CHRISTOPHER NOLAN AS THE NEW KING AHASUERUS

 "At loooooonnnng last, sir, have you no shame?  Have you no sense of decency?"--Counsel Robert Welch to Sen. Joseph McCarthy, in a dramatic, but unfair moment.

But I'm not being unfair with Christopher Nolan, the new Ahasuerus.  Nolan has chosen to create a film that has not only inspired righteous outrage amongst all people who revere the majesty and power of Homer's Odyssey, but has also managed to light an extra flame of hatred for the Jews in the modern anti-Semitic flood.  A two-fer!

As we learn from the Tanakh and the Midrash, Ahasuerus was the king of Persia who ruled over most of the world's Jews in exile after the fall of the First Temple.  In the 3rd year of his rule, he calculated that the prophecy by Jeremiah that the Jews would return to Israel after seventy years in exile had officially expired, and therefore he ordered a grand celebration to which he invited all the top Jewish notables in the kingdom.  Ahasuerus specifically had all-kosher meals of the finest quality prepared and served at the feast.  He actually opened up his royal storerooms to have the holy vessels and cookwares that had been looted by Nebuchadnezzar's army from the Holy Temple removed, and used them to serve his honored guests.  And he specifically clothed himself in the captured vestments of the High Priest of the Temple, as he presided over this feast.

Interestingly, we are taught that all of the Jewish notables at the time accepted the invitation to come to the feast.  All, that is, except for Mordechai.  He had a young cousin, Hadassah, better known in the modern literature as Esther.  Are you recognizing the story of Purim now?

So why did Mordechai refuse to attend and share in this opulent feast?  Wasn't it a great honor for the Jews?  Wasn't it a priceless chance to improve their influence in the court of this immensely powerful ruler?  Wasn't the king specifically singling out the Jews for recognition?  Wasn't this a good thing?

Well, obviously NOT.  The whole thing was meant to be a chillul HaShem, a spit in God's face, a dishonor of the most profound and cosmic kind, a celebration and recognition that the God of Israel had been proven to be fake and conquered and of no import whatsoever.   Certainly nothing to concern the ruler of Persia!

Which brings us to Christopher Nolan and the Odyssey film.  He has taken a classic of literature and culture that has been universally honored for literally millenia, and somehow conjured up a total mockery of everything it stands for, especially the ancient Greek culture that actually produced it!  It really is a colossal fraud that he even gets away with using "The Odyssey" and "Homer" in the marketing of the film.  Uggghhh, the whole thing is so profound and total and gross, yet I see intelligent people throwing out all types of frivolous, insultingly dumb reasons to find a nugget in the muck.  "Ohhhh, a new way of viewing Odysseus!...Ohhhh, maybe golden haired means African!  Ohhh, such a musical score!...Ohhhh, very moving!...Ohhhh, the kosher food!  Ohhhh,  the holy laver!  Ohhhhh, the High Priest's breastplate!"  

People, people, people, the whole thing is a deliberate insult, a deliberate spit in the face to this incredible poem, its author, and the people whose astonishing heritage made it possible.   Are we really so blinkered and naive that we can't see it?

I sure can.  I hope you can, too.

Finally, we should note that Ahasuerus, like Christopher Nolan and his backers, also made a fatal miscalculation.  We are taught that the King used the wrong dates to calculate the running of the seventy-years clock for Jeremiah's prophecy, and therefore there were a couple of years left.  Ouch.  And then a new King of Persia, Cyrus the Great, came to power, and encouraged the Jews to return and rebuild the Temple.  Which they did.

Just like Ahasuerus, Nolan's project will fail, mark my words.  Let's all pitch in to make sure.

"Down the Memory-Hole," huh? Not so fast!!...

My, my, myyyyyy, leftist bots & trolls on Twitter just about came unglued when I pointed out a self-evident fact (self-evident to anyone with eyes and ears who didn't live in a cave from 2009 to 2017) about our verbissoner 44th President:  that "Obama was the first President in American history who actively enjoyed seeing Americans fighting each other, and encouraged it.  I tell my son this was the worst thing about him."

Wow, you'd have thought I'd written that a marriage is between a man and a woman, to see the knees jerk.  He was so uniting, so calming, so consensusing, they roared.   Hahaaa, I can take a joke as well as anyone.  But then they actually challenged me to prove it.  Like they were living in rubber rooms through eight long years of Obamunism.  Maybe they were?

There's no point in wasting anytime to try to persuade these mugs, even if they are, maybe, something more than algorithms.  But as a public service, I decided to put together a little handy reference guide for anyone looking for a few examples of Obama's divisiveness, all in one place.  In about ten minutes, I could recall 16.  I'm sure I've barely scratched the surface, if you think of more contact me here or on Twitter (@JewishOdysseus), I'm happy to add to the list!

Herewith--

Obama The Great Divider, Part I:

1)  Even before he was elected, Obama was inciting his minions to "get in the faces" of people who planned to vote for someone else, in Nevada, September 17, 2008.

2)  Obama went onto a foreign broadcast platform, Univision, and freely told Hispanic voters to "punish your enemies" in the midterm US elections, on October 25, 2010.

3)  After Trayvon Martin made the unwise choice of jumping a man who had a lawful firearm, and pounding him into the pavement, Obama chose immediately to pour gasoline rather than water on the fire, by saying "If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon." (White House remarks, May 23, 2012)

4.)  In one of the most breathtakingly condescending and obtuse comments ever made by a candidate, Obama wrote off about 70% of the US population by characterizing them as rural dolts who "get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them." (Fundraiser in San Francisco, April 6, 2008)

5)  Obama maligned his own grandmother as "a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe," but then clarified that a few days later as "she is a typical white person." (Philadelphia, March 18 and 20, 2008)

6)  Obama was in favor of traditional marriage, before he was against it, before he was in favor of it, before he was against it... (May 9, 2012)

7)  Of all the pastors in Chicago, Obama chose to bring his children to the church of Jeremiah Wright every week...yet Obama never heard a word of Jew-hating or racism. 

8)  Candidate Obama openly admitted to planning the bankrupting of coal-fired power-plants, sabotaging one of America's most important, and highest-employing industries.(San Francisco Chronicle interview, January 17, 2008)

COMING SOON...PART 2

DID JOHN BOEHNER ACCIDENTALLY SAVE AMERICA?

Genesis 12:3:"And I will bless those who bless you, 

And the one who curses you I will curse."

A lot of people, Jews and Christians, place great weight on those words from the Torah.  And whether you are a person of faith or just one who has studied history, it's hard to deny that those places where Jews were persecuted soon suffered catastrophe, while those where Jews were welcomed appeared to go on to historical success.

Maybe we're just confusing cause with effect?  Maybe a country that feels self-confident enough to welcome a persecuted minority has sufficient strengths and talents that it would prosper regardless of its welcoming attitude?  Hmmmmm...

Well, whether it's God's plan, or inherent qualities within the society...in a way it's irrelevant.  What counts is the society's BLESSING or CURSING of Israel.

The American President has now spent several months openly cursing Israel.  Plotting to weaken Israel. Strengthening Israel's foulest enemies.  Barack Hussein Obama pretended to be offended by Netanyahu's Congressional speech.  What a transparent liar, it's been Obama's relentless conspiring with Iran to help it destroy Israel that gave Bibi no choice. 

Our country has 3 branches of Government.  The Judicial branch obviously has no public say on this question.  The Executive branch has cursed Israel for many months.  But John Boehner, in a rather shockingly bold stroke, may have saved us all by piping up from the Legislative branch to bless Israel.

It is now a matter of accepted historical fact that Bibi's speech has been a burning poker up Obama's ass since he delivered it.  First he pretended he didn't watch it, then sent his worst political assassins to Israel to ensure Bibi's election defeat.

Epic fail, that.

Then Obama bizarrely started whining about Bibi's election rhetoric, suddenly discovering that "words matter."  (Unless the words are "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor," I guess.)  He attacked Bibi as...a racist! A two-state solution rejector! (no responsibility from Hamas or the Abbasniks, of course) Just today...a SPYER!! (guess Israel shouldn't ever try to get intel on Iran, huh?)

This is his second epic fail--Obama's curses against Israel are resulting in the assassination of his own Presidency.  Even Democrats are fast-walking to the exits as his bizarre rants are more and more cognizable as unadorned anti-Semitism, Farrakhan-style.

And what is John Boehner's significance?  Well, as the Speaker of the House, he is the one man more responsible than any other for our Legislative branch.  Boehner of course INVITED Bibi to address the Congress.  He also STOOD SOLID for his speech against serious and nasty Obamunist pressure (a firmness that shocked many of us long-time Boehner watchers), and he produced a grand, telegenic welcome for Bibi.  Now he has revealed that he will be visiting Israel soon.  

In short: John Boehner, acting in a real sense as a representative of the American people, unambiguously BLESSED Israel.

Those of us that are worried about Obama's cursing of Israel can at least find some consolation that he may have been neutralized by a blessing for Israel from a co-equal branch of government, made possible by a rare month of courage and clarity from Speaker John Boehner.  Considering America's founding history as an aspirational New Jerusalem, we can have some optimism that these blessings will outweigh the curses.  And America can rise up out of the filth and muck in which we've been mired under the Obama regime.

OF COURSE Hamas are War Criminals

Flagrant Hamas War Crimes Broadcast Over International TV.  Yaawwwn. 

Found this lovely little webpage, produced by, of all people, the "Society of Professional Journalists."  This reference on the Geneva Conventions on the laws of war is chock-full of evidence that those filthy Hamasniks are, obviously, flagrantly guilty of multitudinous war crimes.  War crimes so numerous as to prove beyond any doubt that they are Hamas's foundational core strategy.

Let's see if we recognize any patterns of behavior that we've seen a few thousand times since Hamas murdered those three teen Joooooos in June:

Civilian shields


Civilians must not be used to protect military installations or operations against attacks. (Protocol I, Art. 51, Sec. 7)
Civilian status

Feigning of civilian or non-combatant status is perfidy and prohibited by the Geneva Conventions. (Protocol I. Art. 37, Sec. 1 

Combatant status :(...)

In addition to rights, combatants also have obligations under the Geneva Conventions.

In the case of an internal conflict, combatants must show humane treatment to civilians and enemies who have been wounded or who have surrendered. Murder, hostage-taking and extrajudicial executions are all forbidden. (Convention I, Art. 3)
Grave breaches (...)


 Grave breaches of the Conventions and Protocols are war crimes.

Willful killing, hostage taking and torture . (Protocol IV, Art. 147)

Attacking cultural objects when they're not located near a military target or used for the war effort. (Protocol I, Art. 85, Sec. 4D)

Perfidy It is prohibited to pretend to surrender, without an actual intention to do so. (Protocol I, Art. 37, Sec. 1)

Pretending to seek a cease-fire with the intent to betray the confidence in order to kill, injure or capture an adversary is perfidy and is prohibited. (Protocol I, Art. 37, Sec. 1a)

California Public School Teacher/School Board Member Spreads Hate-Israel Libels on Twitter

Traditional Dance Troupe in Holon, 

at 20th Anniversary Celebration of

Operation Solomon in 2011--

Yeah, THIS is what Israel was trying

Desperately to Prevent.  Right.

 
Tweet #1:

@JewishOdysseus @CletisStump Did you read the Haaretz article?  They were given birth control w/o knowledge or consent.  That *is* genocide.
— Laura González (@SoCoLaura) March 27, 2014

Tweet #2:

@JewishOdysseus @CletisStump Genocide by UN definition.  Look it up. Israel ADMITTED they did this.  What are you arguing about?
— Laura González (@SoCoLaura) March 27, 2014

Tweet #3:

@JewishOdysseus google the def of genocide. Keeping ppl from reproducing is a form, according to UN.
— Laura González (@SoCoLaura) March 27, 2014

Tweet #4:

@JewishOdysseus Hasbara.
— Laura González (@SoCoLaura) March 27, 2014

Tweet #5:

@JewishOdysseus The same one that puts them in prisons in the Negev? That keeps them out of certain villages?
— Laura González (@SoCoLaura) March 27, 2014

Here is this lady's FaceBook page.

Rebuilding the Holy Temple: This Is The RIGHT Thing To Do, and We All Know It.

My friends, imagine if you will a kind of Einsteinian thought experiment, with the question being:

“Can we posit or theorize a single action that would:

*Make Ahmedinejad and the mullahs go weak in the knees with terror and rage?

*Shock and confuse the worldwide left-progressive mob?

*Refute, delegitimize and invalidate the theory and practice of shariah?  And provoke an existential crisis within the ideology of Islam?

*Leave George Soros and his White House puppet utterly confused and humiliated?

*Make courage and inspiration swell in the breast of every true Christian and Jew, and every other human with a soul, on earth?

*This action would instantly halt the largest ongoing process of archeological vandalism since the Taliban blew the Bamyan Buddhas to smithereens;  and actually restore one of the most storied and ancient religious sites of all of human history.

*And this single action could be executed by a sovereign, democratic government…without any need for an invasion nor intervention upon any other country.

*And, strictly as an added bonus...MAAAAAAAYYYYYBE even speed the arrival of the Messiah?

Imagine this, all in theory.

If we could posit such an action, would you support it?“

What’s not to like?

A REAL Troublemaker.

Ladies and Gentlemen, allow me to introduce the visionary Rabbi Chaim Richman, the international director of the Temple Institute, and a man who along with all of the great folks at the Institute, has devoted his life to rebuilding the Holy Temple of Jerusalem.  Yes, the same Temple that was built by King Solomon in 957 B.C.E.; demolished by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 B.C.E.;  rebuilt by Haggai and Zechariah in 516 B.C.E, and expanded by Herod in 16 C.E.;  and then destroyed a second time by Titus in 70 C.E.

This coming Sunday, March 30, Rabbi Richman and his dedicated comrades will host the Fifth Annual International Temple Mount Awareness Day (ITMAD)  webcast (and RE-webcast) live from the holy city of Jerusalem for 4 solid hours.   The purpose of this event is to increase support for the many organizations, both in and out of Israel, that are working to rebuild the Holy Temple, on its original spot on Mount Moriah.  Informative links to the program can also be found here, here and here.

Everyone knows that Israel liberated all of Jerusalem in the 1967 Six Day War;  but I doubt if anyone knows exactly why, for nearly 47 years (so far), Israel refused to exercise its lawful sovereignty over the single holiest Jewish site, inside its own capital.  “It didn’t seem like a good idea at the time,” I guess.  But, as we all know, it’s never too late to do the right thing.

[And for those who have been misled into believing that only G-d himself can restore the Holy Temple to its rightful place, you need to listen to any or all of Rabbi Richman's 5-part video series, "The Holy Temple: Man-made or Heaven sent?," based on the teachings of the Rambam/Maimonides, that decisively refutes this pernicious and corrosive myth.]

Enjoy this interview with the founder of the Temple Institute, Rabbi Yisrael Ariel, who was one of the paratroopers who liberated the Temple Mount in 1967

One argument that has been offered repeatedly over the years is that, ”If Israel does this now, it will destabilize moderate Arab regimes, and threaten the Camp David Accords.”  Well,  as we review the wreckage of Western Mideast policy in March 2014—with the Muslim Waqf still being allowed to control the Temple Mount-- that argument is the deadest of dead letters, n’est ce pas?

On the merits, there is a compelling case to rebuild the Holy Temple now.  The Waqf has delighted in destroying and trashing (as in:  bringing to the town dump) as many artifacts from the original Temples as it could, and pursuing a rogue policy of expanding its two sites—the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aksa Mosque without regard for the Jewish archeological treasures that overflow Har HaBayit (the Temple Mount).  By commencing the rebuilding project now, and ejecting the waqf from the Temple Mount until it is complete, Israel will be able to preserve or salvage those treasures, in keeping with the universally-recognized high standards of its Antiquities Authority, without the absurd distraction of obscurantist-inspired riots to interfere with their work.

Perhaps most important, by making the inalterable decision to rebuild the Temple, Israel will effectively throw the deadly bucket of water onto the Wicked Witch of Islam.  Ever since Khomeini returned to Iran in 1979, revanchist Islam has become bolder and bolder in its threats against both Israel, da Joooooooooooos, and the West in general.  Indeed, the last time Muslim zealots felt so free to proclaim a coming “momentous massacre” was in the days of Gamal Abdel Nasser.  In 1967.

Nasser trafficked in military threats, was crushed on the battlefield, and was a shadow of his former self until he died a few years after.  Today’s Islamists traffic in koranic threats and prophecies, and until now not a single major figure has stood up to address and refute their disgusting libels.

But actions speak louder than words.  Once the Jewish Temple is rebuilt and consecrated on Mount Moriah in Jerusalem, can you imagine the shock and consternation amongst the Islamists?  Instantly, all these odious and lurid koranic sermons against the Jews will be rendered nothing short of ridiculous and laughable;  while the faith of the supporters of Israel will be strengthened and vindicated.  And will this lead to a more peaceful world?

Well, as a well-known Arabian Muslim said in 2001:  “When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse.”  What would demonstrate the strength of the Jewish people and their faith more conclusively than the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem?

Just a few years back, what did the vile octogenarian Yusuf Qaradawi bray out to a roaring crowd of Cairo jihadis?  That he plans to pray at the alAksa mosque.   Imagine if his dream is thwarted by the presence of the third Holy Temple?  It might even provoke an aneurysm in the old demon.

Back in 1980, Ronald Reagan was pilloried by the sophisticates and beautiful morons for asserting that America’s (unsuccessful) effort to save South Vietnam from communism was a “noble cause.”  Reagan ignored the catcalls, and crushed an incumbent president-sophisticate.  That is a lesson for us as we contemplate how close we are to seeing the rebuilding of the Holy Temple in our days, for what nobler cause could conceivably be found on the face of the earth?

Let's all pray that this effort will eventually grow to become much more than a finger in the eye of Satan, something much more decisive:

EERIE AND TERRIFYING AMATEUR VIDEOS OF INDONESIAN MT. SINABUNG VOLCANO ERUPTING

Just shy of 7 years ago, I pointed out that volcanoes have had an enormous effect on the earth's climate.  It is quite unappreciated how tremendous are the cubic tonnages of ash, gases, acids, and many volatile chemicals that burst into the atmosphere from even a small volcanic eruption.

Today (February 1) another "small" volcano erupted on the Indonesian island of Sumatra.  Take a look here at these amateur videos, taken from nearby the volcano,  Mt. Sinabung,  to get an idea of the colossal power of these events.  They positively dwarf the effects of man-made pollution.

And you thought THIS winter was cold...

Howard Dean Demonstrates his Respect for North Carolina Voters

Testing, 1-2-3. Testing, 1-2-3...

For my olll' buddy CoolCzech:

Richie Incognito Didn't Do a Damm Thing Wrong

This is what happens when the offensive line fails to toughen each other up.

Have sports commentators and fans lost their collective minds?

Hasn't even a single one of them ever played on a post-Pop Warner football team? You know, where teammates--ESPECIALLY the linemen-- routinely smash, insult, gross out, cuss out, and variously abuse one another 6 days a week?   And then unite together in common cause on the seventh day, where they sacrifice literally bone and blood for each other against the Common Enemy?

One point that I've seen no-one else make--so I will make it here. In a given season, your average high-school-on-up football player actually plays against opposing teams less than 10% of the season.  Depending on practice hours, more than 90% of their playing is done in practice, against one another.

Of course, there is a double competitive element during team practices: first, who will be chosen by the coach to be the starting players, and get lots of playing time, glory, and in the pros, money;  second, how the team will practice against one another such that the whole team gets the maximum out of its potential, and works at its best as a collective unit on game day.  Every single player, coach, and participant at every level understands this as self-evident and hopelessly obvious. "We play as hard as we can AGAINST EACH other in practice all week, so we can work TOGETHER as cohesively as we can on game day. Of course!"

My gaawwd, in the practices and in the locker room after the practices, football teammates are brutal to one another...but this brutality is designed to elevate every player's performance, to ruthlessly get the most out of each player's potential, so the team will perform to its maximum potential.  Of course, in other sports similar things are done, but no other sport requires hugely muscled players to literally smash, grab, and slam into one another with maximum force and velocity on every single play of the game.  When a baseball player tries to make a point to his teammates by slamming his own head into his own locker, it's an exception;  when a football player does it, it's routine.

By all accounts, Richie Incognito was the Big Dawg amongst the Miami linemen, and took it upon himself to psyche up his comrades by time-tested and well-accepted techniques: threats, humiliations, insults, racial/ethnic/religious slurs (yes, and they traditionally go BOTH ways amongst teammates), and believe it or not, a vigorous and sincere bout of praise when he feels the teammate would really benefit from it (which is rarely). Maybe he misjudged Jonathan Martin, maybe he did not; but no-one denies that Incognito's sole purpose was to psyche up Jonathan Martin so he would maximize his performance.

It may be useful to take a little trip down memory lane, to see how athletes used to view these things in the 1960's, back when dinosaurs roamed the earth.  One of my childhood heroes was the Boston Celtics center Bill Russell, who won 11 NBA championships over his 13 year career.  Russell played 9 of those years with forward Tommy Heinsohn (who later coached the Celtics to two more championships.)  Here is what Russell wrote in his autobiography "Go Up For Glory" in 1966:

               "I said one time and I say it again that 
          (Celtics coach Red) Auerbach made one big
          mistake with Heinsohn.  He should have made
          Heinsohn run until he fell down and then thrown
          water on him and told him to start running again." 

Wow.  THAT doesn't sound very sensitive.  Sounds a little brutal, even cruel.  And do I really need to point out that Russell was black, and Heinsohn a pale-face?

But then again...There ARE those 11 championships in 13 years...Hmmmm...

The obvious unstated purpose of this Incognito/Martin "narrative" is to land a decisive blow in the bizarre Progressive battle to emasculate our culture.  This is a dangerous trend that has accelerated in the Obama years (notice that the mom-jeans President has officially stated that he would not let his son play football, if he had a son).  But these Progressives fail to understand that if you suppress and extirpate normal, healthy masculine urges that have been channeled into productive and controlled areas, then the result will NOT be less masculinity; the result will be abnormal, unhealthy masculine actions exploding in destructive and uncontrolled areas.  You have less riflery clubs, hunters and soldiers; you'll have more gangbangers and psycho gunmen.   Less football players and boxers; more wife-beating and rape.

We all need to push back against this idiotic emasculation of what should be a wholesome and properly balanced society, where masculinity and femininity bring out the best in each other by bold contrast, without the relentless demoralization of one by a baleful ideology.

October 25. A very sad day.

"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.

WANTED: GOP STREET-FIGHTERS (or Human Targets, same thing)

 

This is what the D-Rats seek for us Republicans.

Surely the world will be a much better place if we put THEM there instead.

 
The great website Ace of Spades hit the nail on the head recently, focusing on the "morale" of the Republican Party.  Morale is everything.  EVERYTHING.

What is morale?  It is NOT the belief you are destined to win...it is the belief YOU DESERVE TO WIN.  That you are FIGHTING ON THE SIDE OF GOOD & MORALITY.

The D-Rats have demoralized every single Republican leader in modern times, with the exception of Reagan (D-Rat his whole life until he was 52) and Newt Gingrich.  Notice that they were the only Repubs who got any significant victories vs. the Progressives.  And notice that they were the 2 Repubs targeted more than any other.

Speaking of TomDeLay & his successful appeal today: The D-Rats HATED that guy.  He was arguably the #4 target for the D-Rats all-time (Nixon was #3, due to his Communist-fighting).  Delay was an aggressive conservative Repub first elected in TX in 1978...when that state was still D-Rat majority.  He was a real working-class guy (exterminator), and he then got elected to the House in 1984.  DeLay became a leading conservative there, and we all know he was able to preserve Repub win after win in the House w/a razor-thin majority for years..  How? Because HE WANTED TO WIN, and he believed HE DESERVED TO WIN.

Boehner has led the House for 2.5 years w/a much bigger majority...how many wins has he had? Because he has no MORALE.  Because he has, yes,  a LOSING attitude.  Because he really, in his heart of hearts, doesn't WANT to win. 

Why?  Hard to say.  Probably doesn't want to be a target (like Delay & Gingrich were), and actually enjoys the lack of accountability & responsibility that comes with being a powerless minority. 

The Roves & the Boehners & the Kantors & the Grahams & the McLames...Sheesh, if they'd have just turned their formidable assets to  work WITH the conservatives the past 6 months, can you imagine how much stronger our position wd be?  But they really are demoralized, and they really feel more comfortable with the D-Rats who patronize them as they buy them off, rather than the boisterous TeaParty conservatives who actually are the only hope for our country.

Years ago I used walk every day past a D-Rat campaign office of a prominent local Mass. D-Rat pol (in Mass., 90% of elected legislators are D-Rats).  They had a sign in the window: "MAKE SOMETHING HAPPEN."  You ever play sports?  Every good coach tells his players the same thing.  It means, OF COURSE, you as a player can't win the game on any given play, but it signifies that you ARE THINKING about winning, ALL THE TIME, and you are thinking on every single play how you can hurt your opponent and help your team. 

This D-Rat douche was running in a district where D-Rats had a 10-1 voter registration advantage, but they were still encouraging their people to "make things happen," and crush the [pathetic] Republican enemy.  They were...NOT DEMORALIZED.  Evil, yes, but not demoralized.

We Conservatives see that Sens Cruz, Paul & Lee are truly trying to MAKE SOMETHING HAPPEN.  Maybe it won't work, but it has the benefit of not being D-Rat pre-approved.  The Establishment Repubs allow filthy and evil D-Rat traitors like Schumer, Reid, Obama & Pelosi to set the parameters of "acceptable opposition." Is that a winning strategy? Is that even SANE? 

BTW, part of D-Rat demoralization strategy is of course to get us fighting amongst ourselves, but only if it's a horse-race, unprincipled fight.  They do NOT want us to fight about principles, which is actually a rather appealing, dramatic scene.  Notice guys like Rove & Reince never argue about principles, just tactics. 

BTW, when was the last time KarlRove won an important, uphill victory, anyway?  WhyTF shd we take his approach?  So he can do for us what he did for GWBush's social security reform? 

Just before I wrote this, I saw a new ad from Boehner, attacking Obama for negotiating w/Putin, but not Repubs.  It's a lot weaker than we need, but it's SOMETHING.  Again, such a shame that he's had a position of so much influence and power for 2.5 years and been so pitifully passive & gun-shy about exercising it.

I also have a sneaky suspicion that a lot of these 50+-something Repub leaders are just allergic to criticizing a [(half)black man, a perfect example of what GWBush called the soft-bigotry of low expectations.  So I guess they are proving themselves to be soft bigots?  Well, what do you think a Gingrich/DeLay House majority wd have done if a WHITE President had asked a Russian official for breathing room until after the election, when he cd show "more flexibility"?  They'd have had non-stop hearings for a month!  And unless the Prez promptly groveled and apologized, they'd have commenced impeachment hearings for treason!  With Boehner, the issue...was never even an issue.  Can't be questioning the integrity and patriotism of our first black President...Who to this day has never had to answer for it.

If the Establishment Repubs are demoralized by a communistic black Prez, we can only imagine how lovey-dovey they'll be with a pant-suited old harpy.  Ugh.

As Ace put it so beautifully in another essay, the purpose of a political party is NOT just to win, but to advance a certain set of ideas and principles that (in theory) the party is supposed to represent.  NOT sell out those principles to achieve a 10% watered down version of the enemy's policy, and certainly not to build up the world's biggest and most profitable donor database.

The historical principles of the Republican Party ARE good and moral.  The D-Rat Party has been pursuing pure evil for at least 20 years.  There is no reason to cross the aisle to these scum, and our party's leaders need to get this throu

Fighting the D-Rats in ways that they DON'T approve of is a start.  Let's get out there and MAKE SOMETHING HAPPEN!

gh their heads, ASAP.  Else they will be tossed aside like snot-rags, and deservedly so.

New York Times: INCOMPETENT Robber Barons

Soooo many beautiful little nuggets from the announcement that the pathetically crooked and progessive Boston Globe is going to be sold by the New York Times to the owner of the Red Sox, John Henry for a paltry $70 million...Where to begin, ohhh, where to begin?!

Well, before they pull it down, how's bout the Globe's OWN DESCRIPTION in today's paper of how the Times used them after their 1993 purchase? Ahem:

The Times Co. is selling the Globe for far less than the $1.1 billion it paid for the paper in 1993, when the business was highly profitable and the Globe fetched a record price. The Times Co., like other business owners, withdrew a large stream of cash from the Globe during its ownership — a sum at least equal to the purchase price, according to several former high-ranking Globe executives.

Uhhhhh...Isn't that what all good lefties, progs and Democrats decry with horror as "CORPORATE LOOTING"?! Economic VAMPIRISM?! Draining a viable company DRY of revenues--at least $1.1 billion over 20 years!--then selling the near-worthless husk off to some even crueler capitalist for the coup de grace?!  Say it ain't so, Pinch!

Next, let's dig a little deeper into the Times' investment performance here.  We're talking about the SMARTEST people in America, recall, home of Seewwwper-Economics Genius Paul Krugman.  The Time paid $1.1 billion in 1993 dollars in 1993...and collected $70 million in 2013.  Nominally, that looks like they rode that bitch into the ground to the tune of 93.3%, with a paltry 6.7% value remaining.  But no-one lives nominally, do they?  Let's see what those 1993 dollars were like compared to 2013 dollars...   

When the Times bought the Globe in 1993, with $1.1 billion you could have bought 2,957,000 ounces of gold (yup, nearly 3 million ounces), more or less.  Or 62,535,532 barrels of oil.  Today, with their $70 million, they can buy 53,411 ounces of gold (a purchasing power reduction of 98.2%, just 1.8% value remaining), or 651,344 barrels of oil (purchasing power reduced by 98.9%, or 1.1% value remaining)...a truly mind-boggling anti-investment performance!

Remember Steve Martin's ridiculous old skit? "I'm working on a new book...'How I turned a million in real estate into 25 dollars CASH.'" The econ. brainiacs at the New York Times apparently thought that was a serious instruction manual...

Another way of looking at this stupefying financial waste: If the Times had taken that $1.1 billion in 1993, and invested it into top-grade 20-year bonds, then running at more than 6%...They could have had both their cash stream of $1.1 billion-plus, PLUS the return of their entire principal TODAY.

Oh, amidst the big news today it seems almost everyone forgot that the Times REJECTED a buyout of the Globe 5 months back...that offer was for "more than $100 million."  Seems like the Times grossly overvalued its asset, and paid a $30 million-plus penalty for its greed.  Hey, I thought this suck-em-dry-for-maximum-profit capitalism stuff was supposed to be easy, if you didn't care about your employees?

Keep all this in mind the next time you hear some fantasy-world egg-head like Paul Krugman pontificating on subjects economic in the laughable pages of the New York Times.

SPECIAL BONUS LINK:  Just look at these NYTimes losers whining about their reduced pension fund payouts in this famous YouTube vid from last year...Can't imagine the projections have gotten any better, since the Times sold the Globe, but KEPT the Globe's $100 million pension liability.  Hilarious!:

Our Own Little Vozhd...

And we thought this type of bureaucratic abuse and tyranny was long dead...

So now we learn that the thugette Obama has appointed as head of the IRS ObamaCare Enforcement Division (the force charged with documenting every detail of our private lives so we can all get far crappier healthcare) has been groomed for that role by running the tax-exempt division as it repressed the Tea Parties.

Folks, this is a deadly serious exposure of how modern totalitarians use a purportedly neutral bureaucracy to annihilate political enemies. The keys are:

[1] Position reliable agents in key posts inside the bureaucracy, where they
[2] "Neutrally" use their official powers to destroy enemies and help allies/sponsors, and
[3] are NEVER genuinely punished for their difficult-to-prove crimes.

[3] is KEY, since if they are actually punished the reliable agents will be less reliable, require more definitive, explicit instructions, and the whole magically-functioning KafkaPenalColony loses its magic.

The first expert at this wicked model was Iosif Stalin, who used his own reliable agents within the supposedly solidaristic Communist bureaucracy to consecutively crush Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bukharin, and hundreds of other giants of the October Revolution who couldn't acknowledge his godlike awesomeness. How much easier is it for a progressive America-hater like Obama to use his anonymous bureaucracies to relentlessly choke the life out of the American citizenry?

On a more local level, just remember the famous words of Boston Democrat machine-pol Martin Lomasney from the last century:  "Never write if you can spoeak.  Never speak if you can nod.  Never nod if you can wink."

These filthy gangsters that Obama salted through the IRS (and the State Dept; and Justice, and the EPA; and...) barely needed a wink..But they expected, and expect, that their fanatical loyalty will be rewarded by protection from punishment.

So Obama will not punish them.  Unless his hand is absolutely forced. 

THE OATH.

We conservatives are not destroyers by nature.

We are creative.  Builders.  Developers.  Growers, farmers, fixers, inventors, improvers.  We naturally turn AWAY from an option that calls for destruction, incineration, or annihilation.

That, alas, has been our fatal weakness.  That is why, in spite of all our abilities and efforts, we are where we are.

We look around us, and logically conclude that about half of our fellow countrymen are incredibly deluded, ignorant, or selfish.  But what about evil?  Shouldn’t we all agree that truly evil people, or institutions, must be utterly destroyed?

The Nazi Party…The Sinaloa cartel…The Democratic Party?

It is important to note that the Democratic Party today has been completely conquered by the “Progressive”/communist faction that so ferociously attacked Harry Truman from 1945-52.  Truman routed these folks, and vaccinated the party for about 15 years…But they have returned to effectively burn down Truman’s tomb and piss on the ashes, much like Khomeini’s gangs did to the tomb of the Shah’s father in Iran.

The Democratic Party has always been the natural home of the worst impulses in American politics:  imperialism, slavery, segregation, Leninism, isolationism, anti-Semitism, concentration camps, atheism…you name it.  But it generally kept those evil impulses and factions under the control of more responsible adults.

Not any more.  The homicidal maniacs are truly running the asylum, not to mention the parole board, the police department, the district attorney’s office, and the courts.  You say I exaggerate?  Until he felicitously hit the wrong Tweet button, a sexual predator/pervert-to-the-boner named Weiner was considered a future leader of the Democrat Party, and a ruthless thug/sex maniac named Spitzer was thought to be their natural post-Obama candidate for President.  And  have we already forgotten Democrat Congressman Jefferson, whose freezer contained $90,000 in bribe money when his home was miraculously raided?  Did a single network report he was sentenced to 13 years prison just months ago? 

How many Weiners and Spitzers and Jeffersons remain amongst the leaders of the Democrats, but just haven’t been outed?  We know the logical answer:  ALL OF THEM.  If there were any decent ones left, they’d have long ago expelled such filthy criminals from their party.  But no…THEY DEFENDED THEM, until their positions became untenable.  They DEFENDED them because THEY ARE THEM.

Ohhh, and Democrat racists are flooding out of the closet as never before.  You want to hear someone scream “NIGGER!,” my good man?  Watch a black man defend a conservative policy position in a public place, you’ll be transported back in time to the lovely streets of Selma, Alabama, 1962.  He might even get a finger bitten off, in addition to the slur.

So it is long past time that this ancient institution be put out of our misery.  Like a rabid dog, or a gangrenous arm, it really has no function left apart from endangering or killing healthy, normal organisms.

But killing even a rabid dog or sawing off a gangrenous arm is not for the faint of heart.  We must steel ourselves to this nasty, dangerous but essential task.  I propose that the first step to accomplishing this task—the utter destruction, incineration,  liquidation, and annihilation of the entity we know as the Democratic Party of the United States—is to bind ourselves to it.  Herewith, as a public service, I humbly offer this “Oath to Destroy the Democratic Party.” 

I suggest to read it first (see how anti-Democrat I am?), to ensure you agree with it.   This is, after all, a task that will outlive many of us. If you do, go to a quiet place, and bring with you a Bible or other sacred object for the Oath.  You can of course do it with other people, but for reasons of operational security it may be best to administer it alone.

Take the Oath out loud, and see if you don't perceive the world a bit differently once you've done so.  It helps to bring clarity, blessed clarity...

The Oath:

I do solemnly swear [or affirm]:

That it is self-evident that the Democratic Party has become a menace to freedom and to free people in these United States; and this present menace is irredeemable, unreformable, and unsalvageable.

That the Democratic Party has become a magnet, shelter and incubator for the most parasitic, perverse, violent and dangerous elements of our society.

That these elements have set as their objective, whether in concert or independently, to corrupt or destroy the productive, healthy, historical forces of our country.  Accordingly, the decision to destroy the Democratic Party is indisputably an essential, noble act of self-defense for any patriotic American.

Therefore, I hereby resolve to do everything within my power to effect that destruction, to include but not limited to, the following:

I will never knowingly help any Democrat to get elected to any office. 

I will not shrink from using any lawful means necessary to destroy the Democratic Party, but rather I will employ what I believe to be the most effective of those means with enthusiasm.

I will commit my resources to helping only those organizations that I believe are most determined and effective in weakening the Democratic Party; I will not support those organizations that strengthen it, deliberately or not.

If prudent, I will vote or contribute resources strategically to help a weaker, more vulnerable Democrat defeat a stronger one.

If prudent, I will infiltrate Democratic organizations to obtain information useful to injure them.  I will disseminate that information in a time and manner calculated to cause maximum damage to the Democratic Party.

 
If I work in the law enforcement or prosecutorial field, I will do everything in my power to ensure that appropriate resources are allocated to smash all Democratic Party racketeering and organized criminal activities, including voter fraud, welfare fraud, bribery, theft of public funds, fraudulent contracts for public projects, and bid-rigging.

If I work in the law enforcement or prosecutorial field, I will do everything in my power to ensure that every prominent Democrat guilty of any crime will be punished to the maximum extent of the law.

I will appropriately educate young or uninformed people about the historical crimes and conspiracies of the Democratic Party.

I will take particular care to appropriately educate people within my circles of faith about the historical attacks of the Democratic Party against faith and moral principles in America.

I may or may not disclose to any other person that I have sworn this oath, as I see fit; but I will never discourage another person from taking it.

I take this Oath freely, with no purpose other than attempting to save America’s freedom for future generations.

So help me God.

[They say a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.  That is undeniable.]

TO CLOSE WITH THE ENEMY AND DESTROY HIM.

Here is one of my favorite inspirational speeches, that seems very appropriate tonight--Irgun commander Menachem Begin, addressing his forces on April 25, 1948:

"Men of the Irgun! We are going out to conquer Jaffa. We are going into one of the decisive battles for the independence of Israel. Know who is before you, and remember whom you are leaving behind you. Before you is a cruel enemy who has risen to destroy us. Behind you are parents, brothers, children. Smite the enemy hard. Aim true. Save your ammunition. In battle, show no more mercy to the enemy than he shows mercy to our people. But spare women and children. Whoever raises his hands in surrender has saved his life. You will not harm him. You will be led in the attack by Lieutenant Gideon. You have only one direction: forward!"

THE SECRET OF THE ROMNEY LANDSLIDE: HERE COMES "THE SILBER EFFECT"--MOVE OVER, BRADLEY AND WILDER.

He just passed away in September, but the "Silber Shockers" live on. 

I've written before about the amazing election in Massachusetts 1990--how in just 5 days, an establishment Democrat's (Frank Bellotti) 23 point lead in the polls wound up as a 10 point defeat to a first-time campaigner (John Silber) in the actual primary ballots.  A 33 point discrepancy.  33 points in 5 days. So what happened?

Obviously, the poll respondents LIED.  Deceived.  Played possum.  Concealed their true intentions.  You know you're allowed to do that, right?  There's no law that says you have to answer a pollster truthfully?

But why do people lie to pollsters?  Well, probably because they feel uncomfortable with telling them their true feelings.  This propensity has been identified in the past as "the Bradley/Wilder effect," after 2 accomplished American politicians who lost elections quite handily after leading in the polls near election day.  Both of them were black, and went up against white opponents.  The Bradley/Wilder effect has been defined as a racial phenomenon, with white people not wanting to appear racist to the pollster by admitting he was planning to vote for the white candidate, and therefore lying. But what explains the Silber effect, where both candidates were white?

The Silber effect can be defined as respondents lying to pollsters because they don't want to admit they hold a politically incorrect view.  As the American media and popular culture has moved further and further into the berserk-left fever swamps, the number of normal people finding themselves to be further and further "out of the mainstream."  At least out of the abnormal, politically correct media world mainstream.  

Hence, more and more people lying to pollsters.

This would explain the tremendous crowds turning out for Mitt Romney (dwarfing those for Obama) and the enormous Republican gains in early voting and absentee ballots, while all the polls show the race within 2-3 points of 50% either way, even in states with strong Republican majorities in their statehouses, like Florida, Ohio, and Wisconsin.  It would explain the consistent panic and ill-temper of the Obama campaign, while the Romney folks are upbeat and cheerful. 

This year, we have a double-whammy.  We have a black vs. white candidate, but the black candidate is the incumbent, which in theory should render the Bradley/Wilder effect negligible.  But Pres. Obama ran in 2008 as a healer, a practical, common-sense moderate with the vaguest slogan ever heard, only to govern from the furthest left ever seen in the White House.  So expect A LOT of erosion of his support from broadly moderate or even liberal voters.  But in the privacy of the ballot box, not while talking to pollsters.

This theory is borne out by the following chart, (H/T to Doug Ross!) which shows some 13% of Obama's supporters admitting to abandoning him. Admitting it. 

 

Needless to say, in a static universe,  a candidate who receives 54% of the vote and then loses 13% of that is down to 47%...a 1% edge if the other side picks up 0 of those votes.  But all the real-world measures show a dramatic baseline Republican improvement since 2008, not a static universe.  And it appears that far more than zero of that 13% will in fact ADD to the non-static Republican total.

All of this is why I am confident we are looking at a thumping Romney landslide, with a popular vote of more than 55%.  Big electoral states like California, New York and Illinois are of course set for Obama, being more Democratic than they were in 1980, but I don't see how Romney winds up with much less than 380 electoral votes.

A FINAL TIP OF THE CAP BEFORE THE ELECTION:  I have to give Mitt Romney maximum props for a concluding line he delivered at the Al Smith Dinner a few weeks back.  It proved to me that, whatever "moderation" Romney has exhibited in his political career, he has the temperament and foundational philosophy of a true American conservative:

"In our country, you can oppose someone in politics and make a confident case against their policies without any ill will and that’s how it is for me. There’s more to life than politics."

So rare to hear this said out loud by a high political figure.  Beautiful, just beautiful.  Godspeed to Gov. Romney, who is in every sense an exemplary gentleman.