However, in my not so humble opinion it is better to vote for Republicans, because where Democrats are socialists pur sang, at least Republicans are reluctant socialists. It is always better to choose the lesser of two evils.
"With the midterm elections rapidly approaching, candidates around the country are scrambling to make their case to voters. Republicans—whose brand has been weakening for at least a decade—are hoping to make big gains, particularly in the Senate. Polls indicate that many races are still tight, so the outcome is far from certain.
The conventional wisdom regarding what the GOP must do to repair its image—and eventually win on the national level again—has included two basic pieces of advice. The first is to reach out to younger voters, women and ethnic minorities, mainly blacks and Latinos. The second is to downplay the issues of marriage and the sanctity of life, and it’s no secret that the socially liberal Republican leaders would like to get rid of those issues altogether. These two ideas are typically cast as the GOP’s only realistic path forward.
What too many political consultants fail to understand, however, is that the marriage and life planks of the GOP platform hold the key to any hope they have of building a more diverse coalition. Unfortunately, many powerful party decision-makers seem to get their information about women and minorities from media stereotypes, assuming they all favor a socially liberal agenda. If they bothered to look at widely available data, they would realize that women are evenly split on the issue of abortion, younger voters are increasingly pro-life, and blacks and Latinos are far more religiously devoted and family oriented than the rest of the country...."
"Democrats are compassionate people who want to help others. Republicans are greedy rich people who care only about themselves. When I was a liberal, those were my impressions.
Having transitioned from left to right over the past seven years, those long-held beliefs changed dramatically. No thanks to the GOP. The party appears unable or unwilling to articulate a compelling message, which leaves one wondering what they stand for.
Thomas Sowell has addressed this problem many times. In August, he wrote:
One of the big differences between Democrats and Republicans is that we at least know what the Democrats stand for, whether we agree with it or not. But, for Republicans, we have to guess.
Last year he wrote:
You might think that the stakes are high enough for Republicans to put in some serious time trying to clarify their message.
As the great economist Alfred Marshall once said, facts do not speak for themselves. If we are waiting for the Republicans to do the speaking, the country is in big trouble.
Democrats, by contrast, are all talk. They could sell refrigerators to Eskimos before Republicans could sell them blankets.
The prior year Sowell wrote (here and here):
…the Republicans' greatest failure has been precisely their chronic failure to spell out their principles…. (snip)
…The net result is that articulate Democrats can get away with the biggest lies, without any serious rebuttal from most Republicans. (snip)
But so long as Republicans don't seem to feel any urgency about refuting the Democrats' claim that they just want to help the rich at the expense of the poor, they are courting defeat on election day. Why lose to a lie because you didn't bother to explain the truth?
So what’s the deal?
Is the GOP devoid of principles? Do they have principles but no interest in spelling them out in plain language? Do they think they’re doing a good job and there’s no need to address their messaging problem?
My guess is it’s a combination of all of the above. As far as I can tell, the GOP has become increasingly watered down over the years, straying further and further from values that once made the party strong. I mean, my goodness, they hardly even talk about national security any more -- an area where they once distinguished themselves.
I also think the power brokers in the party are suffering from a chronic case of arrogance. As a result, they’ve lost touch with how their message does or doesn’t resonate with people, or whether they even need to bother assessing if the message is getting through. Or more fundamentally, what the message is. Which circles back to: What are their principles?
So what are we left with? The predictable and rarely explained mantra of “lower taxes” and “smaller government.”
To say this message is inadequate would be inadequate.
First of all, these two talking points don’t resonate with millions of Americans, in part, because the GOP does not spell out how or why these ideas are right for America. They do not point out historical patterns that prove time and again that bigger government has never benefited the citizenry. Worse, how bigger government turns into tyranny.
Second, and more importantly, “lower taxes” and “smaller government” are not core principles. The core principle is freedom. And that is what we need to be talking about. Instead, the Republican Party rambles on incoherently while the Democrats put their values on full display -- touting all the ways they want to help people. Their misguided ideas typically go unchallenged by the GOP."
"At a Democratic rally in Massachusetts, Hillary Clinton’s attempt to attack “trickle-down economics,” resulted in a spectacularly odd statement.
Clinton defended raising the minimum wage saying “Don’t let anybody tell you that raising the minimum wage will kill jobs, they always say that.”
She went on to state that businesses and corporations are not the job creators of America. “Don’t let anybody tell you that it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs,” the former Secretary of State said.
Clinton’s comment will likely be used frequently to attack her as another big-government Democrat. She is seen by many as already running for president in 2016."
"In the fall of 1991, the relatively small and quiet university of Alfred University in New York State was engrossed in controversy. Indignant professors led students in protests, heated debates raged throughout the divided campus, editorials filled the school and local papers. At the heart of the controversy was the newly-installed statue of King Alfred, the medieval English monarch after whom the town and school was named. Ten years prior, when the monument was commissioned, no one could foresee the controversy it would eventually cause. Yet, its placement offended the sensibilities of the university's history professors.
By the strong and negative reaction one would think that Alfred must have been a tyrant, an oppressor of his people, a man deserving of the title Alfred the Terrible. Surprisingly, it is the opposite that that is true.
From 871 to 899, Alfred was the King of Wessex, one of the four kingdoms that would eventually become England. During his reign he revived the tradition of learning that had died with the fall of the Roman Empire. He required all of his nobles be literate and increased their education by translating the great Latin texts into English. Additionally, he has the honor of being the first king in English history to write a book, preceding King James by eight centuries. Thus, he is known as the "education king."
King Alfred the Great
More significantly, for the first time, English law would be written and would establish the tradition of England being a land 'ruled by laws' rather than by the whims of powerful men. Within these laws we find the genesis the principles of due process, trial by jury, and respect for the individual; no matter how lowly. His laws protected the commoner from arbitrary and excessive punishment. Even slaves were protected by his laws. There were limits on the number of hours they could be forced to work and were granted 37 work-free holidays per year. Furthermore, the slaves were allowed to work on their own behalf and retain all proceeds from their endeavors. Through the church, Alfred created a system that fed the poor and provided them with medical care.
For the 9th century, Alfred was a very enlightened king who was loved by his people and for this reason he is the only king in English history to be bestowed the moniker "the Great." Alfred the Great, the father of England and education king.
So why would the history professors be opposed to a memorial to this great proponent of education?
The truth is that the opposition to Alfred had more to do with what he symbolizes rather than actual history. Linda Mitchell, who specializes in Medieval history, was one of the protesting professors. As she explained in a New York Times interview, Alfred "is not a good logo to promote a modern university because virtually any historical figure who had any social or political influence is undoubtedly going to be a D.W.E.M. -- dead white European male," she said, "it would be foolish to choose a symbol so exclusive and effective in emphasizing the straight white male power structure of history."
For Alfred, being a DWEM (Dead White European Male) means that his great achievements are to be ignored because they do not fit into the ideologically-driven, anti-Western civilization, revisionist history that is currently being taught in schools."
"The Obama Administration operates on the sound principle that, if you're going to have a scandal, it's best to have dozens of them and then no one can keep up, and none of them becomes large enough to matter.
In this case, Jonathan Dach is the son of an influential Obama donor and Walmart lobbyist with ties to the First Lady's "healthy eating initiative". Two years ago, Dach Jnr was part of the White House advance team dispatched to Cartagena ahead of the President's visit. The evidence from the hotel register conclusively proves that he had a prostitute in his room. But the White House hushed it up, on the grounds that he did not actually bill US taxpayers for his hooker. How did that happen? Well:
Dach "was not charged for additional guest as a benefit of Hilton Honor Member."
So under the Hilton Honors program the first hooker stays for free. Who knew? Did young Jonathan Dach only have all those points on his Hilton card because he was doing so much presidential travel? In which case, his complimentary hooker was in a sense a perk of office.
Anyway, when he paid off the prostitute and came back from Colombia, Jonathan Dach was given a job at the White House "working on Global Women's Issues". In Cartagena, he was working on Global Women. Now he's working on Global Women's Issues. Ah, well. There's no real need for US officials to travel to Latin America, is there? We're trending quite Latin-American enough in Washington: The Democrats and media have trained the public to accept a certain level of government corruption as perfectly routine, no matter how absurd and obvious it is.
I think it's worth keeping an eye on the big picture here. First, as I wrote two-and-a-half years ago, there was no reason for Mr Dach or any of the other at least two dozen federal johns to be in Cartagena at all: They were cavorting with prostitutes all night long because there was nothing for them to do:
What we know so far is this: All eleven Secret Service men and all ten U.S. military personnel staying at the Hotel Caribe are alleged to have had "escorts" in their rooms that night. All of them. The entire team.
Twenty-one U.S. public servants. Twenty-one Colombian whores. Unless a couple of the senior guys splashed out for the two-girl special...
Why were 21 officials of the United States government able to enjoy a night of pleasure with 21 prostitutes..? The answer isn't difficult. Indeed, one retired agent spelled it out: "They just didn't have anything to do."
So they did Dania Suarez and her friends instead.
The 21 dedicated public servants jetted in on the so-called car-planes, the big transports flying in the tinted-windowed black Suburbans for the presidential motorcade. The "car-plane" guys show up a few days in advance, but usually two weeks or so after the really advanced advance team has hit the ground. And there was nothing for them to do. There is no reason for them to be there.
And now we know that the presidential-entourage hooker culture isn't confined to the agents but extends to the dweeby wonk aides as well.
So the obvious solution would be to lower the number of presidential flunkeys. Which is a standing joke at global summits - that the US President has to be accompanied by more hangers-on than all the other presidents and prime ministers put together. They're not there to do their duty, they're there to do the local booty.
In 2012, when I wrote about this incident, I quoted Congressman Peter King:
It was totally wrong to take a foreign national back to a hotel when the president is about to arrive.
And, after spraying coffee all over my desk, I commented:
It's wrong to take a "foreign national" up to the room, but it would have been okay if she'd been from Des Moines? We're all in favor of outsourcing, but in compliance with Section 27(e)viii of the PATRIOT Act this is the one job Americans will do?
The problem isn't that they're foreign nationals, it's that they're prostitutes. Nevertheless, a new regulation was subsequently introduced forbidding Secret Service agents to have foreigners in their hotel rooms. So at, say, last year's G7 summit in Northern Ireland, it would have been a firing offense for the Presidential advance team to invite the local MI5 guys to their suite to liaise on security, but if they'd flown in a dominatrix from Tuscaloosa, no problem.
As I said, I wrote about all this two years ago. Since then, we've had the Mandela funeral fiasco, where America's money-no-object security entourage stuck the President on stage two feet from an "interpreter" who turned out to be a violent, convicted criminal who'd been part of a "necklacing" gang. In the last few weeks, we've had a knife-toting intruder jump the White House fence, a gun-toting felon in the elevator with the President... There have been apparently more than a thousand security breaches in the last five years. And all for the perfectly obvious reason that, when it comes to security, more equals worse.
The federal motorcade hooker-culture is a symbol of government decadence, and a potentially catastrophic loss of government integrity.The Queen is safer with one car in front and one behind than the President is with a 40-car motorcade of expense-finaglers wondering if their Hilton Honors card will cover the two-girl special."
"A Canadian man who was killed by police after trying to run over two soldiers in Quebec 'had become radicalized', the government said after the first such incident since the country joined the fight against Islamic State militants.
The Canadian government did not specify what it meant by radicalised but in the past has used the term to refer to Canadians who become supporters of militant Islamic groups..."
"RADICALISED MAN RUNS OVER TWO SOLDIERS IN CANADA.
In Canada police has killed a man who earlier had run over two soldiers. The incident took place in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu in Quebec. The perpetrator would be a radicalised man. One of the soldiers was wounded very badly, the other one received only light injuries..."
"Mexico is the most dangerous place in the world for journalists to operate, beating out Iraq, Afghanistan and other dangerous parts of the world according to the International Press Institute.
Earlier this week citizen journalist Maria Del Rosario was kidnapped, tortured and killed. She had been working anonymously in the border town of Reynosa, Mexico to expose cartel activity. Thursday morning her social media account was taken over by her killers who announced her death and sent tweets warning other citizen journalists to back off on cartel reporting. Ildefonso Ortiz has the story:
- Social media postings on Thursday morning mourned the passing of Maria Del Rosario Fuentes Rubio, a Reynosa doctor better known by her Twitter handle @Miut3.
- Law enforcement sources in Tamaulipas, Mexico confirmed her kidnapping Wednesday afternoon and found her body overnight. Due to the early stages of her investigation authorities didn’t release details of the murder. Officials who spoke with Breitbart Texas said they are not only looking at social media but also at her work as a doctor and acquaintances before determining the motive for the murder.
- On Thursday early morning the twitter handle @miut3 posted a farewell message identifying Fuentes by name, posting her picture and telling the community to remain quiet about Reynosa and not make her mistakes “you won’t get anything out of it” as well as warning other citizen journalists that criminals were on to them. The profile image of @Miut3 was changed from the Catwoman photo she always used to a photograph of Fuentes’ bloodied body."
"One eyewitness to the Sept. 26 abduction of 43 students in the southern Mexican state of Guerrero has recounted that at least some of the youths were burned alive, a prominent priest and human rights activist said Friday.
The Rev. Alejandro Solalinde, known for his advocacy on behalf of undocumented Central American migrants, cited concerns for the witness' safety in declining to provide any details about his source.
On the night of Sept. 26, police in the town of Iguala fired shots at a group of students from Ayotzinapa Rural Normal School, a nearby teacher-training facility.
Six people were killed and 25 others wounded, while 43 students remain missing.
Several people arrested for the 26 incident told investigators Iguala deputy police chief Francisco Salgado Valladares had his men intercept the Ayotzinapa students and that while a boss from the Guerreros Unidos drug cartel identified only as "Chucky" ordered the young people seized and killed.
Solalinde said at a press conference that he had the opportunity to talk to several people who "directly" witnessed the events in Iguala and that one of them told him that Ayotzinapa students were burned.
Asked whether the witness was referring to all 43 students, the priest replied, "the information is fragmented."
"The person who told me that is very shaken and afraid," Solalinde said.
"If the Ayotzinapa Normal students were alive, do you think they would let this entire problem go on and grow, knowing the national and international reaction we have," the priest said to reporters. "That is the best evidence that they are no longer living."
Criticizing the government's "poor handling" of the tragedy, Solalinde that Mexico needs to be re-founded in the face of violence extending "from border to border and from coast to coast."
"Bodies turn up everywhere," the priest said.
Conflict among rival drug cartels and between the criminals and security forces has claimed more than 130,000 lives in Mexico since December 2006, when then-President Felipe Calderon decided to militarize the struggle against the drug trade."
"If you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but not for entering and remaining in the country illegally — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.
If you have to get your parents’ permission to go on a field trip or to take an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.
If you MUST show your identification to board an airplane, cash a check, buy liquor, or check out a library book and rent a video, but not to vote for who runs the government — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.
If the government wants to prevent stable, law-abiding citizens from owning gun magazines that hold more than ten rounds, but gives twenty F-16 fighter jets to the crazy new leaders in Egypt — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.
If, in the nation’s largest city, you can buy two 16-ounce sodas, but not one 24-ounce soda, because 24-ounces of a sugary drink might make you fat — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.
If an 80-year-old woman or a three-year-old girl who is confined to a wheelchair can be strip-searched by the TSA at the airport, but a woman in a burka or a hijab is only subject to having her neck and head searched — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.
If your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.
If a seven-year-old boy can be thrown out of school for saying his teacher is “cute,” but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class in grade school is perfectly acceptable — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.
If hard work and success are met with higher taxes and more government regulation and intrusion, while not working is rewarded with Food Stamps, WIC checks, Medicaid benefits, subsidized housing, and free cell phones — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.
If the government’s plan for getting people back to work is to provide incentives for not working, by granting 99 weeks of unemployment checks, without any requirement to prove that gainful employment was diligently sought, but couldn’t be found — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.
If you pay your mortgage faithfully, denying yourself the newest big-screen TV, while your neighbor buys iPhones, time shares, a wall-sized do-it-all plasma screen TV and new cars, and the government forgives his debt when he defaults on his mortgage — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.
If being stripped of your Constitutional right to defend yourself makes you more “safe” according to the government — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.
What a country!"
"Advertisement space can be very pricey, especially for drivers who can’t take their eyes off of it and cause a motor vehicle accident from their distracted stare. That was what happened as a result of a failed experiment for one Moscow advertising agency.
The commercial ad group Sarafan Advertising Agency attempted to drum up new clients by convincing potential customers that their ad space is lucrative for businesses. They used a truck as a moving billboard to convey their message of the company’s effectiveness by plastering a massive photo of a nude woman holding her breasts to both broad sides of the freight truck, the Daily Mail reported. The photo also displayed a note that read: “They attract.”
Unfortunately for many drivers with crashed cars, the ad did attract – distract. Sarafan unwittingly caused over 500 traffic accidents with this inappropriate ad.
Rather than keeping their eyes on the road and the cars ahead of them, drivers watched the pair of giant breasts parade by. The news source reported that police received a total of 517 accident reports in under a 24 hour time period.
The amount of calls became so overwhelming that cops decided it was in the public’s interest to corral the chesty truck until the ads could be removed. One driver, Ildar Yuriev, caught up in the ordeal when a separate driver crashed into his car while on his way to work in Moscow, explained his personal experience with the breast photo fiasco to the Daily Mail:
“I was on my way to a business meeting when I saw this truck with a huge photo of breasts on its side go by. Then I was hit by the car behind who said he had been distracted by the truck,” Yuriev said. “It made me late and left my car in the garage, and although I am insured, I am still out of pocket.”
The agency’s spokesman apologized for the incident, saying his company will happily cover the financial costs of the accidents."