Friday, November 02, 2012

Dewey Defeats Truman - Zombie Apocalypse Ensued

1948 Nov 2 - Harry Truman(D) defeated Thomas Dewey(R) in the greatest upset in presidential election history by a bit more than 2 million votes. Political analysts were so convinced Dewey would win, the Chicago Daily Tribune printed its front page declaration before votes had been counted.

Could this happen again this coming Tuesday? No, of course not. Truman and Dewey aren't running for President this year.

A Tale of Two Democrat Cities

New Orleans 2005, Hurricane Katrina 

New York City 2012, Hurricane/Superstorm Sandy

Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Bronco Bamma to Red Cross, "We leave no one behind"

...except Ambassadors, embassy personnel, consular officials, State Dept employees, and SEALs.



Bronco Bamma spoke to Red Cross volunteers in Washington, D.C.:
"This is a tough time for a lot of people -- millions of folks all across the Eastern Seaboard. But America is tougher, and we’re tougher because we pull together. We leave nobody behind. We make sure that we respond as a nation and remind ourselves that whenever an American is in need, all of us stand together to make sure that we’re providing the help that's necessary."

I'm tired of Bronco Bamma, too.


You Tube
FORT COLLINS - A 4-year-old Fort Collins girl expressed her frustration over the seemingly never-ending presidential campaign.9NEWS viewer Elizabeth Evans said she and her daughter, Abigael, were listening to NPR on a trip to the grocery store Tuesday when she started tearing up.The mother asked Abigael why she was crying and she responded, "I'm tired of Bronco Bamma and Mitt Romney."This little girl may have captured a sentiment many voters feel less than a week away from Election Day.Elizabeth says on the way back from the store she switched the radio from NPR to Neil Young.

You Tube


Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Kids Get Halloween Candy Redistribution Fairness Lesson

Steve Crowder tries to convince kids that redistribution of Halloween candy is good and fair. Results are predictable including the attempt to punch Crowder.



It's just candy redistribution, but kids know they're being scammed. I hope the parents were paying attention.

Move On Org's moving, inspirational message from the greatest generation

Just when you think it's safe to go back into the political waters, Obama's Democrat-Liberal-Progressive, vile, potty mouth, Hollywood friend, Michael Moore, defecates in the pool again for Move On dot org.



They're our grandmothers and grandfathers, great-aunts and uncles, beloved counselors, kindly neighbors. They are the Greatest Generation. And, this election season, they've got some knowledge to drop. (NSFW)

Follow your elders' advice: visit VotersRising.org

Produced by Michael Moore w/ Daron Murphy David Ambrose of ART NOT WAR
Written by Michael Moore & Jonathan Schwarz
Directed by Laura Dawn
Associate Producers: Angela Linneman & Eddie Geller
DP: David Ambrose
Edited by David Ambrose & Laura Dawn
Assistant Editor: Eddie Geller
Original Music & Sound Design: Daron Murphy
Line Producer: Aaron Kinsley-Brooks
Set Design & Art Direction: Adrian Alexis
Props & Production Assistance: Sarah Kinsley-Brooks
Make Up & Hair: Ananda Khan
h/t Moonbattery

2008 Obama Supporters Are Revolting

Revolution is abrewin' in Chi-town. Community activist Paul McKinley says,
“Everything in Chicago is controlled by the Democratic party. Everything in my community is controlled by Black Democrats. There is no Tea Party in my community. There is no Republicans. So they can’t blame the Tea Party. I tell you that the liberal agenda is not the black agenda, it is not the family agenda, and it is not the American agenda.”


Rebel Pundit at Breitbart records citizens of The Windy City that the Democrat party owns Chicago, that the Liberal and Democrat agenda is not the poor people's agenda, it's not the Black people's agenda, it's not the working man's agenda. It's the union's agenda, it's the pol&itician's agenda. With skyrocketing violence and unemployment, Chicago's huddled masses yearning to breathe free are on the march, or maybe just thinking about being on the march because Black Democrat leadership thugs still scare the bejeezus out of them.

Weird Weather

Weird weather is a common observation nowadays, but the weather is no more weird than it's ever been. Here in the Sacramento/Auburn area of California, we recently experienced two tornadoes a mile or two from my sister's home just south of Sacramento. Lake of the Pines, about 15 miles north of Auburn where I live, reported at least one twister in the foothills. And now the eastern seaboard is suffering through the very destructive Hurricane/Tropical Storm/Superstorm Sandy with high winds, rain, ocean surge, and snow.

So why are we having more tornadoes and hurricanes? Is it global warming? No. That's a load of crap. Global cooling? No. That's just so 1970s. Al Gore using his super secret and powerful quantum weather control machine ransoming the nation's safety for .... a million dollars? Mmmm, doubtful. Don't count him out, though, because the ocean level did rise. Not to the 20 feet Gore had said, only about half that and definitely higher than Obama had promised when he said he would make the ocean's rise stop. Maybe our government actually has the answer - the best answer. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, says,
"The United States today averages 1200 tornadoes a year. The number of tornadoes increased dramatically in the 1990s as the modernized National Weather Service installed the Doppler Radar network. The National Weather Service modernization also began the Warning Coordination Meteorologist program increasing partnerships with media and Emergency Management across the United States. This program also initiated the training of storm spotters across the County Warning Area of each Weather Forecast Office. With more people trained to relay information on storm activity to the Weather Forecast Office and improved communication and digital technology, more tornadoes could be reported."
Well, now. That seems reasonable enough.

Sunday, October 28, 2012

The Real Debate of America's Quadrennial Existential Election

The most important and existential election of our lives happens every four years and this election is no different. Like all previous elections, the real debate is not about the economy, or war, or education, or the cost of gas. The real debate is and has always been about how much overlap we will tolerate between what citizens do in their private lives and how much influence government can exert on those private lives. Democrats see government influence as helpful and good; Republicans see that same influence as intrusive and bad. In the past 100 years, these bounds have moved back and forth, but in more recent decades, the argument has come to a head with little or no room for compromise. Maybe not this election but soon, WE, the people, must decide whether America is free from coercive governmental help or America is free from the difficult work of individual achievement.

A few weeks ago, The Weekly Standard expounded on the the real debate that has been argued throughout our nation's history continuing into this year's great existential election testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure.
The Real Debate
The 2012 election is about far more than our pocketbooks.

Each party is pulled into this debate by what it sees as the deeply misguided views of the other. Democrats listen to Republicans and hear a simpleminded and selfish radical individualism​—​or, as President Obama has put it, “nothing but thinly veiled Social Darwinism.” They hear people who think that being successful and rich means you’re smarter than everyone else or work harder than everyone else, and who therefore have no regard for those in our society who are in no position to start a business or get a loan. They hear people who have benefited from the privileges of being lucky in America and imagine they did it all by themselves. And they seek to teach these people that there is no such thing as a self-made success. This was what President Obama was getting at when he went off his script in Roanoke, Virginia, in July and made “you didn’t build that” an instant classic. He was accusing his opponents of idolizing individual achievement while ignoring the preconditions for success made possible by the larger society​—​which he identified more or less exclusively with the government. Numerous speakers at this summer’s Democratic convention similarly equated society and government, arguing, for instance, that (in the words of the convention’s opening video) “government is the one thing we all belong to,” and that (in the words of Rep. Barney Frank) “there are things that a civilized society needs that we can only do when we do them together, and when we do them together that’s called government.” Republicans, they suggested, don’t believe in government because they don’t believe in doing things together.

Republicans listen to Democrats, meanwhile, and hear a simpleminded and dangerous radical collectivism​—​or, as Mitt Romney has put it, a vision of America as “a government-centered society.” They hear people who think that no success is earned and no accomplishment can be attributed to those who took the risks to make it happen. They hear people who think there is no value in personal drive and initiative, and who would like to extend the web of federal benefits as far and wide as possible to shield Americans from the private economy and make them dependent on government beneficence and on the liberal politicians who bestow it. And they seek to teach these people that private initiative is how prosperity happens, how dignity develops, and how America was built, and that dependence is pernicious and enervating. That was what speaker after speaker at the Republican convention had to say, often drawing on personal experience of entrepreneurship and social mobility. And, in a more confused and hapless way, it was what Mitt Romney was getting at in the now-infamous remarks he made at a fundraiser in May about the growing numbers of Americans receiving federal benefits.

Republicans accuse Democrats of ignoring individual achievement and overvaluing government achievements; Democrats accuse Republicans of ignoring government achievements and overvaluing individual achievement. It is not a coincidence that this unusual debate should be happening as the public is asked to render its verdict on the Obama years, but because that is the context in which it is happening, the debate often misses a crucial point. Simply put, to see our fundamental political divisions as a tug of war between the government and the individual is to accept the progressive premise that individuals and the state are all there is to society. The premise of conservatism has always been, on the contrary, that what matters most about society happens in the space between those two, and that creating, sustaining, and protecting that space is a prime purpose of government. The real debate forced upon us by the Obama years​—​the underlying disagreement to which the two parties are drawn despite themselves​—​is in fact about the nature of that intermediate space, and of the mediating institutions that occupy it: the family, civil society, and the private economy.
(...)

In effect, both parties are trying to preserve something of the postwar era, but they disagree about just what -merits preserving. The Democrats think the design of key government programs was the essence of that era’s success, while Republicans think it was a function of a particular relationship between society and government.

That suggests a very great deal is at stake in this election. It is no surprise that neither party seems quite satisfied with a debate about the narrow set of metrics we have come to call “the economy.” But in the debate they are drawn to instead, conservatives must take a broader and deeper view of what they are defending and why. They stand not so much for the individual against the state, but for a vision of American life that consists of more than individuals and the state. They stand for American society​—​citizens, families, communities, civil society, a free-market economy, and a constitutional government. They stand for a way of life now increasingly endangered, and well worth preserving and modernizing​—​a way of life that is decidedly not better off than it was four years ago.

Read Yuval Levin's entire essay.