Category Archives: Ruling Class

Monday’s Talking Points

Posted on by

Headlines on various news outlets this morning: 

http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/qOfRT7BPcaTlkwlu5HHtxQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9ZmlsbDtoPTM3NztweG9mZj01MDtweW9mZj0wO3E9NzU7dz02NzA-/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ap_webfeeds/aed728e6332f562e660f6a7067001a15.jpg

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel

Hagel Fired for Contradicting Obama over ISIS threat!

From FOX News…

OBAMA FINDS MIDTERM SCAPEGOAT IN HAGEL
In another strong sign of President Obama’s hard tack left in the wake of a midterm drubbing, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel is heading for the exits. First reported by the NYT, the cashiering of the Pentagon boss comes after “the two men mutually agreed” that it was time for the only Republican in Obama’s cabinet to go. But given the fact that the White House was the one pushing out the story, it seems more likely that the president had grown tired of the ongoing pressure from Hagel and members of the top brass to take a more aggressive stance on national security threats abroad. The conflict went public back in August when Hagel openly contradicted White House talking points on the threat posed by Islamist militants in Iraq and Syria. While Obama succumbed to the pressure, Hagel’s ouster shows the president seeking to reassert control over his foundering foreign policy. — FOX Newsletter, November 24, 2014

Never let it be said that Obama lets anyone on his staff disagree with him. I wonder which hand-puppet will be chosen next for Sec’y of Defense?

***

Rand Paul has been the fair-haired boy of Libertarians and the Paulbot wing of the GOP. He has been viewed as an opponent of the GOP Washington establishment. When Ted Cruz and Mike Lee stood up in opposition to Harry Reid, and occasionally Mitch McConnell, Rand Paul stood in the background giving the impression of supporting Cruz and Lee but seldom actually doing so on the floor of the Senate.

I’ve never trusted Rand Paul. In my view, he is too much like his Dad—inconsistent, a bit unstable with a tin-foil hat firmly in place. My view, again, has been vindicated. The reports today have Rand Paul cozing up to Mitch McConnell, worming his way into the establishment and the Ruling Class.

Paul strengthens McConnell ties with fundraiser hire – National Review: “[Sen.] Rand Paul [R-Ky.] is bringing on [Sen.] Mitch McConnell’s [R-Ky.] national finance director, Laura Sequeira, to play a key fundraising role at his political-action committee ahead of an expected 2016 presidential campaign.”

[Flashback: “We’ve developed a very tight relationship, and I’m for him…I don’t think he’s made a final decision on that. But he’ll be able to count on me.” – Senate Majority Leader-elect Mitch McConnell in a post-election interview.] — FOX Newsletter, November 24, 2014.

McConnell, immediately following the election, betrayed the GOP by publicly stating the Senate would not use the only real weapons of Congress against a rogue President—impeachment and removal from office, and the power of the purse—defunding Obama’s acts of defiance to Congress and strictures of the Constitution. When asked what McConnell would do to oppose Obama, McConnell, in essence, said he’d rollover and do nothing. That allows Obama to continue his lawless edicts without opposition…and now Rand Paul will help McConnell to do…nothing.

***

I have been called, on occasion, a Grammar-Nazi. I accept that label. Why is grammar necessary, and spelling, too? Because correct grammar and spelling enhances communication and decreases confusion and misunderstanding.

It is a failing of education when schools no longer teach grammar, sentence structure and construction, spelling and writing. Not cursive hand-writing, although that should be taught, too, but writing as in Writing an Essay. Clear, concise writing, with proper sentence and paragraph structure, is fading. Others agree with me.

Descriptive versus Prescriptive: Another Left-Wing Scam

By Bruce Deitrick Price, November 24, 2014

Everywhere we look, we’ve got pompous professors telling us they don’t dare prescribe what’s right in language.  No, no, no, no.  It’s not their role.  Nor yours either, that’s for sure.  People can express themselves as they wish.  It’s America, the 21st century.  God forbid we should tell anybody how to do anything.“Weird Al” Yankovic put out a popular video called “Word Crimes.”  It’s gotten almost 20,000,000 views.  In effect, he says: “Hey, moron, do it the right way.”  He got everybody talking about correct grammar.  Boy, we needed that.  Thanks, Weird Al.

Naturally, all the primly pontificating nuisances crawled out of the woodwork to tell us: hey, stop all that prescribing!  You can only describe. 

And why?  Because when anthropologists go in the jungle to study a primitive culture, they must remember that the natives are the experts on their own language.  Great.  That’s fine and dandy.  But that has nothing to do with how we should deal with our own language. In our case, you ask the relevant experts (teachers, novelists, journalists), average the answers, and that’s probably a good guide.  But you certainly don’t listen to left-wing scam artists telling you that our experts are not allowed to speak, because anything they say would be prescriptive, and we don’t allow that when we go into the jungle on anthropological expeditions.  Doesn’t this sophistry almost make your head spin?

But look again, and it turns out there is a second sophistry on top of the first one.  These discussions about natives, experts, and ourselves casually presuppose that we are talking about adults.  But many times, without ever acknowledging it, the discussion shifts over to school and the teaching of children.  Isn’t it obvious that the freedom you might give to adults is not appropriately given to children?

In other words, when liberal sophisticates start discussing this issue, they always pose it in terms of freedom, creativity, self-expression, laissez-faire, do your own thing, and gather ye rosebuds while ye may.  Sure, if you insist, adults can wear clothes inside-out and stay drunk.  Let’s not waste time discussing it.  If you want to arrange your sentences backward and break every grammatical rule, go for it.

What we’re discussing now is what’s appropriate in the early grades at school.  Teaching is typically prescriptive, and that’s how it should be.  Schools should teach the right ways to do things.  (This approach has got to be far more efficient than what many public schools are now doing: teach no ways at all, or teach all the ways as if none is preferable.) 

Bottom line, what newspapers call Standard English should be taught first.  That seems to be what our left-wing professors are eager to stop.

So what are the pros and cons?  Do you let a child do anything the child wants?  Are you doing children a favor if you allow them to go out with dirty faces or raggedy clothes?  Isn’t it foolish to pretend that children live and learn in a vacuum?

It seems to be common sense and common decency to tell children what is typically done.  With regard to language, this might require explaining regional variations, work-related slang, and even class differences.  Most children can understand these ideas at a fairly young age.  They probably already speak a different way with their friends from how they do with their parents.

To pretend that all these nuances don’t exist is the opposite of teaching.  To pretend that everything is equally acceptable is a nasty sort of nihilism.

Question is, why are liberals so eager to drown children in permissiveness and relativism?  Who is being served?  Just recently reports came out about a Chicago school that was teaching anal sex to fifth-graders.  And this would be for whose benefit?  The children’s?  No, this is surely liberals trying to break down the last barriers.

Presumably we’re seeing that same worldview when schools refuse to teach grammar.  The point, always, is power – in this case, the power to make the rules.  That’s why the left always maneuvers to control language, semantics, and education.

The sophistry prohibiting prescriptive grammar is not about grammar at all.  It’s about the left being able to tell everybody else how to talk, and how to think.  (Note that the anti-prescriptive diktat is itself prescriptive.)

Liberals always want to play their ideological games, using kids as guinea pigs.  If you don’t tell the kids what the prevailing rules are, the kids will be left in an intellectual wasteland.  To excuse this, you have a whole Education Establishment boldly proclaiming that whatever little children say is just fine, whatever it is.  No rules, guessing, and invented spelling – that’s what elementary education is for many.

But how can they justify all this logically?  Well, some genius thought, why don’t we just bring back anthropological field work to our own society?  We’ll announce (and argue with great indignation) that professional authors, English professors, and smart citizens who have used the language expertly for a lifetime have absolutely no special standing.  They should shut up, lest they be guilty of the crime of prescription.  The left has gotten away with this fluff for 75 years.

Aren’t you tired of left-wing professors using lame sophistries to dumb down the schools and the society?  Here’s a plan: don’t accept lame sophistries.

Sophistry. That’s a word I’ve not seen for a long, long time. Truthfully, now, how many of you know what it means? Don’t know? Here’s the definition. If you and your children don’t know, it’s a good topic for teaching both of you.

soph·ist·ry
ˈsäfəstrē/
noun
noun: sophistry
  1. the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving.
Facebook

It is a new day

Posted on by

…or is it?

http://dailysignal.com/wp-content/uploads/2014_06_10_CantorLost.jpg

Yesterday’s Virginia primary had a big upset. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA-7) lost his seat in the primary to challenger and economist Dave Brat. There are numerous articles being published this morning how that happened.

Some pundits say is was a Tea Party victory. In reality, it wasn’t, it was a grassroots victory assisted by some big-name conservatives like Laura Ingraham and Mark Levin. There is a difference.

The national Tea Party organizations like the Tea Party Express and AFP ignored the race assuming, so say some, that Cantor was a shoo-in. Apparently, so did many of Cantor’s supporters because they stayed home and didn’t vote. The turnout was very low, 65,000 out of a population of over a quarter-million.

Cantor’s flip-flops came home. He hadn’t had much opposition since he first won his seat in 2001. He was unopposed until 2010 and 2012. In 2012, he courted the Tea Party and won by 79%. Since then, Cantor turned, vilifying his former supporters and sucking up to the GOP establishment.

David Brat, the winner of the primary against Cantor wrote this statement in an article for the Daily Caller earlier this year.

Congressman Cantor’s profile has been erratic even by Washington standards — flitting from eager establishmentarian coat-holder to self-glorified “Young Gun” and back again. His loyalties, both upward and downward, have shifted in his eager embrace of the Ruling Class. Washington’s only genuine article of faith: maintaining control regardless of how that control affects the life of the folks back home.

Like so many other GOP Representatives, Cantor let ambition override his duty to his constituents. Being elected in a strong, conservative district is no guarantee for incumbents. (Are you listening Vicky Hartzler?) So far this year, we are seeing numerous successful challenges to the GOP establishment, Cantor is one of them.

***

The worm turned…in California of all places!

Tenure for teachers in California received a severe blow in court this week. Judge Rolf M. Treu, Los Angeles Superior Court, found five California statues concerning teacher tenure unconstitutional.

Treu found that the statutes permit too many grossly incompetent teachers to remain in classrooms across the state — and found that those teachers shortchange their students by putting them months or years behind their peers in math and reading.

He ruled that such a system violates the state constitution’s guarantee that all children receive “basic equality of educational opportunity.” In a blunt, unsparing 16-page opinion, Treu compared his ruling to the seminal federal desegregation case Brown v. Board of Education, decided 60 years ago last month. “The evidence is compelling. Indeed, it shocks the conscience,” Treu wrote. — Politico.

For decades the California educational system has been the prime example was what not to do. With test scores pummeling, teachers fought to block testing, lest it prove the abysmal results of their social engineering agenda.

Test scores should be used to review the effectiveness of education. Too many school districts—and state educational systems, would rather teach the tests than actually educate their students. Systems that do ‘teach the tests’ then blame the tests for their failures to educate. Long before this case, it was evident that local and state education systems were more interested in their own sinecure than teaching.

We will soon hear the howl of outraged teacher unions calling for this judge’s head for speaking truth. Once again, unions have been found to be the refuge of many incompetents. The good teachers will get tarred equally along with the bad. They have no other recourse…California is not a RIght-to-Work state. Teachers are required to join the teachers union if they want to teach.

But that was yesterday. Perhaps…just perhaps the students of California will have a new day now that it will be easier to be rid of the lazy and incompetents in the California school system.

Facebook

Thursday’s Topics

Posted on by

Quote and question of the day:

Does The Tea Party Need More Experienced Candidates?

This election season’s primary results, in particular Mitch McConnell’s lopsided trouncing yesterday of Matt Bevin, have produced their share of obituaries for the Tea Party. But the experience so far of Tea Party and other insurgent showdowns against the GOP establishment just goes to show that candidates and campaigns still matter – and that’s not likely to change. While both “Establishment” and Tea Party campaigns have gotten savvier in learning how to play the primary game, we are likely for the foreseeable future to see Tea Party challengers win when they are good candidates, with some prior political experience, talent and funding – and lose when they lack one or more of those attributes. I’d like to look here in particular at the importance of political experience, and whether Tea Party campaigns has been losing races because it was running complete political novices. — Red State.

After last week’s primary, the ‘net abounded with articles that proclaimed the Tea Party was dead. McConnell bragged about his win over Matt Bevin and other RINOs facing primary opposition took heart. They conveniently overlook Tea Party wins such as Ben Sasse in Nebraska and Alex Moony in West Virginia. The battle between the GOP establishment and the grassroot reformers, collectively called the Tea Party, is not over.

***

Democrats claim government cannot be accountable. What a despicable statement. Everyone, every organization is accountable—if we make them so.

If government is not accountable, then what are we? What is our relationship with government? Are we serfs? Peasants? Have we no rights? The Constitution says otherwise. That is why the liberals hate it.

Accountable government is impossible, according to liberals

By: John Hayward  |  May 21st, 2014 at 06:20 PM

No sooner did I encourage Republicans to make accountability one of their primary campaign themes then I came across Ron Fournier at National Journal tearing into lefty Ezra Klein for arguing that accountable government is a superhero fantasy:

“Presidents consistently overpromise and underdeliver,” he begins, a fair start. Surely, the editor-in-chief of Vox is going to make the obvious point that presidents and presidential candidates should know enough about the political process (including the limits on the executive branch) to avoid such a breach of trust.

Klein is a data guy. He must know that the public’s faith in government and poltics is on a decades-long slide, a dangerous trend due in no small part to the fact that candidates make promises they know they can’t keep. In Washington, we call it pandering. In the rest of the country, it’s called a lie. Klein yawns.

Klein is basically asking us to accept all of Obama’s lies and failures because we need to understand that politicians promise a lot of stuff they can’t deliver.  Presumably we’re supposed to smile and clap when a slick character like Obama does an especially good job of tricking us into believing he can deliver the moon and stars, but it’s extremely rude and unrealistic to complain when those celestial goodies aren’t delivered on schedule.

Fournier is having none of it: “A Harvard-trained lawyer and Constitutional scholar like Obama didn’t stumble into the 2008 presidential campaign unaware of the balance of powers, the polarization of politics, the right-ward march of the GOP and other structural limits on the presidency. He made those promises because he thought those goals were neither unreasonable nor unattainable. Either that, or he was lying.”  He goes on to note how eagerly Klein tries to separate Obama from his promises, writing as if some non-human entity called The Obama Campaign made all those inconvenient commitments to stuff like improving the Department of Veterans Affairs.

…

It’s not exactly new for Obama apologists to claim that running the mega-government they support is effectively impossible, a task too difficult even for the super-genius messiah they adore.  Obama himself is making that argument, every time he claims he learned what his Administration is up to by reading yesterday’s newspaper.  One of his efforts to avoid responsible for the ObamaCare launch debacle involved him whining that government agencies are “outdated” and “not designed properly,” which would seem difficult to square with his enthusiasm for making government ever larger.    His adviser David Axelrod said Obama should be let off the hook for all responsibility in the IRS scandal because “part of being President is there’s so much beneath you that you can’t know, because the government is so vast.”

In order for Obama to save his own hide, and protect his top appointees – which is part of saving his hide, because he believes firing anyone, over anything, would make it difficult for the media to ignore his scandals to death – he’s basically making the accountability argument for Republicans.  All you have to do is quote his endless evasions and childish tantrums.  What good does it do the victims of bureaucracy to hear that Barack Obama’s super-angry about what happened to them, when all he does is order the offending agency to investigate itself, and maybe get back to him after the next election with the results?

It’s the Left that keeps inadvertently dropping these killer soundbites, and writing these op-ed screeds, to make the case that their beloved Big Government is inherently corrupt and out of control.  They’re doing a great job of indicting their philosophy, in order to protect their heroes from consequence.  They’re so wrapped up in personalized politics that they don’t realize how much their excuse-making is eroding public confidence in government.  They’re essentially telling the American people that nobody will ever be held responsible for anything that goes wrong, because the system has grown so powerful that it no longer fears the wrath of its subjects.

…

…it’s not good enough to simply restore the oversight functions of the press, by electing someone they’re not in love with.  The system itself has to be whittled down to size.  The quest for accountability is a crusade with bipartisan appeal, because a lot of rank-and-file Democrat voters expect it too.  Some of them believe in government control precisely because it thinks bureaucrats and politicians are more accountable than the robber barons of the private sector.  They are hideously mistaken, and the Obama years have given us plenty of examples to prove it.  Start with the VA scandal, but don’t stop there.  Go through the whole sorry mess, and ask voters if they can point to a single act of genuine responsibility from Obama’s government.

Not only has it become impossible for the public to hold any high official responsible for his actions, but there’s no way to escape from the broken system.  You can’t demand new management, you can’t escape from lousy “deals” that bear little resemblance to what you were promised, and you can’t stop paying for the government’s mistakes.  All of this is going to get a lot worse, as the power and reach of government grows, and more of its unsustainable plans collapse.

People are suckers for Big Government because they think the bums can be thrown out of office if they mess up.  The Obama years offer enduring proof that this belief is hopelessly naive.  Where do you go to vote the permanent bureaucracy out of office?  How do you hold a politician accountable for his errors, when he’s got an army of constituents hungry for more of the favors he dispenses?

But don’t take it from me.  Just listen to the liberal politicians and pundits who are increasingly insistent that no one can be held responsible for the failures of the Leviathan State, because no hand is strong enough to hold Leviathan’s reins.

To an extent, the liberals are correct in that a change of leadership will not return accountability to government. Any leadership change that want to limit government and constrict its growth and power, must have an internal house-cleaning from top to the very bottom. The abuses of regulations and the federal agencies is not possible without the willing compliance of all, to the lowest employee. Replacing the patronage appointees will do nothing to impose change. Only wholesale disbandment of those agencies and their regulations can achieve what this country needs.

When there are more unemployed federal workers than private sector workers, only then will we achieve any of our goals.

 

Facebook

If ya can’t beat ’em…

Posted on by

It should not be surprising. After all, it is an established liberal campaign tactic; if you can’t beat ’em, intimidate ’em. That tactic is in the news again. Democrats facing strong opposition this year, are turning to the IRS to tyrannize opposition groups.

Vulnerable Dems want IRS to step up

By Alexander Bolton – 02/13/14 06:00 AM EST

Senate Democrats facing tough elections this year want the Internal Revenue Service to play a more aggressive role in regulating outside groups expected to spend millions of dollars on their races.

In the wake of the IRS targeting scandal, the Democrats are publicly prodding the agency instead of lobbying them directly. They are also careful to say the IRS should treat conservative and liberal groups equally, but they’re concerned about an impending tidal wave of attack ads funded by GOP-allied organizations. Much of the funding for those groups is secret, in contrast to the donations lawmakers collect, which must be reported publicly.

One of the most powerful groups is Americans for Prosperity, funded by the billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch. It has already spent close to $30 million on ads attacking Democrats this election cycle.

“If they’re claiming the tax relief, the tax benefit to be a nonprofit for social relief or social justice, then that’s what they should be doing,” said Sen. Mark Begich (D), who faces a competitive race in Alaska. “If it’s to give them cover so they can do political activity, that’s abusing the tax code. And either side.”

Asked if the IRS should play a more active role policing political advocacy by groups that claim to be focused on social welfare, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) responded, “Absolutely.”

“Both on the left and the right,” she said. “As taxpayers, we should not be providing a write-off to groups to do political activity, and that’s exactly what we’re doing.”

She called the glut of political spending by self-described social welfare groups that qualify under section 501(c)(4) of the tax code “outrageous.”

Shaheen is in a good position now but could find herself embroiled in a tight campaign if former Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) challenges her.

Sen. Mark Pryor (Ark.), the most vulnerable Democratic incumbent, said the IRS has jurisdiction over 501(c)(4) groups, as well as charities, which fall under section 501(c)(3) of the tax code and sometimes engage in quasi-political activity.

“That whole 501(c)(3), 501(c)(4) [issue], those are IRS numbers. It is inherently an internal revenue matter,” he said. “There are two things you don’t want in political money, in the fundraising world and expenditure world. You don’t want secret money, and you don’t want unlimited money, and that’s what we have now.” 

This month, Americans for Prosperity launched a three-week advertising campaign targeting Pryor. The group has also targeted Shaheen and Sen. Kay Hagan (N.C.), another vulnerable Democratic incumbent.

Last month, Americans for Prosperity-New Hampshire launched a television ad criticizing Shaheen for her 2009 and 2010 votes for the Affordable Care Act. It highlighted the plight of New Hampshire residents who have to travel hours to find healthcare in hospitals covered by the state’s insurance exchange.

Last week, the group announced a $1.4 million TV campaign against Hagan.

On Wednesday, it unveiled an ad hitting Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), another endangered incumbent, for voting for ObamaCare.

A spokesman for Americans for Prosperity estimated the three-week advertising campaign would cost $750,000.

Robert Maguire, the political nonprofit investigator at the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks spending by outside groups, said Americans for Prosperity has spent far more money than any other 501(c)(4) group this election cycle.

In the last election cycle, Crossroads GPS, a group founded by GOP super-strategist Karl Rove, spent the most political money of any social-welfare group, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which estimated the total at $71 million. The group has remained relatively quiet this cycle.

The law states that 501(c)(4) groups must be operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, but the IRS has traditionally adopted a more lenient standard, said Paul S. Ryan, senior counsel at the Campaign Legal Center.

The IRS says social-welfare activity must be the primary activity of such groups. It gives them broad leeway by not classifying voter registration drives and even ads that criticize candidates as political activity.

Under new proposed regulations by the Treasury Department, the IRS would define voter registration, distributing voter guides and running ads that mention candidates as political activities. 

It also proposed setting a bright-line limit for what percentage of groups’ activity would be allowed to fall into the category of candidate-related political activity.

If enacted, the regulations would, in effect, limit how much outside groups, such as Americans for Prosperity or League of Conservation Voters, could spend as a percentage of their budgets on the Senate races.

Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), the Senate Democrats’ chief political strategist, called for the IRS to curb political spending by outside groups during a major speech on how to blunt the impact of conservative donors such as the Koch brothers.

“The Tea Party elites gained extraordinary influence by being able to funnel millions of dollars into campaigns with ads that distort the truth and attack government,” he said in remarks at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

“There are many things that can be done administratively by the IRS and other government agencies — we must redouble those efforts immediately,” he added. 

Democrats, however, know they must tread carefully while pushing the IRS to act. Revelations that the tax agency had targeted conservative groups swelled into a major controversy last year. Congressional Republicans have grilled the Obama administration on why there have been no indictments nine months after the IRS news broke.

The column continues at the website. The telling sentence in the article above is this: The law states that 501(c)(4) groups must be operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, but the IRS has traditionally adopted a more lenient standard, said Paul S. Ryan, senior counsel at the Campaign Legal Center. But, as evidence has shown, lenient treatment only happens if the organization being investigated is a liberal one backing democrat candidates.

The democrats and establishment DC ‘Pubs are working hard to make the law irrelevant. They should quake in fear of that occurring because it means that neither side will be restrained.

***

Another news item nearly slipped by me this morning. I heard that Time-Warner was in trouble. It hasn’t been much in the news but they have been looking for a buyer for some time. According to this report, they’ve found one—Comcast.

Why does this bother me? I’m a Comcast subscriber, Comcast has the franchise for my hometown. I’ve always gotten good, reliable service from them, yearly cost increases aside. This bothers me because in our area, there will be no major competition, aside from AT&T and satellite providers whose reliability and service is a running joke in the industry.

More and more, we see, instead of competition, consolidation. Our commercial law is geared towards big business and mergers. This one is an example. Like telecommunication carriers, there aren’t all that many voice/internet/cable TV carriers out there. When you tie that environment with the municipal exclusive service franchise, you can bet costs will go up and service will go down. Why should they not? They have a captive client base with no other place to go.

Comcast Scoops Up Time Warner Cable

By SYDNEY EMBER

COMCAST SWOOPS IN TO ACQUIRE TIME WARNER CABLE  |  Time Warner Cable has been dodging a takeover for months, but it finally accepted another suitor with a sweeter offer. Comcast on Thursday announced an agreement to acquire Time Warner Cable in an all-stock deal valued at about $45.2 billion. The merger will unite the biggest and second-biggest cable television operators in the country, David Gelles writes in DealBook. Under the terms of the deal, Time Warner Cable shareholders will receive $158.82 a share based on Comcast’s closing price on Wednesday.

The merger is likely to bring to an end a protracted takeover battle that Charter Communications has been waging for Time Warner Cable, leaving Charter Communications to wonder what might have been. As for Comcast, the Time Warner Cable deal would be its second big act to radically reshape the media landscape in the United States — the company completed its acquisition of NBC Universal less than a year ago. But despite combining the country’s two largest cable operators, a merger will probably have little effect on consumers. Nevertheless, the combination of the two cable operators is certain to attract antitrust scrutiny by regulators.

Mr. Gelles writes: “For Time Warner Cable, the deal provides a neat solution to its problems. It will receive just about the $160-a-share price it said was its true value, and possibly more. It will no longer have to slog ahead with a turnaround plan being run by a new chief executive, Rob Marcus. And it will allow it to become part of the company that is already the dominant force in cable television services.”

The column continues with a review by the Wall Street Journal of T-W’s woes and the negotiations leading up to the proposed merger.

***

Erick Erickson has a column today in RedState and mirrors what I’ve been preaching since 2008 when I started this blog…”Primaries Matter!!”

Primaries Matter

 

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  February 13th, 2014 at 04:30 AM

The House and Senate Republicans have handed Barack Obama a blank check to raise the national debt as much as he wants.

Throughout last year, Republicans said conservatives should fight on the debt ceiling, not the continuing resolution. They said they should filibuster the debt ceiling, not the continuing resolution. They said they should shut down the government over the debt ceiling, not the continuing resolution.

After conservatives balked at their lies and the Democrats shut down the government, Republican leaders scrambled as fast as possible to throw conservatives under the bus and reopen the government. Still, they said, the debt ceiling fight was coming up and they’d hold the Democrats accountable.

Just two weeks ago, Senator Mitch McConnell claimed the GOP would refuse a clean debt ceiling increase and demand cuts and reform.

But this week the GOP caved across the board. They gave the President the right to raise the debt as much as he wants until March of 2015 — as much as he wants. Republicans have abdicated their own responsibility for restraining the size of the federal government.

Primaries matter. Mitch McConnell was the deciding vote in the Senate to move forward. John Boehner, Eric Cantor, and House GOP leaders structured this deal in the House. Primaries matter. Until you defeat these guys, you will do nothing to change Washington.

If they are going to give Barack Obama a blank check, we should cancel their paychecks at the ballot box.

Amen, Brother!

Facebook

The Rime…

Posted on by
Ah! well a-day! what evil looks
Had I from old and young!
Instead of the cross, the Albatross
About my neck was hung.
— The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, Part II, Stanza 14.

Samuel Taylor Coleridge

Obama must be feeling as if he were that Ancient Mariner, who killed the Albatross and was condemned to wear its dead body around his neck. The difference is that Obama’s Albatross is Obamacare.

Some statistics were published today that is another weight, another burden, around Obama’s political agenda. Statistics, such as:

OBAMACARE POLL: THEY’VE TRIED IT AND THEY DON’T LIKE IT
Fifty percent of voters disapprove of ObamaCare, 43 percent strongly so, according to a poll out from the budget hawk group Public Notice. The survey, conducted by Tarrance Group, found that while 40 percent of respondents approved of the health law, a majority of key groups disapprove including women ages 18 to 44 (51 percent), employees of small businesses (57 percent), adults in households with children (56 percent) and voters who’ve tried to shop on ObamaCare Web sites (52 percent). The poll also showed that Members of Congress who voted for the president’s law are getting a negative reaction from voters, with 43 percent saying they less likely to re-elect those who voted for the health law versus 38 percent who are more likely to vote for their member if he or she voted for ObamaCare. — FOX Newsletter, 12-10-2013.

The critical issue is the age groups in the poll above. These groups are the demographic segment that Obama was planning on soaking to pay for his monstrosity. Now, they are opting out, refusing to play Obama’s game, a game he is losing badly.

But that isn’t the only damaging news about Obamacare. As we move closer to the implementation date, more failings of Obamacare are emerging. This time for prescription drugs—the list of covered drugs has been slashed. Many of us, forced onto Medicare, take maintenance drugs. Some are to control cholesterol, some to control blood pressure, plus many others. Now, with the list of covered drugs slashed, Obamacare and Medicare participants must pay for those drugs out of their pockets. Plus, for Obamacare enrollees, those out-of-pocket costs cannot be charged to your deductible.

OBAMACARE PAIN PILL
Dr. Scott Gottlieb, former senior policy adviser to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services told Megyn Kelly that many prescriptions may not be covered under ObamaCare. “The list of drugs that the plans cover, in many cases, aren’t very long.  And if the drugs aren’t covered you’re on your own, you basically have to pay for it entirely out of pocket, and the money that you spend on those drugs doesn’t count against your out of pocket limit or against your deductible,” Gottlieb said. “This could cost patients who need special drugs a lot of money, literally tens of thousands of dollars a year.” — FOX Newsletter, 12-10-2013.

***

What a disappointment Paul Ryan has turned out to be. He ran in the last election, as a conservative, a tax conservative and a spending conservative. His current budget plan, with democrat Senator Patty Murray, exposes the lies he spoke during that campaign.

The Big Spenders Return

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  December 10th, 2013 at 04:30 AM

If Paul Ryan were a Peanuts character, he’d be the guy who pulls the football out of the way just as he himself is about to kick it. Over the past number of years, Congressman Ryan has come up with a few reform proposals.

From his roadmap to this, he has made as his starting point for negotiations that which should be his ending point.

Now, with liberal Senator Patty Murray, Congressman Ryan wants to raise spending today on the promise that Congress will restrain itself ten years from now (or whenever the benchmark will be). It’s a return to pre-sequestration Washington — spending increases today in exchange for promises of spending cuts later.

I opposed sequestration at the time the GOP came up with it. I figured they’d do an end run around it. But they did not. Surprisingly, they stuck with it if only because they couldn’t figure out a way to undermine it without rocking the boat with their base.

Now it’s looking like they are prepared to rock that boat.

The Democrats have repeated painted doom and gloom scenarios about sequestration. They said it would undermine economic growth, but the latest economic figures dispute that. They said it would cause increased unemployment, but the latest employment numbers dispute that. They’ve said a great deal, all of which has been nonsensical hyperbole.

Based on what has been reported so far, the Ryan-Murray plan seems like outright capitulation to the big spending, big government agenda of both parties’ lobbyist class. In fact, the op-eds already coming out for it are being written by those who stand to profit from more spending.

Congress should start at sequestration spending levels and reduce spending from there — not raise revenue and not raise spending. After all, like Obamacare, sequestration is the law of the land too.

A sellout in any form, is still a sellout. Actions like this, Ryan’s betrayal of his Tea Party supporters, makes me wonder if there are ANY national politicians, Cruz, Lee and a handful of others excepted, who are not traitors to their constituents?

Here is a link to another report on the Paul Ryan-Patty Murray Tax and Spend bill. It’s very informative.

***

If you watch the news coming out of the Middle-east, you may have come across this article, the possible creation of strange allies, Saudi Arabia and…Israel! Neither country wants a nuclear Iran on their borders.

Saudis to Obama: We Will Not Tolerate a Nuclear Iran

By Karin McQuillan, December 10, 2013

Individuals who have even visited Israel, or who observe Judaism, or who carry a Bible are banned from Saudi Arabia.  Yet Saudi Arabia’s Israel-hating King Abdullah just flew in an Israeli scientist to have dinner with him, to enjoy some royal hospitality, accept a medal and the $200,000 “Arab Nobel Prize.”  It’s a not-so-subtle message to President Obama: the unthinkable can happen, so don’t assume the Saudis won’t join with Israel to bomb Iran.

Obama’s new Iran policy moves the Mid-East closer to war over oil and religion — Sunni Saudis versus Shia Iranians.  There is no more strategic commodity than Gulf oil to the entire world economy.  American national security stakes could not be higher.   Iran’s end game, some say more than an attack on Israel, is to seize the Saudi oil fields.  There is a Shiite majority in the oil province that the Saudi Princes fear could be turned by Iran.  The Saudis no longer see the U.S. as an ally in stabilizing the Middle East.  We have become a force for chaos. The UK Telegraph:

Chris Skrebowski, editor of Petroleum Review, said the great unknown is how Saudi Arabia will react to a move deemed treachery in Riyadh… The great question is whether they can live with this deal, or whether it is intolerable,” he said.

Mr Skrebowski said the Middle East is a tinder box, in the grip of a Sunni-Shia civil war comparable in ideological ferocity to the clash between Catholics and Protestants in early 17th Century Europe. Saudi Arabia has already shown how far it will go to protect its interests, helping to overthrow Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood.

The Saudis are signaling that they will unleash a pre-emptive war in the Middle East in response to Obama’s nuclear capitulation to Iran.  These signals are an effort to change Obama’s decision to prop up the mullahs and green light their nuclear program.  Can the Saudi threats become real?  It’s a wild card our President is willing to play.

The column continues, here, at the American Spectator website.

The Obama administration, acting as if by design, is alienating our friends and allies. If Obama’s plan is to isolate the United States from our friends around the world, he is being extremely successful. That’s is Obama’s only agenda item that is working.

Facebook

So it begins…

Posted on by

Yesterday, Harry Reid detonated the nuclear option in the Senate by arbitrarily changing the Senate rules concerning federal appointments, including the Judiciary. Before Reid’s act, appointments required a 60 vote super-majority. Reid changed that to a simple majority.

Immediately after the vote, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) called for more reforms—eliminating the filibuster for legislation. Harkin’s call for eliminating the filibuster was retaliation against Senator Ted Cruz’s and Rand Paul’s filibusters this year.

Reid’s act and Harkin’s call to eliminate all filibusters is a blatant power grab effectively making the Senate a democrat rubber stamp. The days of polite discussion, of gentlemanly discord are gone. The democrats have known this for decades. The ‘Pubs, hopefully, have finally realized the same. Politics has turned bloody. When will the ‘Pubs realize you don’t show up unarmed to a gun-fight?

I’ve said before, our current history appears to be a repeat of those days before the start of the Civil War in 1860. The issue then was not solely about slavery, although that was a very significant issue. A major issue at that time was the loss of political power by the Southern States to the more populous and economically powerful North. Tariffs and trade issues were passed that favored the North to the detriment of the South, issues that reduced the South’s trade with Europe. The result, when the South saw no other recourse,  was Secession.

Reid’s act yesterday followed immediately by Harkin’s call to eliminate all filibusters is another step that mirrors the conditions immediately before December, 1860. South Carolina seceded on December 20, 1860. Is it coincidence that Reid’s elimination of 225 of Senate tradition, of a history of a balance of power, happened in November? Are we approaching a day like that of 153 years ago?

***

Positive Discrimination. What is that? It’s better known by its other name, Affirmative Action. Erick Erickson was invited to a debate on the issue at Oxford in the UK. The debate subject was “that positive discrimination is a necessary evil.”

Oxford Union Results: Winner

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  November 21st, 2013 at 08:03 PM

It is after midnight here in Oxford, UK as I write this.

Tonight, I debated in the Oxford Union — a society that has gathered each Thursday night for a black tie debate since 1823.

The proposition debated tonight was “that positive discrimination is a necessary evil.”

The side favorable to the proposition went first and vice versa to the end with me as the final speaker of the night. Each side had four participants — one student and three guests. The proponents included both Martin Castro and Ada Meloy, along with Carla Buzasi and Oxford student Toby Fuller. My side included Richard Kahlenberg, Heather McGregor, and Oxford student Martine Wauben.

I must thank Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity for encouraging me toward talk radio. I spoke for 8 minutes unaided by notes, which would have been impossible, but for two years of doing a talk radio show consisting of just me talking with no script. If you’ve ever seen the British House of Commons, you know how it went. We all stood beside dispatch boxes given by Winston Churchill. We all were interrupted by points of information by opponents.

Everyone told me I should expect to lose. Just last week the Oxford Union voted against patriotism. I simply made the point that positive discrimination, or affirmative action, is still discrimination and evil is still evil. Likewise, I pointed out that the United States is 150 years removed from the Gettysburg Address, we have our first black President, and we still have people clamoring for positive discrimination. We cannot trust that those who benefit from it will ever say we need no longer have it.

Likewise, I pointed out that we have had and will always have racism. A government that claims we are equal under the law, but still sees racism is not a government we can expect to write a law to dramatically get rid of racism.

But we do know that those negatively affected by positive discrimination will be bitter and those who benefit from it will always be under a lingering doubt that they were chosen as tokens, not on merit.

I had a wonderful time, topped off by a pint of Guinness with my wife and friends. Thanks for the prayers along the way. A guy who sounds like me somehow convinced a group of Brits that affirmative action is wrong.

My side won by 9 votes.

I agree with Erick Erickson. Discrimination, positive and negative, is evil and must be abolished. I prefer a meritocracy, myself.

mer·i·toc·ra·cy  (mr-tkr-s)n.pl.mer·i·toc·ra·cies

1. A system in which advancement is based on individual ability or achievement.

***

An act of tyranny. The FEC by a 3-2 vote, refused to grant an exemption to the Tea Party Leadership Fund allowing them to keep their donar list private. The FEC has granted exemptions to the NAACP and the Socialists Worker’s Party but not the Tea Party.

Divided FEC rejects tea party group’s bid to conceal donors

Groups said disclosure opened door to harassment

By Kellan Howell – The Washington Times, Thursday, November 21, 2013

A sharply divided Federal Election Commission on Thursday denied a request from a leading tea party group for an exemption from disclosing its financial backers to protect them from harassment.

The FEC board voted 3-2 against a motion to exempt the Tea Party Leadership Fund. The fund will have to continue to disclose donors who contribute more than $200, despite its contention that its donors should be given an exemption given to special persecuted groups such as the Socialist Workers Party and the NAACP during the civil rights era.

FEC Chairwoman Ellen Weintraub, quoting Supreme CourtJustice Antonin Scalia, said “requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed.”

Commissioner Steven Walther, who also voted against the fund’s motion, said the group was “not a minor organization” requiring special protection from the normal rules of disclosure.

The TPLF “has a lot more muscle and a lot more money,” Mr. Walther said. “I don’t think the donors are really worried about threats to themselves and safety issues that plagued the Socialist Workers Party.”

But Commissioner Matthew Petersen, one of the two Republican members of the panel who supported the exemption request, said the TPLF’s petition documenting past harassment justified the group’s request. The fund submitted more than 1,400 pages containing examples of harassment, ridicule and threats against tea party members from the media and the general public. The submission also noted the still-simmering scandal over whether the Internal Revenue Service deliberately targeted some conservative groups applying for federal tax-exempt status for special scrutiny and regulatory delays.

The case of the TPLF, Mr. Petersen said “is just as strong as, if not stronger than that of the Socialist Workers Party. I think [TPLF] is entitled to exemption.”

The FEC will grant exemptions to leftist, socialist organizations but not to conservative ones. This is what we get when Obama and the dems have unlimited power to appoint heads of federal agencies.

Tick…tick…tick…

Facebook

Showdown!

Posted on by

Harry Reid, the Senate hand-puppet of Obama, refused to negotiate and voted down the last compromise on the CR.  The last few versions of that CR gave away all the gains, defunding Obamacare, and replaced defunding with some minuscule changes that really made no difference. But Obama Reid, refused to play and time ran out.

Good!

So what is the effect? Not all that much. I noticed my neighbor was home mowing his grass this morning. He’s a ‘secret squirrel’ working for the FAA. I don’t know if he has been furloughed or if it’s his day off. He’s on rotating shifts.

I saw a notice sent out by Whiteman AFB listing the functions that would continue and which ones were reduced or closed. Single enlisted Airmen were hit the worse. No Wi-Fi in the barrack’s common rooms and no cable-TV either. The base library is closed and the hours of the auto hobby shop have been reduced, but the Base Exchange is open as is all the usual military functions.

Whiteman AFB Status:

Available:
– Child Development Center and School Age Programs will operate as normal.
– Military Personnel Section (e.g. ID cards) will remain open; however, wait times may be affected.
– Base fire and emergency response services will operate as normal.
– Base Dining Facility will operate as normal.
– All emergency service calls (e.g. HVAC, plumbing, electricity, carpentry) will operate as normal, although response times may be affected.
– All law enforcement and security functions will operate as normal.
– All Non-appropriated (NAF) functions are exempted and will operate as normal including the Club, Golf Course, Lodging, Bowling Alley.
– All education and testing capability (PME/CDC testing, counseling and TA support) will be limited.
– Voicemail services will operate as normal.
– AAFES will remain open.
– Intramural sports games will continue; however, squadrons must provide volunteer officials

Unavailable:
– Airman and Family Readiness Center will have limited services.
– Dorm Residents postal delivery will cease. Residents will need to come to the Post Office to pick up their mail.
– Dorm common room internet services will cease.
– Cable TV service in military buildings will cease; family housing residents will not be affected.
– Grounds maintenance and litter patrol will cease; units must remove litter/debris from around their buildings and in common areas.
– Outdoor Recreation hours will be reduced to 20 hours/week; all trips/tours will be cancelled.
– Auto Hobby Hours will be reduced to 20 hours/week.
– Base Library will close.
– Community Activity Center will close.
– Information, Tickets and Tours (ITT) will close.
– Fitness Center exercise classes will be limited; a new schedule will be available at the Fitness Center.

I seem to remember when I was in the Air Force, Prez Nixon issued some wage and price freezes to control government costs and the runaway inflation created by Johnson’s Great Society and massive spending. I was assigned to Richards-Gebaur AFB and we had similar cutbacks. There was no internet, nor cable-TV then. The only noticeable impact was the closing of the base library, and the Airmen’s Club quit selling 3.2 beer. The NCO and O-clubs remained open as well as the commissary and BX. The on-base gas stations, run by the BX, kept the same hours, and no prices changed.  If you lived off-base, as I did, you really didn’t notice any change. The brunt of the impact was to the unmarried enlisted Airmen living on base.

But the real question is what will be the political impact. Obama Reid is counting on Boehner and the RINO-boys caving. That will probably happen. Boehner and his RINO buds have no spine. They don’t want to jeopardize their membership in the Ruling Class.

The column below appeared today in the National Journal. It mirrors the theme of my posts for the last several months. The writer and the publication aren’t conservative. They’re members of the liberal mainstream, but it is telling that they, too, see the dangers coming towards us.

The Beginning of the End for Washington

This impasse could be the breaking point for a political system that has gone from dysfunctional to nonfunctioning

Step back. Try for a moment to extrapolate what a government shutdown and discredited U.S. currency could do to the economy and the public’s faith in government. Think beyond next year’s congressional elections or even the 2016 presidential race. Factor in existing demographic and social trends. I did, and this is what I concluded:

1. The Republican Party is marginalizing itself to the brink of extinction.

2. President Obama can’t capitulate to GOP demands to unwind the fairly legislated and litigated Affordable Care Act. To do so would be political malpractice and a poor precedent for future presidents.

3. Despite the prior two points, Obama and his party won’t escape voters’ wrath. Democrats are less at fault but not blameless.

4. This may be the beginning of the end of Washington as we know it. A rising generation of pragmatic, non-ideological voters is appalled by the dysfunctional leadership of their parents and grandparents. History may consider October 2013 their breaking point. There will come a time when Millennials aren’t just mad as hell; they won’t take it anymore.

At this point, the writer had to revert to his liberal bias. He applauds ‘Pub Senators like Cole (R-OK), who supported Cruz, and Coburn (R-OK), who supported Harry Reid, calling both “conservatives.” The writer villainizes Ted Cruz, Lee and their supporters as “extremists” who oppose governing(!?).

The Republican Party may be splitting apart. The divide is between conservatives who want to limit government and extremists who oppose governing.

The latter sect is represented by Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas who is misleading his supporters. He knows that the GOP can’t overturn Obamacare because Republicans only control one half of one branch of government. And yet, Cruz and other tea party Republicans pledge to do the impossible, presumably to build email lists, bank accounts, and fame.

…

The strange thing is that Obamacare could be a good issue for the GOP. It is an unpopular law freighted with complexity. Successful implementation requires precision from an Obama team that has proved itself weak on the nitty-gritty of governing. One could argue that the GOP is fighting Obamacare at its peak strength – prior to implementation. Why not wait for it to go into effect, seize on the flaws and, as Cole says, win some elections?

Obama can’t and won’t gut his bill. Even if you set aside his politics, capitulation would set a horrible precedent: The nation’s credit and the government itself cannot be taken hostage by the extreme wing of a minority party.

At the risk of being accused of “false equivalency” I need to state the obvious: Obama and his party won’t emerge from a shutdown or debt crisis unscathed. To suggest otherwise is a false purity. For starters, the president of the United States is the living symbol of our government and thus receives undue credit when things are going well and outsized blame when they’re not.

Second, voters want Obama to work with Republicans – or at least try. The president is seen by just half of Americans as trying to work with GOP lawmakers, according to the New York Times/CBS News poll. That is down from six of 10 Americans who said the same thing in January 2012 and three-quarters who said he would work with Republicans in 2010 and 2011.

Remember the central promise of Obama’s presidency: He will change the culture of Washington. What happened? Obama has not only been taken hostage by the worst of Washington, gridlock and pettiness, but he seems to be suffering from Stockholm syndrome. His criticism of the GOP last week was as petulant as any GOP talking point. While announcing historic negotiations with Iran, a regime that sponsors terrorism, Obama said he wouldn’t bargain with the GOP.

Reaching out to rivals doesn’t mean capitulating on Obamacare. It does mean swallowing his pride, listening and helping the GOP find a way out of the box they’ve built for themselves. If this was merely a leadership pageant, Obama would win by default because House Speaker John Boehner is performing so poorly. But it’s not. It’s about the country that Obama leads, and everybody gets hurt when he cloisters himself off from the dirty process.

Obama’s job approval numbers are already slipping. For the first time in months, more voters disapprove of his performance than approve. Two-thirds of Americans think the country is on the wrong track. The “wrong track” metric is one that often tracks the president’s popularity. A government cataclysm this month will heighten voters’ anxiety and Obama’s jeopardy.

The salt in voters’ wounds is that this fight does not directly address their biggest issue, jobs. It also not about the nation’s long-term, entitlement-fed debt, an existential issue both parties stopped trying to solve. — The National Journal.

The writer seems to place great faith in the “Millennials.” True, some are becoming politically active—as Tea Party members. Others, raised in the entitlement atmosphere of public education, are whining about the lack of “good paying” jobs, lack of diversity and the unfairness of their situation.

Some may come to realize that reality is not fair and become Tea Partiers. The remainder will be locked into a mold of waiting for Mom and Dad, or the government, to bail them out; not believing the days of bailouts are past.

Where does all this lead beyond the next election cycle or two? Nobody knows, but the best place to look for answers is within the Millennial Generation, the nation’s rising leaders and voters. Last month, in a lengthy essay on Millennials [ The Outsiders: How Can Millennials Change Washington If They Hate It?], I concluded that their revolutionary view of government and politics points toward two possible outcomes. One is that they might opt out of Washington, which leads us to some dark places. The second and more likely outcome is they will blow up Washington (“disruption” is the tech-inspired term they use), and build something better outside the current two-party dysfunction.

Millennials don’t fit neatly into either the Democratic or Republican parties. They are highly empowered, impatient, and disgusted with politics today.

“This tension – two parties thinking they are in the trenches dueling it out, and a burgeoning generation who reject trench warfare altogether – is, for me, the key,” said Michelle Diggles a senior policy adviser at the Democratic think-tank Third Way and an expert in demographics and generational politics. “Washington doesn’t get that change isn’t just a slogan. It’s about to become a reality,”

“Neither party,” she said, “gets what’s coming down the pike.”

What happens in Washington this month might make a Millennial Revolution all the more likely. — The National Journal.

When the writer mentions “Millennials,” I see him really referring to the conservative base that is supporting Cruz, Lee and others. Those conservative supporters are washing their hands of the two party, business-as-usual Washington environment and demand change. If you change “Millennial” above to “grassroot conservatives,” I think he is right.

The “Shutdown”, will disrupt some in the short-run. In the long-run, it really won’t make much difference if Boehner and McConnell caves as Obama Reid expects. But! If the real conservatives in Congress apply pressure, and pressure is applied as well from the electorate, perhaps it will be Obama Reid, who ends up failing…to the betterment of us all.