Newsflash: Obama Turns Murders Into Political Opportunity

To the surprise of absolutely no one (other than maybe people surprised that the sun comes up every morning), Dear Leader used the murders in South Carolina to make a political statement.That after acknowledging all of the facts weren’t in at the time. But then that never stops him

And, Surprise! He implied that more gun control would have prevented the shootings…

Hey, I’ve got a brilliant idea, why don’t we make shooting people against the law? Make murdering someone a crime?

What’s that you say? Killing someone is already a crime?

But how can that be?

Is El Presidente aware of this because he seems to think that criminalizing most, if not all, gun ownership is the key to stopping killings.

You know this news is kind of bad because if someone is already ready to kill with a gun, despite murder being against the law, I’m not fully confident that making gun ownership a crime is going to be the determining deterrent that The One thinks it will be.

Okay, let’s be honest, when a liberal like the president talks about gun control, what he really means is gun confiscation. After all, another, less punitive law, is highly unlikely to make mad dog killers like Dylann Roof suddenly rethink their plans. “Gosh, darn it! I can’t go kill those people with this gun. That would be against the law… Where’s my axe?”

The only way to curtail such murders would be to eliminate the number of guns available, and that means confiscation.

Actually, reading much of his short, hectoring statement, I think the president has also reached that conclusion but knows he can’t come out and say it. If he did the Democratic party would cease to exist in several states. There’s also that pesky Second Amendment which our Constitutional Law Professor President always fails to mention in his statements on guns.

Of course there would be a side benefit in the eyes of certain people. A disarmed public is a public that can’t fight back — the perfect invitation for our fascist totalitarian contemporary nanny state hyperpolitical liberals.

I’m not going to fisk the rest of Obama’s statement, they have long lost any challenge. I will note that it was yet another statement filled with simple fibs and/or misstatements of facts. I’m not sure whether he is bald-faced lying, thinking no one can do a Bing search, or he’s shockingly ignorant yet so fully confident in his own infallibility that he knows that anything that comes out of his mouth must be the truth.

On a side note, I wish Roof would have just had the decency to put a bullet in his own head and saved the people (including the taxpayers of South Carolina) the trouble (and circus) of trying him and then waiting, maybe forever, for the execution he so richly deserves.


Adobe! Yeah, you!

Why can’t your Adobe Reader update message have a minimize tab or a “Later” button?

There are times when I don’t have time to go through the process yet it shockingly sits on top of EVERYTHING! forcing me to either update it or shut the panel down. The nerve. And it launches itself at start up. More nerve. Cut it out!

And stop checking that McAfee box in default. I can’t imagine how many IT administrators curse that after getting the call or email from someone meekly confessing that they inadvertently attempted to install McAfee on a corporate computer while merely trying to update their Flash. The default should always be no check.

Happy Birthday, Magna Carta!

What’s the proper gift for an 800-year birthday?

I was remiss in not noting earlier that today is the 800th birthday of Magna Carta.

The Great Charter is not taught much in school these days. And, frankly, its points are usually wasted on children, especially modern children. They cannot conceive of why it was ever needed. Also, to be honest, much of it is a little squirrelly (fish wiers?) and not particularly relevant to us sophisticated moderns.

The debt of gratitude we owe the English medieval barons and the members of the clergy, particularly Archbishop of Canterbury Stephen Langton, for getting together to pull it off can never be paid. (And tip of the hat to King Henry I and his Charter of Liberties.)

Sure, King John abrogated the charter as soon as he could (within days) and it can be argued that most subsequent kings and queens ignored it at their pleasure. I wouldn’t be the first to note that Magna Carta is probably more revered in the United States than in England or the U.K. It and its concepts were very important to the Founding Fathers.

That a king (or a government) could be compelled to serve his people rather than the people serving the government was a concept unseen across most of the planet and throughout history.

Sadly, in our modern times, the people (especially in the view of liberals and progressives) are seen as serving the government.

Out on cable these days is a movie called “Ironclad,” which is set during the times immediately after the signing of Magna Carta, when King John was on a rampage and trying to put the barons in their place. It’s not bad on its history, though many of the dramatic details are inaccurate. But it’s better than nothing.

I recently read Frank McLynn’s “Richard and John Kings at War” – far better. The half on John really brings one to understand the need for Magna Carta. Yes, most of the barons were really in it to improve their position and secure their lots in life but the fact that they did conceive of themselves as needing and deserving of protection from a capricious, greedy tyrant cannot be discounted and that such protections should be held in inviolable law set a precedent. Once even the king was subject to law, the path to our rights and democracy was set.

Hmmmm, Is There A Pattern Here?

In the relatively recent past:

Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s daughter Jeri has been convicted of fraud, money-laundering, etc.

Rev. Jesse Jackson’s son Jesse Jr. has been convicted of fraud, embezzlement, etc.

Rev. Al Sharpton’s daughter Dominique has been trying to shakedown the city of New York for $5 million after she hurt her ankle tripping over some rough pavement. Since she’s been photographed walking in high heels, climbing a ladder and hiking in some hills in Indonesia.

Hoist With Her Own Petard


A few thoughts on the curious case of Rachel Dolezal.

If you can be transgender, why can’t you be transracial?

Is it because one can be used as a cudgel to beat tradition and some people up and the other presents a problem with employing that political/social activity?

If you want to insist that gender is nothing more than a social construct then race identification will be even moreso since it is almost lacking in the physical differences and is wholly deficient in the hormonal/chemical/reproductive regimen that drives human development and existence.

Someone complained that Rachel Dolezal was exercising industrial-strength “white privilege.” How so? A person of Asian genetic descent could claim to be black or African-American (without the American part?) and it would make it no more right or wrong than what Dolezal did. There really isn’t much “white” about it.

Dolezal is obviously someone very confused, lacking in any organic personality of her own. She’s so lacking that she felt she had to make something up. I don’t think she initially did it to get one over on people but once you get so far down the rabbit hole, you, well, have to pretend to be a rabbit.

Had she been a faceless cashier or receptionist or stock clerk or nurse making her way humbly through life, putting on her minstrel face at home, on her own time, hanging out with the “Whites Identifying as Blacks” social group on the Internet, one could look past this. However, the woman took it to another level and began to wield it as a weapon. She chose to invent fictional “hate crimes” against her person. She may have taken advantage of grants and employment opportunities that our liberal neosegregatory politics has created.

In a nation where a large portion of the population (mostly the left leaning) has made racial identity the single most important criteria of one’s existence, these things are going to happen.

Frankly, I don’t much care for how Rachel Dolezal “identifies.” It’s a free country and you can try to live your life most any way can. If who you are isn’t satisfying you, you can reinvent yourself, and deal with the problems and consequences of the reinvention. Culture and society are mostly invented and they change over the years – there’s little to nothing genetic about preferring hip-hop music over Beethoven, Keith Haring over Norman Rockwell or Mondrian, collared greens over sukiyaki, etc. Dolezal’s “whiteness,” her “European” genes predispose her to nothing.

In our modern, global world, where local community identity has been stripped away for so many, “culture” can now be an all-you-can-eat buffet.

If Rachel Dolezal wants to be a person who likes a certain type of art, music, food, seeks to imitate a speech cant, fine. We all do that. Those are prominent details that make us who we are. But she went past that. In some cases taking advantage of racist government programs and privileges. In other cases she made up her whole past life and in others castigated her parents and relatives.

What amuses me is that this case might be the peak of the left’s obsession with identity politics. How will they handle her? She puts to lie so much of the modern left’s foundation – race politics. Affirmative action, racial grievance, set-asides, shakedowns and lawsuits etc., are all exposed as the frauds they are here. The left’s pigeon-holing of people; its desire to divide us by race, culture, to better conquer us and enslave us to a government controlled by them.

Sadly, I feel we won’t learn the lesson and soon the left will insist we “move on” past this ugly episode, and then forget it ever happened. Elizabeth Warren is a senator, isn’t she?

Maybe enough people will remember this and cast racial hucksters such as the Obamas, Eric Holder, the Democrat party, liberals, NGO activists and academics everywhere out of positions of power. But probably not – open frauds like Warren, Sen. Richard Blumenthal and Ward Churchill survive, even thrive. Though, Brian Williams seems to have been brought down, for now.

Finally, Dolezal is obviously nuts. Clearly this hollow woman was utterly lacking in anything that felt solid and satisfying in her life, that gave her a direction or feeling of purpose. A hole of that depth isn’t normal. She’d have been pitiable if she had been honest. Instead, she’s adopted the leftist tack of being aggressive with her failure; or as our illustrious President would say, “Get in their faces” about it. Like a good lefty she made the negative into the positive, positive into the negative, normal into abnormal, and abnormal into the normal (cue “Young Frankenstein” YouTube clip).

For your further edification, John Hinderaker does the heavy lifting here. Christian Adams shows the briar patch we find ourselves in.

All the Gold in Fort Knox

Here’s a sobering (at least for me) thought about the national debt.

When I was young, the phrase, “All the gold in Fort Knox,” was used as an analogy for an immense amount of something or an expensive item or comparative.

So, how does our current national debt, in the neighborhood of $18+ trillion,  compare to all the gold in Fort Knox?

There’s a smidge over 147 million ounces of gold in Fort Knox. That’s a lot! For accounting reasons, the gold is actually on the books at a paltry $42.22 per ounce.That values that gold at $6,206,430,000. Yeah, a surprisingly small $6+ billion. Apple probably has that much lost in its seat cushions at its Cupertino headquarters.

Gold is currently selling in the range of $1,150 per ounce. So if by some magical method the gold could be sold at that more lucrative price without crashing the market it would fetch $169,050,000,000. That’s a more impressive $169 billion.

But that $169 billion would barely scratch the $18 trillion national debt. Scratchdini would buff that out in no time.

In fact, it is estimated that all the gold in Fort Knox might be around 3% of all gold mined in history – just under 5,600,000,000 ounces. So if we take that number and sold all of the gold mined in history at our magical $1,150 per ounce we’d collect $6,413,550,000,000,000 or $6.4+ trillion, barely a third of the (rapidly growing) national debt.

In other words, our national debt is higher than the “value” of all the gold mined in history.

It’s something to think about when Pres. Obama cavalierly dismisses the debt or Congressmen of any party blow through hundreds of billions of dollars like its popcorn and we’re firing up a Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit marathon.

Here’s an interesting page to bookmark on all the debt we’re ramping up like we’re Rockhound in “Armageddon” and there’s no tomorrow.

BTW, I’ve done all these calculations on my own so there is no guarantee they are 100% accurate so it would be nice if someone who is good with numbers checked them.

The Glorious Future of the Apple Minternets

Here’s a little note that came out just ahead of Apple’s WorldWide Developer Conference (WWDC) this week: Apple is thinking about building out its own content delivery network.

In English that means that the consumer products manufacturer so beloved by liberals is planning its own branch of the Internet to guarantee that its audio and video streams get to the consumer in decent shape.

Rewind to last year — when so-called “Net Neutrality” was all the rage on the left — the idea that a company could pay the titans of the Internet a little extra to make sure that their digital audio and video streams arrived to consumers in one piece was considered the height classism. The peak of snobbery. A brutal drubbing of the wretched poor’s noses in the digital dirt.

It was apparently a shocking idea, that some people might pay more for better service. Whoah! What kind of crazy talk was that? Pay more for better service? Not in our wonderful Socialist future! Everybody pays the same (except those that don’t pay anything or those living on subsidies) for the same – from a granny only wanting to check her grandchildren’s Facebook pages once a day to a hardcore multiplayer online gamer to a vast corporate with workers in a hundred different places. There will be no differences allowed!

Net Neutrality Forever! crowed one Barack H. Obama, Democrats far and wide along with a phalanx of “consumer” groups such as Public Knowledge, Free Press, etc. Everyone must have the same Internet packet speed because lack of high-speed broadband, with every packet of data delivered in the same way, was the only thing keeping the less fortunate down. If they had access to broadband Internet then they’d get college degrees, start businesses, cure cancer and vault into the lucrative high-tech future, they sang.

Of course so many of these technocratic experts had no idea what they were talking about (and the ones that did were snowing the gullible). I’ll let you in on a little secret. There already is a data packet hierarchy. It’s been around pretty much since the modern Internet began. It’s about the only way it can function without clogging.

For instance, your email packets aren’t high priority so they can wander around the Internet, be reassembled and you don’t notice the fragmentary seconds in delay. But if your video or audio packets did the same, you’d end up with chatter, hitches and lock-ups. In fact, it’s because some packets are more equal than others that your Verizon FiOS, AT&T Xfinity, et al, flow so smoothly. For your beautiful hi-def cable TV, it’s Net Neutrality-Shmet Neutrality under the hood.

But for the eternal envious grasping of the Free Stuff crowd, such things must not be allowed! They think that they’ll be able to force the big telcos/cable companies, the main builders of the fiber optic infrastructure, to cut prices and still keep building out expensive infrastructure. And that they’ll be able to control the final consumer price structure as well. It’s all about control and making other people pay for things that you deliver to your supporters (often in the name of ‘fairness’). These companies aren’t stupid. If Net Neutrality becomes the controlling facility, they’ll suddenly find reasons to stop building out high-speed fiber-optic networks. We’ll all be treated to an Internet trapped in amber – kind of like Cuba and its fleet of 1959 automobiles. Except…

Except companies like Google and Apple will build out private networks, if they have to. These superhigh-bandwidth broadband Minternets (a neologism of mini and Internet) will be built in the more affluent ZIP codes and will be essentially unregulated (because once regulation starts it will only grow, if only to placate the baying of the populists and socialists). The Minternets will be joined by the growing semiprivate IP networks being constructed by a handful of universities to create an elite computer network that will be capable of handling virtual realities and 8k television/movies. This will be while everyone else is scraping by on a slowly decaying public Internet trapped in mid-2010s technology. You’ll be able to thank the Net Neutrality folks for that.

Because someone had to say it