davidl on March 20th, 2015


LOS ANGELES/SEATTLE, March 18 (Reuters) – Starbucks Corp Chief Executive Howard Schultz has deftly navigated thorny issues such as gay marriage, gun control and Congressional gridlock, but his move to weigh in on U.S. race relations has brewed up a social media backlash.

Granted their a very real, persistent black socioeconomic disparity.   Some folks think the entire disparity can and should be made to simply disappear.   I’d say most would like to see it reduced.

Broadly speaking, the possible cause of the disparity could be attributed to Nature, an lesser amount of a gift from God; Nurture, a less functional, or even dis-functional black culture or sub-culture, or last white anti-black,  a/k/a institutional, racism.

It great to yammer for a honest discussion of race.   However, the theory of institutional racism can not explain the real racial disparity and any suggest of the first two, Nature or Nurture, gets you condemned as a racist.

I don’t think this where he wanted to steer the conservation, but om Juan Williams  hit the nail on the head, from Fox News:

The smart, cocky cynicism in response to Starbucks’ effort is one big reason it is so hard to get to the good part of a real, informative conversation on any topic, including race relations. It is not only that whites might fear being called racist and tapping into guilty feelings while blacks fear being told they have a chip on their shoulders and play the victim/race card. It is also Hispanics, Asians and recent immigrants biting their tongues about the racial stereotypes they face as they are forced to listen as blacks and whites dominate their limited, two-way, jousting about slavery, its legacy and even “micro-aggressions” of “white privilege.”

As a rule, liberals don’t want have a discussion about race.  They want to dish out blame.   No thanks.

davidl on March 18th, 2015

Did the open opposition to Bibi Netanyahu_Benjaminby the regime, in itself, propel him to victory? From Politico:

Netanyahu also cast himself as the target of foreigners — and while he was vague about the details, pro-Netanyahu media outlets often cited the role of former Obama campaign operative Jeremy Bird, who advised a grass-roots campaign organization that opposes Netanyahu. That group also partnered with the Washington-based OneVoice Movement, an international grass-roots group that supports the two-state solution and has taken State Department funding in the past.

It is easy to paint yourself as a victim, as Netanyahu did, when your enemies are out in the open and very real.

davidl on March 17th, 2015

snark2.jpg The Snark of the Day, from Stacy McCain:

Jeffrey Williams: Soon to replace Mumia Abu Jamal as a liberal hero?

Not unless one, or both, of the officer dies.

davidl on March 16th, 2015

Al Gore (hot air)Just how bad is Mrs. Clinton tanking?   Bad enough for Ezra Klien, Vox, to call for the return of Candidate Hanging Chad and Mr. Climate Change himself, Algore, from Tom Johnson, News Busters:

Many Democrats would like to see a first-tier figure challenge Hillary Clinton for the party’s presidential nomination. Vox editor-in-chief Ezra Klein agrees, but his choice isn’t Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, or Martin O’Malley. On Monday, Klein sent up a trial balloon emblazoned with the name of Al Gore.

As Klein sees it, reducing the “existential threat” of climate change should be the main theme of a Gore candidacy, though he admitted that the issue might end up costing Gore votes. That said, it’s a risk that could pay off big if Gore’s elected, since “climate change is an issue where the president has real unilateral authority.”

Good luck Mr. Klein.  Algore does accept invitation of debate climate changer, or the lack thereof, from Doug Powers @ Michell Malkin:

Global warming causing Al Gore’s doomsday predictions to melt at an alarming rate

In 2007, when Al Gore accepted the Nobel Peace Prize (pause for laughter), he said this:

Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is “falling off a cliff.” One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.

And from Dr. Walter E. Williams, Townhall:

“But the debate is settled. Climate change is a fact,” said President Barack Obama in his 2014 State of the Union address. Saying the debate is settled is nonsense, but the president is right about climate change.
GlobalChange.gov gives the definition of climate change: “Changes in average weather conditions that persist over multiple decades or longer. Climate change encompasses both increases and decreases in temperature, as well as shifts in precipitation, changing risk of certain types of severe weather events, and changes to other features of the climate system.” That definition covers all weather phenomena throughout all 4.54 billion years of Earth’s existence.

The regime has defined climate change as weather.  Therefore in order to eliminate climate change, as defined by the regime, it has to eliminate weather.   Good luck President Jarrett.

Al Einstein authored the Theory of Relativity.   Yet Algore calls climate change a fact.   Bring on Algore.

davidl on March 16th, 2015

I think the voters are ready for a candidate who doesn’t have personal attack dog named James  Carville,Jennifer Rubin, Washington Post

Jenifer Rubin

Jenifer Rubin


There other GOP candidates who may provide bright contrasts to Clinton. In many ways, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) could evoke some startling contrasts. And Walker must continue to show command of issues so that he can be a credible commander in chief. But this week we got the sense that there is no one who is quite as un-Clinton as Walker. And judging by how awfully she performed this week, being the most un-Clinton candidate has its advantages.

I like the formula.

davidl on March 16th, 2015

snark2.jpg The Snark of the Day, from Kurt Schlichter, Townhall:

Does anyone think Bill Clinton is going to be able to keep it in his pants just because Hillary’s in the White House?

The Clinton’s have long maintained that with a vote for one Clinton, you get two. In this case I agree with Bubba.

You are free to argue that B.J.’s sex life is own private business.   Alas, you would be wrong.   As, neither Clinton would want B.J.’s peccadilloes to become public knowledge, it leaves the Clinton open to foreign government blackmail.   Think about this, why did the Clinton’s allow Janet Reno, the Butcher of Waco to  serve two terms as attorney general?

Eric Florack on March 15th, 2015

A few thoughts on Hillary Cltinon’s emails.

First, it strikes me that when you’re talking about at E-mail system, you’re talking about messages that go out from that system to other systems. Other people. It is a communications device that sends from that system to other systems and other people.

Now, that may seems a bit obvious, but perhaps the implications of that simple fact may not be to some. Let’s consider them. Those facts mean…


* If there are any instances of Hillary Clinton doing government business from her private server, say, sending mail to any government servers, other workers at State, for example, or the White House, that evidence is available on the archives from the receiving system.

*It would also stand to reason that the humans running that system, receiving email on that system, would know it was sent from a private server, thus raising the question of an even wider cover-up.

* It  seems impossible to believe that she mail to the White House,  or to State,  or any other government agency, so the conclusion to be \\drawn is that the Obama administration in its entirety has always known about Hillary Clinton’s private server.

So, now we see that the server’s existence was leaked by Valarie Jarret.  I take that as proof of all Ive been saying…. there’s no way this White House DIDN’T know. In a just world, this would result in jail terms for a LOT of people at State and in the White House, including Jarret herself.

But this is what you get when you have criminals in positions of power.


Eric Florack on March 15th, 2015

For a long time now, I have had issues with extreme libertarians on the issue of the role of government. Extreme libertarians as a rule generally want government removed. Period.

I’m with the founders… I think government has a place, but needs to be severely restricted, which is something that the Constitution has sought to do. The trouble is we let government for too long get away with bypassing the Constitution, most recently in the person of Barack Hussein Obama.

A discussion I had recently with one extreme libertarian, exemplifies the difference is I’m talking about. He had just come off of a rather lengthy diatribe about the left and its efforts to eliminate guns by means of law.

Leaving aside for the moment the idea that such restrictions fly in the face of the Second Amendment, I engaged the gent on the following ground… And please understand I’m paraphrasing here for the sake of both brevity and privacy…

“One of your arguments against the banning of certain weapons is that they are merely tools. You rightly suggest that it’s how the tool gets used that makes the difference. I find that a compelling argument.”


“The leftists among us will tell you that guns are inherently evil, and should be banned outright. Personally I find that an extraordinarily stupid argument. You and I have discussed in the past the reasons for that. And, I expect we agree.”

“Yes, we do.”

” Certainly, guns can be used to evil effect. But like any other tool, they can be used for good, as well. For example, defense. Including defense from a hostile government.”


“Would you consider guns to be a necessary evil?”

“I’d consider that a fair statement, though I don’t know that  I’d word it precisely that way.”

“Banning, or banishing something because it can be used for evil, negates the good that it can do as well. Do you agree?”


“Isn’t government a tool?”

(Confused silence)

“Wasn’t Thomas Paine the one who told us that government as a necessary evil?”

(More confused silence.)

Now, before you start tuning up, I’m not playing the card that Obama played about making government cool again. Nor am i moving away from Reagan’s axiom that government isn’t the solution, government is the problem.

But again, I hold with the founders.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, 

We in these United States have been the beneficiaries of that wisdom. I think there is no argument against the idea that as established these United States grew to be the best example of freedom operating in the history of this world.

That said, there is also no argument against the idea that we have failed this experiment in freedom by allowing government to grow beyond its purview, from both an ideological and constitutional perspective. That, too, is a point to which the founders spoke rather eloquently.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by Government abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such , and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Unfortunately, we here in America find ourselves in just that situation. It’s our own fault, having let government get outside of its purview as I say. In my judgment our founders would be long since shooting.

And yes, that eventuality is exactly what the 2nd amendment was designed for.

But how have we come to this stage? How did we get here?
To answer that question, let’s refer back to something I posted in these spaces a little over a decade ago….

1: Who invented the concept of government?

2: What purpose would that entity have had in such creation?

One way we can answer those two questions at once, would be to look at what existed as the most powerful force before government was invented, and therefore what was the most likely inventor of government: CULTURE.

If we make the logical assumption that governments were originally created by the individual cultures, then it follows that each culture constructed their respective governments in their own image… governments that best reflected and advanced each culture’s interests.

The original purpose of government, therefore, is to protect, nurture and defend, and if possible expand the influence of, the culture that gave it life. As such, to the greatest of degrees possible, each government’s laws, on the whole, were the culture, codified. It follows, then, that any government holding to the original purpose of government will perform this task.

Now, notice I said to the greatest degree possible. I freely admit… Trumpet, even, that there are no perfect governments, no perfect laws. No law, or government can ever capture in amber, a culture. Cultures are far more complex than any law, however written, can encompass. So it is that laws cannot be the end-call and be-all to a culture, or to a country. Laws when taken too literally and made to apply to all events uniformly, can instead of being just, will instead dispense injustice. It is said that in hell, there will be law and policy and little else. Yet, this imperfect tool did at least manage to provide a mechanism toward the intended purpose… The furtherance of the culture that founded said government. This understanding that there is imperfection in government implies that other values should supersede governmental power when the tool of government doesn’t fit the task at hand well. I submit the highest value applied here should be the values of the culture, not that of the law.

(Which, I would argue is why there are judges which read not only the wording of the laws but then intent of them.)

Now, I hear some of you balking at this, suggesting the right of the individual are paramount; a noble sentiment. But consider this immovable fact:

Rights are not universal.

Yep. That’s what I said…Read it again, just to be sure.

Rights are not universal.

Clearly, this will raise many questions on the part of some. This should answer most;

When Jefferson wrote that “WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF-EVIDENT” he was not speaking a universal truth at all. The operative word in that phrase is “WE”.

Rather than talking about a universal point of view, a universal truth, if you will, he was instead talking about the point of view of WE the new American culture. With this angle, many of the long-held myths about rights tend to disappear.

Consider; if it was in fact a universal truth that all men were created equal, it wouldn’t have been such a radical idea, for the time, much less then to now. Last I checked, it is quite true that a vast majority still do not consider these as any kind of truth, universal or otherwise; they consider them to be anything BUT self-evident. Royalty still exists, as do class structures, and slavery, as well.

Again, I say…Jefferson was speaking of the point of view of OUR culture, not that of others.

The fact of the matter is that RIGHTS ARE A CULTURAL CONCEPT, and are nigh on meaningless outside that construct. Once the culture is allowed to fall to the law, even in an attempt to impose rights where they do not exist, what happens to real rights, which are a cultural concept?

When one says “freedom”, the question should be ‘freedom from what’? The answers that come back will invariably be cultural in nature. They do not make any sense outside that environment.

As I’ve said, the law and government has been abused by some, it has moved away from that intended purpose of supporting the existing culture. They are in fact being used by the left to alter that morality, to alter that culture, and when that happens, the fall of the government cannot be far behind… and the fall of the culture itself beyond that, becomes a larger possibility. Often as not, the downfall of that culture is what they have in mind.

I submit what we have here, today, is the reversal of roles. Governments thinks itself the arbiter of the culture, not the servant of it. The US has the culture dramatically changed, and with it the concept of Rights. What is a right and what is not.

So the question becomes, what to do about all this.

First of all, we need to put government back inside of its constitutional box, and get it out of the business of being the arbiter of culture. That means among other things, getting it out of the education business, getting it out of the medicine business, getting it out of regulation of food, closing down the EPA,, and all that just for openers.

Now obviously, all that’s not going to happen instantaneously. It took us a hundred years of government sneaking out side of its boundaries, from Woodrow Wilson forward. That stuff’s not going to be cured in a day. And it may not be cured in a hundred years. But our survival depends on walking in that direction.

As to those who figure in the elimination of government all together is the best path, perhaps a lesson from history is worth having.

The history of revolutions, specifically revolutions intended to overthrow a given government, with the exception of the American Revolution, have not fared very well. Consider the socialist state that is now France, for example. Or, England for that matter. The idea of the constitutional republic as set up by our founders, is as I say the best example of freedom the world has come up with yet. I submit that moving toward that end is the best path forward. Get government back inside that constitutional box.

davidl on March 14th, 2015

Jazz Shaw, Hot Air,  asks:

Are conservatives missing something on “black lives matter” here?

Well black lives do matter in two ways.  One they needed to keep the democrat party criminal enterprise in power and two they exist to be slaughtered for profit by Planned Parenthood, from Black Genocide:

 “Several years ago, when 17,000 aborted babies were found in a dumpster outside a pathology laboratory in Los, Angeles, California, some 12-15,000 were observed to be black.”
–Erma Clardy Craven (deceased) Social Worker and Civil Rights Leader

And from Breitbart:

“In 2013, Planned Parenthood upped the number of abortions they performed to 327,653,” Dannenfelser noted. “Meanwhile, their already limited cancer screenings, prenatal services, adoption referrals – and even contraception services – continue to drop. Planned Parenthood claims to be an altruistic health care provider for women and girls but their bottom line is all about abortion.”

Even if ever police on black homicide was unjustified, the number blacks killed by police is dwarfed by the number butchered by Planned Parenthood.

davidl on March 13th, 2015

The libtarded politicians of Seattle believe they can solve problems by giving away other people’s money.  Well in the real world, labor is a commodity and no sane person would buy a commodity on which he can not make money, from Darleen Click, Protein Wisdom:

Seattle’s $15 minimum wage law goes into effect on April 1, 2015. As that date approaches, restaurant across the city are making the financial decision to close shop. The Washington Policy Center writes that “closings have occurred across the city, from Grub in the upscale Queen Anne Hill neighborhood, to Little Uncle in gritty Pioneer Square, to the Boat Street Cafe on Western Avenue near the waterfront.”

In order to run a successful business, you need to be able to make the math work.   In politics, not so much.

davidl on March 12th, 2015

Mrs. Clinton was required to sign form OF-109 before she left the State Department.  That was two years ago.  Today, the State Department can not, or will not, say if Mrs. Clinton signed the form, video:

Mrs. Clinton was required to turn over all State Department documents before she left office, not two years after.

davidl on March 12th, 2015

snark2.jpgIf you damned if you do and damned if you don’t, you might as well pick the option that gives the most pleasure. with that the Snark of the Day, from McGehee, gleamed from the comments on Darleen Click post, on Protein Wisdom:

Somebody tell those researchers I’m still waiting for my sandwich.

Mother Nature, is sexist.  Accept it.

davidl on March 12th, 2015

This is the same John Kerry who traveled to Paris to conduct his own private negotiations with the North Vietnamese during a time  of war:

Washington (CNN)—Secretary of State John Kerry on Wednesday slammed a letter 47 Republican senators recently wrote to Iran’s leaders.

Kerry, who served for nearly three decades as a senator, told a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing that he greeted the letter with “utter disbelief,” calling it a breach of “more than two centuries of precedent” and factually incorrect.

Kerry was drummed out of the Navy for conducting is own private negotiations with the North Vietnamese.  Lurch never changes:

At the hearing on Wednesday, Kerry insisted that Cotton’s letter stemmed from the false premise that any agreement brokered with Iran would be legally binding, though the letter doesn’t use that language.

“We’re not negotiating a legally binding plan,” Kerry said, pointing out that an eventual agreement would have the same power as the “thousands” of executive agreements between the U.S. and foreign countries that Congress has not approved.

Lurch slammed the GOP letter for what it did not say, and apparently for revealing the truth of regime’s plan to surrender to Ayatollah’s without creating any binding obligation on the part of Iran to do anything.  Kerry, once a traitor, always a traitor.

No sane person wants to see Iran go nuclear, or apparently is allowed a position of power in the regime’s foreign policy apparatus.

davidl on March 10th, 2015

Ok, the Old Biddy, Mrs. Clinton, was born in 1947, well before her vice president invented the Internet. But still, with all the old recycled Clintonistas on payroll like Lanny Davis and James Carville, you’d think the old biddy could have hired at least one competent tech geek. Evidently not.   Then, when you tell as many lies as the Clinton’s do it hard to keep them straight.

Kimberlee Kaye, Legal Insurrection has nailed three lies.:

One, two weeks ago the old biddy bragged about using, having four, electronic devices.   Today, she says she can  only handle one.     The old biddy says she used her personal email account because she did not want to carry two devices.   Yet her account was hosted a Clintonemail on the World Web Web.   Any device capable of connecting to the Internet could have accessed her personal email, and likely did.

Two,  the old biddy says she emailed with her hubby.   Yet B.J. says he has only sent two emails, and neither of them to his wife.

Three, the old biddy says her email server was secure because is was in a house guarded by the Secret Service.  Does she think that Edward Snowden had to pilfer actual hard drives in order to national security secrets?

Memo to Trey Gowdy, if you want all of  Mrs. Clinton’s emails, maybe you should ask the KGB or whatever they call it nowadays in Moscow.

And to think the press mocked Forty One for not being familiar with a bar code scanner.



davidl on March 9th, 2015

It not that I don’t care.  It is that seen this all before.  Yet another unarmed black teenager has been shot and killed by police, and again we have another public outcry. Yet like, Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown, the outraged public is overlooking the character, or lack thereof same, of the decedents.

(CNN)—On the surface, the situation seems too familiar: Police kill an unarmed black man. Community members rally. They chant in unison and grief: “Black lives matter.”

But the fatal shooting of 19-year-old Tony Robinson has its own unique set of circumstances.

The deadly confrontation has made Madison, Wisconsin, the latest epicenter of protests. Demonstrators plan to rally there at the Wisconsin State Capitol on Monday morning, and students say they will stage a walkout at the city’s East High School after classes.

Andrew Branca, Legal Insurrection:

Step 2: Watch the False Narrative Implode

Curiously, the NBC piece on Robinson’s shooting managed to leave out a considerable amount of context, context that any reasonably person would likely find relevant to understanding the truth of what happened.

Fortunately, The Smoking Gun blog was helpful enough to provide us with this relevant context: Wisconsin Shooting Victim, 19, Was Convicted Last Year For Role In Armed Home Invasion.

It is notable how different this headline is than that offered by the NBC piece, which you’ll recall was: Black Teen Tony Robinson Shot Dead by Cop in Madison, Wisconsin, Was Unarmed.

Also notable is that The Smoking Gun piece was published on Saturday, March 7, the day after the shooting–whereas the NBC piece appears, from indications on the post’s page, to have been published in the early morning hours of Sunday, March 8–after the publication of the The Smoking Gun post. Yet the NBC post contains little of the relevant information contained in The Smoking Gun’s post.

So pardon me if having seen this movie before, I forgo the opportunity to buy a ticket.