Saturday, October 29, 2011


And you'll recall, only one GOP candidate
dared to join Glenn Beck in Jerusalem

Ya gotta love that dead-on crack about the "so-called Palestinians," heh. And I KNOW there is a Hebrew word for "choke," so I can only imagine his sly grin as he gave THAT answer. From his recent interview w/Israel Hayom:

What is your position on the Obama administration's Middle East policy?

I believe that his lack of a firm stand regarding Israel has emboldened Israel’s enemies, and America's enemies. When I was in Israel in August, I met with the deputy prime minister and he said that this was one of the biggest concerns that they had. Because he threw Israel under the bus with the statement about the 1967 borders. He just threw them under the bus. He threw Prime Minister Netanyahu under the bus prior to his visit to America. In a Cain administration there would be no question in the minds of the world and the American people that we would stand with Israel. No question. It wasn’t the president's right to suggest that they change those borders and I didn’t agree with that. For example, I think that the so-called Palestinian people have this urge for unilateral recognition because they see this president as weak. I haven’t seen all the facts but I think this whole assassination attempt [alleged Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington] was another example of seeing this president as weak, in that regard. So, weakness invites attack and I think that he has projected a sense of weakness.

Would you transfer your embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem?

I would.

What do you think of the Obama administration's handling of Iran and what would you do differently, if anything?

I don’t know if this is going to translate well in your language: Choke. Choke them economically. Here’s what I mean by that and I know that that’s not politically correct to say but here’s the idea: It costs them $70 a barrel to break even on their oil. It costs Saudi Arabia $30. We’re going to develop an energy-independent strategy. We will move toward energy independence in the Cain administration. We’ve got the resources to do it, we need the will, the leadership and we get some of these unnecessary regulations out of the way. We will impact the world price of oil. We get the price of oil down to $70 or below, and the Iranians won’t have enough money to build a nuclear program. They’re going to have to worry about feeding their people instead.

Second thing that we would do is that I would invest in our fleet of aegis-ballistic missile defense systems. We have the biggest fleet with that capability in the world. We need to upgrade it such that the ballistic-missile defense systems' sea base would have the ability to detect threats for a longer period of time; strategically place some of those ships in that part of the world then let the Iranians know that we have that capability stationed there and let them know that if they wanted to attack our friends, attack Israel or the United States, that we won’t hesitate to retaliate.

Wednesday, October 26, 2011


Has everyone forgot this idiotic initiative from May 2009? Yeah, we want a President who thinks Gloomberg, Sharpton, and Arne Duncan (Obama's Education Secretary) are fonts of wisdom:

Sorry, Newt, but "good judgment" MUST be a quality of a successful President, and it's something you've never had.

Now we know just how much we have lost.

"And nothing was left of it at all. Where has that life gone? And what has become of all that awful torment and torture? Can it really be that nothing at all is left of it? Can it really be that no one will answer for everything that happened? That it will all be forgotten without even any words to commemorate it? That the grass has grown over it?

So I ask you: How can all this be?"

--Vassily Grossman

We'll never forget her.

Monday, October 24, 2011


For the past few weeks, I've had a recurring suspicion that the several gaffes of Herman Cain are in fact "gaffes." As in intentional. Deliberate. Planned.

Allow me to explain.

21 years ago, I watched closely as a complete political neophyte announced his intention to run as governor of Massachusetts. He was John Silber, president of Boston University. Silber was a staunch Reaganite, a native TEXAN, a blunt-spoken anti-activist authoritarian university president, a big-business booster, and a Democrat. And he was running to be nominated by the Massachusetts Democratic Party. What chance, huh?

Well, to make matters "worse," Silber started his campaign with a series of shocking "gaffes." From disparaging gay rights to attacking feminism and peaceniks to questioning why "immigrants from tropical climates" move to the wintry Bay State (of course for it's generous welfare benefits), Silber missed no opportunity to defame the hideous ideology that dominated the Democratic Party of Massachusetts.

Of course the house organ of that hideous ideology, the Boston Glob, responded with off-the-charts venom to these "Silber shockers," as the candidate himself dubbed them. For about 9 months he was lampooned as a joke...until the primary approached...Because Silber was polling about 25% in a 3 way race. Even the NYT noticed in July: "Despite waging an unusual, provocative campaign that has broken many of the rules of politics and offended some women, blacks and the elderly, John R. Silber is running more strongly than expected in the Massachusetts race for governor and could be in position to win the Democratic nomination in September."

The pattern of the "Silber shockers" was firmly established: Silber would make his comment in an interview or debate; the comment would be the focus of attention for 2-5 days; Silber would be righteously questioned and re-questioned about the comment, which he would then repeat in slightly less inflammatory terms, but still defend it; and interested voters would have heard Silber make and repeat his point about 5 times more than if he hadn't made the "gaffe."

But in September he was still down by ~15 points to the front-runner, a career hack named Frank Bellotti, when about a week before the primary, the other establshment candidate, Evelyn Murphy (Dukakis' lt. governor) fell on her sword to "guarantee" the win for Bellotti. "We can't allow even the chance of John Silber winning the nomination." And how did our famous "newspaper of record" report this development? "Ms. Murphy's action therefore appeared likely to deal a further blow to Mr. Silber, a political maverick whose public standing has been slipping in the past few weeks after he made barbed comments that have alienated many voters."

With Murphy out, Bellotti's lead jumped to 23 points in the polls. Those wonderful, wonderful polls. Keep watching those polls, people. The polls are everything, don't you know? How can an old pro like Frank Bellotti blow a 23 point lead in 5 days?

Five days later, Silber beat Bellotti by 10 points, a 33-point swing. The absurdly politically incorrect Reaganite Texan became the nominee for governor of the Massachusetts Democratic Party. And the old grey lady sobbed into her gin-drenched cornflakes: "In a stunning display of voter discontent, John R. Silber, the president of Boston University who peppered his campaign with provocative remarks, scored a major upset tonight over over Francis X. Bellotti, a former State Attorney General in the Democratic primary for governor."

Which is a long way of explaining why my spidey senses are tingling these days when so many people are saying Herman Cain's gaffes are proof his candidacy is doomed. The latest is this extremely unusual--I'll refrain from saying "strange"--ad that just aired during the World Series [embedded above]. OMG, a campaign staffer blowing smoke at the camera?! Can anyone else remember the last TV ad that showed a non-evil character just...smoking...a cigarette? It's just a...SHOCKER!

Mr. Cain is nothing if not a skilled communicator. Yet it seems that, as soon as more eyes than ever are turned on him, that he becomes a fumblemouth. And wasting huge, scarce campaign dollars on a bizarre ad. Even Brit Hume has written him off.

Mr. Cain has come from nowhere, with almost no money, and no political experience, to the top of the polls. Now he's being dismissed as a gaffe machine. But I'm telling you, he's as dumb as a fox.

Friday, October 7, 2011

Is Bloomberg Planning a Tienanmen Against That Slimy Rabble?

Wall Street's Future? We should be so lucky.

Well, just keep your eye on the stock exchanges...If they continue to tank, that soulless plutocrat will sweep those smelly punks off the streets like Chiang Kai-Shek wiped out the Communists in Shanghai in 1927. "Why should a few thousand snobby, doped-out losers cause billions of dollars of portfolio value to be wiped out? Off with their heads!"

Or, as so perfectly elucidated by Lucien Bodard in his awesome book about Vietnam, "The Quicksand War":

“If filial obedience no longer existed the whole of Vietnamese society must crumble. The time had come for the defense of the ancient ways.

The middle classes of Saigon, the governing bourgeoisie who had made advances to Nguyen Binh, suddenly realized that their own skins were at stake and wealth itself was threatened. As soon as they discovered this they grew very savage. There was no longer any question of the slightest “gentleness”; no question of the Vietminh’s nationalism. Now it was to be repression with blood and torture, a hundred times crueler than the French of earlier days.

It all developed very fast. Nguyen Phan-Long, that crooked genius who had shown himself such a simpleton as prime minister, was replaced by Father Huu, a veteran of the old school. And what came to power with Huu was money, the landowners, the confederation of the rich. Possessors who fear for their possessions are cruel, and nowhere are they crueler than in Manhattan Asia."

Thursday, October 6, 2011


Drilling for Natural Gas in New York, 2011: Ron would be pleased.

So Obama claims he’s the new Reagan? Step into my parlor, little fly. Let’s talk ENERGY:

Governor Ronald Reagan, League of Women Voters Presidential Debate, Cleveland, Ohio, October 28, 1980, in response to a question from Harry Ellis, national correspondent from the Christian Science Monitor:

“I do believe that this Nation has been portrayed for too long a time to the people as being energy-poor when it is energy-rich. The coal that the President mentioned: Yes, we have it, and yet one-eighth of our total coal resources is not being utilized at all right now. The mines are closed down; there are 22,000 miners out of work. Most of this is due to regulations which either interfere with the mining of it or prevent the burning of it. With our modern technology, yes, we can burn our coal within the limits of the Clean Air Act. I think, as technology improves, we'll be able to do even better with that.
The other thing is that we have only leased out and begun to explore 2 percent of our Outer Continental Shelf for oil, where it is believed by everyone familiar with that fuel and that source of energy that there are vast supplies yet to be found. Our Government has, in the last year or so, taken out of multiple use millions of acres of public lands that once were — well, they were public lands subject to multiple-use exploration for minerals and so forth. It is believed that probably 70 percent of the potential oil in the United States is probably hidden in those lands, and no one is allowed to even go and explore to find out if it is there. This is particularly true of the recent efforts to shut down part of Alaska.
Nuclear power: There were 36 powerplants planned in this country — and let me add the word "safety;" it must be done with the utmost of safety. But 32 of those have given up and canceled their plans to build, and again, because Government regulations and permits and so forth make it take more than twice as long to build a nuclear plant in the United States as it does to build one in Japan or in Western Europe.
We have the sources here. We are energy-rich, and coal is one of the great potentials we have."


Senator Barrack Hussein Obama, January 17, 2008, Interview with San Francisco Chronicle:

"Let me sort of describe my overall policy.
What I've said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else's out there.
I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.
So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.
That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel [Ed.: See Solyndra] and other alternative energy approaches.
The only thing I've said with respect to coal, I haven't been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a (sic) ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.
So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can.
It's just that it will bankrupt them.


Results? Well...., let's just examine the price per barrel of crude oil during the Reagan and Obama Presidencies:


January 1981: $38.00 per barrel.
January 1989: $18.50

Oil Price Change: Price DROPPED by 51%, over 8 years. And the average for the year 1983 (Reagan's 3d year, comparable to 2011 for Obama) was $29/barrel. A drop of 23%.


January 2009: $33.07
October 6, 2011: $82.35

Oil Price Change: Price JUMPED by 148% (ONE HUNDRED FORTY-EIGHT PERCENT), in just 2 2/3 years. We can only imagine where it will be in January 2013.

(Oh, and remember that oil-biz/Halliburton-controlled puppet George W. Bush? When he took office in January 2001, the price per barrel was $28.66…In October 2003 it was $27.07, down 6%.)


For Obama to compare himself to Ronald Reagan is like a tumor comparing itself to your brain.