Larry the Cable Guy asks a fair question

Larry The Cable Guy        ✔ @GitRDoneLarry Follow

Honest question? How come Cosby is toast and Clinton is toast of the town? That's a fair question is it not?

11:41 AM - 20 Nov 2014

I, For One, Support Our New Imperial Ruler

The What-the-Hell Presidency

Bud Norman on Obama unleashed.  This is how Republics become dictatorships.

Gruber and the Democrats go Head to Head

The nut of why this whole episode is so infuriating, when it isn’t enervating, are the repeated insults done to America’s collective intelligence by those who believe themselves to be members of a superior class. That condition is made even more insufferable by those Obamacare supporters who are attempting to rewrite the history of the ACA in order to airbrush Gruber out of the picture.

The Federalist’s Sean Davis has a compelling piece on this phenomenon, and it’s worth your full attention. It concludes…

Come. On. I hate to break it to you all, but Gruber doesn’t get to be an architect of Obamacare and Romneycare when you want to use his authority and credentials to bash Republicans or spin for the law, and then radically transform into one of three Jon Grubers who just happens to live in Obama’s neighborhood once Gruber becomes a massive liability for the Left.

Gruber was one of the key architects of Obamacare. He didn’t just build econometric simulation models based on the law. He was also involved in drafting its key components. And he was paid enormous sums of money for his advice and counsel. These are facts. Accept them, learn to deal with them, and give the embarrassingly bad Gruber Truthing a rest.

What did the press know and when did they know it?

The reaction of the MSM to the Gruber tapes is revealing. Today’s article by Chris Cillizza tries to misdirect the issue into a personality conflict between Gruber and Conservatives whom he thinks are the object of Gruber’s charge that the American people are stupid. His article, about Gruber as catnip for conservatives, tries to make the story about Conservative pique, not the fact that Gruber did something that you are never supposed to do when you pull a sting: expose the sting. A good sting never ends, but Gruber ended the ObamaCare sting. So the press, after hoping it would simply die because of lack of oxygen, is desperately trying to change the subject.

But Cilliza is wrong, not just on the focus, but also on the issue of whom Gruber classified as stupid. Conservatives were always opposed to ObamaCare. And not just conservatives. ObamaCare passed without a single Republican vote. The lies and deception described by Gruber fooled only Liberals. Liberals who were fed the story the Obama administration was feeding to its media accomplices. No tax, lower cost, better coverage, no changes if you were happy.

But were Liberals in the media really fooled, or were they simply promoting the Obama/Gruber/Democrat lies because they were being Good Germans? I mean, really. What non-comatose human being believes you can insure 30 million more people, provide more services, cover pre-existing conditions, and reduce the cost to the average family by $2500? Melissa Francis tells of being called on the carpet at CNBC for her criticism of ObamaCare’s math and told that she was “disrespecting the office of the President.”

I believe that the average reporter and editor is functionally innumerate, but that doesn’t pass the smell test. Like Good Germans, the press corps knew, but didn’t want to know.

So now one of the architects of the conspiracy couldn’t keep his mouth shut. And the lies and deception have been uncovered, not by the complicit press that does not want to know what was really going on, but by a guy who lost his health insurance policy thanks to ObamaCare and spent hours searching the internet. Because everything that you say in public gets recorded. And citizen journalists are looking where the Good Germans of the press don’t want you to go.

Fire Mary Landrieu

In which Ann Althouse gets hammered

Ann Althouse decide to take up the cudgels for Rose Eveleth.  Defending this sexist, Feminist, coyote-ugly harridan when she tweeted a series of comments criticizing the shirt that one of the rocket scientists that just landed a spacecraft on an asteroid, Matt Taylor, wore.  She tweeted: "Thanks for ruining the cool comet landing for me asshole"

Right; that's what was in his mind when he put on his shirt: "I'm going to ruin Rose Eveleth - and every other feminist harridan's day - when I get interviewed for landing a spacecraft on a comet."

Althouse decided to throw in with this Feminist jerk by posting a critique of Glen Reynolds' comments, stating - among other things that fashion is more important than space travel.  I suppose that a mind that works that way explains why she voted  for Barack Obama. 

Here's the beginning of Reynolds' essay:

Better not to land a spaceship on a comet than let men wear sexist clothing.

So how are things going for feminism? Well, last week, some feminists took one of the great achievements of human history — landing a probe from Earth on a comet hundreds of millions of miles away — and made it all about the clothes.

Yes, that's right. After years of effort, the European Space Agency's lander Philaelanded on a comet 300 million miles away. At first, people were excited. Then some women noticed that one of the space scientists, Matt Taylor, was wearing a shirt, made for him by a female "close pal," featuring comic-book depictions of semi-naked women. And suddenly, the triumph of the comet landing was drowned out by shouts of feminist outrage about ... what people were wearing. It was one small shirt for a man, one giant leap backward for womankind.

What is it about women like this?  People who have never accomplished anything except manipulate words?  And the Althouse types, college professors, who - thanks to Jonathan Gruber - are now exposed to the entire country as elitist pigs who consider the American people "stupid."

Elbert Guillory: "Why I Am a Republican"

The meaning of the 2014 elections

The 2014 midterm election was interesting for several things.  First, it was a repudiation of Obama-ism only 2 years after he was re-elected.  The “dense-pack” strategy (having one scandal after another take the previous one off the front pages) of Team Obama didn't work.  The “independent” voters finally saw failure follow failure and realized that the things they were promised were either lies or that Obama was incompetent.  Either way, they abandoned him, big time. 

Keeping in mind that the “Black” vote was a Republican lock for nearly a century after the Civil War, it’s very interesting that there is the beginning of a reaction against Democrats among Blacks.  For the first time in my lifetime several videos castigating Democrats for what they have done to Blacks have gained wide popularity.  The assumption that the Black vote is a lock for Democrats is not valid.  The grand experiment of urban centers run by Black Democrats using Democrat Party principles is gradually creating awareness - among those who want something better than a welfare handout - that Democrats view them the same way as slave-owners did their plantation slaves, bodies to be exploited.

The “war on women” theme deluded the Democrats into believing that they had a winning issue.  Instead, it boomeranged.  It made the male “gendergap” worse.  It alienated married women.  And it was carried to such an extreme that even the reliably Liberal press got tired of it.  Some by denying that it was a theme, others by calling one of its major practitioners “Mark Uterus.”

Democrats believe that demographics are their salvation, assuming that the patterns of the past can be overlaid on the future.  That’s the problem with a lot of things, like the subject of Global Warming, a mixture of chemistry, modelling and politics.  It’s also the problem with the assumptions that you “own” a demographic group.  The Democrats don’t own the Blacks, the youth, the Hispanics or the women.  They just assume that they can scare - or bribe - these groups into voting for them.  The problem becomes one of finding the resources for the bribe, for keeping the fear alive.  Detroit is its own antidote.

2014 Has Spoken: Women Voters Care About More Than Just Lady Parts

This is just funny:

Robin Williams joked that “God gave men both a penis and a brain, but unfortunately not enough blood supply to run both at the same time.” When it comes to politics, the Lena Dunhams, Cosmopolitans, and ladypartsjustice.coms want to overlook the humor of that joke and make the female equivalent the focal point of their politicized lives. ...

As a man, I’m probably not supposed to have an opinion on this, but I totally do. As a father of daughters, I’m actually quite opinionated on the matter. Whereas I get to make decisions based on a whole raft of factors, apparently I’m supposed to teach my daughters to ask only one question: How will this affect your vagina?

With this election, the vagina and effects upon it are on front and center, much like artwork at the Dunham household. Because women don’t have to worry about the economy, job opportunities, international relations, or anything else. It’s all about the beaver.

Am I overreacting? Perhaps, but all my blood is flowing to my upper head at the moment and it’s about to explode. On the other hand, the smart set has declared that everything is a women’s issue. One might argue that if everything is a women’s issue, then nothing is, but that would do a disservice to the divide and conquer mentality of the politics of the personal.

Why Does Everyone Act Like Women Are Dumb Sexpots?

From hygiene companies to politics to art to the United Nations, everything must begin and end with “as a woman.” If it were just a celebration of the awesomeness that is woman, and seriously I do love y’all, that would be great. Just as I love being a man, because it’s great, love being a woman. Goose, gander, and all that.

Read the whole thing.

Why don't the Dems run on their accomplishments?

ObamaCare; Iraq; open borders to help the Dreamers, disregard of the rule of law to circumvent obstructionist do-nothing Republicans, use of federal agencies including the IRS and Department of Justice, to harass and intimidate Conservatives; and freedom of movement between Ebola Africa and America?

These accomplishments are big time; and they go along way to fulfilling the declared intention of Obama to transform America in its fundamentals.

What's a "Micropurchase" and why are we buying government employees coffee at Starbucks?

The government defines any purchase of less than $3000 a "micropurchase."   For this purpose, government employees are issued credit cards.  Given the number of federal employees, their contempt for the taxpayer, and their propensity to commit fraud, it's no surprise that those "micro" items add up to macro dollars.

The federal government has spent at least $20 billion in taxpayer money this year on items and services that it is permitted to keep secret from the public, according to an investigation by the News4 I-Team.
The purchases, known among federal employees as “micropurchases,” are made by some of the thousands of agency employees who are issued taxpayer-funded purchase cards. The purchases, in most cases, remain confidential and are not publicly disclosed by the agencies. A sampling of those purchases, obtained by the I-Team via the Freedom of Information Act, reveals at least one agency used those cards to buy $30,000 in Starbucks Coffee drinks and products in one year without having to disclose or detail the purchases to the public.
A series of other recent purchases, reviewed by internal government auditors, include wasteful and inappropriate purchases by government employees -- including a gym membership and JC Penney clothing -- that were not detected or stopped until after the purchase was completed.

The agencies and their leaders refuse to explain how and where they spent your money.

Medical Science Doesn’t Support Official Rhetoric On Ebola

In early September, President Obama assured West Africans in a video address that the first defense against the spread of Ebola was to get the facts on the disease’s transmission right. The problem now facing the United States is that the president, with the support of healthcare officials, may have played loose with the science “facts,” luring many Americans—including healthcare workers at the Dallas Health Presbyterian Hospital initially at the center of the country’s Ebola threat, as well as the latest Ebola victim from New York City—into a false sense of security and increasing risks to themselves and to everyone who crossed their paths.

The science of Ebola has not been—and can’t be—fully congruent with the official Ebola rhetoric, which has suggested that key terms such as “symptoms,” “bodily fluids,” “contagion,” and “contact” are more fixed facts of science than they necessarily are. After the apparent facility with which Ebola was transmitted to nurses attending the Liberian-American Ebola patient in Dallas, many Americans have understandably lost confidence in official Ebola pronouncements ...

Read the whole thing.   Is this politics, stupidity, arrogance, incompetence, or hate?  As applied to the Obama administration , they are not mutually exclusive.


For example, just when are Ebola patients infectious?

Healthcare officials and media pundits have played “symptoms” as, again, tightly defined on-off switches: “When you have the identified symptom [at some ill-defined fever], you have Ebola and are contagious. When you don’t have the symptom, you can’t be contagious, even if you have been infected.” The New York Times reported the New York doctor checked his temperature twice a day, and when he showed a fever, he checked himself into the hospital where he was put in isolation. The doctor did what he should have, according to Doctors Without Borders in a comment to the New York Times: “Self-quarantine is neither warranted nor recommended when a person is not displaying Ebola-like symptoms.”

This suggests the doctor was only infectious when he identified his symptoms, at the time he took his temperature. Was it not possible for him to become infectious before he took his temperature, and was mingling with people on the streets of the city? Even if he had identified his symptom at the exact time he became infectious, could he have not been infectious a minute or an hour earlier? Contrary to official pronouncements, infectiousness and symptoms do not necessarily and always occur simultaneously. The long history of medical science, and common sense, suggest that some unknown count of victims are likely to be infectious some unknown amount of time before the symptoms are detected, because the active progression of the disease brings on the fever, not the other way around. This means Americans have good reason to be guarded when hearing absolute medical pronouncements on when people are infectious.

And about that 21 day observation period:

 The media continues to parrot official announcements that exposed people can be declared clear of the disease if after 21 days (the “maximum incubation period for the disease to develop,” according to the New York Times editors, and most other officials commenting on the issue), they do not show the elusive “symptoms”—as if science can, and does, pinpoint a clear demarcation in time after which exposed people can be, with virtual certainty, deemed clear of the disease, or are no longer able to transmit it to others. The process of science generally can identify (imperfectly) how likely people’s contagiousness varies with time from exposure. Typically, studies can identify something of a bell-shaped curve for the distribution of the days that people can show symptoms following their infection. In the case of Ebola, the CDC has determined that from the day of infection to ten or so days it, the count of people who exhibit symptoms rises with each passing day. The count of people exhibiting symptoms declines afterwards, perhaps approaching but never reaching zero. (That is, the “bell curve” for the distribution of when people exhibit symptoms may have a long right tail.)

According to a study from Drexel University, possibly12 percent of infected victims never show the fever symptom during the currently recommended 21-day quarantine period.

Scientists generally make a judgment call, picking a time period when contagiousness reaches an acceptably low level (medically and, sometimes, politically). This means that once the required time period has been reached, there is still likely to be some prospect, however remote, that a “small” but “acceptable” percentage of the infected people can still be symptomatic.

Rod Liddle: The top 10 most fatuous phrases in the English language

3. Diversity 

Something brilliant, to be championed. We all love diversity, don’t we? As used by the left it means ‘lots of ethnic minorities’. Quite often it is deployed to mean precisely the opposite of its original meaning. As in ‘the area is very diverse’, referring to a place populated exclusively by Bangladeshis.

4. Denier

A horrible and recent confection of, again, the liberal left. You can be a ‘climate change denier’, which means you might doubt that global warming will cause quite the catastrophic circumstances — annihilation of all living creatures, earth burned to a crust, polar bears howling in agony — dreamed up by the maddest, gibbering eco-warriors. You can be a ‘sexual abuse denier’, which means you have one or two doubts about Operation Yewtree. The term was appropriated from the Holocaust, of course: the implication being that to deny that absolutely all 1970s celebrities were busy molesting kiddies is on a par with denying that Nazi Germany murdered six million Jewish people. Nice.

 6. Wrong side of history

If someone says you’re on the wrong side of history, it is their smug and stupid way of telling you that you are wrong and they are right, no more. Conservatism is always on the wrong side of history because it is innately opposed to profound social change. Social change is always good, you see, even when it is utterly calamitous or pointless or unnecessary.

Read the whole thing.

Lena Dunham, popular Liberal celebrity and child molester

In the collection of nonfiction personal accounts, Dunham describes using her little sister at times essentially as a sexual outlet, bribing her to kiss her for prolonged periods and even masturbating while she is in the bed beside her. But perhaps the most disturbing is an account she proudly gives of an episode that occurred when she was seven and her sister was one. Here’s the full passage (p. 158-9)

She appears to see nothing wrong with her perversion.

Stacy McCain:

You want to talk about hate? When rich white lesbians start telling women to vote Democrat because of “street harassment,” while at the same time refusing to denounce a celebrity pervert like Lena Dunham for diddling her own sister, you may fairly accuse me of hating that kind of shameless hypocrisy. But unless or until these feminists prove to me that they actually are Our Moral Superiors, they have no right to make any demands of me, or you, or any ordinary law-abiding American citizen trying to get along in the real world.

The Democrats War on Women as Demonstrated by Feminist Democrats

 Via Stacy McCain

The implicit assumption of the Democrat Party’s “War on Women” meme is that the sexist misogyny by which all women are allegedly victimized is officially endorsed by The Republican Party. Never mind the fact — as the viral video ironically demonstrated — that women’s victimization is quite often perpetrated by constituencies of the Democrat Party coalition. Feminism is a left-wing political ideology that serves the partisan interests of the Democrat Party and, when feminists aren’t busy offering to provide oral sex to Democrat men, they are busy accusing Republicans of being The Party of Rape.

It does not really matter whether you are male or female, black or white, straight or gay. The only thing liberals really care about is whether you vote Democrat, because the liberal’s sense of self-esteem is dependent on his belief that, by voting Democrat and encouraging you to do likewise, he proves himself worthy as one of Our Moral Superiors. (Thomas Sowell’s book The Vision of the Anointed explains this brilliantly.)

What's the upside of importing Ebola?

President Obama, the NY Times, the alphabet networks and the Virginian Pilot are telling the American people to shut up and sit down.  Stop being such hysterical pussies.

The American people are not hysterical about Ebola.  They are certainly more than happy and willing to help.  American doctors and nurses are going to the African countries affected.  American troops are beign sent there to set up hospitals and test sites.  

But Americans see a disease that kills about 70% of the people who catch it and see no good reason to import it.  They would rather it be contained at the source: Western Africa.  Not Houston, not New York, not Norfolk, Virginia. 

Ann Coulter says it well:

It's beyond idiotic for the media to keep condescendingly instructing Americans that they are more likely to die in a car accident, from food poisoning, skin cancer or heart disease, than from Ebola.


We know that. We have rationally accepted the tradeoffs in order to get places quickly, dine in restaurants, walk on the beach and eat steak. Those are risks prudently taken in exchange for something we deem more valuable.


What's the upside of bringing Ebola here? And why on earth is the Obama administration preparing to import non-citizen Ebolees? It's perfectly logical for Americans to ask, "What are we getting out of this?" But the only answer they get is: We can't build a fence around the country!


We're not seeing "panic." What we're seeing is rage that the country is having a deadly disease foist on it for no good reason.

Men have a bigger gender gap than women.

For some reason when the politicos - or the press, but I repeat myself - talk about a gender gap it's about women. The gender gap is actually bigger for men. In the last 9 elections, the gender gap was bigger for women 3 times and for men 5 times, with 1 tie. These statistics were taken from the Center for American Women and Politics. You have to do the math yourself because the report only calculates the gap for women. 

 

The "Gender Gap"
	Women	Men
2012	10	8
2008	7	5
2004	7	10
2000	10	12
1996	11	12
1992	4	1
1988	7	8
1984	6	7
1980	8	8

Secret Service Agents Pay a Visit to Anti-Obama Artist Sabo — and the Entire Exchange Is Seemingly Captured on Video

One of the tweets involved bringing back Harvey Lee Oswald as a zombie.

Some background to the “Chickenshit” controversy

Who's really chickenshit .... and the stupid JV team?

Very succinctly, the Obama Administration came in to office thinking it could either force Netanyahu to make concessions, or force his government to fall...

However, Obama and his advisors missed several contrary factors. The Israeli public never liked Obama, never trusted him due to his well-known associations with various anti-Israel leftists such as Rashid Khalidi. Israelis’ impressions were solidified by major blunders made by the Obama Administration, which did not get much attention in the U.S., but did in Israel. First, the Obama Administration informed the Israeli government that written assurances given to it by the Bush Administration about U.S. policy, given in response to prior Israeli concessions, were null and void. One of those assurances was that Israel would keep major settlement blocs in any peace deal, an assurance that ran counter to Obama’s first major initiative, a total settlement freeze. Undermining the promises of a president who was very popular in Israel, and making it clear that assurances from American governments have a very short expiration date, was not a way to win over Israeli public opinion....

But from the administration’s side, they expected Netanyahu either to concede to American wishes (i.e., “make bold moves for peace”), or be voted out by the Israeli electorate. Instead, Netanyahu has managed to stay his own course, and still is in no danger of losing his parliamentary majority. Hence administration frustration and “chickenshit.”