Not exactly news, but it is news to me.
Eight hundred pounds is a freaky big alligator as far as I'm concerned. That thang can eat you up.
There was a story that a Florida burglary suspect was attacked and eaten by a gator. Seems like a saw that on a news blurb somewhere.
Sugarland is where this 800 pound monster was. Sugarland might as well be in Houston, don't ya know. It's not technically Houston, but it may as well be.
You might wanna be real careful about kids and pets. That's a big gator, yessiree.
It's a surprise. I remember when somebody found some baby gators back in the seventies. That's a long time ago and it was weird even then. Frankly, I don't know how that thing got all the way to Houston without being discovered. There's only five million people in this region. They're saying that it wandered into the area because it was mostly blind.
Al Fin: "Cowboy Commentary", aka "Eat your veggies" The Flag banner is posted in order to defy those who would make patriotic symbols illegal or disreputable.
Saturday, December 12, 2015
Obligatory, 12.12.15; Not dead yet, but working on it
No need for alarm. Actually, I'm doing okay. It's late today for my first post, and the reason is that I worked a bit. Guaranteed to kill you one of these days. Got back about an hour ago and will go back a little later today. I'll try a little different schedule for awhile and see how it works.
Just looked over some Good Morning Vietnam videos and thought I might put one of those up for a little humor. Yeah, it gets a little tedious sometimes, doesn't it?
Some of the funnier scenes was where he's teaching English. The one guys says "I'm waiting to die" seemed to catch my attention. Aren't we all?
Just looked over some Good Morning Vietnam videos and thought I might put one of those up for a little humor. Yeah, it gets a little tedious sometimes, doesn't it?
Some of the funnier scenes was where he's teaching English. The one guys says "I'm waiting to die" seemed to catch my attention. Aren't we all?
Friday, December 11, 2015
Islamophobia
Which means that your dislike of Islam is really a dysfunction of your own diseased mind. You should seek help immediately!
/sarc
/sarc
Reading between the lines
In order to understand something better, perhaps you shouldn't consider what is explicitly said, but what explicitly isn't said. What I mean is in the latest Krugman column.
He isn't saying it, but he'd like the GOP to fracture, and those who disagree with the Trump faction can come onboard! Sure, the more, the merrier. Krugman doesn't say this, but he might as well say it.
He repeats the accusation against Trump, that he is racist, and so forth. He reminds those who disagreed with Trump- they encourage this kind of thing, so it isn't surprising. The GOP Establishment have lost control of the right wing, in much the same way as the Europeans have lost control over the far right. The base of the GOP is racist, just like Trump, or so Krugman tells us. In Europe, it isn't racism, but mere economic mismanagement that caused the political setback. We just need more of the same old thing, the people can't see it because the management has bungled things.
Bungling isn't why they lost control. People are questioning the substance of their leadership. Krugman cannot defend the failed policies, so he needs to divide in order to conquer.
It's a gambit being played out in the media for the most part. It is more likely to be safer that way. If it were otherwise, that is, if the Dems were behind this; the GOP would catch on, and stop it before any damage was done.
It could have happened before in presidential politics. The GOP could fall for a gambit like this.
They probably did in 1964, when LBJ had such a landslide that it brought forth the Great Society. Part of the reason for that landslide was that Goldwater was perceived to be too dangerous because he was seen as being too extreme. If Trump falls into this trap, he may well repeat history. The big stumbling block for Trump is not to appear too extreme, while keeping the party together. Reject the gambit and unite the party.
That's why Trump needs to get with the GOP Establishment and do what he claims he does best- make a deal. He needs to unite the Party before it fractures in two and causes a catastrophic defeat.
The media would love to enable such a fracture. As for the Dems, it cost them nothing if they just stand aside and let the media try its hand at some mischief. They have nothing to lose, and everything to gain by having their surrogates do their dirty work for them. Their policies surely won't win it for them.
He isn't saying it, but he'd like the GOP to fracture, and those who disagree with the Trump faction can come onboard! Sure, the more, the merrier. Krugman doesn't say this, but he might as well say it.
He repeats the accusation against Trump, that he is racist, and so forth. He reminds those who disagreed with Trump- they encourage this kind of thing, so it isn't surprising. The GOP Establishment have lost control of the right wing, in much the same way as the Europeans have lost control over the far right. The base of the GOP is racist, just like Trump, or so Krugman tells us. In Europe, it isn't racism, but mere economic mismanagement that caused the political setback. We just need more of the same old thing, the people can't see it because the management has bungled things.
Bungling isn't why they lost control. People are questioning the substance of their leadership. Krugman cannot defend the failed policies, so he needs to divide in order to conquer.
It's a gambit being played out in the media for the most part. It is more likely to be safer that way. If it were otherwise, that is, if the Dems were behind this; the GOP would catch on, and stop it before any damage was done.
It could have happened before in presidential politics. The GOP could fall for a gambit like this.
They probably did in 1964, when LBJ had such a landslide that it brought forth the Great Society. Part of the reason for that landslide was that Goldwater was perceived to be too dangerous because he was seen as being too extreme. If Trump falls into this trap, he may well repeat history. The big stumbling block for Trump is not to appear too extreme, while keeping the party together. Reject the gambit and unite the party.
That's why Trump needs to get with the GOP Establishment and do what he claims he does best- make a deal. He needs to unite the Party before it fractures in two and causes a catastrophic defeat.
The media would love to enable such a fracture. As for the Dems, it cost them nothing if they just stand aside and let the media try its hand at some mischief. They have nothing to lose, and everything to gain by having their surrogates do their dirty work for them. Their policies surely won't win it for them.
Trump Wants Death Penalty for Cop Killers | Truth Revolt
Trump Wants Death Penalty for Cop Killers | Truth Revolt
comment:
Trump can want it all it he wants, but he can't have it if others don't cooperate. Cop Killers get jury trials like anybody else. If the jury acquits, no death penalty. In some jurisdictions, ( I'm guessing here, cuz I don't know) the jury gets to determine the penalty. He can't override that.
This is more political theater than potential policy substance. In other words, he cannot be serious. There is something called the US Constitution that keeps him from assuming such authority.
comment:
Trump can want it all it he wants, but he can't have it if others don't cooperate. Cop Killers get jury trials like anybody else. If the jury acquits, no death penalty. In some jurisdictions, ( I'm guessing here, cuz I don't know) the jury gets to determine the penalty. He can't override that.
This is more political theater than potential policy substance. In other words, he cannot be serious. There is something called the US Constitution that keeps him from assuming such authority.
California Muslim Killer Passed Security Check w/Fake Address | Frontpage Mag
California Muslim Killer Passed Security Check w/Fake Address | Frontpage Mag
comment:
And the majority doesn't want a ban? Something's fishy going on.
Update:
Obama Administration canceled surveillance initiative that could have stopped San Berandino terrorists.
comment:
And the majority doesn't want a ban? Something's fishy going on.
Update:
Obama Administration canceled surveillance initiative that could have stopped San Berandino terrorists.
Do people know what sharia is?
I can only be certain about one thing, that I didn't know exactly what it was, but I knew that I shouldn't like it.
The reason I mention this is that a poll is out that says the people don't agree with Trump's statements about the ban on Muslims. Yet, another poll is out that says almost the same percentage say that they don't like Islam. There seems to be a disconnect there. The disconnect could be rectified by a bit of education, but who will supply it? It certainly won't be supplied by the ruling class, including their flunkies in the news media.
Sharia seems to be divided between the Koran and the so-called hadiths. Many Muslims consider the Koran to be the most authoritative source. The hadiths seem less so because those were written well after the death of their prophet. However, it is not entirely clear that all of Koran was written prior to the death of Mohammed.
So, what is sharia? Not that I know very much, only what I've read or heard about. It appears to be a code of law, indeed a code that is supposedly divinely inspired.
Thus, since a majority of Muslims prefer that sharia be applied to them, this puts them outside the law of the land. Our Constitution says that IT is the Supreme law of the land. Sharia doesn't fit in here, unless the Constitution is altered to allow it.
Do we really want a class of people who consider themselves outside the law?
There needs to be a really tough discussion about this, because most people, I suspect, don't know what they are getting themselves into on this question. I'm sure that with a proper education on the subject, the public would be squarely behind Trump on this matter. I think they already are, but are lacking some information that would allow them to be more confident about it. The culture strongly discourages what is come to be called "bigotry", but opposition to Muslim immigration has a legitimate basis to it. It is not based upon anything unfair, but the opposite. If those coming to this country do not want to abide by our laws, why should they be welcome?
Update:
It might be of interest for you to know that al Qaeda says that it is the guardian of sharia. Their words. h/t Besty's Page
The reason I mention this is that a poll is out that says the people don't agree with Trump's statements about the ban on Muslims. Yet, another poll is out that says almost the same percentage say that they don't like Islam. There seems to be a disconnect there. The disconnect could be rectified by a bit of education, but who will supply it? It certainly won't be supplied by the ruling class, including their flunkies in the news media.
Sharia seems to be divided between the Koran and the so-called hadiths. Many Muslims consider the Koran to be the most authoritative source. The hadiths seem less so because those were written well after the death of their prophet. However, it is not entirely clear that all of Koran was written prior to the death of Mohammed.
So, what is sharia? Not that I know very much, only what I've read or heard about. It appears to be a code of law, indeed a code that is supposedly divinely inspired.
Thus, since a majority of Muslims prefer that sharia be applied to them, this puts them outside the law of the land. Our Constitution says that IT is the Supreme law of the land. Sharia doesn't fit in here, unless the Constitution is altered to allow it.
Do we really want a class of people who consider themselves outside the law?
There needs to be a really tough discussion about this, because most people, I suspect, don't know what they are getting themselves into on this question. I'm sure that with a proper education on the subject, the public would be squarely behind Trump on this matter. I think they already are, but are lacking some information that would allow them to be more confident about it. The culture strongly discourages what is come to be called "bigotry", but opposition to Muslim immigration has a legitimate basis to it. It is not based upon anything unfair, but the opposite. If those coming to this country do not want to abide by our laws, why should they be welcome?
Update:
It might be of interest for you to know that al Qaeda says that it is the guardian of sharia. Their words. h/t Besty's Page
Thursday, December 10, 2015
Trying to piece something together here, folks
A couple days ago, I made the assertion that gold prices are being manipulated. I have no direct proof of that, but I recall reading something about how gold isn't being delivered on demand. Well, it was something like that. It refers to the futures market, which I am not familiar with at all. What I understand about futures, is that a commodity is promised to be delivered at a certain date at a specific price.
So, what happens if that promise isn't kept? What if it isn't just one instance, but a pattern of behavior that isn't being policed the way it should? What does that mean? How do these people accomplish that and not have the system crash?
In my search, I first went to Barnhardt's site and read up a couple of her essays. One was about the MF Global mess, and the other was about how We are the Gold. To paraphrase, she left the futures business she was in because it lost its integrity due to the handling of MF Global, and anyone who took part in the markets henceforth was going to be corrupted as well. She didn't want to lose her integrity. The essay linked above is why it was necessary for her to leave- the system had become corrupt. The system is US, you see. We are corrupt. We allow it, we tolerate it, then we become it.
So, naturally, it should not be hard to see how the futures market would get turned into something else, which is a paper system, which replaced a physical system. Indeed, I think this paper system is how gold pricing is being suppressed. The paper system creates a supply of gold which doesn't exist. The paper supply makes it appear that there's a gold glut, which depresses prices. If the paper gold had to be redeemed in physical form, prices would skyrocket, because there's not enough gold to supply thedemand claims. Think bank run in which the bank doesn't have the cash to meet depositor's demands for their cash.
Gold prices are down from 1900 dollars the ounce to under 1100 now. That's despite the fact that the government is still amassing greater and greater debt, and interest rates are still negative. That fact may be perplexing until you realize that it can only be the case if the market has become rigged in order to prop up the current regime ( or state of affairs if you wish not to be political ) .
So, I'm thinking we could be entering the end game here. The Fed Funds rate cannot stay near zero forever. Eventually, it must go back up. Once that happens, the usual thing occurs- a bubble pops, and a recession ensues. That's assuming the rates stay high enough and long enough. The Fed may lower rates again, but that solves nothing as the last several years has demonstrated.
That's because a negative interest rate cannot make the economy grow. For that, you need capital formation and for that you need savings. Savings won't occur if interest rates are negative. Growth must stop, and will stop. For all intents and purposes, it has stopped.
So, the Federal Reserve is trapped. They cannot raise rates without endangering the faux recovery, but they cannot cut rates without destroying capital formation. Indeed, one reason for the lackluster growth rate of this "recovery" is the probable lack of capital formation.
Poor economic policy is the problem. Unless that is corrected, there won't be a solution. What's behind the problem? Corruption. This may not be easy to solve, as Barnhardt points out- a morally degenerate people cannot be expected to clean themselves up without some revelation of some kind. In this day, that doesn't appear likely. Hillary is ahead in the polls for the Democrat nomination. She doesn't look to be the kind that lead a morally degenerate people back to probity.
So, what happens if that promise isn't kept? What if it isn't just one instance, but a pattern of behavior that isn't being policed the way it should? What does that mean? How do these people accomplish that and not have the system crash?
In my search, I first went to Barnhardt's site and read up a couple of her essays. One was about the MF Global mess, and the other was about how We are the Gold. To paraphrase, she left the futures business she was in because it lost its integrity due to the handling of MF Global, and anyone who took part in the markets henceforth was going to be corrupted as well. She didn't want to lose her integrity. The essay linked above is why it was necessary for her to leave- the system had become corrupt. The system is US, you see. We are corrupt. We allow it, we tolerate it, then we become it.
So, naturally, it should not be hard to see how the futures market would get turned into something else, which is a paper system, which replaced a physical system. Indeed, I think this paper system is how gold pricing is being suppressed. The paper system creates a supply of gold which doesn't exist. The paper supply makes it appear that there's a gold glut, which depresses prices. If the paper gold had to be redeemed in physical form, prices would skyrocket, because there's not enough gold to supply the
Gold prices are down from 1900 dollars the ounce to under 1100 now. That's despite the fact that the government is still amassing greater and greater debt, and interest rates are still negative. That fact may be perplexing until you realize that it can only be the case if the market has become rigged in order to prop up the current regime ( or state of affairs if you wish not to be political ) .
So, I'm thinking we could be entering the end game here. The Fed Funds rate cannot stay near zero forever. Eventually, it must go back up. Once that happens, the usual thing occurs- a bubble pops, and a recession ensues. That's assuming the rates stay high enough and long enough. The Fed may lower rates again, but that solves nothing as the last several years has demonstrated.
That's because a negative interest rate cannot make the economy grow. For that, you need capital formation and for that you need savings. Savings won't occur if interest rates are negative. Growth must stop, and will stop. For all intents and purposes, it has stopped.
So, the Federal Reserve is trapped. They cannot raise rates without endangering the faux recovery, but they cannot cut rates without destroying capital formation. Indeed, one reason for the lackluster growth rate of this "recovery" is the probable lack of capital formation.
Poor economic policy is the problem. Unless that is corrected, there won't be a solution. What's behind the problem? Corruption. This may not be easy to solve, as Barnhardt points out- a morally degenerate people cannot be expected to clean themselves up without some revelation of some kind. In this day, that doesn't appear likely. Hillary is ahead in the polls for the Democrat nomination. She doesn't look to be the kind that lead a morally degenerate people back to probity.
Unless there is a restructuring of the electorate, the GOP doesn't win
That's my conclusion from experimenting with the tool at the 538 site. ( h/t AOSHQ )
One thing I found is that if the white vote was uniform in its breakdown as they have it there, and the turnout was uniform, and with each at its highest level, the GOP could win. In other words, if the turnout amongst non-college educated whites was as high as the college educated whites, and the college educated whites supported the GOP as much as the non-college whites, the GOP would win easily.
I didn't get much movement by adjusting the turnout for blacks. I don't suspect that their share of the vote would change much.
If you move Latinos to the level GW Bush had, and with the changes above, you start to get a landslide.
Not that any of this is impossible. But the patterns are entrenched and not likely to change easily.
What you generally hear is that the GOP is the party of the rich and the white. But the white vote isn't that clear cut for the GOP except for non-college educated. Many of the rich are Democrats. I think that lie is generally intended for the minorities, who believe it. I know because I saw it on TV once. Some black dude claimed that whites vote for the GOP in similar percentages that the blacks do for Democrats. This kind of lie excuses what they do, which is clearly racially motivated.
Basically what it all boils down to is this: the white vote is fragmented, and the left seeks to get the non white electorate to vote in high percentages for them. This gives them their victories.
If the white vote united, the GOP couldn't lose. If the non-white vote was discouraged, then it would be a landslide.
So, what's dividing the white vote? It is a plan, and the plan is really working. A lot of it is focused on women, particularly white women. It is also focused on homosexuals. It is guilt driven on the basis of history of discrimination. However, it is less plausible now that a black president is in the White House. The left has to keep up the guilt tripping in order to keep this vote coming their way. It may not work this time, but to have a woman candidate, like Hillary, may get some of those white women to come out and vote for the Dems.
The key may be the college educated white woman. If such is the case, it is hard to see how the GOP is going to crack that. You might get some movement with the so-called "security moms" and the terrorism issue. But that may not be enough.
Would Trump look at it this way? If he looked at it this way, and tailored his message along these lines, and was successful, he would win in a landslide. The question is this: can these patterns be changed?
I think Trump has a better chance than Cruz. Rubio may help with the Latino vote, but that doesn't address the white vote. Rubio is in big trouble because of immigration, but that is where he is getting movement from Latinos.
Trump has the best chance. He is also the riskiest choice. That's because the Democrats are calling him racist, which fires up their own racist cadres. He has to overcome that, and unite the white vote.
Update:
I was saying that Trump has the best chance in that scenario. There are other scenarios. Another scenario has the black vote and the white vote flipping in terms of turnout. This is plausible, depending on who is the nominee. But that alone won't do it. You need the Latino vote that GW Bush got. If you get it, then your candidate wins. This is the strategy the GOP Establishment wants with Rubio. But Cruz would be better in my opinion.
Update:
A third scenario starts with the flip mentioned above, plus additional white vote from security moms, and the Latino vote similar to Bush. Well, that's really not a different scenario. GOP wins here as well.
GW Bush really did pull off something of a miracle when he won. However, that doesn't mean his brother should be the nominee. The white vote won't be his this time. They are too angry with the GOP Establishment.
Maybe Rubio can do it, but he has a problem with amnesty. Trump or Cruz, then. Cruz would have a problem with the media that Trump doesn't.
The GOP needs to get real. None of their favorites can win. They have to take a chance on Trump. No other scenario is plausible.
One thing I found is that if the white vote was uniform in its breakdown as they have it there, and the turnout was uniform, and with each at its highest level, the GOP could win. In other words, if the turnout amongst non-college educated whites was as high as the college educated whites, and the college educated whites supported the GOP as much as the non-college whites, the GOP would win easily.
I didn't get much movement by adjusting the turnout for blacks. I don't suspect that their share of the vote would change much.
If you move Latinos to the level GW Bush had, and with the changes above, you start to get a landslide.
Not that any of this is impossible. But the patterns are entrenched and not likely to change easily.
What you generally hear is that the GOP is the party of the rich and the white. But the white vote isn't that clear cut for the GOP except for non-college educated. Many of the rich are Democrats. I think that lie is generally intended for the minorities, who believe it. I know because I saw it on TV once. Some black dude claimed that whites vote for the GOP in similar percentages that the blacks do for Democrats. This kind of lie excuses what they do, which is clearly racially motivated.
Basically what it all boils down to is this: the white vote is fragmented, and the left seeks to get the non white electorate to vote in high percentages for them. This gives them their victories.
If the white vote united, the GOP couldn't lose. If the non-white vote was discouraged, then it would be a landslide.
So, what's dividing the white vote? It is a plan, and the plan is really working. A lot of it is focused on women, particularly white women. It is also focused on homosexuals. It is guilt driven on the basis of history of discrimination. However, it is less plausible now that a black president is in the White House. The left has to keep up the guilt tripping in order to keep this vote coming their way. It may not work this time, but to have a woman candidate, like Hillary, may get some of those white women to come out and vote for the Dems.
The key may be the college educated white woman. If such is the case, it is hard to see how the GOP is going to crack that. You might get some movement with the so-called "security moms" and the terrorism issue. But that may not be enough.
Would Trump look at it this way? If he looked at it this way, and tailored his message along these lines, and was successful, he would win in a landslide. The question is this: can these patterns be changed?
I think Trump has a better chance than Cruz. Rubio may help with the Latino vote, but that doesn't address the white vote. Rubio is in big trouble because of immigration, but that is where he is getting movement from Latinos.
Trump has the best chance. He is also the riskiest choice. That's because the Democrats are calling him racist, which fires up their own racist cadres. He has to overcome that, and unite the white vote.
Update:
I was saying that Trump has the best chance in that scenario. There are other scenarios. Another scenario has the black vote and the white vote flipping in terms of turnout. This is plausible, depending on who is the nominee. But that alone won't do it. You need the Latino vote that GW Bush got. If you get it, then your candidate wins. This is the strategy the GOP Establishment wants with Rubio. But Cruz would be better in my opinion.
Update:
A third scenario starts with the flip mentioned above, plus additional white vote from security moms, and the Latino vote similar to Bush. Well, that's really not a different scenario. GOP wins here as well.
GW Bush really did pull off something of a miracle when he won. However, that doesn't mean his brother should be the nominee. The white vote won't be his this time. They are too angry with the GOP Establishment.
Maybe Rubio can do it, but he has a problem with amnesty. Trump or Cruz, then. Cruz would have a problem with the media that Trump doesn't.
The GOP needs to get real. None of their favorites can win. They have to take a chance on Trump. No other scenario is plausible.
Wednesday, December 9, 2015
Keep Terrorists Out
Dick Morris
summary:
Morris is saying you can't base it upon ethnicity nor religion, that it would not pass Supreme Court scrutiny. You could base it upon nation of origin. That's how Morris says it could be done.
comment:
Morris is repeating something that needs to be challenged. Morris says we need Muslim's help in identifying terrorists. However, I saw something yesterday that contradicts this, which said that they don't generally help in locating and stopping terrorists.
Trump says it would be temporary until we can get things figured out. That doesn't sound unreasonable to me. People need to stop overreacting to everything.
summary:
Morris is saying you can't base it upon ethnicity nor religion, that it would not pass Supreme Court scrutiny. You could base it upon nation of origin. That's how Morris says it could be done.
comment:
Morris is repeating something that needs to be challenged. Morris says we need Muslim's help in identifying terrorists. However, I saw something yesterday that contradicts this, which said that they don't generally help in locating and stopping terrorists.
Trump says it would be temporary until we can get things figured out. That doesn't sound unreasonable to me. People need to stop overreacting to everything.
In case you were wondering...
I am not at my job. I'm having some physical difficulties again. It isn't exactly the same thing as before, though.
I'm hoping I can get control over the situation and be able to return to work soon. This post is deliberately vague as I will not be posting anything specific about what I'm experiencing.
I wouldn't describe it as dangerous. Just mostly annoying at this point.
I'm hoping I can get control over the situation and be able to return to work soon. This post is deliberately vague as I will not be posting anything specific about what I'm experiencing.
I wouldn't describe it as dangerous. Just mostly annoying at this point.
It's not about Islamic Grievances
It's about converting infidels to Islam at the point of the sword
So says the late Osama bin Laden, who isn't unique in the history of Islam, but rather, a commonplace figure repeating a commonplace theme:
Nothing new here. The Barbary Pirates were no different. But what seems to be new is the weakness in which the challenge is being met.
So says the late Osama bin Laden, who isn't unique in the history of Islam, but rather, a commonplace figure repeating a commonplace theme:
Our talks with the infidel West and our conflict with them ultimately revolve around one issue… and it is: Does Islam, or does it not, force people by the power of the sword to submit to its authority corporeally if not spiritually?... The matter is summed up for every person alive: Either submit, or live under the suzerainty of Islam, or die.
Nothing new here. The Barbary Pirates were no different. But what seems to be new is the weakness in which the challenge is being met.
A good laugh never hurt anyone...
But a big gun just might. That seems to be lost on the fellow here, who said
Just had a thought... that it might seem that I'm agreeing with gun grabbers. No!!! The point is that the criminal element doesn't care if you think they are compensating in some way. You have to defend yourself, and the use of verbal aggression directed against a man's insecurities isn't going to work on the criminal element.
Update:
Don't forget to hat tip Ace for this one. Great post by the way.
King... asserted over the weekend that white men who like guns are compensating for "small penises" and "low sex drive".The scene linked to above drew a lot of laughs when it was filmed. Yes, it may be connected in some way, but small penises don't kill, but big guns do. And that last part wasn't really funny, ya know?
Just had a thought... that it might seem that I'm agreeing with gun grabbers. No!!! The point is that the criminal element doesn't care if you think they are compensating in some way. You have to defend yourself, and the use of verbal aggression directed against a man's insecurities isn't going to work on the criminal element.
Update:
Don't forget to hat tip Ace for this one. Great post by the way.
Poll suggest that the majority is with Trump
From James Taranto via Ace
Instead of debating the proposal in a reasoned way, the political class--both parties--and many in the media are treating it as a thoughtcrime. Yet the PRRI poll suggests a large majority of Americans are thinking along similar lines.It appears to be a good political move. The people aren't with the political class, but Trump is aiming for the people, and may be winning because of it.
Tuesday, December 8, 2015
Trump is taking a sledge hammer to the current political order
The GOP's refusal to back Trump is an indication of the divisions within the party. However, I think the division is mostly at the top. Most of this cultural stuff has gone against the majority in the party, and I don't think this is any different. The question to me is whether the people will continue to follow the leadership in the party, or they move over to Trump. One thing is certain, I don't approve of how the leadership has handled themselves in the Muslim immigration issue. That's where I stand.
Muslims do not assimilate. They conquer and then they assimilate YOU. It doesn't work the way these people seem to want you to believe. Once enough Muslims get into the country, they will start demanding things. That must not be allowed in America.
This is a clear dividing line that Trump is drawing. The Establishment are the ones who don't want anything to change from the present course. The present course is a disaster. Unless we get a definite and clear course correction, the ship of state is going to crash into the rocks. It's gonna go down.
We have to change now. An attempt later may be too late. You may not get another chance.
Muslims do not assimilate. They conquer and then they assimilate YOU. It doesn't work the way these people seem to want you to believe. Once enough Muslims get into the country, they will start demanding things. That must not be allowed in America.
This is a clear dividing line that Trump is drawing. The Establishment are the ones who don't want anything to change from the present course. The present course is a disaster. Unless we get a definite and clear course correction, the ship of state is going to crash into the rocks. It's gonna go down.
We have to change now. An attempt later may be too late. You may not get another chance.
Judicial Watch: New Benghazi Email Shows DOD Offered State Department “Forces that Could Move to Benghazi” Immediately – Specifics Blacked Out in New Document
Judicial Watch: New Benghazi Email Shows DOD Offered State Department “Forces that Could Move to Benghazi” Immediately – Specifics Blacked Out in New Document
Comment:
Three years later, we learn the truth that the Obama Administration refused to help the people at Benghazi. Yet, nobody seems to care. "It was a long time ago."
Comment:
Three years later, we learn the truth that the Obama Administration refused to help the people at Benghazi. Yet, nobody seems to care. "It was a long time ago."
Why do you suppose that people won't take Trump seriously?
There are those who seem to think that Trump's statements aren't sincere. That he's doing it for effect, and not because he thinks that way.
I am thinking that he does think that way, and that should be very good for the country. It seems odd to me that so many people don't see that, by keeping terrorists out of the country, they would be rendering terrorism impotent in this country. Any country that does this is isolating the terrorists, as they deserve to be.
Such policies would be very helpful in ending terrorism for good. Unfortunately, all too many people seem intent upon treating a hostile entity like this with inappropriate respect.
I am thinking that he does think that way, and that should be very good for the country. It seems odd to me that so many people don't see that, by keeping terrorists out of the country, they would be rendering terrorism impotent in this country. Any country that does this is isolating the terrorists, as they deserve to be.
Such policies would be very helpful in ending terrorism for good. Unfortunately, all too many people seem intent upon treating a hostile entity like this with inappropriate respect.
Fed Funds Rate and What It Is Telling Us
Here's the History of the Fed Funds Rate since 1954. What does it mean? What does it tell us?
Generally speaking, it tells us the strength of the dollar over time. In the fifties and today, the dollar is relatively strong. In the early eighties, it was at its weakest. When I refer to strength, I'm referring to the purchasing power in terms of the official inflation rate, not in terms of the dollar index per se. The dollar index did not exist in 1954. The dollar was officially pegged with gold at 35 dollars per ounce until President Nixon closed the gold window.
Note that the graph only goes as far as 2008. At that time, the rules seemed to change. Now, it is difficult to tell if the dollar's purchasing power is really stronger than it was in previous years. In my opinion, the true prices of everything have been distorted through misguided economic policies. That opinion might be disputed, but one thing cannot- the dollar in terms of gold was getting weaker until recently. The price distortion opinion rests upon the observation that gold prices are being manipulated in order to mask the true state of affairs.
Even if one was to dispute all that, there's one thing that cannot be disputed. The interest rate has been in a downtrend since 1982 when it peaked at near 20%. It is now near zero. When inflation is factored in, it is actually below zero.
During the time leading up to that date, it was in an upswing. This rise in interest rates coincided with inflation. Today, amongst some, there is concern about the opposite- deflation. So far, deflation has not officially gotten into the statistics. The threat of deflation is a boogie man invented by those who wish to see even lower interest rates. The real threat is runaway inflation if my opinion about gold is correct.
Those lower rates lead to another unprecedented phenomenon, which is the possibility of a negative Fed Fund Rate. If that were to happen, it most likely will lead to a disruptive impact upon savings. Not surprisingly, the savings rate already had been going down at the same time the interest rates have been. If it costs people to save money, which would be the case if interest rates went negative, the savings rate would plummet even further. This would not be helpful toward economic growth. Therefore, there are limits to how much downside there is left to the interest rates even if the lower interest rate advocates get their wish.
What goes down, must eventually come back up. And vice versa.
Generally speaking, it tells us the strength of the dollar over time. In the fifties and today, the dollar is relatively strong. In the early eighties, it was at its weakest. When I refer to strength, I'm referring to the purchasing power in terms of the official inflation rate, not in terms of the dollar index per se. The dollar index did not exist in 1954. The dollar was officially pegged with gold at 35 dollars per ounce until President Nixon closed the gold window.
Note that the graph only goes as far as 2008. At that time, the rules seemed to change. Now, it is difficult to tell if the dollar's purchasing power is really stronger than it was in previous years. In my opinion, the true prices of everything have been distorted through misguided economic policies. That opinion might be disputed, but one thing cannot- the dollar in terms of gold was getting weaker until recently. The price distortion opinion rests upon the observation that gold prices are being manipulated in order to mask the true state of affairs.
Even if one was to dispute all that, there's one thing that cannot be disputed. The interest rate has been in a downtrend since 1982 when it peaked at near 20%. It is now near zero. When inflation is factored in, it is actually below zero.
During the time leading up to that date, it was in an upswing. This rise in interest rates coincided with inflation. Today, amongst some, there is concern about the opposite- deflation. So far, deflation has not officially gotten into the statistics. The threat of deflation is a boogie man invented by those who wish to see even lower interest rates. The real threat is runaway inflation if my opinion about gold is correct.
Those lower rates lead to another unprecedented phenomenon, which is the possibility of a negative Fed Fund Rate. If that were to happen, it most likely will lead to a disruptive impact upon savings. Not surprisingly, the savings rate already had been going down at the same time the interest rates have been. If it costs people to save money, which would be the case if interest rates went negative, the savings rate would plummet even further. This would not be helpful toward economic growth. Therefore, there are limits to how much downside there is left to the interest rates even if the lower interest rate advocates get their wish.
What goes down, must eventually come back up. And vice versa.
 |
| Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Federal_Funds_Rate_(effective).svg |
.svg){kind=link}
Trump creating separation between himself and rest of field
That last bit of controversy in the Trump campaign may be a killer move for his candidacy. It may kill his chances or kill anybody else's chances against him.
I'd like to make a football metaphor here to illustrate the point I'm making. Trump is out there alone on this one. He is away from the pack and in some cases, this can be good. In football, you want to "separate" from the defenders so you can make plays. Such plays can be the difference in the outcome of the game.
Like football, politics is a game. The object is to win. Trump is out to win and this latest move may do it for him because he gets separation from the field. As an example, take this football game between the Houston Texans and Buffalo Bills. It was late in the game, and a receiver got WIDE OPEN on the play. It was a simple pitch and catch for the game winning touchdown. Lights out, game over.
That's what may be what Trump just did.
I'd like to make a football metaphor here to illustrate the point I'm making. Trump is out there alone on this one. He is away from the pack and in some cases, this can be good. In football, you want to "separate" from the defenders so you can make plays. Such plays can be the difference in the outcome of the game.
Like football, politics is a game. The object is to win. Trump is out to win and this latest move may do it for him because he gets separation from the field. As an example, take this football game between the Houston Texans and Buffalo Bills. It was late in the game, and a receiver got WIDE OPEN on the play. It was a simple pitch and catch for the game winning touchdown. Lights out, game over.
That's what may be what Trump just did.
Monday, December 7, 2015
Trump Calls for Ban on All Muslims from Entering US – Even American Citizens
Trump Calls for Ban on All Muslims from Entering US – Even American Citizens
comment:
I approve most whole heartedly. Of course, this is anathema to the current state of affairs. The West is being rather stupid in allowing unlimited immigration, especially from those areas that are heavily influenced by the jihad.
Trump would do the right thing for our country. Unfortunately, there are too many people in this country now who don't seem to understand what that is.
Update:
Just as I feared, the reactions are almost uniformly negative. Evidently, the people who are speaking against it haven't analyzed the problem very deeply. In the San Bernardino case, the Syad Farook character went overseas and got radicalized before coming back. He brings back a new wife who is also radical. There is a chance that he may not have committed the crimes he committed if he didn't go on such a trip. So, if he was warned not to go and went anyway, he would know that he may not be able to come back. If the thought was to seek out radicals and to make relationships with them, then he would be strongly discouraged not to do that.
I hope Trump isn't dissuaded by the negative reaction. We need this type of policy.
Travel bans are not unconstitutional. These other politicians are grandstanding. I'm not persuaded by any of them, including Cruz. Trump is right.
Update:
Not too many in the commentariat seems to agree with Trump. It would be interesting to see how it goes down with the public. If his polls rise, he wins again.
I'm not all that confident about the polls, but then, the dude seems to know how to play the public. A hunch has it that this will poll well.
comment:
I approve most whole heartedly. Of course, this is anathema to the current state of affairs. The West is being rather stupid in allowing unlimited immigration, especially from those areas that are heavily influenced by the jihad.
Trump would do the right thing for our country. Unfortunately, there are too many people in this country now who don't seem to understand what that is.
Update:
Just as I feared, the reactions are almost uniformly negative. Evidently, the people who are speaking against it haven't analyzed the problem very deeply. In the San Bernardino case, the Syad Farook character went overseas and got radicalized before coming back. He brings back a new wife who is also radical. There is a chance that he may not have committed the crimes he committed if he didn't go on such a trip. So, if he was warned not to go and went anyway, he would know that he may not be able to come back. If the thought was to seek out radicals and to make relationships with them, then he would be strongly discouraged not to do that.
I hope Trump isn't dissuaded by the negative reaction. We need this type of policy.
Travel bans are not unconstitutional. These other politicians are grandstanding. I'm not persuaded by any of them, including Cruz. Trump is right.
Update:
Not too many in the commentariat seems to agree with Trump. It would be interesting to see how it goes down with the public. If his polls rise, he wins again.
I'm not all that confident about the polls, but then, the dude seems to know how to play the public. A hunch has it that this will poll well.
Murderers have connections with jihadists
The husband's own mother was pro-caliphate, and his accomplice wife went to a university that was close to the centers of radical sectarian activity.
Instead of pointing to this, the leftists point to a guy who wrote against such people and was claimed to be at fault for his own murder.
Update:
A little more close reading to the NY Times article cited above lends credence to the proposition that there's an effort to cover up who the wife really was.
Instead of pointing to this, the leftists point to a guy who wrote against such people and was claimed to be at fault for his own murder.
Update:
A little more close reading to the NY Times article cited above lends credence to the proposition that there's an effort to cover up who the wife really was.
Pakistani security officials say there is no indication yet that Ms. Malik moved in extremist circles on campus or in the city. Yet they have sought to restrict reporting from the area in recent days, often by issuing quiet threats to Pakistani reporters to back off. The officials conducted a search of Ms. Malik’s former home in Multan on Saturday.Sleeper cell gone rogue?
Cause for doubt in Obama's speech
Didn't care to listen to it live, and didn't want to listen to it pre-recorded either. Barely skimmed it in transcript form. Frankly, I can't stand the man.
But I did hear the part about him attacking oil tankers and such. It was only last week that Dick Morris pointed out that there wasn't any real attack of these tankers occurring because of the fear of environmental damage. In other words, Obama has a dog-and-pony show going on over there and he needs people to fall for it.
He did seem to ask for gun-control legislation, but the measures he's talking about didn't apply to what actually happened. Not to mention that gun-control doesn't work, and isn't the reason for what happened.
He swerved into something pretty interesting and maybe even surprising- how did that terrorist's wife get into the USA? But the questions could go further, but probably won't. Once again, the most obvious thing that they could do is the last thing that they will consider- blocking their entry into the USA. If they aren't here, they cannot do any harm.
The rest of it is a ploy to remain credible in the fight against terror. Too bad that the GOP is so soft towards him. He's leading with a glass jaw, but they keep pulling their punches.
But I did hear the part about him attacking oil tankers and such. It was only last week that Dick Morris pointed out that there wasn't any real attack of these tankers occurring because of the fear of environmental damage. In other words, Obama has a dog-and-pony show going on over there and he needs people to fall for it.
He did seem to ask for gun-control legislation, but the measures he's talking about didn't apply to what actually happened. Not to mention that gun-control doesn't work, and isn't the reason for what happened.
He swerved into something pretty interesting and maybe even surprising- how did that terrorist's wife get into the USA? But the questions could go further, but probably won't. Once again, the most obvious thing that they could do is the last thing that they will consider- blocking their entry into the USA. If they aren't here, they cannot do any harm.
The rest of it is a ploy to remain credible in the fight against terror. Too bad that the GOP is so soft towards him. He's leading with a glass jaw, but they keep pulling their punches.
Mahablog: It's okay for terrorists to target those that make them mad
Is that going too far? You decide:
If the so-called right is apoplectic about anything it's that the notion that anybody has any business going on a shooting spree just because they are offended by what someone says. Notice that she takes the side of the terrorist when she calls the citizen a bunch of insulting names, which makes it more understandable to have such rage that they would start killing people. The author seems to think that this is justifiable homicide?
If you are angry about this rationalization for terror, she seems to be saying, you are the one with the problem. She seems to be saying that the "loudmouth wingnut bagger" needed to be silenced.
Update:
I checked out the article linked to by the Mahablogger. She says the following, which may be considered libelous:
The author tries to make these men out to be the same, but does this woman have any evidence whatsoever that this man was planning the type of violence that was visited upon him and others at his place of employment?
But if you point out the differences, according to the Mahablogger, there's something wrong with you.
Uh-huh.
Update:
I also checked for the murdered man's Facebook page ( and didn't find it but found this), which has gotten the attention of this author of the piece that Mahablogger was writing about. He did write some things that were intemperate, but to use that as an excuse for mass murder? It seemed to make the point of this man that this so-called religion is as violent as he outspokenly said it was. The mass murderer got into an argument with this man, it is said, and the murderer said Americans don't understand Islam. What is there to understand? Is this how they make us understand? Are Americans supposed to cower in the face of outrages such as this? Evidently so, says these two authors. Just shut up and be good dhimmis.
Update:
One more thing before I leave this post. There are reports that the murderous couple were visited by Middle Eastern men prior to their rampage. People did not speak up in fear of being accused of "profiling". Now, if these people who saw these suspicious people were as outspoken as this murdered man was, they would have said something and these killers could have been stopped.
What I'm getting at is that people like the Mahablogger want you to shut up, but this is part of the problem, not the solution. More speaking out, not less. The murdered man is a hero, but the Mahablog has him as a villain.
Righties are apoplectic about this Daily News article which presents a hypothesis about the San Bernadino mass shooting. Apparently one of Tashfeen Malik’s co-workers was a five-alarm loudmouth wingnut bagger who wanted Ann Coulter to be named head of Homeland Security. The Daily News writer called him a radical Born Again Christian/Messianic Jew.” Might explain why the shooters went after the workplace, which otherwise made no sense as a terrorism target. Mahablog
If the so-called right is apoplectic about anything it's that the notion that anybody has any business going on a shooting spree just because they are offended by what someone says. Notice that she takes the side of the terrorist when she calls the citizen a bunch of insulting names, which makes it more understandable to have such rage that they would start killing people. The author seems to think that this is justifiable homicide?
If you are angry about this rationalization for terror, she seems to be saying, you are the one with the problem. She seems to be saying that the "loudmouth wingnut bagger" needed to be silenced.
Update:
I checked out the article linked to by the Mahablogger. She says the following, which may be considered libelous:
The other man quietly stewed and brewed his bigotry, collecting the kind of arsenal that the Facebook poster would have envied.How does the author know that the man ( who was murdered for simply exercising his First Amendment rights) would have envied the murderers' arsenal? The murdered man may not have had much of an arsenal himself. If he did, how does she know that he would have wanted anything comparable?
The author tries to make these men out to be the same, but does this woman have any evidence whatsoever that this man was planning the type of violence that was visited upon him and others at his place of employment?
But if you point out the differences, according to the Mahablogger, there's something wrong with you.
Uh-huh.
Update:
I also checked for the murdered man's Facebook page ( and didn't find it but found this), which has gotten the attention of this author of the piece that Mahablogger was writing about. He did write some things that were intemperate, but to use that as an excuse for mass murder? It seemed to make the point of this man that this so-called religion is as violent as he outspokenly said it was. The mass murderer got into an argument with this man, it is said, and the murderer said Americans don't understand Islam. What is there to understand? Is this how they make us understand? Are Americans supposed to cower in the face of outrages such as this? Evidently so, says these two authors. Just shut up and be good dhimmis.
Update:
One more thing before I leave this post. There are reports that the murderous couple were visited by Middle Eastern men prior to their rampage. People did not speak up in fear of being accused of "profiling". Now, if these people who saw these suspicious people were as outspoken as this murdered man was, they would have said something and these killers could have been stopped.
What I'm getting at is that people like the Mahablogger want you to shut up, but this is part of the problem, not the solution. More speaking out, not less. The murdered man is a hero, but the Mahablog has him as a villain.
Has Krugman jumped the shark?
He seems to have gone into full blown hysterical rant mode:
That means that Krugman believes that if you don't agree with him, the world will come to an end. He says it again by the end of the piece, so this is no exaggeration, nor misrepresentation of what he said.
It is hysteria, plain and simple. We are all going to die? Really? Does this world class political hack really believe this nonsense?
The left wants to stick with this, I suppose they are obligated. After all, you cannot show any doubt. You have to believe.
Future historians — if there are any future historians — will almost surely say that the most important thing happening in the world during December 2015 was the climate talks in Paris. [emphasis added]
That means that Krugman believes that if you don't agree with him, the world will come to an end. He says it again by the end of the piece, so this is no exaggeration, nor misrepresentation of what he said.
It is hysteria, plain and simple. We are all going to die? Really? Does this world class political hack really believe this nonsense?
The left wants to stick with this, I suppose they are obligated. After all, you cannot show any doubt. You have to believe.
Sunday, December 6, 2015
Quayle is the prime example of the soft underbelly of the GOP
Quayle is out there talking about how Papa Bush was considering Trump for Veep instead of himself, and how he was glad that it was him and not Trump who got the nod.
I think this is a prime example of the soft underbelly of the GOP that the Democrats exploit time and time again. Of course, Quayle got hammered in the debate with Bentsen. Does Quayle think that was good for the GOP to see him get humiliated like that? Wouldn't it have been better if Trump was there to square off with Bentsen if Bentsen decided to play it rough? Trump can handle himself, and Quayle cannot. After all these years, Quayle still doesn't get it. The Democrats made Quayle the issue for the next four years and it was probably a factor in the loss to Clinton in 1992.
It is good to have Trump standing tall when most of the others won't. That's why the Democrats are scared to death of Trump. It doesn't help when a prominent member of your party confirms what Democrats say by attacking who could your party's standard bearer. It only gives the Democrats more to talk about in order to gin up some scare talk about how dangerous Trump is. Of course Trump is dangerous- to Democrats! It is only helping them when you attack your leading candidate.
Quayle isn't the only example. There are all too many others. It was the soft underbelly that the Democrats exploited again when they went after Bush's son. All those years of BDS ( Bush Derangement Syndrome ) and there wasn't any response coming from the second Bush administration. If he played a tougher game, it may have made a difference.
After four years of Obama, and the Benghazi event, Romney still couldn't win in 2012. He went "bean bag". The Democrats are so used to the weak kneed GOP response to their outrageousness, that all they have to do is to call them a name, like they called Trump, and they run away with their tails between their legs.
If there is any reason at all for Trump's success, it is that he is probably seen as an antidote to GOP's soft underbelly. They should be thankful somebody like him is out there. They really need to toughen up.
Contrast the GOP with the Democrats. The Dems could not be more wrong about terrorism, but they are still talking tough. You have to hand it to them, when the going gets tough, they get tougher. They don't fold up like a cheap accordion when the going gets tough. Punch them in the belly and they come back with a haymaker.
Bush likes to say how the GOP needs to learn from the Dems. There's the lesson in the paragraph above, but Bush would be the last one to notice it. He wants to accept all their false premises instead. He wants the Dems to like him, when they will never like him unless they can use him to defeat other GOP candidates like Trump. He doesn't need them to like him, but to respect or even fear him. When the GOP gets an attitude like that, one that can at least generate some respect amongst Dems, there may be some hope for them after all.
I think this is a prime example of the soft underbelly of the GOP that the Democrats exploit time and time again. Of course, Quayle got hammered in the debate with Bentsen. Does Quayle think that was good for the GOP to see him get humiliated like that? Wouldn't it have been better if Trump was there to square off with Bentsen if Bentsen decided to play it rough? Trump can handle himself, and Quayle cannot. After all these years, Quayle still doesn't get it. The Democrats made Quayle the issue for the next four years and it was probably a factor in the loss to Clinton in 1992.
It is good to have Trump standing tall when most of the others won't. That's why the Democrats are scared to death of Trump. It doesn't help when a prominent member of your party confirms what Democrats say by attacking who could your party's standard bearer. It only gives the Democrats more to talk about in order to gin up some scare talk about how dangerous Trump is. Of course Trump is dangerous- to Democrats! It is only helping them when you attack your leading candidate.
Quayle isn't the only example. There are all too many others. It was the soft underbelly that the Democrats exploited again when they went after Bush's son. All those years of BDS ( Bush Derangement Syndrome ) and there wasn't any response coming from the second Bush administration. If he played a tougher game, it may have made a difference.
After four years of Obama, and the Benghazi event, Romney still couldn't win in 2012. He went "bean bag". The Democrats are so used to the weak kneed GOP response to their outrageousness, that all they have to do is to call them a name, like they called Trump, and they run away with their tails between their legs.
If there is any reason at all for Trump's success, it is that he is probably seen as an antidote to GOP's soft underbelly. They should be thankful somebody like him is out there. They really need to toughen up.
Contrast the GOP with the Democrats. The Dems could not be more wrong about terrorism, but they are still talking tough. You have to hand it to them, when the going gets tough, they get tougher. They don't fold up like a cheap accordion when the going gets tough. Punch them in the belly and they come back with a haymaker.
Bush likes to say how the GOP needs to learn from the Dems. There's the lesson in the paragraph above, but Bush would be the last one to notice it. He wants to accept all their false premises instead. He wants the Dems to like him, when they will never like him unless they can use him to defeat other GOP candidates like Trump. He doesn't need them to like him, but to respect or even fear him. When the GOP gets an attitude like that, one that can at least generate some respect amongst Dems, there may be some hope for them after all.
U-Haul Truck Sales®: 10' GM Savana box truck for sale in Shreveport, LA, 71108
U-Haul Truck Sales®: 10' GM Savana box truck for sale in Shreveport, LA, 71108
The above is one option. There are others. One thing that I'm finding out: it is a lot cheaper to buy a moving van and then build a small house in it, than buying an RV no matter what it is. The prices on RVs are really way too high.
The above is one option. There are others. One thing that I'm finding out: it is a lot cheaper to buy a moving van and then build a small house in it, than buying an RV no matter what it is. The prices on RVs are really way too high.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)