As off-putting as this story is, pay attention to the label placed on the killer by the article…. “Psychotic”.  It strikes me as completely appropriate, and true.

Now, ask yourself….. why do they not call ISLAMISTS who behead people, “Psychotic”?

davidl on October 29th, 2014

Just how much brain damage has the woman formerly known as the Smartest Woman in the World, suffered from series of concussions, both known and unknowb? Judging from the evidence, Mrs. Clinton has devolved down to Joe Biden in a pants suit, video:

How can Mrs. Clinton handle a crisis at Three AM, when her brain refuses to function when she is aware?    Mrs. Clinton we need to see your medical records.

Eric Florack on October 26th, 2014

Hmm. We see shootings of cops in PA and in California. We see a hatchet attack in the subways of NYC.
We see attacks in Canada on their military.

But the one thing we do not see is relax from the White House, or from our Attorney General. We were treated to nonstop harangue when Ferguson went down. So, why is this different?

davidl on October 23rd, 2014

Rosie O’Donnell is fast, loud, vulgar and ignorant.    Several young bitches in training audition to be come the next O’Donnell,  from Hot Air (NSFW).    Being loud and vulgar does not  atone for being wrong.   Women do not get paid twenty-three percent less for doing the exact same job as men.    Approximately thirteen men die due to work place injuries as women.   If thirteen times as many men die on the job, they are not doing the exact same job as women

davidl on October 23rd, 2014

Doctor Charles Krauthammer on the new face of terror,video:

It is simply inane to allow uncontrolled immigration from cultures unable and unwilling to assimilate. Islam is a culture based on domination and not tolerance.

davidl on October 22nd, 2014


As a candidate Chris Christie has much, very much, (too much?) for which to account and atone.  Yet as a republican, at least he is firing back at the democrat and media mythology.  Bully for Chris.

davidl on October 21st, 2014

Bobby Reich is a small man. Not that Robert Reich is short. He is. Rather Reich is a dishonest crap weasel, video:

The secret little known Senate trick reconciliation was how Dirty Harry Reid and Mrs. Pelosi passed Obamacare in the first place.  Americans didn’t like Obama Care then and they don’t like it now.

Hat tip: Alister, Legal Insurrection.

davidl on October 21st, 2014

Obama_Barack-chaiirThere is no I in the word team and with Dim Won, b/k/a President Barack Obama, there is nothing more important than feeding his vanity, from Hill:

President Obama delivered a blow to Democratic Senate candidates looking to distance themselves from his flagging approval ratings Monday, saying lawmakers avoiding him on the campaign trail were “strong allies and supporters” who have “supported my agenda in Congress.”

The president said that Democrats faced a “tough map” and noted that many Democrats in crucial races “are in states that I didn’t win” during a radio interview with Rev. Al Sharpton.

There is no taking one for the team, when you see yourself as the team, the entire team.

davidl on October 16th, 2014

Four Americans are murdered in Benghazi.   Obama does a fund raisser.

ISIS beheads an American.    Obama goes golfing.

Obama says Ebola can’t spread to America.     America’s first Ebola patient dies.   More are infected.     Obama calls a cabinet meeting, from Puffington Post:

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama is cancelling political travel to meet with his Cabinet on the Ebola outbreak.

The White House says Obama is calling off a planned trip to New Jersey and Connecticut and instead will convene Cabinet officials coordinating the government’s Ebola response at the White House.

Four Americans died in Benghazi. For Obama it was politics as usual. ISIS beheads an American, James Foley. Obama plays golf. So why has Obama stopped his political carnival for a dead LIberian?

davidl on October 16th, 2014

Ironic post, via the head Moron Ace,  from your federal government,  Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:

Interim Guidance about Ebola Infection for Airline Crews, Cleaning Personnel, and Cargo Personnel

Updated October 15, 2014

CDC requests airline crews to ask sick travelers if they were in Guinea, Liberia, or Sierra Leone in the last 21 days.
1.If YES, AND they have any of these Ebola symptoms—fever, severe headache, muscle pain, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach pain, or unexplained bruising or bleeding—report immediately to CDC.
2.If NO, follow routine procedures.

Purpose: To give information to airlines on stopping ill travelers from boarding, managing and reporting onboard sick travelers, protecting crew and passengers from infection, and cleaning the plane and disinfecting contaminated areas.

The regime’s new improved game plan is ask passengers if they are sick and let them into the country anyhow.

I think Ace will have to think of new nom de plume for his gang. Ace’s Morons are make Obama’s moron look stupid.



davidl on October 15th, 2014

From Kate, Small Dead Animals:

( – Dr. Tom Frieden, director for the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), said during a telephone press briefing Wednesday that you cannot get Ebola by sitting next to someone on a bus, but that infected or exposed persons should not ride public transportation because they could transmit the disease to someone else.

You can not trust a moron, who is too stupid to realize what he is saying.

Tom Frieden, head of the Center for Disease Control:

“[T]he fact that it’s possible to take care of Ebola safely, but it does change, substantially, how we approach it,”

Hat tip and reax, Vox, Vox Popoli:

You are permitting Ebola victims to freely enter the USA because you MIGHT be able to safely take care of them?

They’ve already been wrong once. Who wants to bet his life that they’ve nailed it this time?

Dr. Frieden wants to maintain open borders, while he gropes abound in the dark seeking a politically correct means to stem the Ebola epidemic.

davidl on October 13th, 2014

snark2.jpgSnark of the Day from Mitt Romney:

“President Obama went to the bank to cash a check and he didn’t have his ID. And the teller said you’ve got to prove who you are.

“He said, ‘How should I do that?’ She said the other day Phil Mickelson came in, he didn’t have his ID but he set up a little cup on the ground, took a golf ball, putted it right into that cup so they knew it was Phil Mickelson. They cashed his check.

“And then Andre Agassi came in. And Andre Agassi didn’t have his ID either. He put a little target on the wall, took a tennis ball and racquet — hit it onto that target time. We knew that was Andre Agassi so we cashed his check.

“And she said to him, ‘Is there anything you can do to prove who you are?’ And [Obama] said, ‘I don’t have a clue.’

“And she said, ‘Well, Mr. President, do you want your money in small bills or large bills?'”

Hat tip: Useless Toady

Eric Florack on October 12th, 2014


First, let me say that the USSC’s recent (non-)decision was the correct and logical one, if the only issue was the law and the wording within the Constitution. The choice, you see, was made the moment government made being married a legal matter, hundreds of years ago. That said, however, there are larger things at work, here.

One of the advantages of having a huge library of previous writings on file, is the ability to refer back to those writings and those positions. Saves much in the way of repetitive writing and also, gives you a checkpoint on your own consistency. Back in 2004, I wrote a comment over at Dan Drezner’s place, which addresses some of the issues aside from the law, and the Constitution.

“‘A prohibition on homosexual unions wasn’t written into the constitution because such things were assumed, and therefore never legally defined.

Proof of these assumptions is easy enough to find.
It is interesting for example, that Jefferson, (arguably the biggest social liberal of the lot) thought homosexual acts to be worthy of hanging… (I commend Fawn Brodie’s Jefferson to your reading list) and yet he never indicated anything of the sort in his … our… documents.

Clearly, there was some assumptions made on the part of the founders in this area…. cultural assumptions.

And here, we walk a legal fine line, I fear.

Government, you see, does not operate inside a cultural vacuum. Rather, it exists inside a cultural context it must not run afoul of, lest it become irrelevant to the people it’s supposed to be governing. Yet, while law and government is a more exact science, culture is less so. And so, codification of the culture is problematic at best.

Given this, Jefferson, and the rest of the founders apparently took the attitude that their best tack would be to write laws and a framework that would at least not run afoul of the existing culture, without specifying without attempting to codify the bounds of that culture.

Dan, I think, is right insofar as such an amendment not passing, because it, unlike the remainder of the constitution, it attempts to define the social boundaries of the culture it’s charged with governing.

But I wonder what it is then, that the culture has to protect itself, in the end, if not government.’

This is, it seems to me, the legal vs the cultural. And clearly the founders were making choices based on cultural assumptions. This is today resulting in questions such as Holman W. Jenkins Jr, in the WSJ asks

“If marriage is a mere “legal” right, who can’t get married? If any two people have the right to the legal benefits of marriage, why not three people? Why not two brothers? Why not a man and his father?

It’s hard to see on what basis marriage could logically be denied to anybody. Right now, the state doesn’t ask if a man and woman are heterosexually inclined, if they love each other, if they intend to have children. Marriage largely regulates itself, with the exception being government efforts to prevent marriages intended solely to obtain a green card. But in the world ordained by the Massachusetts supreme court, wouldn’t the state be obliged to make sure two women who want to get married are really lesbians and not just two women trying to acquire the legal advantages of marriage? How else to stop marriage from becoming a right available to any group of people who simply want to organize their affairs as “married” persons?

Right now, the law makes no formal presumption about the sexual orientation of people getting married, just their gender: They have to be of opposite sexes. Yet that small stipulation seems to have succeeded, for the most part, in keeping marriage from becoming a mere contractual convenience. ”

I’ve already written at some length about all of this, incidental to the Canadian SC ruling last June.(02)

The problem is a bit more basic, even than a religious question in our increasingly secular society. At it’s root, this is a matter of which will triumph… law and government, or the culture that created said law and said government. Like it or not, the values being railed against by those seeking to install this travesty, are not simply religious values. They are also deep in the roots of our culture. The implications are simple enough to see, then…

Clearly, what we have here as the result of this ruling are more questions than answers. I say again, the issue is what triumphs, government, or the culture that gave it life? Has the monster created to protect the culture, turned on it’s master?

I suggest it has, and it’s because we have entrusted the power of government to those who don’t believe in traditional American culture, who are using the power of government to over-ride and debase that culture. And that is a theme which will continue to pop up in posts I already have in the pipeline.

Editor’s note…. this post is echoed at TNR’s main page.





davidl on October 12th, 2014

Feldman_ClariceCall it irrational, but I do love how this old lady writes:

As a young man the emperor was always just given what he wanted and had no idea how wealth was created, what uses it could be put to — besides buying choom and stuff — and generally despised anyone who had it. Except for himself, of course. He thought the wealth of others was all gotten through theft and he dreamed of the day when he could steal it back and give it to his friends.

Still the emperor was young and impressionable and he believed these silly things.

Link to read the whole article, by Clarice Feldman, American Thinker.