-of-center blog – and my comments were received even worse than my posts. The reaction of the reading public ranged from strong disagreement to a rather bizarre claim that the Bible forbids listening to people like me. There was also a rather noticeable feeling of bewilderment in the air – I could sense that people were genuinely surprised that someone had a strong opinion which ran contrary to the left-wing point of view, and was not shy to share it. “Who is this literary hooligan?” – was the main leitmotif of my critics – if I were to use the famous term of the Soviet critics from the 1920ies. This compelled me to write a letter explaining myself - which I am reproducing in this post, while you can find the original here. I have an inkling that my readers will be entertained with what I wrote on the left-wing blog.

______________________________________________________________________

So, who am I? Well, if I have to be blunt, I guess I need to say that I am your worst nightmare – I am a guy from hell. I was born, raised and educated in the USSR – which makes me a very dangerous authority on the issues of Marxism, leftism and any other ism that pops into your mind. I don’t feel guilt, I am not afraid to disagree and I certainly do not intend to disarm, appease and play nice with the other side. Everything that the American left holds dear – makes me nauseous. Whatever American liberals hope this country will become in the far future – is the horrible past that I distinctly remember from my childhood. All stories about American past indiscretions make me giggle. If you think you can shame me into agreeing with you, or you can silence me with stories about slavery/discrimination/Jim Crow Laws - I can more than match this with stories of collectivization/mass arrests/starvation/slavery in the most-liberal USSR. The left-wing calls for America to be modest and shy away from teaching other nations - tell me that liberals are ignorant about the rest of the world. In short – for all that the left wants to tell me – I’ve got one answer – been there, seen it, and it damn sure did not work. And just in case you wonder – I am here to stay, so deal with it.

In short – as I said - I am your worst nightmare – I am a guy from hell, and I feel no guilt. Don’t touch me – and you won’t get bitten. If you advocate taking my money by government thugs – don’t be surprised if I give you no respect – and I will try to hurt your feelings. All the insults in my posts are intentional, all the nice things you read were inserted by someone else and I will remove them when alerted. If you are not upset after reading my posts – it means you missed what I said and you need to take a class of remedial reading (preferably with a teacher who understands Russian sarcasm).

Let’s play, comrades. Which one of you, geniuses, got the ball?

Michele Obama chose Spain. Who wouldn't?

As the whole world now knows, Michele Obama, two daughters, 40 of her bestest and closest friends, plethora of government funded security personnal and the entire entourage (pedicurists, cooks, flower girls, etc., etc) boarded the Air Force 2 and left for Spain. She will be staying in most lavish hotels that Spain could find, and the local police already cordoned the best beaches for her exclusive use.

While many in the media are outraged by Michele's trip, I must confess I have a lot of sympathy with our American princess. Michel left early, right before her husband's 49th birthday - and this could not be accidental. To tell you the truth, I cannot handle more than 2 minutes of listening to Obama bloviating on TV - and luckily I can simply turn off TV before my mind is short circuited by his bullshit. But poor unfortunate Michele cannot simply switch off Mr. I-Me-Mine - and I can imagine the hell she is put through every day of her life. Think of the children and their poor mother - forced to listen hour after hour after hour to this narcissistic boob readingfrom the teleprompter! And now, when president's popularity is dropping faster than the Enron stocks in 2001 - imagine the scenes during Barack's birthday. Today, his future looks bleaker than what Carter had to face in January 1981 - and unlike Carter, Barack likes to drink booze, and he is known to enjoy heavy drugs.

In all seriousness, would you want to go to a birthday party of a narcissistic has been (let alone host it) - and what's worse, a has been with a God complex? Well, neither does Michele - instead she left for Spain, and took the kids with her. She also evacuated 40 of her friends and relatives - clearly, to hide them from the wrath of the ex-Messiah.

So, my dear readers, don't speak poorly about Michele Obama - you would have done exactly same thing. In fact, it's the first time in my adult life that I am really proud of Michele. You go, girl!

One thought creeps into my mind though - is it remotely possible to evacuate the rest of the population of our country? Michele (see the photos below) showed us the way - lets start packing.

A startling contrast

On one side...

"U.S. District Judge Algenon L. Marbley has dismissed a complaint brought against Ohio state officials who hunted for details about "Joe the Plumber" when the working man confronted then-candidate Barack Obama during his campaign for the presidency in 2008.

The civil-rights lawsuit was filed by Judicial Watch on behalf of Joe Wurzelbacher, aka "Joe the Plumber," against state officials who, reportedly in their pursuit of support for Obama, had state databases searched for information about Wurzelbacher.

However, Marbley dismissed the action, ruling there was no real damage to Wurzelbacher when officials searched police, social services and other databases for his details.

The case alleged Ohio officials violated Wurzelbacher's constitutional rights by accessing – illegally – confidential information from the state's official archives of information.

The case accused Helen Jones-Kelley, Fred Williams and Doug Thompson, three top officials at the state Department of Job and Family Services at the time of the database searches, of being politically motivated in their searches for Wurzelbacher's details.

The subsequent investigation by the office of the inspector general for the state of Ohio found only four days after Wurzelbacher's encounter with Obama, the defendants held a meeting to discuss him.

After the meeting, Judicial Watch said, they authorized and instructed agency workers to search confidential office databases for his information. The report said all three are believed to have been supporting Obama's campaign.

The inspector general's report said, "Our investigation determined that there were 18 separate records checks conducted on Wurzelbacher following the Oct. 15, 2008, presidential debate. Five were conducted in response to media requests for information and eight were conducted by various agencies without any legitimate business purpose."

Records searched were the state Department of Jobs and Family Services, the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, the Department of Taxation and others.

"Jones-Kelley's authorization to search three confidential agency databases … was improper, and her use of state e-mail resources to engage in political activity was also improper," the inspector general's report said.

The report noted Jones-Kelley explained the information was searched because Wurzelbacher was "thrust into the spotlight."

Who is judge Algenon L. Marbley, who thinks the federal bureaucracy has an inherent right to look into the private information on private citizens and then share this information with Democratic operatives and liberal media outlets? Judge Algenon L. Marbley was nominated by President Clinton on July 31, 1997 and was confirmed by the Senate on October 27, 1997. Throughout his career, Judge Algenon L. Marbley was a one of the Directors African-American Leadership Academy (2004 - Present) and a Chairman of Racial Fairness Implementation Task Force (2000 - 2001). In 2006, he ruled that the new voting law requiring an absentee voter to submit a written application that includes a driver's license number, the last four digits of the voter's Social Security number, or a copy of a current photo ID, military identification, utility bill or bank statement - was unconstitutional. According to the judge, "Absentee voters are suffering irreparable harm right now."

On the other side...

"Nine people were indicted Wednesday [May 13, 2010] on charges of accessing President Barack Obama’s student loan records while they were employed for a Department of Education contractor in Iowa.The U.S. attorney’s office said a grand jury returned the indictments in U.S. District Court in Davenport.

All nine are charged with exceeding authorized computer access. They are accused of gaining access to a computer at a Coralville office where they worked between July 2007 and March 2009, and accessing Obama’s student loan records while he was either a candidate for president, president-elect or president. Each of eight indictments posted by Wednesday night were brief, saying the charged individual “intentionally exceeded authorized access to a computer and thereby obtained information from a department and agency of the United States” and “intentionally accessed student loan records” of Obama without authorization."

Conclusions

Apparently, there are two Americas - one America of rich, powerful, privileged and very left-wing government officials (or more concisely - "The Robber Barons") - and the other one -  America of middle class, hard-working, common-sense folks. Who do you think will be protected by the current political regime of Barack Obama? We all know, don't we?

Proposion 8 overturned in California - good news for America

I am very happy with this decision. Personally, I cannot care less about gay marriage and its legality – but this decision by a left-wing judge to ignore the laws and the constitutional referendum and instead simply follow his own revolutionary conscience will push more people to vote against liberals. November is looking better and better each day. Christmas is coming early this year – and so does Hanukkah and New Year. I am less certain about Kwanzaa though – it may be a tad late this year.

A few words the mosque construction in the NYC

I’ve been following the debate about the construction of a 13-story $100 million dollar mosque near the World Trade Center – and I must express my complete and utter amazement by the reaction of the so-called liberals. I think it’s the first time when I see liberals screaming about “property rights” –  they actually started sounding like libertarians. It’s as if they completely forgot the liberal mantra “property rights are not human rights”. Instead they suddenly discovered that property rights are the foundation of the freedom of religion.

Well, let me put a small dent into this entire discussion. What if Wal-Mart were to buy a 150 year old building in downtown New York City and proceeded to turn it into a huge, multi-million dollar store? How many liberals would come out and say that any attempts to stop Wal-Mart are clearly unconstitutional and bigoted?

When liberals face conservative challenge to the mosque construction - they react with indignation. One liberal proclaimed that Osama ben Laden hates this mosque and its owner more than he hates the Jews. Another liberal said that  must allow the mosque construction because general Petraues said: "We need to live our values. In the long run, that is the best message we can send." Of course, there is no evidence given that Osama bin Laden hates Feisal Abdul Rauf, the owner of the mosque. And it was only recently that liberals called general Petraeus - "general Betray Us". But most importantly - the question stands - what values and principles are liberals defending in the case of the mosque? Surely liberals don't believe in property rights. They have no problem forbidding WalMart to build stores on the legally purchased property (and don’t even start about the Kelo decision), they believe that the government may decide how much salt a private restaurant puts in the food, and whether stores can or cannot use plastic bags – but the moslems have an undeniable right to build mosques anywhere they want irrespective of how local communities react. I mean, as far as values go – I fail to see any consistency. Why can't a community forbid the building of a mosque? What sacred liberal ideals allow the local rich property owner to insult local community and build something inappropriate and possibly bigoted? What specific moral principle allows him to do so and forces liberals to support him?

Whass up with Turkey?

I am sure that readers remember the Turkish humanitarian flotilla that was intercepted by the bloodthirsty Israeli commandos, who proceeded to murder 10 innocent civilians - just to watch them die, as Johny Cash sang. It was later revealed that innocent civilians were violent jihadists (are there non-violent jihadists in this world?), who screamed about murdering the Jews - and who attacked the Israeli commandos and tried to kill them. But this is an old tale - and we could forget about it - but unfortunately this story is quintessential to our understanding of what is happening in Turkey these days.

So, as the title asks - whass up with Turkey? Well, nothing good, really. Back in June 2010, I've written 3 stories about the flotilla and what it means for the relationship between West and Turkey. I've recently re-read my articles and discovered that they did not lose their importance - particularly in light of Iran's fast track to become a nuclear country. I believe the folks who dare to follow the links and read my articles articles can gain good insight into new developments in Turkey - but I promise it won't make you feel better about the future of the world.

The first article entitled "Inquiring minds demand to know - is Turkey cooked yet?" was published in June 4th, and it examined the growth of Islamism in Turkey. The second article went out on June 6th, and is a critical (yet very respectful) review of a letter written by the Turkish ambassador to US. The title of the article is "This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man". The third and last article in a series is "Turkey's raid into Gaza - it has little to do with Israel", and as some readers may guess it explains why the flotilla was a poisonous fruit of internal Turkish infighting.

The only thing that surprised me was that even though all the facts that I used in the articles were taken from the open sources - there was no attempt on the part of the journalists to do a serious analysis connect the dots. It's as if the media is blind, deaf and numb - actually dumb, not numb. Or - maybe the media is not interested in providing basic facts to American citizens. What do you think?

Striking castrated conservatives wherever I find them - #2

Today I have been reading another article written by a castrated conservative. David Klinghoffer III, a self-described conservative decided to share his disgust of the modern day conservative movement - and he evidently found a grateful audience among the readers of ultra-left wing Los Angeles Times. According to David III, once the conservative movement was led by such "urbane visionaries and builders of institutions" as William F. Buckley Jr. - but now conservatives are following unsophisticated, vulgar "crazy-cons". Among the most disgusting characters in the conservative movement, David fingered Andrew Breitbart, the "potty-mouthed Internet entrepreneur". Not satisfied with attacking Breibart, he also mentioned "the figures on TV, radio and the Internet who make their money by stirring fears and resentments." These unnamed conservative figures are busy "baiting blacks, Mexicans and Muslims". Moreover these yet unidentified "crazy-cons" accommodate "conspiracy theories, and an increasing nastiness and vulgarity". In short, David III, the castrated conservative, decries the shift of conservative movement from the Golden Age of the 1960ies into the "demagoguery and hucksterism."


My first impulse after reading David's dribble was to give him same treatment William F. Buckley had given to Gore Vidal: "Listen you queer, stop calling me a crypto-Nazi, or I'll sock you in the goddamn face and you'll stay plastered." But on a second thought I decided that this treatment would have been too rough for David Klinghoffer. After all, poor Dave is not a tough guy who is ready to stand behind his beliefs. In real life, he is a pathetic creature hopelessly seeking to find a meaning to his own existence. David is not a conservative by conviction or logic - he is a "conservative", because it gives him "a profound vision granting transcendent significance to public life and hope in private life." Or, to put it another way, for Dave, conservative ideology is about "finding meaning in private life and public service". He also openly states that he would be hard pressed to even define conservatism - but he expresses conviction that conservatism that he believes in is superior to all other ideologies.

Truth be told though, David Klinghoffer is emotionally and intellectually a liberal - not a conservative. A true conservative believes his ideas are correct because they are validated by empirical evidence. A true liberal believes his ideas are correct because these ideas make him feel good about himself. David Klinghoffer does not believe in conservatism because small limited government, individual liberty and human rights are just and effective. As he confessed in the article - he needs conservatism in order to find meaning in his life. In short - he is a man who essentially uses conservatism as Psychotherapy - as wikipedia explains - in order to increase the sense well-being. How can an adult man fall so low as to use conservatism as a personal cane? Just ask David Klinghoffer, he knows.