Archive for the ‘ Right ’ Category

Occupy Unmasked


It was Andrew Breitbart’s final project before his untimely death.

And the full movie is about to be released.

Meanwhile…

And currently…

Mitt Romney, Jon Stewart, the 47%, and a few sh*ts and giggles along the way


Who doesn’t love a good debate? This one is taken from facebook. It was about Mitt Romney and those entitlement remarks he made that surfaced from the leaked hidden camera video.

It’s a bit long, so I’ll put it below the fold. Hope you enjoy it! :-)

Continue reading

Labor’s dirt machine


They’ve been at it since the beginning of time, and were likely feeding David Marr scuttlebutt for months as he researched his attack on Opposition leader Tony Abbott, and yet the best that they both can up with is that maybe Tony Abbott hit a wall when he was a teenager, as “witnessed” by two people, Abbott haters no less, who weren’t even there.

:roll: :lol:

UPDATE

More here.

Sensitive thugs


Sensitive lot, aren’t they, over in northern Africa and the Middle East?

Turn on, say, CNN, and we’re witnessed to violent, inflamed protests in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Sudan, Iran, Iraq, the Kashmir region, Yemen, Morocco, and Israel and the Palestinian territories.

And why? Well the catalyst for the protests which – no coincidence, surely – began on September 11, are over a crappy, low budget film depicting Mohammed as a thug and pedophile. Most of us would have happily lived out our lives having not the slightest inkling this film ever existed, except that an Egyptian sheik got wind of it, translated the YouTube trailer in to Arabic and, let’s face it, used it to light a fire under the ever-simmering hatred of the West, and the US in particular as the bastion of the West.

The film was ordinary to say the least, but that’s the price you pay for freedom, and in particular, freedom of speech – a cornerstone of free democratic nations (which incidentally, the Left in Australia has managed to dig up). I’d much rather have freedom and be offended once in a while than to live in a country where even freedom of thought is blasphemy, indeed punishable by death.

What we also know – or think we know – is that the bloke who made the film is one Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, FKA Sam Becile; technically a Coptic Christian (they make up around 10% of Egypt’s population), but as information comes to light, it turns out he’s a pretty shady guy with multiple names and social security numbers, has been convicted for narcotics offenses as well as bank fraud.

So basically, he’s a troll – not someone to be liked.

However, what I also don’t like is all the finger-pointing that has gone on “back home”. TBH, I’m not really that proud of my “Bye, Libya” post below (although a number of US lawmakers, both Democrat and Republicans, have called for a washing of hands also). But what really disgusts me is that whilst corpses have been paraded around the streets, and the senseless violence is ongoing, the Left have used this as an opportunity to attack US presidential candidate, Mitt Romney.

Now, for sure, the Right have also used this to attack sitting Democrat President Barrack Obama.

Yet, there is one key difference, it must be pointed out, that does not make what’s good for the goose good for the gander.

Romney has no actual political power, and in no way has been involved in any type of US government decision making when it comes to things such as an effective, appropriate response, coordination with the State Department, and security conditions on the ground which may have at least saved a few important lives.

The opposite is true for Obama. Geneva convention or not (the host country provides most security at embassies and consulates), the situation being what it was leading up to those abhorrent attacks, the Obama administration should have had proper security forces in place.

It did not.

And talk about gaffes in rhetoric – and the Left has been quick to jump on a perceived yet actually non-existent gaffe in Romney’s rhetoric – Obama comes out and says Egypt is neither enemy nor ally; a gaffe which the State Department had to correct and reiterate that Egypt, er, technically is an ally, in the legal definition of the word.

Not that Obama is being punished in the media for that massive faux pas

Double standards? Remember when Obama recently and most irresponsibly inflamed home grown violence by declaring that if he had a son, his name would be Trayvon Martin?

Still, that’s hardly the first example of collective, selective, faux leftist outrage.

But I digress, and fall into the same trap I’m blaming leftists for also doing.

The real bad guy here isn’t Obama. Nor is it Romney. Nor is it that film maker, not in a country that upholds freedom of speech, however offensive.

No, the real bad guys are those thugs who murdered the US Libyan ambassador, J. Christopher Stevens and three others including two former Navy Seals.

The real bad guys are those thugs staging their violent protests all over the middle east and northern Africa.

The real bad guys are people like that sheik who found that obscure video and used it to incite an entire nation, indeed regions, to hatred and violence.

The real bad guys are the ruling Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt who have called for a banning of Freedom of Speech in the West, and who have also called for *cough* peaceful protests this Friday, Islamic prayer day.

While emotions are still running high, can we in the West, on the Left and the Right, please remember who the real bad guys are (hint: it’s not each other).

So where are these climate scientists, gurus, our government is so sure of?


A planet in peril, or a society?

On ABC’s QandA political affairs program last Monday, aside from GetUp!’s Simon Sheikh’s collapse, we were privilege to the dulcet tones of Climate Change minister, Greg Combet.

A major part of his reassuring argument is that the government simply cannot ignore the warnings of all the world’s top scientists.

Noted empirical evidence – namely that we haven’t seen any warming in at least ten years – was dismissed as a rubbish argument.

No, Combet smoothly argued the scientists had to be trusted.

So? Who?

The IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?

Even they’ve admitted they are just another UN body, and certainly not the “gold standard”.

They admitted they don’t necessarily promote views of the world’s “top scientists”, but rather, make sure every geographic region is represented as equally as possible.

Sorry, but that’s not the world’s top scientists.

No Frakking Consensus:

Leading scientists. Top climate scientists. The best scientific minds. That was the fiction. Now, at long last, the IPCC is admitting that its authors don’t, in fact, all belong to the highest echelons of the scientific community. Instead we’re advised that the IPCC has “always sought” to “achieve geographic representation.”

The end of Chapter 5 in my book reads:

Journalists say we should trust the IPCC’s conclusions because its reports have been written by the world’s finest scientific minds. But in order for that to be the case the IPCC would need to apply very different criteria when selecting its authors.

It would need an explicit policy that says something along the lines of: Even though we are a UN body, we are not influenced by UN diversity concerns. We select the world’s best experts and only the world’s best experts – regardless of where they come from or what gender they happen to be.

In fact, readers may recall that the crux of the IPCC argument, the one governments such as our own are rolling with (OK, well basically just ours), was written by a teenage boy.

The blurb:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) performs one of the most important jobs in the world. It surveys climate science research and writes a report about what it all means. This report is informally known as the Climate Bible.

Cited by governments around the world, the Climate Bible is the reason carbon taxes are being introduced, heating bills are rising, and costly new regulations are being enacted. It is why everyone thinks carbon dioxide emissions are dangerous. Put simply: the entire planet is in a tizzy because of a United Nations report.

What most of us don’t know is that, rather than being written by a meticulous, upstanding professional in business attire, the Climate Bible is produced by a slapdash, slovenly teenager who has trouble distinguishing right from wrong.

This expose, by an investigative journalist, is the product of two years of research. Its conclusion: almost nothing we’ve been told about the IPCC is true.

So?

Who?

What top climate scientists? Could Combet quote one? A credible one?

The “father” of global warming Gaia theory, perhaps?

No. Remember, James Lovelock came out recently and admitted much of the doom and gloom he’d forecast simply isn’t and hasn’t turned out to be the case.

Unfortunately, not so many other climate scientists are as free to revise their views as Lovelock is. You see, he doesn’t require government funding to keep him afloat.

That is a significant catch 22 that simply cannot be dismissed.

So?

Who?

Australia’s very own Climate Commissioner, Tim Flannery, who the government pays $180,000 per year for three days work per week?

Well, this is a bloke who predicted permanent drought for Australia’s three major eastern coastal cities.

Now the dams are as good as full, and the desal plants have been mothballed – at a cost of considerable billions.

So? Who?

That other government-paid climate expert, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, who predicted our thriving reefs would be wiped out by now?

Who, Combet? Who, Gillard?

Who are they, are they on your payroll, and have any of their predictions come true?

Of course, their argument is bunkum, like as if a trace gas, of which humans produce only a fraction of, somehow drives global climate.

Hence, you’ll see more arguments like GetUp!’s Simon Sheikh’s; that being, “to rise above the politics”, like he said on QandA last Monday.

You see, to them, it was never about the science, even though that’s of course what they claimed and possibly what they also believed to a point.

And when the science started riding home, the hard empirical data that refuted the models, they argued it was time to “move on from that”.

OK. So we’re back to the political argument many claimed it always was?

Oh no, now it’s “let’s rise above the politics”.

Utterly vacuous words and sentiments. Deceitful, too – and perhaps to themselves the most.

People like Sheikh I do believe mean well. But he’s trying to change the way the world works because essentially, he doesn’t understand how the world works (and he must have been asleep in history class).

I would argue, however, that he does see genuine problems such as real pollution but has unfortunately, like many of our politicians and scientists, been caught up in CO2=pollution nonsense hypothesis.

He’s stuck.

He, like the other 50,000 delegates at the Rio+20 convention, have made and staked their careers on this.

Families to feed.

For example, what would he and his wife, Australian Youth Climate Coalition (AYCC) chairperson, Anna Rose, do if this all came unravelled?

What would Combet do?

What would Flannery do?

What would Gillard do?

Looking at the big picture, that is hardly important. It’s what they’ve done, what they’re doing, and what they will do before time is up that actually matters in the broader sense.

Larry Pickering:

Now we know what Emerson’s “Whyalla” rendition was all about. It was a “get that up ya” celebration which wasn’t directed at us at all. He had already lost us.

Gillard’s old bed mate, Emerson, was serenading Abbott alone in a taunting display of ridicule.


*You know, if they’d actually just made it a big money-go-round – not a take from the rich, give to the poor – but an actual money-go-round, and admitted it as simply as that, something that might have stimulated the economy, I’d probably be half for it…*

Also, if this carbon tax did ANYTHING to lower global temperatures, then they might have a sliver of an argument. That said, the whole world could adopt it and not even Tim Flannery claims it would make an iota of difference.

Their argument of, “So what? We do nothing?” is fallacious. By wasting so much time, money, and endeavour on the carbon caper, there is in fact a lot we are not doing that we should be doing again.

My take on the SCOTUS Obamacare ruling


(originally posted on facebook)

OK. So the SCOTUS has deemed Obamacare constitutional and thus able to go ahead. Now those people who know me, know that I’m far from being a liberal (but JFTR, I’m not conservative, I’m libertarian/classical liberal). Interestingly, it was Justice Roberts, the chief justice and a conservative, who cast the deciding vote. He framed Obamacare as a tax, and thus as a tax, the congress has every right to do what it wants. Don’t like it? Vote them out, or you shouldn’t have voted them in. Tough bikkies. Not the court’s problem.

Now don’t get me wrong, I can’t stand progressive ideology, so don’t see the following as some kind of *coming together* watershed moment. I still have utmost disdain for the OWS crowd, PETAphiles, and idiots who think that man-made CO2 emissions somehow cause global warming.

However, Obama is a democratically elected president, and the SCOTUS has deemed Obamacare constitutional. For better or for worse, people should deal with that and get working. It’s not as if now there’s suddenly universal “free” healthcare in America anyway. Basically, my understanding is that Obamacare now forces your lazy ass to buy some frickin’ health insurance if you don’t have it already, and no more of this pre-existing condition crap (although that was rorted by healthcare providers and clients alike).

And the sky won’t fall in with Medicare and Medicaid. I know this because we have a top-notch healthcare system in Australia comprising of BOTH public and private healthcare. We’ve had it for ages, and basically it works fine.

Now, as you all know, I’m certainly of the Right, and I just hope others on the Right deal with it and won’t carry on like whiny little shouty moonbat bitches like so many on the Left do about, say, another SCOTUS decision like *that one* in 2000.

Anyway, my interest in all this is rather limited beacuse, seriously, as an Australian living in Korea, I don’t really give that much of a fuck about American healthcare.

On a more practical level, however, I would like to talk briefly about healthcare in Korea. I hope people realise that their national health insurance does NOT cover everything. A couple of times during my vacat-… er, stay in Korea, a foreigner has been involved in a serious accident. He/They only had national health insurance, and the doctors WOULD NOT operate until tens of thousands of dollars could be paid. So, we did our best and passed round the tin. Too little. Too late. Those people died.

Moral of the story? I could not recommend high enough also obtaining private health insurance whilst you stay in Korea. Even the best is not overly expensive. Also, if you drive a motor vehicle, get some top notch – not just that basic crap – for you car. For instance, I have insurance that covers my car, me, any passengers, their car, their passengers, any other people, as well as property. I even pay 50 bucks more so that if some asshole sues me even if it’s not my fault (gee, they wouldn’t do that to a foreigner would they?), I’m covered.

Stay safe, people.

UPDATE

JM sent over a few links and posted a comment which my half-drunk (so far) Friday night arse has boiled down to this (and I’ll post the links after the comment).

(originally posted in comments on another bloke’s facebook thread to a lefty audience)

A mate sent over a few links. The ACA is now essentially a tax (as I said above). This means anyone not wanting to sign up to Obamacare will simply pay a tax, $95 the first year up to $695 (indexed) from 2015 or so. What Roberts’ decision also does is set a precedent for future limiting of the congress’ powers. In addition, Obamacare won’t need 60 votes to be overturned, now 51. That is significant (filibuster). Essentially, the young and spritely Justice Roberts did not rule on the constitutionality of Obamacare, but instead made it a tax that comes under the commerce clause which thus severely limits how much it can be played around with. An important distinction there is that congress can regulate but not compel commerce i.e. there goes being forced to pay for insurance. Another part of the ruling means states not wanting a bar more of medicaid that they haven’t already signed up for cannot be forced to do so. The other sticking point is that tax laws – of which Obamacare is now a part of – *must* originate from congress. Obamacare originated from the executive branch, and was passed only by the senate using arcane procedures. Should be interesting.

http://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2012/06/28/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-in-the-court-decision/?singlepage=true

http://lsolum.typepad.com/legaltheory/2012/06/the-decision-to-uphold-the-mandate-as-a-gestalt-shift-in-constitutional-law.html

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/scocca/2012/06/roberts_health_care_opinion_commerce_clause_the_real_reason_the_chief_justice_upheld_obamacare_.html

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/philosophicalfragments/2012/06/28/five-possible-silver-linings-in-the-obamacare-decisio/

http://reason.com/blog/2012/06/28/issa-to-obama-what-happened-to-obamacare

Two further points, however.

The “raise taxes” argument is pretty strong out there in the Americanosphere, so criticising Obamacare as a tax rise probably won’t work – although the people pushing the most for the biggest tax increases probably aren’t the people who pay much tax. ;-) The average American may have a different opinion.

The overwhelming opinion I get from the Americans I know is that for too many, the American healthcare system is fucked. I’ve never had to pay hundreds of dollars for relatively minor treatment. Yes, the best healthcare does exist in America, but who the fuck can access it? Personally, I like the Australian and Korean model… buuuut, I’ve never been to, yet alone lived in America, so I’m open to argument.

Make that three…

Like the boat people crisis in Australia, perhaps it would be wise not to run this issue to ground on ideological/political lines.

And people wanna b*tch about Australia being racist???


We’re a bloody tolerant mob if you ask me. Check this out.

Jasmine Lee, the Philippine-born naturalized Korean citizen who became a ruling Saenuri Party [they're the Righties over here - bing] lawmaker, is becoming the target of racially-based online attacks.

Some bloggers and tweeters have said Lee’s election will pave the way for interracial families to gain at the expense of Koreans and producing more illegal aliens.

Wow. And who’s coming up with this crap? (BTW, unlike raaaaacism charges against certain bloggers in Australia, there are actually quotes in that link to prove it.)

As many of those denouncing the ruling party lawmaker-elect are supporters of opposition parties [the Lefties - bing], critic Chin Jung-kwon also said, “The opposition party won’t have a chance of winning the presidential election if it doesn’t do something to stop its supporters from abusing Jasmine Lee.”

Now, don’t get me wrong. Overall I’m treated very well in Korea, but in comparison, Aussies bend over backwards for our new mates.

Take the case of an idol-type competition show over here. Despite being a far better performer, and receiving more praise from the judges, this poor lass just couldn’t get the viewer votes compared to the more lackluster full-blooded Korean.

Next time some idiot tells you Aussies are racist, tell ‘em to get stuffed.

An open letter to professor Robert Manne


Context.

Dear Professor Manne,

As a member of the Stolen Generations, I wish to use this public forum to personally thank you for taking the Fight for Truth and Social Justice and Sustainability to the irresponsible, dangerous, and juvenile likes of Tim Blair and his ill ilk.

That this misogynist, racist puppet of the Hate Media and Big Oil has the audacity to question, among other things, Freedom of Speech – which SHOULD be a privilege – and Truth Warriors such as yourself is clear indication of the general badness that our once great society is mired in currently.

As my adoptive father, Wen Bao, sagely noted before his untimely death due to a speeding motorist (the culprit has never been caught but forensic tests indicate paint found on his lifeless body came from a BMW M Coupe), it is no coincidence that nations such as the Great China are on the rise thanks in no small part to the fact its wise political masters had the moral fortitude to Do The Right Thing and take control over the lawless anarchy we witnessed in 1989.

Of course, the converse applies in our society.

When the utmost important matter of running a country falls on the behest of the shallow, ill-informed general populous – more akin to voting for the next vacuous Australian Idol – then your esteemed colleague, Clive Hamilton, is indeed correct when he proposes the necessary edict of a suspension of democracy.

In line with such wisdom, it is also logical to conclude that morally and intellectually superior elders such as yourself (this is no time to be humble; our grand children’s futures are at stake)  would be doing Humanity a gross disservice if you were not to take an active, if not presiding, role in the long-overdue News Media Council.

In plain English, and I apologise as it is my third language, give our political and intellectual elite the freedom to do their jobs properly. That’s what they’re paid to do and it’s high time we let them do it without the straitjackets we currently make them (and thus, YOU) wear.

Specifically, I would much rather receive the facts, and only the facts. And I see no better way of this being achieved – at least in part – than having a sage such as yourself finally bringing Truth to Power via means of overseeing the News Media Council.

For example, the gravitas espoused from Media Watch’s Jonathan Holmes, frankly, is far too ineffectual.

And the fact that 70 per cent of admittedly well-meaning citizens have been conned, used by the Mass Murdoch Malaise is telling and most disturbing.

Intellectual and societal Death by Freedom, if you will.

Yours reverently,

bingbing

PS

I am aware this comment is a little off-topic to the important specific truths you raise here however blogging etiquette on a Hate Site and the sensibilities of Blair’s Attack Automatons (BAA) is hardly important, not when the future of Humanity and our benevolent Mother Goddess is at stake.

Bring Obama down over healthcare, not crap he said 20 years ago or the birther issue


Hey, I’m guilty of the birther stuff, too, when it gained real notoriety from Donald Trump dipping his toe into the presidential contender piranha pond (and having his leg eaten off).

And it’s essentially wrong that that issue hasn’t been resolved properly, not least because of the latest investigation asserting that the birth certificate Obama finally released after Trump’s mounting pressure is a fake.

Also essentially wrong is Obama’s past, whether it was his close association with former domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, his 20 years of attendance at “God damn America” Jeremiah Wright’s church, or the recent video that has surfaced that shows Obama, as a Harvard student, singing the praises of some bloke who it’s claimed is a raaaaacist Mr nastypants.

However, I simply don’t see any of those bones of contention really going anywhere. The first two didn’t and the third won’t now. Sure it’s good fodder for the conservatives over in the States, but the likelihood of it changing anyone’s mind is slim.

What Obama’s opponents – and this includes the GOP’s current POTUS wannabes – should be hammering home ad nauseam is not the above but rather… Obamacare.

Sure, my American friends pretty much all confirm that something needed to be done about healthcare in the US despite it already being among the best in the world, but just as Obama relieving himself on our heads isn’t rain, Obamacare isn’t the solution to America’s perceived healthcare woes.

Too many people wet their pants when they say “Obama” and then imagine when you combine that with “healthcare” that all the ills of America will magically be cured because, like, you know, it’s OBAAAMA.

This couldn’t be further from the truth.

Apart from most likely being unconstitutional, it won’t actually put many people who aren’t on healthcare onto it, it’ll cost an arm and a leg, it will reduce both the quality and amount of service available (if you’re too old, don’t get sick), it will tie everybody up in red tape, it will hamstring small businesses, and it will take away a great deal many rights now enjoyed by both patients and doctors alike (not to mention individual states).

It’s draconian.

And those waivers…

For example, Democrat Harry Reid who pushed heavily for Obamacare managed to secure his entire state – Nevada – a waiver. Unions who helped fund the campaign for Obamacare also received waivers thus saving them a ton of cash. There are other examples such as McDonald’s.

Obamacare a poison pill. Far from being a solution, it is a myriad of problems.

Hammer that point home. Stop banging on about stupid birther crap or sh*t he said 20 years ago about some bloke no one’s heard of.

Going after “who” Obama is won’t work, not when it’s (cue angels singing) Obahahahahama.

The best bet the GOP has of unseating him – and let’s face it, if that bet were a road, it’d be  a road in the Andes – is attacking his disastrous policies.

And when it comes to those, there is no bigger elephant in the china shop than Obamacare… IF the truth about it becomes more widely known.

Conservative speakers in Australia


Hey, I’m in Korea so can’t go and actually see these guys speak (the events are all sold out anyway), but here’s Mark Steyn on the radio with Alan Jones and below is the the clip of Daniel Hannan MEP speaking to the IPA.

The West is out of money, and yet we have naive do-gooders still wanting to spend trillions we simply don’t have on an imaginary problem we don’t have either – AKA man-made global warming.

Andrew Breitbart dies at 43


Tragedy.

Conservative blogger, journalist, commentator, and activist Andrew Breitbart died of an apparent heart attack shortly after midnight Thursday LA time at the all-too-young age of 43.

He helped edit the Drudge Report (in the blogroll as Matt Drudge), previously worked for the Huffington Post (he helped get them off the ground), and founded breitbart.com, breitbart.tv, Big Government, Big Journalism, Big Hollywood (in the blogroll), and Big Peace.

A real driving force in conservative/libertarian independent media, Breitbart was a pioneer along with the likes of Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit – in the blogroll), Matt Drudge (the bloke who broke the Monika Lewinsky scandal), and Australia’s Tim Blair (who isn’t, of course, strictly independent – not anymore – however he is known for being a pioneer in the conservative/libertarian blogosphere and is indeed referred to as the Blogfather).

As the man who helped squash ACORN and broke Weinergate, Breitbart will be sorely missed but his legacy will live on.

Reaction:

  • LA Times: “Breitbart was a revolutionary eager to overthrow a media establishment that he viewed as a front for left-wing social causes. Always brimming with righteous indignation — before he died, his final tweet offered an explanation for why he’d called an adversary a “putz” — he had contempt for anything that smacked of liberal do-gooderism or hypocrisy.”
  • Huffington Post: “People from all sides of the political spectrum paid tribute to Breitbart. “
  • Charles Krauthammer: “Breitbart persued truth with utter fearlessness.”
  • Larry Solov at Big Government: “Andrew is at rest, yet the happy warrior lives on, in each of us.”
  • Washington Post: “Andrew Breitbart loved political combat.Based in the liberal enclave of Los Angeles, Breitbart viewed himself as a one-man conservative gang and he took to the task of delivering rhetorical body blows — primarily via the web but also through television appearances — with a gusto rarely seen even in these hyperpartisan times.”
  • New York Times: “Andrew Breitbart, a conservative blogger and activist who used undercover video to bring discredit and disgrace to his liberal targets, died Thursday. He was 43. Mr. Breitbart was as polarizing a figure as he was popular. Hailed by the political right as a truth-teller who exposed bias and corruption, he was derided by many on the left as a provocateur who played fast and loose with the facts to further his agenda.
  • Matt Drudge: “In the first decade of the DRUDGEREPORT Andrew Breitbart was a constant source of energy, passion and commitment. We shared a love of headlines, a love of the news, an excitement about what’s happening. I don’t think there was a single day during that time when we did not flash each other or laugh with each other, or challenge each other. I still see him in my mind’s eye in Venice Beach, the sunny day I met him. He was in his mid 20’s. It was all there. He had a wonderful, loving family and we all feel great sadness for them today.”

Indeed. Sincere condolences to Andrew Breitbart’s family.

And let’s remember him as someone who fought with gusto right up til the end, as witnessed by his final tweet mere hours before his untimely death.

And even mere minutes before, Andrew still had the fire inside burning brightly.

Marketing executive Arthur Sando tells THR about his lengthy debate with the conservative activist at The Brentwood; they said goodbye around 11:30 p.m., 50 minutes before Breitbart was pronounced dead.

Vale and rest in peace. Again, thoughts and prayers to his family.

UPDATE

Given his young age, the coroner will be investigating.

The US military has a hard-on for Ron Paul


When I first came across this at InfoWars, I was a little sceptical since Alex Jones can come up with some pretty out-there info and precepts.

Not only are soldiers and veterans who support Paul set to march on the White House come February 20, just check out the level of support.

And a little googling later we see a similar story run by Yahoo!

Rep. Ron Paul might not be one of the Republican candidates for president who has been in the spotlight lately, but that doesn’t mean that he has been forgotten. Paul has still been receiving monetary donations for his campaign, and he has received the most money from military service members, according to the Army Times.

This is starting to get a bit less “fringey”.

Did I say starting? My bad. I trawl a lot of media but missed this piece from Timothy Egan in the New York Times… dated just before Christmas.

The men and women in uniform probably wouldn’t support this proponent of limited engagement. So goes the conventional wisdom, which holds that those in the military support a leader itching for a fight.

But in fact, Representative Ron Paul, the congressman who favors the most minimalist American combat role of any major presidential candidate and who said all of the above quotes, has more financial support from active duty members of the service than any other politician.

As of the last reporting date, at the end of September, Paul leads all candidates by far in donations from service members. This trend has been in place since 2008, when Paul ran for president with a similar stance: calling nonsense at hawk squawk from both parties.

NYT, Yahoo! Meh;  no one gets the eyeballs like Jon Stewart gets the eyeballs. The problem there, of course, is that Stewart isn’t exactly the Republican Party’s biggest cheerleader.

But check this interview out.

Heck, even one of the best, if not the best, economics blogs on the Net – ZeroHedge- likes Ron Paul.

But here’s where it gets tricky. The Main Stream Media on both sides haven’t exactly been cheerleaders for him.

And in something one could so far never really consider a “mainstream” news source, one of the topmost influential/read Conservative blogs, HotAir, surveyed its readers and Paul didn’t fare so well.

Four per cent… EEK!

Add to that, even though Paul receives almost twice as much in campaign contributions from members of the US military, that distant number two is… Obama.

Vice presidential candidate, perhaps?

UPDATE

Some recent figures of who US military members are donating to. Yep. Paul… by a long shot.

LOL. Isn’t it crazy Republicans who you’d think would do something like this?


An Oklahoma senator wants an ammendment to a state abortion bill that would make masturbation illegal.

“However, any action in which a man ejaculates or otherwise deposits semen anywhere but in a woman’s vagina shall be interpreted and construed as an action against an unborn child.”

And just how would one enforce that law?

Too funny.

The senator, Constance Johnson, is to this blogger’s surprise, a Democrat.

UPDATE

To be clear, Johnson is pro-choice.

Rather than being funny, her snarky ammendment makes her look like a time-wasting oxygen thief. I am laughing at her, not with her.

Why the desire to pull the troops out of Iraq in the first place?


In the Australian today:

NO sooner did President Barack Obama welcome home American troops from Iraq and laud that country’s stability and democracy than an unprecedented wave of violence across Baghdad and elsewhere revealed the severity of Iraq’s political crisis.

Unfortunate, yet hardly surprising, even to the most casual of observers.

And whilst I can understand (yet not agree with) the Left’s position not to send troops into Iraq in the first place – an argument, largely moot, for another day – what I don’t understand is their fervish desire to pull the troops out.

It always smacked of idealism, ideology, rather than hard-nosed practicality.

After all, what was so bad with having a US troop presence there to help maintain Iraq’s fragile democratic stability?

One could argue that I am biased because a) I am centre-right politically and b) because I live in South Korea, a nation that has had a US troop presence – some 37,000 28,000 or so currently – since the armistice between North and South Korea and have seen what a permanent US troop presence looks like.

I am happy to accept those labels and can gladly tell you that such a presence ain’t that bad.

By and large,  US bases in Korea – and Japan for that matter – haven’t been a problem.

Sure, issues pop up from time to time, but if one looks at the big picture, then a strong US presence here can only be seen as a good thing, a safe option, a pretty darn good insurance policy against North Korea trying anything major on.

Almost 60 years we’ve had US troops over here without any major problems. In fact, many major problems (a full-scale Nork attack comes to mind) have arguably been averted thanks to this presence.

So, why the rush to leave Iraq essentially free of any US military  before even a decade is up and before, as is clear now, the job is done?

OK, so perhaps it’s a bit like comparing apples and oranges. US troops in Korea, aside from those stationed at the DMZ, aren’t on active duty as they were in Iraq.

However, it’s not a completely dissimilar situation. Perhaps a good analogy would be to compare mandarins and oranges.

US troops not only provided safety and stability in the fledgling democracy that is Iraq – a country still steeped with sectarian and tribal rivalries – but surely they also provided a deterrence to anybody or any groups who want to destabilise the nation.

What takes years to build can take mere seconds to destroy, and I fear a lot of hard work is being undone on the whim of a flawed, feel-good, ideology.

So why?

The only practical reason that I can see for Obama pulling his troops out of Iraq is that with an Iranian confrontation looming which includes action needed in Syria, Iraq frankly isn’t important enough any more or at best, an impractical option for a potentially over-stretched military.

Of course, Obama – a man of the progressive Left – can’t actually come out and say that but it is reasonably well-known to those who don’t just get their news from the MSM that Obama is actually more of a war-time president than Bush was, having committed more troops to both Iraq and Afghanistan, and for a longer period of time.

So whilst the MSM might play along with the “bringing the troops home” narrative, the evidence indicates this simply isn’t the case.

Some 20,000 marines, seamen and air crews from half a dozen countries, a US nuclear aircraft carrier strike group and three US Marine gunship carriers are practicing an attack on a fictitious mechanized enemy division which has invaded its neighbor. It is the largest amphibian exercise seen in the West for a decade, staged to simulate a potential Iranian invasion of an allied Persian Gulf country and a marine landing on the Iranian coast. Based largely on US personnel and hardware, French, British, Italian, Dutch, Australian* and New Zealand military elements are integrated in the drill.
Bold Alligator went into its operational phase Monday, Feb. 6, the same day as a large-scale exercise began in southern Iran opposite the Strait of Hormuz. This simultaneity attests to the preparations for a US-Iranian showdown involving Israel behind the words on Feb. 5 of US President Barack Obama (“I don’t think Israel has decided whether to attack Iran”) and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Feb. 3 (“The war itself will be ten times as detrimental to the US.”).

(*BTW, I don’t recall Aussie PM Gillard highlighting that one.)

And this:

As the US and Israel carried on bickering over the right time to strike Iran’s nuclear sites, their war preparations continued apace. debkafile’s military sources report that flight after flight of US warplanes and transports were to be seen this week cutting eastward through the skies of Sinai on their way to Gulf destinations, presumably Saudi Arabia, at a frequency not seen in the Middle East for many years.

Add into this mix reports that China will reportedly help Saudi Arabia build a nuclear bomb, and that both China and India have started paying Iran for its oil in gold thus helping thwart current US/UN sanctions (more of which were recently thwarted by Russia and China), then we see a stage set for a showdown and we see the reality that rhetoric aside, Obama won’t be bringing many troops home at all.

To someone who doesn’t know any better, it’s as if Russia, India, and China – all wannabe first chickens to the trough – are ganging up on America.**

PS Who wouldn’t love to be a fly on the wall listening in to what the US is really saying about China? Their ever-expanding use of soft power is in many ways, stuffing it all up for America. China must surely be becoming an ever-increasing pain in the neck.

This leaves Australia in an interesting position. Our main export partner is China. Our main ally is the US. We send China our goodies to help them get rich and rival America. We practice shooting our guns with America to help keep America on top.

And yet China and America are also so deep in each other’s pockets. America buys China’s goods. China buys America’s debt.

Fun times.

** I highly recommend reading The Lucifer Principle by Howard Bloom. Part of the book talks about the pecking order of nations.

Guess it’s going to be Romney then…


Why?

Because according to Politico, Donald Trump is set to back Newt Gingrich.

UPDATE

And because of the increasingly large crowds he’s pulling, Romney’s up for Secret Service protection.



UPDATE II

Wait! What? Matt Drudge is reporting that now the Donster has instead decided to go “doubles down: on Mitt”

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 304 other followers

%d bloggers like this: