Early-On-Set Romney Derangement Syndrome

Early-On-Set Romney Derangement Syndrome

It’s fascinating watching how this election is shaping up. Romney’s on fire. Obama is flailing. The left is demoralized. And the only people helping Obama are right-wing talk radio and one Barbarian RINO. These are interesting times.

Watching the Republicans attack has been refreshing. For decades, the Republicans played the game of trying to be the nice guy. . . the Charlie Brown of politics. It never worked. This time is different. Indeed, Romney has been savaging Obama every single day on every issue that comes up. He’s pounded away on the economy, on the lack of jobs, on Obama politicizing the killing of bin Laden, etc.

He called Obama’s mishandling of the protection of Chinese activist Chen Guangcheng “a dark day for freedom” and “a day of shame.” He blasted Obama’s attempt to find good news in April’s disastrous employment report (which shows both 8.1% unemployment and a record number of workers giving up trying to find jobs) and said “President Obama is out of ideas, he's out of excuses.”

He’s been verbally clever too, like when he flipped Obama’s claim Romney would not have killed bin Laden by both blasting the claim as politicizing military action and by implying that Obama doesn’t seem to realize he’s bragging about something truly anyone would have done: “Of course [I would have given that order]. Even Jimmy Carter would have given that order.” This makes Obama sound like quite a fool.

Moreover, he’s attacked the little things through surrogates, like how his people accused Obama of eating dog and how they’ve blasted his laughable new campaign slogan “Forward” because of its socialist roots. These attacks have dominated the new cycle sometimes for days and can’t be linked back to Romney by the general public.

At the same time, a bevy of Republicans in battleground states (and more) are blasting Obama on behalf of Romney: Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Paul Ryan, Kelly Ayotte, Bobby Jindal, Bob McConnell and more are all constantly attacking Obama. Rubio called Obama “divisive” and “cynical” and said he pits Americans against each other. “All the things that made him different and special four years ago are gone. And now all he does is run, dividing Americans against each other, obviously because he can't run on his record.” Then he added about Obama’s foreign policy, “there’s this propensity that this administration seems to have of an unwillingness to forcefully assert America's values.”

Kelly Ayotte blasted Obama’s Iran policy and accused him of remaining silent as the people of Iran sought free elections. She even suggested he could have solved the nuclear problem if he’d acted then. And she said she is more qualified to be President than Obama was in 2008.

Obama’s Julia ad brought dismissive attacks across the board from the right (a new tactic for conservatives). National Review called it “creepy” and “the perfect example of [Obama’s] cradle-to-grave welfare mentality.” Others called it sexist and pointed out the irony or portraying Julia as “a strong, independent woman” and then showing her life depending on Obama’s paternalism. Human Events called it “offensively patronizing.” Paul Ryan called the Julia website “creepy and demeaning.” He added this: “It suggests that this woman can’t go anywhere in life without Barack Obama’s government-centered society. It’s kind of demeaning to her. She must have him and his big government to depend on to go anywhere in life. It doesn’t say much about his faith in Julia.”

And many of these attacks have gotten under Obama’s skin. A good example was Romney parking his campaign bus across from where Obama planned to start his campaign. The news cycle spent more time mentioning this sleight than it did what Obama said. Fox has even noticed that Obama is suffering from early-on-set Romney Derangement Syndrome, which is causing him to take inappropriate personal shots at Romney and sink to defending things Presidents normally ignore.

Obama, by the way, can’t find a message. Nor has he found a way to counterattack. He tried the “out-of-touch rich, white guy” bit and that didn’t work. “Dangerous extremist” didn’t work either. The war on women imploded, so did the Trayvon Martin race war. Now he’s reduced (I kid you not) to “don’t take a chance on Romney.” That’s what Sarkozy tried. . . and Gordon Brown. . . and George Bush Sr.

Meanwhile, places like Politico are adrift. Obama has given them nothing, and all they can do is try to explain away the bad news. Obama kicked off his campaign to empty stadiums, so they ran Axelrod’s claim that it was the intensity which matters. Sure. They had Axelrod explain why Obama wasn’t really spiking the ball (again and again) by trying to claim credit for the killing of bin Laden. They whined that the Keystone Pipeline guys are overselling how many jobs Obama killed, and the attacks on the Julia website aren’t entirely fair. Robert DeNiro likes Obama again, did you know that? Oh, and Hispanics might be critical in the election. . . maybe. Hey, Romney had a gay staffer? That should bother you religious nuts, right? Ann Romney spends a lot on clothes! Come on people! //sigh

In fact, right now the best friends Obama has are uberRINOs like Arnold Schwarzenegger, who fears people with principles and spent the weekend attacking the GOP as “too narrow and too rigid,” and people like talk radio. Indeed, talk radio and websites like HotAir are spending their time cherry-picking words out of the quotes of unnamed Romney staffers so they can prove his move to the center. . . he’s the real Alinsky Trojan Horse people!!! Fortunately, their idiotic bleating will only make Romney more acceptable to independents. . . assuming anyone is listening.

In any event, I shall leave you with this. I said the other day that this race really comes down to Ohio and Florida, and that still seems to be true. But the way things are going, I’m starting to wonder if that might not be too pessimistic? And before you say, “but the polls,” consider this. . . when the polls are normed to reflect the population, they use turn-out figures from the 2008 election, which was disproportionately Democratic. Think that will happen again?

It’s fascinating watching how this election is shaping up. Romney’s on fire. Obama is flailing. The left is demoralized. And the only people helping Obama are right-wing talk radio and one Barbarian RINO. These are interesting times.

Watching the Republicans attack has been refreshing. For decades, the Republicans played the game of trying to be the nice guy. . . the Charlie Brown of politics. It never worked. This time is different. Indeed, Romney has been savaging Obama every single day on every issue that comes up. He’s pounded away on the economy, on the lack of jobs, on Obama politicizing the killing of bin Laden, etc.

He called Obama’s mishandling of the protection of Chinese activist Chen Guangcheng “a dark day for freedom” and “a day of shame.” He blasted Obama’s attempt to find good news in April’s disastrous employment report (which shows both 8.1% unemployment and a record number of workers giving up trying to find jobs) and said “President Obama is out of ideas, he's out of excuses.”

He’s been verbally clever too, like when he flipped Obama’s claim Romney would not have killed bin Laden by both blasting the claim as politicizing military action and by implying that Obama doesn’t seem to realize he’s bragging about something truly anyone would have done: “Of course [I would have given that order]. Even Jimmy Carter would have given that order.” This makes Obama sound like quite a fool.

Moreover, he’s attacked the little things through surrogates, like how his people accused Obama of eating dog and how they’ve blasted his laughable new campaign slogan “Forward” because of its socialist roots. These attacks have dominated the new cycle sometimes for days and can’t be linked back to Romney by the general public.

At the same time, a bevy of Republicans in battleground states (and more) are blasting Obama on behalf of Romney: Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Paul Ryan, Kelly Ayotte, Bobby Jindal, Bob McConnell and more are all constantly attacking Obama. Rubio called Obama “divisive” and “cynical” and said he pits Americans against each other. “All the things that made him different and special four years ago are gone. And now all he does is run, dividing Americans against each other, obviously because he can't run on his record.” Then he added about Obama’s foreign policy, “there’s this propensity that this administration seems to have of an unwillingness to forcefully assert America's values.”

Kelly Ayotte blasted Obama’s Iran policy and accused him of remaining silent as the people of Iran sought free elections. She even suggested he could have solved the nuclear problem if he’d acted then. And she said she is more qualified to be President than Obama was in 2008.

Obama’s Julia ad brought dismissive attacks across the board from the right (a new tactic for conservatives). National Review called it “creepy” and “the perfect example of [Obama’s] cradle-to-grave welfare mentality.” Others called it sexist and pointed out the irony or portraying Julia as “a strong, independent woman” and then showing her life depending on Obama’s paternalism. Human Events called it “offensively patronizing.” Paul Ryan called the Julia website “creepy and demeaning.” He added this: “It suggests that this woman can’t go anywhere in life without Barack Obama’s government-centered society. It’s kind of demeaning to her. She must have him and his big government to depend on to go anywhere in life. It doesn’t say much about his faith in Julia.”

And many of these attacks have gotten under Obama’s skin. A good example was Romney parking his campaign bus across from where Obama planned to start his campaign. The news cycle spent more time mentioning this sleight than it did what Obama said. Fox has even noticed that Obama is suffering from early-on-set Romney Derangement Syndrome, which is causing him to take inappropriate personal shots at Romney and sink to defending things Presidents normally ignore.

Obama, by the way, can’t find a message. Nor has he found a way to counterattack. He tried the “out-of-touch rich, white guy” bit and that didn’t work. “Dangerous extremist” didn’t work either. The war on women imploded, so did the Trayvon Martin race war. Now he’s reduced (I kid you not) to “don’t take a chance on Romney.” That’s what Sarkozy tried. . . and Gordon Brown. . . and George Bush Sr.

Meanwhile, places like Politico are adrift. Obama has given them nothing, and all they can do is try to explain away the bad news. Obama kicked off his campaign to empty stadiums, so they ran Axelrod’s claim that it was the intensity which matters. Sure. They had Axelrod explain why Obama wasn’t really spiking the ball (again and again) by trying to claim credit for the killing of bin Laden. They whined that the Keystone Pipeline guys are overselling how many jobs Obama killed, and the attacks on the Julia website aren’t entirely fair. Robert DeNiro likes Obama again, did you know that? Oh, and Hispanics might be critical in the election. . . maybe. Hey, Romney had a gay staffer? That should bother you religious nuts, right? Ann Romney spends a lot on clothes! Come on people! //sigh

In fact, right now the best friends Obama has are uberRINOs like Arnold Schwarzenegger, who fears people with principles and spent the weekend attacking the GOP as “too narrow and too rigid,” and people like talk radio. Indeed, talk radio and websites like HotAir are spending their time cherry-picking words out of the quotes of unnamed Romney staffers so they can prove his move to the center. . . he’s the real Alinsky Trojan Horse people!!! Fortunately, their idiotic bleating will only make Romney more acceptable to independents. . . assuming anyone is listening.

In any event, I shall leave you with this. I said the other day that this race really comes down to Ohio and Florida, and that still seems to be true. But the way things are going, I’m starting to wonder if that might not be too pessimistic? And before you say, “but the polls,” consider this. . . when the polls are normed to reflect the population, they use turn-out figures from the 2008 election, which was disproportionately Democratic. Think that will happen again?

Early-On-Set Romney Derangement Syndrome

View Detail

The Great (film) Debates vol. 37

The Great (film) Debates vol. 37

Everybody loves toons. They make you laugh, they teach you about life, and you can drop a piano on them without killing them. What else could you ask for in a friend?

Who is your favorite cartoon character?


Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms

Everybody loves toons. They make you laugh, they teach you about life, and you can drop a piano on them without killing them. What else could you ask for in a friend?

Who is your favorite cartoon character?


Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms

The Great (film) Debates vol. 37

View Detail

Film Friday: The Black Hole (1979) v. Event Horizon (1997)

Film Friday: The Black Hole (1979) v. Event Horizon (1997)

Disney’s The Black Hole and Paul Anderson’s Event Horizon don’t seem to have much in common. Black Hole is classic science fiction with robots and mad scientists and questions about the meaning of life. Event Horizon is a slasher film set in space. So why compare them? Because they’re actually the same movie.


Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms

Disney’s The Black Hole and Paul Anderson’s Event Horizon don’t seem to have much in common. Black Hole is classic science fiction with robots and mad scientists and questions about the meaning of life. Event Horizon is a slasher film set in space. So why compare them? Because they’re actually the same movie.


Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms

Film Friday: The Black Hole (1979) v. Event Horizon (1997)

View Detail

Deciding Who Lives And Dies

Deciding Who Lives And Dies

Liberals love to control everyone around them. From demanding seatbelts to banning salts and transfats to banning soda in schools, liberals just can’t stop telling you how to live your life. But how far would they really go? Would they deny you medical care if you don’t conform to the way they think you should live? Take a wild guess.

Today’s story comes from Britain, which is often a trendsetter for our left. This story specifically involves a poll conducted by the UK of 1,096 doctors in the National Heath Service. They were asked if the NHS, i.e. the government agency which controls all healthcare in Britain, should have the right to deny non-emergency treatments to smokers and to people who are overweight. Fifty-four percent (54%) answered “YES”.

Think about that for a moment. A slight majority of British doctors (“do no harm” types) felt that the British government should have the right to deny Britons medical care if they were smokers or fat. And don’t forget, in Britain, there really is no other choice for medical care, so this is effectively a ban, not simply a demand that they fund it themselves.

The ostensible reason for this is a shift in attitudes resulting from the need for medical cut backs. In other words, because money is scarce, they want to decide who they consider worthy of receiving treatment and ban everyone else from getting it. But when is money ever not scarce?

And don’t think this is theoretical either. A prior investigation has already found that 25 of 91 Primary Care Trusts in England (think “Obama Insurance Exchange”) have imposed treatment bans since April 2011 in an attempt to save ₤20 billion by 2015. Indeed, in parts of England, smokers and obese people are being rejected for hip and knee replacements so these trusts can allocate their resources to people whose lifestyles they deem more justified of receiving treatment. And you can bet that once it’s acceptable to deny “non-emergency” care to undesirables, emergency care will be next. . . like in euthanasia countries, where doctors now decide if your life is worth saving or if the state wouldn’t be better off letting you shuffle your now-worthless ass off this mortal coil.

So once again, liberals are dividing the world into those they like and those they don’t and they are trying to use the power of government to punish those they don’t. The NHS is a system from which Britons cannot escape. . . just like a single payer plan would be here. They make you pay massive taxes for that system your entire life, i.e. they turn you into a slave, with the promise that you will be taken care of. Then they deny medical care to those they dislike. So much for medical care being a basic human right.

This is the problem with liberal “do-gooder-ism.” It quickly becomes fascism of the worst kind. From banning things you eat to taking your children if you teach them the wrong lessons to imprisoning you for having the wrong thoughts to letting you die if they don’t like you. Don’t ever believe a liberal when they start whining about human rights or dignity because they don’t really mean it. . . they always omit the critical words they are really thinking: “for some.”

Liberals love to control everyone around them. From demanding seatbelts to banning salts and transfats to banning soda in schools, liberals just can’t stop telling you how to live your life. But how far would they really go? Would they deny you medical care if you don’t conform to the way they think you should live? Take a wild guess.

Today’s story comes from Britain, which is often a trendsetter for our left. This story specifically involves a poll conducted by the UK of 1,096 doctors in the National Heath Service. They were asked if the NHS, i.e. the government agency which controls all healthcare in Britain, should have the right to deny non-emergency treatments to smokers and to people who are overweight. Fifty-four percent (54%) answered “YES”.

Think about that for a moment. A slight majority of British doctors (“do no harm” types) felt that the British government should have the right to deny Britons medical care if they were smokers or fat. And don’t forget, in Britain, there really is no other choice for medical care, so this is effectively a ban, not simply a demand that they fund it themselves.

The ostensible reason for this is a shift in attitudes resulting from the need for medical cut backs. In other words, because money is scarce, they want to decide who they consider worthy of receiving treatment and ban everyone else from getting it. But when is money ever not scarce?

And don’t think this is theoretical either. A prior investigation has already found that 25 of 91 Primary Care Trusts in England (think “Obama Insurance Exchange”) have imposed treatment bans since April 2011 in an attempt to save ₤20 billion by 2015. Indeed, in parts of England, smokers and obese people are being rejected for hip and knee replacements so these trusts can allocate their resources to people whose lifestyles they deem more justified of receiving treatment. And you can bet that once it’s acceptable to deny “non-emergency” care to undesirables, emergency care will be next. . . like in euthanasia countries, where doctors now decide if your life is worth saving or if the state wouldn’t be better off letting you shuffle your now-worthless ass off this mortal coil.

So once again, liberals are dividing the world into those they like and those they don’t and they are trying to use the power of government to punish those they don’t. The NHS is a system from which Britons cannot escape. . . just like a single payer plan would be here. They make you pay massive taxes for that system your entire life, i.e. they turn you into a slave, with the promise that you will be taken care of. Then they deny medical care to those they dislike. So much for medical care being a basic human right.

This is the problem with liberal “do-gooder-ism.” It quickly becomes fascism of the worst kind. From banning things you eat to taking your children if you teach them the wrong lessons to imprisoning you for having the wrong thoughts to letting you die if they don’t like you. Don’t ever believe a liberal when they start whining about human rights or dignity because they don’t really mean it. . . they always omit the critical words they are really thinking: “for some.”

Deciding Who Lives And Dies

View Detail

Are We About To Bomb Iran? Yep.

Are We About To Bomb Iran? Yep.

I mentioned the other day that Obama seems to be getting ready to bomb Iran before the election. Not only do I stand by that, but I think the evidence for it is growing. If I’m reading the signs right, look for three weeks of bombing at the end of August.

Before we hit the evidence, let me dispel a few conservative myths. Contrary to what people with Obama Derangement Syndrome will tell you, Obama’s foreign policy is remarkably similar to Bush’s foreign policy. His rhetoric is weaker, but his actual policies are the same. Indeed, he’s almost been trigger-happy by comparison. He’s authorized thousands of drone strikes in countries like Pakistan, Yemen and throughout Africa (things Bush was afraid to do), he’s authorized the bombing of Libya, and he’s sent US troops into a half-dozen conflicts. He’s authorized the killing of American citizens who are suspected terrorists, he hasn’t renounced “enhanced interrogation,” and he even tried to erase the legal existence of the people they are holding at Gitmo. All in all, he’s been more than willing to fight.

Moreover, his latest chest thumping about killing Osama bin Laden, tells us that he thinks it will be vital to his re-election to appear tough. What this means is that Obama is willing and able to strike and most likely sees it as being in his interests to strike before the election.

But how do we know he will strike Iran? Well, for starters, he’s been laying the groundwork for some time. For two years, Obama spoke incessantly about sanctions while promising carrot after carrot if Iran would just play nice. They didn’t. And he can now tell his supporters he tried. Then last year, things began to change. The IAEA issued a stinging report saying that not only was Iran cheating, but that they would soon have a bomb. Meanwhile, Obama’s people created this bizarre story of Iran working with Mexican narco-gangs to assassinate people in the US. That story didn’t wash (except Rick Santorum believed it) but it signified a rhetorical shift toward getting the public ready for a possible attack. And with each of the Republican candidates buying into the need for an attack (except Ron Paul), Obama now has a green light to act.

At the same time, Obama apparently authorized the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists and authorized the use of sophisticated computer virus attacks against Iran’s nuclear capabilities. These are acts you take before an attack, not when you are just passing time.

Now we’re suddenly getting a slew of clues that something is imminent:

● A few weeks ago, Obama moved a second aircraft carrier into the region. American attacks in the modern era always use two carriers. And they are rarely together otherwise.

● The troops in Iraq, who would have been a major target for Iranian counter-attacks, have been removed to safer Arab countries.

● A few months ago, Obama approved the sale of a sophisticated anti-missile system to the United Arab Emirates for $3.6 billion. Why would something like that be needed? To make them less nervous about hosting US troops should hostilities break out and to protect US troops in the country.

● Then last week, we learned that the Air Force positioned F-22 Raptors (the latest generation stealth fighter/penetrator) in those very same UAE. The F-22 is the perfect plane to get through Iran’s defensive grid. The Air Force claims this is all just a normal deployment, except that’s not true. The Air Force does not send F-22 Raptors to just anywhere.

● Yesterday, Obama signed an Executive Order allowing the US to boycott anyone who still does business with Iran. Notice the lack of fanfare. That’s key here because when countries aren’t ready to fight, they bang the table and make threats. When they are preparing to fight, they go silent and don’t trumpet their actions. And my guess is this Order will allow the seizure of assets at a critical time.

● Also yesterday, Prime Minister Netanyahu for the first time mentioned moving elections up from November to August. Why? Because you can’t start an attack if you’re going to go before the voters right after it begins. This suggests the timeline is a late-August attack.

● And then this came out last night. The Pentagon has leaked that it is revising its defense strategy in accordance with current threats. Mentioned in the assessment is that U.S. Central Command is conducting “war planning” for Iran, with the belief that we can destroy Iran’s conventional armed forces in about three weeks “using air and sea strikes.” Further, the Pentagon is “now conducting a step-by-step surge of forces in the Gulf.” Specifically mentioned were “maintaining two aircraft carriers in the region and increasing the number of mine-detection ships and helicopters” as well as the deployment of the F-22. In other words, everything I mentioned above.

All this tells me that the Pentagon is getting ready to strike. It’s building the military capability and it has already assured the neighbors, who no doubt already gave a green light or we would be hearing screaming. Politically, Obama has clearly coordinated with Israel and is factoring this attack into his election plan. He’s also set the Treasury up to seize Iranian assets once the shooting starts.

Based on Israel and how unlikely it is that the Air Force would leave the F-22’s sitting over there too long or the Navy would leave two carriers floating in the gulf longer than necessary, I would expect an attack no later than the end of August, with the current plan being three weeks of bombing.

So the next question is will this help Obama's re-election chances? I doubt it. Weak- appearing leaders tend to get hurt when they start wars because people see it as a desperate attempt to look tough. Libya gave Obama his standard three point bounce which faded almost before it was recorded. I would expect this will give him a 10% bounce, which will fade in week two of the bombing and go negative if bombing goes on beyond three weeks. . . which it will. Plus, as he's shown with his Afghanistan garbage, he will quickly try to politicize it, and that will truly anger average Americans.

Thoughts?

I mentioned the other day that Obama seems to be getting ready to bomb Iran before the election. Not only do I stand by that, but I think the evidence for it is growing. If I’m reading the signs right, look for three weeks of bombing at the end of August.

Before we hit the evidence, let me dispel a few conservative myths. Contrary to what people with Obama Derangement Syndrome will tell you, Obama’s foreign policy is remarkably similar to Bush’s foreign policy. His rhetoric is weaker, but his actual policies are the same. Indeed, he’s almost been trigger-happy by comparison. He’s authorized thousands of drone strikes in countries like Pakistan, Yemen and throughout Africa (things Bush was afraid to do), he’s authorized the bombing of Libya, and he’s sent US troops into a half-dozen conflicts. He’s authorized the killing of American citizens who are suspected terrorists, he hasn’t renounced “enhanced interrogation,” and he even tried to erase the legal existence of the people they are holding at Gitmo. All in all, he’s been more than willing to fight.

Moreover, his latest chest thumping about killing Osama bin Laden, tells us that he thinks it will be vital to his re-election to appear tough. What this means is that Obama is willing and able to strike and most likely sees it as being in his interests to strike before the election.

But how do we know he will strike Iran? Well, for starters, he’s been laying the groundwork for some time. For two years, Obama spoke incessantly about sanctions while promising carrot after carrot if Iran would just play nice. They didn’t. And he can now tell his supporters he tried. Then last year, things began to change. The IAEA issued a stinging report saying that not only was Iran cheating, but that they would soon have a bomb. Meanwhile, Obama’s people created this bizarre story of Iran working with Mexican narco-gangs to assassinate people in the US. That story didn’t wash (except Rick Santorum believed it) but it signified a rhetorical shift toward getting the public ready for a possible attack. And with each of the Republican candidates buying into the need for an attack (except Ron Paul), Obama now has a green light to act.

At the same time, Obama apparently authorized the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists and authorized the use of sophisticated computer virus attacks against Iran’s nuclear capabilities. These are acts you take before an attack, not when you are just passing time.

Now we’re suddenly getting a slew of clues that something is imminent:

● A few weeks ago, Obama moved a second aircraft carrier into the region. American attacks in the modern era always use two carriers. And they are rarely together otherwise.

● The troops in Iraq, who would have been a major target for Iranian counter-attacks, have been removed to safer Arab countries.

● A few months ago, Obama approved the sale of a sophisticated anti-missile system to the United Arab Emirates for $3.6 billion. Why would something like that be needed? To make them less nervous about hosting US troops should hostilities break out and to protect US troops in the country.

● Then last week, we learned that the Air Force positioned F-22 Raptors (the latest generation stealth fighter/penetrator) in those very same UAE. The F-22 is the perfect plane to get through Iran’s defensive grid. The Air Force claims this is all just a normal deployment, except that’s not true. The Air Force does not send F-22 Raptors to just anywhere.

● Yesterday, Obama signed an Executive Order allowing the US to boycott anyone who still does business with Iran. Notice the lack of fanfare. That’s key here because when countries aren’t ready to fight, they bang the table and make threats. When they are preparing to fight, they go silent and don’t trumpet their actions. And my guess is this Order will allow the seizure of assets at a critical time.

● Also yesterday, Prime Minister Netanyahu for the first time mentioned moving elections up from November to August. Why? Because you can’t start an attack if you’re going to go before the voters right after it begins. This suggests the timeline is a late-August attack.

● And then this came out last night. The Pentagon has leaked that it is revising its defense strategy in accordance with current threats. Mentioned in the assessment is that U.S. Central Command is conducting “war planning” for Iran, with the belief that we can destroy Iran’s conventional armed forces in about three weeks “using air and sea strikes.” Further, the Pentagon is “now conducting a step-by-step surge of forces in the Gulf.” Specifically mentioned were “maintaining two aircraft carriers in the region and increasing the number of mine-detection ships and helicopters” as well as the deployment of the F-22. In other words, everything I mentioned above.

All this tells me that the Pentagon is getting ready to strike. It’s building the military capability and it has already assured the neighbors, who no doubt already gave a green light or we would be hearing screaming. Politically, Obama has clearly coordinated with Israel and is factoring this attack into his election plan. He’s also set the Treasury up to seize Iranian assets once the shooting starts.

Based on Israel and how unlikely it is that the Air Force would leave the F-22’s sitting over there too long or the Navy would leave two carriers floating in the gulf longer than necessary, I would expect an attack no later than the end of August, with the current plan being three weeks of bombing.

So the next question is will this help Obama's re-election chances? I doubt it. Weak- appearing leaders tend to get hurt when they start wars because people see it as a desperate attempt to look tough. Libya gave Obama his standard three point bounce which faded almost before it was recorded. I would expect this will give him a 10% bounce, which will fade in week two of the bombing and go negative if bombing goes on beyond three weeks. . . which it will. Plus, as he's shown with his Afghanistan garbage, he will quickly try to politicize it, and that will truly anger average Americans.

Thoughts?

Are We About To Bomb Iran? Yep.

View Detail

Mayday Mayday!

Mayday Mayday!

Comrades! As you read this, no doubt the dirty capitalist pigs have their backs against the wall and our glorious OWS shock troops are shooting them with non-polluting goodwill projectiles. The world is ours. Now we need a list of demands. Oops, sorry, wrong speech.

For those who haven’t heard, OWS is making a desperate attempt today to seem relevant. Specifically, they’re leaving the safety of their college dorms and their rich parents’ basements, and putting aside their raping and their racism and their whining, so they can march out (probably by cab) to block bridges and banks and other instruments of capitalism.

And nobody’s going to care.

It’s amazing how badly OWS has exposed the left. Despite controlling liberal arts colleges all over the country. . . despite being backed by the money of billionaires like George Soros. . . despite being backed by the “labor” of unions. . . despite being fellated by the MSM and Hollywood. . . OWS has been a complete and utter failure. Indeed, in the end, all they’ve done is annoy liberals in big liberal cities as they drained the budgets of those cities: “Sorry, no homeless shelter for you, we spent the money cleaning up the poop the OWSers left in the park.”

In any event, here’s why they failed. The left has become an intellectual basket case. In the days of Lenin and Marx, the left stood for the idea of restructuring the relationship between labor and those with capital. It wanted to remake the world. But socialism failed miserably everywhere it was tried. It bankrupted country after country, it broke the work ethics of the people it ensnared, and it murdered hundreds of millions of people. Only kooks still believe in it.

But the hardcore left won’t quit because it was never about economic for them, it was about control. So they regrouped and sought new allies: man-hating feminists, white-hating blacks, religion-hating atheists, gays, eco-nuts, animal worshippers, anti-Semites, and militants of every stripe. Then they enlisted welfare lifestylists, perpetual college attendees, and the spiteful as ground troops. And the result is a hodgepodge of hatreds, spite and envy, without intellectual rigor or even a common platform. Indeed, they ceased to be an ideology and instead became a (bowel) movement of hate.

OWS encapsulated this perfectly. Not only could they not come up with a coherent list of demands, the demands they did make were nonsense. They were a list of tantrums seeking the impossible, and even if we wanted to meet their demands, we couldn’t. . . not that any sane person would want to try.

Nevertheless, it shocked them that they were ignored. Here’s why. The OWSers are the result of two fascinating trends coming together. The first trend is liberalism’s inability to grasp that others do not share their views. Liberals truly believe that everyone thinks like they do. We’ve seen this time and again, and I think it’s getting worse because of the groupthink out of Hollywood and the MSM. And in this case, that resulted in the OWSers truly believing that the moment they stormed the parks, millions or ordinary Americans would rush to join them. It never occurred to them that might not happen.

The second trend is more subtle by much more damaging. Liberals have been dumbing down achievement for a long time now. This is what is behind the self-esteem movement: to teach morons that feeling good about themselves is as good as actually doing something. Ironically, the result of this has been to cause the utter collapse of liberalism as a functioning force. By teaching liberals for generations now that trying is as good as doing, they’ve bred a generation incapable of setting goals and worked hard to achieve them. Instead, they only aim to “raise awareness” now as if that would magically get someone in charge to implement their desires. This is exactly what OWS did: they sought to raise awareness, as they’ve been taught, and then they waited for the magical whatever to change the world. . . it’s Underwear-Gnome-grade stupidity.

Compare them to the Tea Party, who never bought into the self-esteem crap. They didn’t set out to raise awareness, they set up a network of people who have been slowly taking over the Republican Party with the intent of changing the party and then the government, i.e. they set goals and worked to implement them. OWS just walked into a park and declared, “you are all aware now, so somebody do whatever is supposed to happen next.”

OWS failed because they lacked an agenda, they didn’t understand that the rest of the country wasn’t going to rush to join them, and they lacked an understanding that just whining about something doesn’t lead to change. And causing problems today will not change any of that. Indeed, even if they are somehow wildly successful today, the problem remains -- all they will have achieved is whining again that “somebody should do something.” Good luck with that, fools.


Don't forget, today is Trek Tuesday at the film site! Today I'm criticizing Jim Kirk of all people!

Comrades! As you read this, no doubt the dirty capitalist pigs have their backs against the wall and our glorious OWS shock troops are shooting them with non-polluting goodwill projectiles. The world is ours. Now we need a list of demands. Oops, sorry, wrong speech.

For those who haven’t heard, OWS is making a desperate attempt today to seem relevant. Specifically, they’re leaving the safety of their college dorms and their rich parents’ basements, and putting aside their raping and their racism and their whining, so they can march out (probably by cab) to block bridges and banks and other instruments of capitalism.

And nobody’s going to care.

It’s amazing how badly OWS has exposed the left. Despite controlling liberal arts colleges all over the country. . . despite being backed by the money of billionaires like George Soros. . . despite being backed by the “labor” of unions. . . despite being fellated by the MSM and Hollywood. . . OWS has been a complete and utter failure. Indeed, in the end, all they’ve done is annoy liberals in big liberal cities as they drained the budgets of those cities: “Sorry, no homeless shelter for you, we spent the money cleaning up the poop the OWSers left in the park.”

In any event, here’s why they failed. The left has become an intellectual basket case. In the days of Lenin and Marx, the left stood for the idea of restructuring the relationship between labor and those with capital. It wanted to remake the world. But socialism failed miserably everywhere it was tried. It bankrupted country after country, it broke the work ethics of the people it ensnared, and it murdered hundreds of millions of people. Only kooks still believe in it.

But the hardcore left won’t quit because it was never about economic for them, it was about control. So they regrouped and sought new allies: man-hating feminists, white-hating blacks, religion-hating atheists, gays, eco-nuts, animal worshippers, anti-Semites, and militants of every stripe. Then they enlisted welfare lifestylists, perpetual college attendees, and the spiteful as ground troops. And the result is a hodgepodge of hatreds, spite and envy, without intellectual rigor or even a common platform. Indeed, they ceased to be an ideology and instead became a (bowel) movement of hate.

OWS encapsulated this perfectly. Not only could they not come up with a coherent list of demands, the demands they did make were nonsense. They were a list of tantrums seeking the impossible, and even if we wanted to meet their demands, we couldn’t. . . not that any sane person would want to try.

Nevertheless, it shocked them that they were ignored. Here’s why. The OWSers are the result of two fascinating trends coming together. The first trend is liberalism’s inability to grasp that others do not share their views. Liberals truly believe that everyone thinks like they do. We’ve seen this time and again, and I think it’s getting worse because of the groupthink out of Hollywood and the MSM. And in this case, that resulted in the OWSers truly believing that the moment they stormed the parks, millions or ordinary Americans would rush to join them. It never occurred to them that might not happen.

The second trend is more subtle by much more damaging. Liberals have been dumbing down achievement for a long time now. This is what is behind the self-esteem movement: to teach morons that feeling good about themselves is as good as actually doing something. Ironically, the result of this has been to cause the utter collapse of liberalism as a functioning force. By teaching liberals for generations now that trying is as good as doing, they’ve bred a generation incapable of setting goals and worked hard to achieve them. Instead, they only aim to “raise awareness” now as if that would magically get someone in charge to implement their desires. This is exactly what OWS did: they sought to raise awareness, as they’ve been taught, and then they waited for the magical whatever to change the world. . . it’s Underwear-Gnome-grade stupidity.

Compare them to the Tea Party, who never bought into the self-esteem crap. They didn’t set out to raise awareness, they set up a network of people who have been slowly taking over the Republican Party with the intent of changing the party and then the government, i.e. they set goals and worked to implement them. OWS just walked into a park and declared, “you are all aware now, so somebody do whatever is supposed to happen next.”

OWS failed because they lacked an agenda, they didn’t understand that the rest of the country wasn’t going to rush to join them, and they lacked an understanding that just whining about something doesn’t lead to change. And causing problems today will not change any of that. Indeed, even if they are somehow wildly successful today, the problem remains -- all they will have achieved is whining again that “somebody should do something.” Good luck with that, fools.


Don't forget, today is Trek Tuesday at the film site! Today I'm criticizing Jim Kirk of all people!

Mayday Mayday!

View Detail

White House Press Dinner Portends Doom

White House Press Dinner Portends Doom

The end of the Obama Reign of Error is nigh. Yep. The signs are everywhere. And the latest evidence comes from the White House Correspondents Association dinner on Saturday. Oh yeah. Observe these mighty omens:

Omen One: I’ve pointed out several times now that Obama has no idea how to win back the public. Saturday proved that more than ever because Obama demonstrated that he and his staff have a tin ear for the things the public is upset about:

● Obama made jokes about the Secret Service scandal, as did Biden. Stupid. When a scandal is fresh, people want to know it’s being taken seriously. Making jokes about the scandal only shows that Obama is not taking it seriously. This also serve to highlight the question of whether or not Obama’s faked-outrage at the scandal was genuine or just for show. . . reinforcing the idea he doesn’t really care about anything.

Moreover, his joke on this topic rather nastily pulled in Hillary Clinton: “Four years ago, I was locked in a brutal primary battle with Hillary Clinton. Four years later, she won’t stop drunk-texting me from Cartagena.” Calling your Secretary of State a drunk, making her sound desperate and lonely, and suggesting she was connected to a hooker scandal is not a way to demonstrate class. To the contrary, it comes across as petty and vindictive, especially when this particular Secretary of State has already announced she won’t be attending the Democratic Convention. Start the “bad blood” talk again.

● For a President who spends his time on golf courses and lets his wife vacation at five star resorts with her entourage on our tax dollars while unemployment sits at 8-9% and real income is falling, the last thing said President should be doing is being seen hobnobbing with spoiled Hollywood celebrities. And then inviting Lindsay Lohan just made everything even worse. Talk about a poster child for spoiled, rich, undeserving, played-out, drug addicted tramps! Lohan has ruined every chance the public has given her and she is now a cultural icon for pathetic failure. . . not the kind of person a sitting President should associate with.

● Obama made a joke about eating a dog and combined it with a poke at moms: “what’s the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? A pit bull is delicious.” Whoops. Having launched a slimy attack against Romney on the dog front, and having been called on it by Romney, who point out Obama ate dog growing up, the last thing Obama should be doing is joking about eating dogs. That’s like an accused child molester making a joke about under-aged sex.

Further, this joke smells of yet another attack on moms. With Hilary Rosen making a broadside against stay-at-home mothers, the timing couldn’t have been worse for suggesting that mothers are vicious. And by the way, this was meant as a Sarah Palin joke, telling us that Obama is stuck in the past and that he still hasn’t found a way to excite his base about attacking Romney.

All of this tells us that Obama does not understand what has upset the public or how to win them back. He thinks the criticisms of him and the blowback he’s received are a joke. And one thing the public will not stand is its concerns being treated as a joke. His campaign is doomed.

Omen Two: More telling, perhaps, was the fact that Jimmy Kimmel attacked Obama in ways you never see liberals attack Democratic politicians. . . unless they think the Democrat is finished. Check out these jokes from Kimmel (none of which were denounced by the MSM):

● "Remember when the country rallied around you in hopes of a better tomorrow? That was hilarious."

Translation: The public’s hope in Obama was a sick joke, you have failed Mr. Obama. This is truly vicious and I can only see this as evidence that even the left sees Obama as no longer worthy of propping up. This is a demoralizing joke for Obama supporters.

● “You know, there’s a term for guys like President Obama. Probably not two terms.”

Translation: This is Kimmel saying point blank that it’s so hopeless for Obama that they should laugh about it. This joke will soften the support of all the frontrunners and bandwagoners, who only stick with winners.

● "Democrats would like you to stick to your guns. And if you don't have any guns, you can ask Eric Holder to get some for you."

Translation: Kimmel is striking directly at an Obama scandal. This is like a joke about Nixon breaking into the Watergate, it’s just not done to sitting Democratic Presidents. This is the kind of thing which will get millions of little liberals and moderates accepting the fact Obama is corrupt and tainted.

The fact Kimmel is so open about these issues is stunning. I simply cannot see this as anything other than a declaration that Obama is finished. I also expect this may open the late-night floodgates. And when those “opinion-makers” start mocking him, the center-left sheepulation will give up on him.

Omen Three: Finally, there have been an incredible number of articles written and tweets sent out about the propriety of this entire WHCA dinner. Journalists from all over the spectrum are attacking the WHCA dinner and the ethics of the journalists who attended:

● Gawker's Hamilton Nolan: "It is the single most revolting annual gathering of pseudojournalistic ****suckery in all the land. The White House Correspondents' Association Dinner is a shameful display of whoredom that makes the 'average American' vomit in disgust."

● Politico’s Ben Smith: "Is the fawning, sycophantic worship service to wealth, power and celebrity over? Or is there more crap today?"

Personally, I think these critics are right. This dinner shows that our modern press corps has no ethics whatsoever. They happily respond like Pavlov’s dogs to the opportunity to rub elbows with the people they are supposed to be viewing impartially and investigating. It makes the MSM appear incestuous. But that’s not the point.

The point here is that leftist journalists are openly attacking this shindig with a Democratic President sitting in the White House. Usually these kinds of diatribes are saved for the few celebrities and journalists who cozy up to Republicans. The fact that so many are making broadside attacks against journalists who cozy up to Obama (and in an election year) tells me that they think Obama is finished and they are determined to score points with their readers for purity. In other words, they see no reason to be team players anymore because the team has lost.

The end of the Obama Reign of Error is nigh. Yep. The signs are everywhere. And the latest evidence comes from the White House Correspondents Association dinner on Saturday. Oh yeah. Observe these mighty omens:

Omen One: I’ve pointed out several times now that Obama has no idea how to win back the public. Saturday proved that more than ever because Obama demonstrated that he and his staff have a tin ear for the things the public is upset about:

● Obama made jokes about the Secret Service scandal, as did Biden. Stupid. When a scandal is fresh, people want to know it’s being taken seriously. Making jokes about the scandal only shows that Obama is not taking it seriously. This also serve to highlight the question of whether or not Obama’s faked-outrage at the scandal was genuine or just for show. . . reinforcing the idea he doesn’t really care about anything.

Moreover, his joke on this topic rather nastily pulled in Hillary Clinton: “Four years ago, I was locked in a brutal primary battle with Hillary Clinton. Four years later, she won’t stop drunk-texting me from Cartagena.” Calling your Secretary of State a drunk, making her sound desperate and lonely, and suggesting she was connected to a hooker scandal is not a way to demonstrate class. To the contrary, it comes across as petty and vindictive, especially when this particular Secretary of State has already announced she won’t be attending the Democratic Convention. Start the “bad blood” talk again.

● For a President who spends his time on golf courses and lets his wife vacation at five star resorts with her entourage on our tax dollars while unemployment sits at 8-9% and real income is falling, the last thing said President should be doing is being seen hobnobbing with spoiled Hollywood celebrities. And then inviting Lindsay Lohan just made everything even worse. Talk about a poster child for spoiled, rich, undeserving, played-out, drug addicted tramps! Lohan has ruined every chance the public has given her and she is now a cultural icon for pathetic failure. . . not the kind of person a sitting President should associate with.

● Obama made a joke about eating a dog and combined it with a poke at moms: “what’s the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? A pit bull is delicious.” Whoops. Having launched a slimy attack against Romney on the dog front, and having been called on it by Romney, who point out Obama ate dog growing up, the last thing Obama should be doing is joking about eating dogs. That’s like an accused child molester making a joke about under-aged sex.

Further, this joke smells of yet another attack on moms. With Hilary Rosen making a broadside against stay-at-home mothers, the timing couldn’t have been worse for suggesting that mothers are vicious. And by the way, this was meant as a Sarah Palin joke, telling us that Obama is stuck in the past and that he still hasn’t found a way to excite his base about attacking Romney.

All of this tells us that Obama does not understand what has upset the public or how to win them back. He thinks the criticisms of him and the blowback he’s received are a joke. And one thing the public will not stand is its concerns being treated as a joke. His campaign is doomed.

Omen Two: More telling, perhaps, was the fact that Jimmy Kimmel attacked Obama in ways you never see liberals attack Democratic politicians. . . unless they think the Democrat is finished. Check out these jokes from Kimmel (none of which were denounced by the MSM):

● "Remember when the country rallied around you in hopes of a better tomorrow? That was hilarious."

Translation: The public’s hope in Obama was a sick joke, you have failed Mr. Obama. This is truly vicious and I can only see this as evidence that even the left sees Obama as no longer worthy of propping up. This is a demoralizing joke for Obama supporters.

● “You know, there’s a term for guys like President Obama. Probably not two terms.”

Translation: This is Kimmel saying point blank that it’s so hopeless for Obama that they should laugh about it. This joke will soften the support of all the frontrunners and bandwagoners, who only stick with winners.

● "Democrats would like you to stick to your guns. And if you don't have any guns, you can ask Eric Holder to get some for you."

Translation: Kimmel is striking directly at an Obama scandal. This is like a joke about Nixon breaking into the Watergate, it’s just not done to sitting Democratic Presidents. This is the kind of thing which will get millions of little liberals and moderates accepting the fact Obama is corrupt and tainted.

The fact Kimmel is so open about these issues is stunning. I simply cannot see this as anything other than a declaration that Obama is finished. I also expect this may open the late-night floodgates. And when those “opinion-makers” start mocking him, the center-left sheepulation will give up on him.

Omen Three: Finally, there have been an incredible number of articles written and tweets sent out about the propriety of this entire WHCA dinner. Journalists from all over the spectrum are attacking the WHCA dinner and the ethics of the journalists who attended:

● Gawker's Hamilton Nolan: "It is the single most revolting annual gathering of pseudojournalistic ****suckery in all the land. The White House Correspondents' Association Dinner is a shameful display of whoredom that makes the 'average American' vomit in disgust."

● Politico’s Ben Smith: "Is the fawning, sycophantic worship service to wealth, power and celebrity over? Or is there more crap today?"

Personally, I think these critics are right. This dinner shows that our modern press corps has no ethics whatsoever. They happily respond like Pavlov’s dogs to the opportunity to rub elbows with the people they are supposed to be viewing impartially and investigating. It makes the MSM appear incestuous. But that’s not the point.

The point here is that leftist journalists are openly attacking this shindig with a Democratic President sitting in the White House. Usually these kinds of diatribes are saved for the few celebrities and journalists who cozy up to Republicans. The fact that so many are making broadside attacks against journalists who cozy up to Obama (and in an election year) tells me that they think Obama is finished and they are determined to score points with their readers for purity. In other words, they see no reason to be team players anymore because the team has lost.

White House Press Dinner Portends Doom

View Detail

The Great (film) Debates vol. 36

The Great (film) Debates vol. 36

There ain’t no such thing as the mob. But there are movies about the mob!

What is your favorite gangster film?

Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms

There ain’t no such thing as the mob. But there are movies about the mob!

What is your favorite gangster film?

Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms

The Great (film) Debates vol. 36

View Detail

I Got Nothing (Plus Bonus Round)

I Got Nothing (Plus Bonus Round)

Folks, I got nothing for ya today. So sad. The old brain-thingy just couldn’t get it focused. So instead, let’s turn the floor over to you. Tell us about some of the movies you’ve seen lately, old or new. What’s been good? What’s been bad? What did you like? What didn’t you?

Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms

Folks, I got nothing for ya today. So sad. The old brain-thingy just couldn’t get it focused. So instead, let’s turn the floor over to you. Tell us about some of the movies you’ve seen lately, old or new. What’s been good? What’s been bad? What did you like? What didn’t you?

Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms

I Got Nothing (Plus Bonus Round)

View Detail

Electoral Math

Electoral Math

Ok, let’s talk about the election so you don’t have to waste your time worrying about things like national polls or how 48 states might vote. Sadly, this election comes down to two states. That's right, two states -- unless something unexpected happens, in which event four whole states could become relevant. Get ready to have your mind blown. . .

Above is a chart provided by Yahoo which addresses which states are currently leaning in which directions and what that means in terms of electoral math. According to Yahoo, Obama has nineteen states and the District of Columbia in his pocket. Those give him 247 electoral votes. Romney has 23 states firmly in his column, which gives him 191 electoral votes.

The remaining eight states: Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, Iowa and New Hampshire, have an even 100 electoral votes between them. To win, a candidate needs 270 electoral votes. That means Obama needs 23 of those 100 and Romney needs 79 of those 100.

But here’s the thing, several of the states they’ve classified as toss-up states aren’t really toss-up states. History tells us that Virginia, Nevada and North Carolina are all but guaranteed to end up in Romney’s column. That boosts him to 225 electoral votes and means he needs 45 more.

Colorado, most likely, will go to Obama. . . grrr. That gives him nine more votes for a total of 256. That means he needs only 14.

Here’s what’s left:

Florida (29)
Ohio (18)
New Hampshire (4)
Iowa (6)

Now do the math. If Obama wins Florida OR Ohio, then he wins the election. But if Romney wins both Florida and Ohio, then he wins the election. New Hampshire and Iowa don’t matter in either of those scenarios. IF Obama loses Colorado but wins Ohio, then Iowa could matter because Obama could win by combining Ohio with Iowa. But New Hampshire never really matters.

What this comes down to is Florida and Ohio, with a slight chance that Colorado and Iowa could matter. Is that good or bad? It's good because those aren't strong states for Obama. But it's bad because it means it's going to be a close race, which means anything could happen.

Ok, let’s talk about the election so you don’t have to waste your time worrying about things like national polls or how 48 states might vote. Sadly, this election comes down to two states. That's right, two states -- unless something unexpected happens, in which event four whole states could become relevant. Get ready to have your mind blown. . .

Above is a chart provided by Yahoo which addresses which states are currently leaning in which directions and what that means in terms of electoral math. According to Yahoo, Obama has nineteen states and the District of Columbia in his pocket. Those give him 247 electoral votes. Romney has 23 states firmly in his column, which gives him 191 electoral votes.

The remaining eight states: Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, Iowa and New Hampshire, have an even 100 electoral votes between them. To win, a candidate needs 270 electoral votes. That means Obama needs 23 of those 100 and Romney needs 79 of those 100.

But here’s the thing, several of the states they’ve classified as toss-up states aren’t really toss-up states. History tells us that Virginia, Nevada and North Carolina are all but guaranteed to end up in Romney’s column. That boosts him to 225 electoral votes and means he needs 45 more.

Colorado, most likely, will go to Obama. . . grrr. That gives him nine more votes for a total of 256. That means he needs only 14.

Here’s what’s left:

Florida (29)
Ohio (18)
New Hampshire (4)
Iowa (6)

Now do the math. If Obama wins Florida OR Ohio, then he wins the election. But if Romney wins both Florida and Ohio, then he wins the election. New Hampshire and Iowa don’t matter in either of those scenarios. IF Obama loses Colorado but wins Ohio, then Iowa could matter because Obama could win by combining Ohio with Iowa. But New Hampshire never really matters.

What this comes down to is Florida and Ohio, with a slight chance that Colorado and Iowa could matter. Is that good or bad? It's good because those aren't strong states for Obama. But it's bad because it means it's going to be a close race, which means anything could happen.

Electoral Math

View Detail

Republicans Reforming Education

Republicans Reforming Education

For years, the Democrats have held the edge with the public on the issue of education. This has been for a variety of reasons. But now that’s fading because GOP governors are actually changing the world of education with stunning success. And strangely, the credit belongs to Jeb Bush.

Between 1999 and 2007, Jeb Bush was governor of Florida. When he was elected, Florida’s schools were the worst in the nation. Against the total opposition of the Florida teachers unions, Bush instituted the following reforms:

● First, Florida began grading schools -- A through F -- based on student progress on proficiency tests. Students at schools which failed were allowed to transfer away.

● Secondly, they stopped “social promotion,” i.e. graduating kids to the next grade even though they were failing. (i.e. incentives for students)

● Third, they created a merit-pay system where teachers got bonuses if their students passed certain exams. (i.e. incentives for teachers)

● Fourth, parents got greater choice. They could use state vouchers to choose from public, private, charter and even on-line schools. (i.e. incentives for schools)

● Fifth, they changed the certification requirements to allow other professionals to become teachers even without having the noxious and useless “education” degree.

Each of these are things the teachers unions all over the country have been fighting for decades with the most ridiculous claims. Like how in Michigan, for example, the Michigan Education Association is whining how new reforms they are fighting would mean a 44-year-old teach who was hoping to retire in three years now would not be able to retire until she turns all of 60! The horror. They've also screamed racism, classism, and all the usual crappola.

So how did Bush’s plan work? Florida’s schools are now statistically among the best in the nation. That’s right, worst to near first in eight years. And black and Hispanic students have made the biggest gains. Moreover, Bush did all of this without massive increases in spending -- per pupil spending rose slightly, but not as much as in other states.

You would think this would open some eyes on the left, right? Hardly. Republican governors are now doing the exact same things in Nevada, New Mexico, Michigan, Indiana, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arizona, and a host of other Republican leaning states with Republican governors. And guess what? The unions and the Democrats continue to fight tooth and nail to stop these proven reforms. Isn’t it amazing that they simply don’t want things to get better?

Well, according to researchers at Stanford University, voters increasingly see the Democrats as servants of the teachers unions and the failing status quo. So maybe things are changing?

Of course, that won’t change any Democratic minds. I’ve mentioned before how it’s being proven that liberals are stupider than conservatives, are less well-informed, and are more likely to avoid people who disagree with them (LINK, LINK). Well, it also turns out that liberals distort their beliefs to help their own side. Indeed, consider this fact from the liberal Washington Post: while 73% of liberals said the White House could control gas prices when Bush was in office, only 33% claimed to believe that with Obama in the White House. That means two out of three liberals either changed their beliefs or lied about their beliefs to help the Democrats. Imagine that! So don’t expect them to recognize the improvements in the world of education.

But others are waking up. And little by little, the Democrats are losing their association with being the party of education. And that will benefit the nation's children.

For years, the Democrats have held the edge with the public on the issue of education. This has been for a variety of reasons. But now that’s fading because GOP governors are actually changing the world of education with stunning success. And strangely, the credit belongs to Jeb Bush.

Between 1999 and 2007, Jeb Bush was governor of Florida. When he was elected, Florida’s schools were the worst in the nation. Against the total opposition of the Florida teachers unions, Bush instituted the following reforms:

● First, Florida began grading schools -- A through F -- based on student progress on proficiency tests. Students at schools which failed were allowed to transfer away.

● Secondly, they stopped “social promotion,” i.e. graduating kids to the next grade even though they were failing. (i.e. incentives for students)

● Third, they created a merit-pay system where teachers got bonuses if their students passed certain exams. (i.e. incentives for teachers)

● Fourth, parents got greater choice. They could use state vouchers to choose from public, private, charter and even on-line schools. (i.e. incentives for schools)

● Fifth, they changed the certification requirements to allow other professionals to become teachers even without having the noxious and useless “education” degree.

Each of these are things the teachers unions all over the country have been fighting for decades with the most ridiculous claims. Like how in Michigan, for example, the Michigan Education Association is whining how new reforms they are fighting would mean a 44-year-old teach who was hoping to retire in three years now would not be able to retire until she turns all of 60! The horror. They've also screamed racism, classism, and all the usual crappola.

So how did Bush’s plan work? Florida’s schools are now statistically among the best in the nation. That’s right, worst to near first in eight years. And black and Hispanic students have made the biggest gains. Moreover, Bush did all of this without massive increases in spending -- per pupil spending rose slightly, but not as much as in other states.

You would think this would open some eyes on the left, right? Hardly. Republican governors are now doing the exact same things in Nevada, New Mexico, Michigan, Indiana, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arizona, and a host of other Republican leaning states with Republican governors. And guess what? The unions and the Democrats continue to fight tooth and nail to stop these proven reforms. Isn’t it amazing that they simply don’t want things to get better?

Well, according to researchers at Stanford University, voters increasingly see the Democrats as servants of the teachers unions and the failing status quo. So maybe things are changing?

Of course, that won’t change any Democratic minds. I’ve mentioned before how it’s being proven that liberals are stupider than conservatives, are less well-informed, and are more likely to avoid people who disagree with them (LINK, LINK). Well, it also turns out that liberals distort their beliefs to help their own side. Indeed, consider this fact from the liberal Washington Post: while 73% of liberals said the White House could control gas prices when Bush was in office, only 33% claimed to believe that with Obama in the White House. That means two out of three liberals either changed their beliefs or lied about their beliefs to help the Democrats. Imagine that! So don’t expect them to recognize the improvements in the world of education.

But others are waking up. And little by little, the Democrats are losing their association with being the party of education. And that will benefit the nation's children.

Republicans Reforming Education

View Detail

Media Finally Spots Flaw In Democrat's Hispanic Strategy. . . Sort Of

Media Finally Spots Flaw In Democrat's Hispanic Strategy. . . Sort Of

We at Commentarama like to keep you ahead of the curve. So while others are worrying about things that will never happen or missing both forest and trees, we’re busy trying to let you know exactly what is going on and what the world will look like in the near future. And that brings me to the issue of immigration. It turns out, the Mexican invasion is over. And while you knew this already two years ago (Link), the public is only now getting hints of this. Perhaps it’s time for the Democrats to panic?

The idea that Hispanics (particularly Mexicans) will take over the United States has become an article of faith on the left. Indeed, the Democrats are counting on it. Their electoral strategy involves pandering to minorities and trying to get overwhelming support among them to offset their near-total collapse of support among whites. To achieve that level of support, they are working hard to scare these groups with claims of racism and to enslave them with poor education and by ingraining hobbling ideas like group rights.

But this whole idea relies on a faulty premise. Indeed, it depends on immigration from Mexico remaining at the same levels it was during its peak period in the 1980s/1990s. In 1980, there were 30 million Hispanics in the US. By 2000, there were 45 million. If you draw a straight line between those points and extend it to the future, there will be 104 million in 2040 and they will be the new majority group shortly after.

Sounds simple, but here’s the problem. That growth has nothing to do with births of Hispanics in the United States. Indeed, 12 million of the 15 million growth in the last twenty years was purely illegal immigration. And the vast majority of that comes from Mexico. Ergo, if immigration from Mexico slows, then the minority take over of America is over.

And guess what? Immigration from Mexico has all but stopped. Starting in 2007 (before the recession), immigration from Mexico began dropping. Within the last few years, it’s actually reversed itself, as the number of Mexicans returning to Mexico has exceeded the number of Mexicans who have come to the United States. How much? Well, according to Pew and the Census Bureau, the number of illegal immigrants in the US fell by one million in the last five years while the number of legal immigrants rose only by 200,000.

Why is this happening? Partially it is the sad state of our economy. But even more importantly, it’s because Mexico is running out of Mexicans. Mexico’s birthrate is in free fall. In the past decade alone, it has fallen 20% (from 24 births per 1,000 persons to 19), and it keeps right on falling. Mexico’s birth rate is now just over 2 children per mother, almost identical to the birth rate in the United States, and it’s still falling -- it will soon be at European levels (around 1.4). Because of this, Mexico’s population is estimated to peak in 2043, though I suspect that will happen much sooner, as it has in other countries. And that means Mexico, like Europe, is starting to suffer from a birth shortage and, consequently, a worker shortage. That means there won’t be waves of millions of Mexicans sneaking across the border in each of the next 3-4 decades because they can find the jobs they want at home. So instead of having 104 million Hispanics in 2040 as expected, the US is more likely to have 60 million -- which won’t be anywhere near a majority in a country of 350 million people.

I told you about this in May 2000 and again last year. The LA Times first hinted at this yesterday. Neither the Times nor others on the left have yet fully grasped the meaning of this, but it will come as they realize what this means for the Democratic strategy.

And falling numbers aren’t the only problem. Look at the concentration of Hispanics in the United States. That is not a map which affords Hispanics political power. As California has learned, anything above 50%+1 is a waste in our system. So piling millions upon millions of Hispanics into the same 3-4 states means their influence will always been small compared to their numbers.

Further, there is this point I mentioned last year. According to the Census, 53% of Hispanics now identify themselves as “white,” while 37% identify themselves as “some other race” (the choice on the form) with the rest selecting other races such as black. And American- born children of Hispanics are even more likely to identify themselves as “white.” This means Hispanics are doing what every other ethnic group except blacks has done -- they are joining the melting pot.

The Democratic dream of an angry racist Hispanic majority which supports their socialist ways is over. This wave of Hispanics is not coming, they are not going to the right states, and those that are here are leaving the race-reservation. The LA Times has finally put its finger on this, but hasn’t grasps the full implications yet. But that will come as the Times article is now getting widespread publication. Any guesses what the Democrats will do about their mistake. . . or if they'll put this together?


And don't forget, it's Star Trek Tuesday at the film site!

We at Commentarama like to keep you ahead of the curve. So while others are worrying about things that will never happen or missing both forest and trees, we’re busy trying to let you know exactly what is going on and what the world will look like in the near future. And that brings me to the issue of immigration. It turns out, the Mexican invasion is over. And while you knew this already two years ago (Link), the public is only now getting hints of this. Perhaps it’s time for the Democrats to panic?

The idea that Hispanics (particularly Mexicans) will take over the United States has become an article of faith on the left. Indeed, the Democrats are counting on it. Their electoral strategy involves pandering to minorities and trying to get overwhelming support among them to offset their near-total collapse of support among whites. To achieve that level of support, they are working hard to scare these groups with claims of racism and to enslave them with poor education and by ingraining hobbling ideas like group rights.

But this whole idea relies on a faulty premise. Indeed, it depends on immigration from Mexico remaining at the same levels it was during its peak period in the 1980s/1990s. In 1980, there were 30 million Hispanics in the US. By 2000, there were 45 million. If you draw a straight line between those points and extend it to the future, there will be 104 million in 2040 and they will be the new majority group shortly after.

Sounds simple, but here’s the problem. That growth has nothing to do with births of Hispanics in the United States. Indeed, 12 million of the 15 million growth in the last twenty years was purely illegal immigration. And the vast majority of that comes from Mexico. Ergo, if immigration from Mexico slows, then the minority take over of America is over.

And guess what? Immigration from Mexico has all but stopped. Starting in 2007 (before the recession), immigration from Mexico began dropping. Within the last few years, it’s actually reversed itself, as the number of Mexicans returning to Mexico has exceeded the number of Mexicans who have come to the United States. How much? Well, according to Pew and the Census Bureau, the number of illegal immigrants in the US fell by one million in the last five years while the number of legal immigrants rose only by 200,000.

Why is this happening? Partially it is the sad state of our economy. But even more importantly, it’s because Mexico is running out of Mexicans. Mexico’s birthrate is in free fall. In the past decade alone, it has fallen 20% (from 24 births per 1,000 persons to 19), and it keeps right on falling. Mexico’s birth rate is now just over 2 children per mother, almost identical to the birth rate in the United States, and it’s still falling -- it will soon be at European levels (around 1.4). Because of this, Mexico’s population is estimated to peak in 2043, though I suspect that will happen much sooner, as it has in other countries. And that means Mexico, like Europe, is starting to suffer from a birth shortage and, consequently, a worker shortage. That means there won’t be waves of millions of Mexicans sneaking across the border in each of the next 3-4 decades because they can find the jobs they want at home. So instead of having 104 million Hispanics in 2040 as expected, the US is more likely to have 60 million -- which won’t be anywhere near a majority in a country of 350 million people.

I told you about this in May 2000 and again last year. The LA Times first hinted at this yesterday. Neither the Times nor others on the left have yet fully grasped the meaning of this, but it will come as they realize what this means for the Democratic strategy.

And falling numbers aren’t the only problem. Look at the concentration of Hispanics in the United States. That is not a map which affords Hispanics political power. As California has learned, anything above 50%+1 is a waste in our system. So piling millions upon millions of Hispanics into the same 3-4 states means their influence will always been small compared to their numbers.

Further, there is this point I mentioned last year. According to the Census, 53% of Hispanics now identify themselves as “white,” while 37% identify themselves as “some other race” (the choice on the form) with the rest selecting other races such as black. And American- born children of Hispanics are even more likely to identify themselves as “white.” This means Hispanics are doing what every other ethnic group except blacks has done -- they are joining the melting pot.

The Democratic dream of an angry racist Hispanic majority which supports their socialist ways is over. This wave of Hispanics is not coming, they are not going to the right states, and those that are here are leaving the race-reservation. The LA Times has finally put its finger on this, but hasn’t grasps the full implications yet. But that will come as the Times article is now getting widespread publication. Any guesses what the Democrats will do about their mistake. . . or if they'll put this together?


And don't forget, it's Star Trek Tuesday at the film site!

Media Finally Spots Flaw In Democrat's Hispanic Strategy. . . Sort Of

View Detail

Burning Down The House

Burning Down The House

If there’s one thing liberals/leftists just can’t get out of their systems, it’s the desire to act like Nazis. They just love the idea of imprisoning and killing those who disagree with them. And no, I’m not kidding. Every single socialist movement the world over has rounded up opponents and even here there are those who openly wish such things. . . people like global warming enthusiast Steve Zwick.

Steve Zwick, for those who don’t know, is a “climate change” alarmist who periodically writes for Forbes magazine. In his most recent article, he pulled a Hitler. Specifically, he said this:

“We know who the active denialists are – not the people who buy the lies, mind you, but the people who create the lies. Let’s start keeping track of them now, and when the famines come, let’s make them pay. Let’s let their houses burn. Let’s swap their safe land for submerged islands. . . They broke the climate. Why should the rest of us have to pay for it?”

Stick in the word “Jews” and this thing comes right out of any speech by Hitler. Note how Zwick suggest the creation of an enemies list. Those people need to be marked, perhaps with a yellow sun on their lapels. They are to be considered subhuman. And when Zwick decides it’s time for his final solution, we are to burn their houses and drown them. They must pay for their treachery, these climate Jews.

And don’t think this is an isolated incident. Earlier this month, University of Oregon “Professor” Kari Norgaard (right) said climate change skeptics are akin to “racists” and should be “treated” (medically) as if they had a mental disorder. Norgaard also wrote a letter to Obama in which she called on Obama to suspend democracy to satisfy her climate-fetish. Norgaard, by the way, is a big supporter of Obama climate advisor John P. Holdren who wrote in 1977 that we should carry out forced abortions, mandatory sterilization procedures and drugging of the water supply to weed out the surplus supply of humans. She has also praised NASA global warming alarmist Dr. James Hansen, who has advocated eco-terrorism, including blowing up damns and demolishing cities in the hopes of returning the planet to an agrarian age.

She’s not alone either in advocating dictatorship. Environmental James Lovelock asserted that “democracy must be put on hold to combat global warming.” (Maybe that’s where Dem. Gov. Bev Perdue got the idea that we should suspend elections until Obama can fix the economy?)

In 2006, environmentalist magazine Grist Magazine wrote that there should be “Nuremberg- style war crimes trials” for the “bastards” who are part of the “denial industry” who oppose the global warming enthusiasts. . . both Al Gore and Bill Moyer have endorsed that magazine.

Nice huh?

Anyway, back to Zwick. Besides advocating the murder of people with whom he disagrees, Zwick also became the point man for trying to defend the climategate scandal. In that defense, he actually argued that the Freedom of Information Act should not apply to requests made by right-wingers.

So there you have it:

● Right wingers should not be allowed information on what the government is doing. The law should only work for liberals.

● Climate change critics should be tracked and their homes burned.

● Obama should suspend democracy to enforce global warming enthusiasts' goals.

● And murder, forced abortion, forced sterilization and eco-terrorism are all valid tools for the government to use in helping the global warming enthusiasts achieve their fetishistic goals.

So much for it only happening in Nazi Germany. Now that I think about it. . . maybe we should start burning their houses down?

If there’s one thing liberals/leftists just can’t get out of their systems, it’s the desire to act like Nazis. They just love the idea of imprisoning and killing those who disagree with them. And no, I’m not kidding. Every single socialist movement the world over has rounded up opponents and even here there are those who openly wish such things. . . people like global warming enthusiast Steve Zwick.

Steve Zwick, for those who don’t know, is a “climate change” alarmist who periodically writes for Forbes magazine. In his most recent article, he pulled a Hitler. Specifically, he said this:

“We know who the active denialists are – not the people who buy the lies, mind you, but the people who create the lies. Let’s start keeping track of them now, and when the famines come, let’s make them pay. Let’s let their houses burn. Let’s swap their safe land for submerged islands. . . They broke the climate. Why should the rest of us have to pay for it?”

Stick in the word “Jews” and this thing comes right out of any speech by Hitler. Note how Zwick suggest the creation of an enemies list. Those people need to be marked, perhaps with a yellow sun on their lapels. They are to be considered subhuman. And when Zwick decides it’s time for his final solution, we are to burn their houses and drown them. They must pay for their treachery, these climate Jews.

And don’t think this is an isolated incident. Earlier this month, University of Oregon “Professor” Kari Norgaard (right) said climate change skeptics are akin to “racists” and should be “treated” (medically) as if they had a mental disorder. Norgaard also wrote a letter to Obama in which she called on Obama to suspend democracy to satisfy her climate-fetish. Norgaard, by the way, is a big supporter of Obama climate advisor John P. Holdren who wrote in 1977 that we should carry out forced abortions, mandatory sterilization procedures and drugging of the water supply to weed out the surplus supply of humans. She has also praised NASA global warming alarmist Dr. James Hansen, who has advocated eco-terrorism, including blowing up damns and demolishing cities in the hopes of returning the planet to an agrarian age.

She’s not alone either in advocating dictatorship. Environmental James Lovelock asserted that “democracy must be put on hold to combat global warming.” (Maybe that’s where Dem. Gov. Bev Perdue got the idea that we should suspend elections until Obama can fix the economy?)

In 2006, environmentalist magazine Grist Magazine wrote that there should be “Nuremberg- style war crimes trials” for the “bastards” who are part of the “denial industry” who oppose the global warming enthusiasts. . . both Al Gore and Bill Moyer have endorsed that magazine.

Nice huh?

Anyway, back to Zwick. Besides advocating the murder of people with whom he disagrees, Zwick also became the point man for trying to defend the climategate scandal. In that defense, he actually argued that the Freedom of Information Act should not apply to requests made by right-wingers.

So there you have it:

● Right wingers should not be allowed information on what the government is doing. The law should only work for liberals.

● Climate change critics should be tracked and their homes burned.

● Obama should suspend democracy to enforce global warming enthusiasts' goals.

● And murder, forced abortion, forced sterilization and eco-terrorism are all valid tools for the government to use in helping the global warming enthusiasts achieve their fetishistic goals.

So much for it only happening in Nazi Germany. Now that I think about it. . . maybe we should start burning their houses down?

Burning Down The House

View Detail

The Great (film) Debates vol. 35

The Great (film) Debates vol. 35

In the pantheon of film heroes, there is nobody cooler than the action hero. They blow all the rest away. (See what I did there?) But modern action heroes come in all shapes and sizes and some just aren’t that tough.

Who is the toughest/coolest action hero of the modern era?

Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms

In the pantheon of film heroes, there is nobody cooler than the action hero. They blow all the rest away. (See what I did there?) But modern action heroes come in all shapes and sizes and some just aren’t that tough.

Who is the toughest/coolest action hero of the modern era?

Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms

The Great (film) Debates vol. 35

View Detail

Film Friday: Horrible Bosses (2011)

Film Friday: Horrible Bosses (2011)

Lately, we’ve been talking about the dearth of good comedies in the modern era. It seems that most modern comedies are gross rather than funny, dull rather than clever, and generally generic. I had little hope for Horrible Bosses. Imagine my surprise to find a truly enjoyable film.

Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms

Lately, we’ve been talking about the dearth of good comedies in the modern era. It seems that most modern comedies are gross rather than funny, dull rather than clever, and generally generic. I had little hope for Horrible Bosses. Imagine my surprise to find a truly enjoyable film.

Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms

Film Friday: Horrible Bosses (2011)

View Detail

Obama's Campaign Strategy Talking Points

Obama's Campaign Strategy Talking Points

It’s interesting when you notice Democratic talking point being passed around. The other day, The Economist put out an article which reeks of Obama re-election talking points. Almost instantly, I saw similar points being made at other websites. We even had a troll visit us with a cut-and-paste job of these. Without further adieu, here is how Obama apparently plans to sell himself for re-election.

● Defending Obama’s Glorious Record: The first big problem for Obama is his record. From causing the Great Recession to unbelievable debt and deficits, to the lost credit rating, to his failure to fix too-big-too-fail, his failure to fix the mortgage crisis, his failure to create any jobs, soaring gas prices, soaring energy costs, increased dependence on foreign old, overseas surrenders, his “failure”/attempt to enact gun control, “failure” to create a single-payer healthplan/his attempt to seize the medical system, his “failure”/attempt to enact cap and trade, his “failure”/attempt to end the Bush tax cuts and No Child Left Behind, his failure to close Guantanamo, or a dozen other things, no one left, right or center likes this man. Here’s how Team Obama plans to spin this.

First, blame Bush. The Economist put it this way, “considering the circumstances, he has not done badly.” In other words, Bush set him up for failure. They then credit him with preventing a Great Depression, rescuing Detroit’s carmakers and “stabilizing the banks.” If by “stabilizing” they mean “making the situation much worse” and by “rescuing” they mean “delaying the inevitable,” then sure, he did do those things. Claiming the Great Recession as a good thing is perverse, and they do it by claiming that “more Americans would be out of work today” if not for Obama. This is nonsense, but can’t be proven either way.

The Economist then finishes by crediting Obama with “battering al Qaeda” and killing Osama bin Laden. On point two: who cares, he wasn’t in charge anymore and it clearly didn’t stop a damn thing. On point one: where exactly is the proof for this? We are the ones with our tails between our legs in Afghanistan. Piracy, a new al Qaeda venture, is out of control. There are record numbers of terrorists attacks each year. How exactly did Obama neuter al Qaeda?

Our troll ran with this too. He points to bin Laden’s death (yawn), and he claims the Navy freed someone from the Somali pirates. He doesn’t seem to realize that under Obama there’s be a 625% increase in the number of ships taken, a 3,600% increase in the amount paid per ship, and a total increase in profits of 22,527%. At least somebody’s better off under Obama.

He then says: no one can name anything Obama did which “would remotely qualify as Marxist.” Well, I’m relieved. Then he lists some policies without mentioning they didn’t work -- the stimulus, the auto industry bailout, putting “attractive tax write-offs” on hybrids. . . which aren’t selling. He lists spending on various things as if that was somehow a good thing: high-speed porno for schools and increased infrastructure spending “after years of neglect.” He also lists some things that didn’t happen like healthcare coverage being given to four million more children, the closing of offshore tax safe havens, and “making more loans available to small business.” That’s all simply false. And this one I love, he “instituted enforcement for equal pay for women.” Uh. . . no. Obama made a point of not promising that the other day. Instead, he’s promising to pay for family medical leave and condoms.

That’s the laughable game plan for selling Obama’s record. Notice they don’t even try to defend the bad parts, they just gloss over those. But even more importantly, all of the above misses the key problem: the average American voter is much worse off than they were before Barry took over.

● The Campaign: Because Obama’s record is so horrible, Obama will run a vile, racist campaign. To prepare everyone for this, The Economist notes that this will be an ugly election. . . because of Romney. Apparently, the vile Romney must plead to the Republican base’s “hatred of Mr. Obama” to win the election. This will cause Mr. Obama to “run a more partisan campaign this time around.” Yeah, they really described it that way.

Then they said something hilarious. See, for reasons unknown to The Economist, Obama just happens to have been “portraying the Republicans as ruthless asset-strippers who care nothing about the middle class so long as they can promote the interests of the super-rich,” when good fortune smiled upon him: “How lucky for Mr. Obama that the super-rich Mr. Romney made his fortune in the cut-throat business of private equity.” Wow, what a coincidence? Obama just happens to be blasting the vile rich for no apparent reason, and then the vile-rich Romney gets the nomination. That’s so perfect, you would almost think Obama was saying those things intentionally. . . unless you work for The Economist, then you just see this as a lucky coincidence.

They continue by noting that Obama has been claiming the Republicans “embrace a form of ‘thinly veiled social Darwinism’ that would deprive needy children of healthy food, slash cancer research, close down national parks and eliminate air-traffic control in swathes of the country.” Why The Economist says this isn’t clear, unless they just want to spread the word for Obama. Indeed, that seems to be the case based on the very next sentence: “It sounds scary, and it contains more than grain of truth,” even though the Republicans “have proposed none of these specific cuts.” In others words, it’s scary because it’s true, even though it’s not technically true. Wow.

At least they do point out that Romney responded to this by arguing that these are straw men arguments. Of course, then The Economist says: “Coming from the Republicans, this is rich. They have attacked a straw man since the day Mr. Obama was inaugurated. They labeled his conventional Keynesian response to a deep recession ‘socialist.’ They called Obamacare unAmerican, even though this market-based scheme to extend health cover to 30m uninsured Americans is almost identical to the one Mr. Romney adopted.”

Can you feel the tears? Those evil Republicans made The Economist cry and we should therefore ignore the truth of what the Republicans say. Notice also the massive double-speak here. Obamacare is not a market-based scheme by any definition. It is not identical to Romneycare. It was supposed to cover 43 million Americans, not 30 million. Keynesianism plus nationalizing banks and car companies, taking over state budgets, forcing unionization on companies, etc. etc. is socialism.

And again, notice how perfectly these whiny lies fit with the troll, who assures us there is no proof Obama is a Marxist. The troll also said, this is “why Republicans want to put the full weight of the National Debt on American Workers, while the super-rich get even richer.” Tell me that doesn’t sound like The Economist’s little tirade about the Republicans as “asset-strippers who care nothing about the middle class so long as they can promote the interests of the super-rich.” Sounds like somebody cheated off somebody else’s paper!

To its “credit,” The Economist does note that Romney has correctly attacked Obama for not coming up with a serious plan to tame entitlements, BUT “there is plenty of blame to go around.” Then they point out how Obama tried to do this last summer but was frustrated by Congress, and then they credit him with $1.2 trillion in phantom cuts. (By the way, this same magazine attacked those cuts as dangerous at the time.) They also note that the “Buffett rule” is just a gimmick. The Buffett rule, in case you didn’t know, is “supposed to make millionaires like Mr. Romney pay at least the same tax rate as their secretaries.” And for the record, Obama paid less than his secretary this year. . . as did his crony buddy Warren Buffett.

Finally, they finish with the old “can’t we all just get along” which liberals always use when they are going to lose.

That is Obama’s campaign in a nutshell. These are the talking points you will hear liberals start repeating now ad nauseam until you are ready to strangle every last one of them. And if you do indeed feel that need, don’t let me stop you.

It’s interesting when you notice Democratic talking point being passed around. The other day, The Economist put out an article which reeks of Obama re-election talking points. Almost instantly, I saw similar points being made at other websites. We even had a troll visit us with a cut-and-paste job of these. Without further adieu, here is how Obama apparently plans to sell himself for re-election.

● Defending Obama’s Glorious Record: The first big problem for Obama is his record. From causing the Great Recession to unbelievable debt and deficits, to the lost credit rating, to his failure to fix too-big-too-fail, his failure to fix the mortgage crisis, his failure to create any jobs, soaring gas prices, soaring energy costs, increased dependence on foreign old, overseas surrenders, his “failure”/attempt to enact gun control, “failure” to create a single-payer healthplan/his attempt to seize the medical system, his “failure”/attempt to enact cap and trade, his “failure”/attempt to end the Bush tax cuts and No Child Left Behind, his failure to close Guantanamo, or a dozen other things, no one left, right or center likes this man. Here’s how Team Obama plans to spin this.

First, blame Bush. The Economist put it this way, “considering the circumstances, he has not done badly.” In other words, Bush set him up for failure. They then credit him with preventing a Great Depression, rescuing Detroit’s carmakers and “stabilizing the banks.” If by “stabilizing” they mean “making the situation much worse” and by “rescuing” they mean “delaying the inevitable,” then sure, he did do those things. Claiming the Great Recession as a good thing is perverse, and they do it by claiming that “more Americans would be out of work today” if not for Obama. This is nonsense, but can’t be proven either way.

The Economist then finishes by crediting Obama with “battering al Qaeda” and killing Osama bin Laden. On point two: who cares, he wasn’t in charge anymore and it clearly didn’t stop a damn thing. On point one: where exactly is the proof for this? We are the ones with our tails between our legs in Afghanistan. Piracy, a new al Qaeda venture, is out of control. There are record numbers of terrorists attacks each year. How exactly did Obama neuter al Qaeda?

Our troll ran with this too. He points to bin Laden’s death (yawn), and he claims the Navy freed someone from the Somali pirates. He doesn’t seem to realize that under Obama there’s be a 625% increase in the number of ships taken, a 3,600% increase in the amount paid per ship, and a total increase in profits of 22,527%. At least somebody’s better off under Obama.

He then says: no one can name anything Obama did which “would remotely qualify as Marxist.” Well, I’m relieved. Then he lists some policies without mentioning they didn’t work -- the stimulus, the auto industry bailout, putting “attractive tax write-offs” on hybrids. . . which aren’t selling. He lists spending on various things as if that was somehow a good thing: high-speed porno for schools and increased infrastructure spending “after years of neglect.” He also lists some things that didn’t happen like healthcare coverage being given to four million more children, the closing of offshore tax safe havens, and “making more loans available to small business.” That’s all simply false. And this one I love, he “instituted enforcement for equal pay for women.” Uh. . . no. Obama made a point of not promising that the other day. Instead, he’s promising to pay for family medical leave and condoms.

That’s the laughable game plan for selling Obama’s record. Notice they don’t even try to defend the bad parts, they just gloss over those. But even more importantly, all of the above misses the key problem: the average American voter is much worse off than they were before Barry took over.

● The Campaign: Because Obama’s record is so horrible, Obama will run a vile, racist campaign. To prepare everyone for this, The Economist notes that this will be an ugly election. . . because of Romney. Apparently, the vile Romney must plead to the Republican base’s “hatred of Mr. Obama” to win the election. This will cause Mr. Obama to “run a more partisan campaign this time around.” Yeah, they really described it that way.

Then they said something hilarious. See, for reasons unknown to The Economist, Obama just happens to have been “portraying the Republicans as ruthless asset-strippers who care nothing about the middle class so long as they can promote the interests of the super-rich,” when good fortune smiled upon him: “How lucky for Mr. Obama that the super-rich Mr. Romney made his fortune in the cut-throat business of private equity.” Wow, what a coincidence? Obama just happens to be blasting the vile rich for no apparent reason, and then the vile-rich Romney gets the nomination. That’s so perfect, you would almost think Obama was saying those things intentionally. . . unless you work for The Economist, then you just see this as a lucky coincidence.

They continue by noting that Obama has been claiming the Republicans “embrace a form of ‘thinly veiled social Darwinism’ that would deprive needy children of healthy food, slash cancer research, close down national parks and eliminate air-traffic control in swathes of the country.” Why The Economist says this isn’t clear, unless they just want to spread the word for Obama. Indeed, that seems to be the case based on the very next sentence: “It sounds scary, and it contains more than grain of truth,” even though the Republicans “have proposed none of these specific cuts.” In others words, it’s scary because it’s true, even though it’s not technically true. Wow.

At least they do point out that Romney responded to this by arguing that these are straw men arguments. Of course, then The Economist says: “Coming from the Republicans, this is rich. They have attacked a straw man since the day Mr. Obama was inaugurated. They labeled his conventional Keynesian response to a deep recession ‘socialist.’ They called Obamacare unAmerican, even though this market-based scheme to extend health cover to 30m uninsured Americans is almost identical to the one Mr. Romney adopted.”

Can you feel the tears? Those evil Republicans made The Economist cry and we should therefore ignore the truth of what the Republicans say. Notice also the massive double-speak here. Obamacare is not a market-based scheme by any definition. It is not identical to Romneycare. It was supposed to cover 43 million Americans, not 30 million. Keynesianism plus nationalizing banks and car companies, taking over state budgets, forcing unionization on companies, etc. etc. is socialism.

And again, notice how perfectly these whiny lies fit with the troll, who assures us there is no proof Obama is a Marxist. The troll also said, this is “why Republicans want to put the full weight of the National Debt on American Workers, while the super-rich get even richer.” Tell me that doesn’t sound like The Economist’s little tirade about the Republicans as “asset-strippers who care nothing about the middle class so long as they can promote the interests of the super-rich.” Sounds like somebody cheated off somebody else’s paper!

To its “credit,” The Economist does note that Romney has correctly attacked Obama for not coming up with a serious plan to tame entitlements, BUT “there is plenty of blame to go around.” Then they point out how Obama tried to do this last summer but was frustrated by Congress, and then they credit him with $1.2 trillion in phantom cuts. (By the way, this same magazine attacked those cuts as dangerous at the time.) They also note that the “Buffett rule” is just a gimmick. The Buffett rule, in case you didn’t know, is “supposed to make millionaires like Mr. Romney pay at least the same tax rate as their secretaries.” And for the record, Obama paid less than his secretary this year. . . as did his crony buddy Warren Buffett.

Finally, they finish with the old “can’t we all just get along” which liberals always use when they are going to lose.

That is Obama’s campaign in a nutshell. These are the talking points you will hear liberals start repeating now ad nauseam until you are ready to strangle every last one of them. And if you do indeed feel that need, don’t let me stop you.

Obama's Campaign Strategy Talking Points

View Detail

A Whiff of Scandal

A Whiff of Scandal

One of the surest signs of an administration in freefall is when the whiff of scandal begins to take hold, especially when it’s a Democratic administration because the MSM tries to shield them until the MSM decides they are sure to lose. So it’s interesting that so many scandals are suddenly appearing.

● GSAgate: The GSA scandal just keeps getting worse. First, you had a video of several GSA employees playing around rather than working. Then you had reports of $800k used to party in Vegas, and $900k used on expensive gifts for employees. Then more videos came out of GSA employees playing around. Over the weekend, we heard that criminal charges have been recommended by the Inspector General for many of these same party-goers, along with allegations of bribery and kickbacks. The head of the department has resigned, as have several other senior individuals. Some have pled the Fifth before Congress! Now we hear of a senior GSA employee who took his wife to Hawaii, Guam and the Mariana Islands on the taxpayer’s dime as a birthday gift. . . even after the Vegas scandal hit the news. And we’ve learned that GSA employees routinely invented fake awards so they could get the government to pay for food at meetings. Those are criminal acts.

This is the death of a thousand small scandals. Moreover, these are the types of scandals which catch people’s attention because it’s easy to understand -- unlike something like Fast and Furious. What’s worse, the Democrats are responding poorly by trying to allege this IG investigation is nothing more than a GOP smear or a "war on Vegas." That’s never worked. And Obama stepped in it by trying to claim this was Bush’s fault. That laid this firmly on Obama doorstep because his responding confirmed that this is something which sits at the presidential level of accountability.

● Air Farce One: Anyone remember Pelosi’s plane? Well, Leon Panetta is now answering questions about why the taxpayers had to pay to fly him home on weekends to California at a cost of $860,000 so far. He’s apologizing to anyone who will listen, which means he knows this too is the sort of thing taxpayers remember, especially in an administration known for taxpayer-funded vacations and golf.

● Boogie Down Secret Agent Man: The Secret Service is in the middle of a growing scandal as we learn that between 11-20 of their agents decided to party with a group of hookers in Cartagena, Columbia. I doubt the public wouldn’t attribute this to Obama, except for two things. First, when scandal is in the air, all scandals touching an administration get sucked in and become a pattern of misbehavior or mismanagement. Secondly, Obama put his foot in his mouth saying he would be “angry” if this proved to be true. This makes Obama sound like a chump because this goes back to his not knowing “whose ass to kick” in the Gulf of Mexico. It also makes it sound like these men were directly under his authority. He should have said he trusted the Secret Service to determine the facts and sort this out.

● Crony Industrial Policy: As we discussed yesterday and several times in the past, Obama’s fascist-inspired industrial policy has fallen apart in record time, and many of these are finally hitting the airwaves. This is why even the MSM is beginning to question why companies like Solyndra, Enerl, Beacon Power, Solar Trust for America, and others could possibly have gone bankrupt so quickly, sucking down so much government money. . . after making sizeable donations to Team Donkey.

● Bad Touch: Finally, there is a state-level sexual harassment scandal unfolding in North Carolina, where the NC Democratic Party executive director resigned Sunday after it was revealed he had paid a former staffer to keep quiet about sexual harassment allegations. Normally, this would be no big deal nationally, except for a couple facts: (1) this blew up in the middle of the whiff of scandal moment (and a slow news cycle), (2) it happened right after Hilary Rosen’s broadside against motherhood, which happened right as the Democrats charged the GOP with waging a war against women, and (3) the governor made it so much worse. Indeed, Governor Bev Perdue told reporters to “get over it” when she was asked about the scandal, despite the fact she had just declared April to be “Sexual Assault Awareness Month.” She finally joined calls for the resignation, but the damage was done. Between this and Rosen, the Democratic propaganda about a war on women has exploded in a huge ball of hypocritical fire.

This is all bad news for Obama and the Democrats. It’s not that any one of these scandals is truly bad by itself, it’s that they are getting noticed by the MSM. This suggests the MSM knows Obama is doomed and they’ve decided to gain some credibility on his back by taking down all kinds of peripheral players. This will allow them to pretend they are unbiased when they start hunting for (and manufacturing) scandals under the Romney administration. I’ve seen this every time a Democrat is in trouble.

The one thing that may save them, however, is this fact: according to data compiled by the IRS, only 85 million people actually paid Federal tax last year. That’s only 27% of the population. Yes, you read that correctly. Only 1 in 4 Americans paid federal tax. That means 3 in 4 Americans are getting a free ride on the Federal government. By comparison, 49% of Americans, 147 million people, live in a household where someone received benefits from the government. This means a tremendous class of people is being created who will keep voting for more government, and that means Democrats.

That makes this election extremely important. The Republicans must cut these people off. They must break this cycle of dependence before it takes hold and they need to make more people pay taxes. This is vital the future. They should also mercilessly mock these scandals.

One of the surest signs of an administration in freefall is when the whiff of scandal begins to take hold, especially when it’s a Democratic administration because the MSM tries to shield them until the MSM decides they are sure to lose. So it’s interesting that so many scandals are suddenly appearing.

● GSAgate: The GSA scandal just keeps getting worse. First, you had a video of several GSA employees playing around rather than working. Then you had reports of $800k used to party in Vegas, and $900k used on expensive gifts for employees. Then more videos came out of GSA employees playing around. Over the weekend, we heard that criminal charges have been recommended by the Inspector General for many of these same party-goers, along with allegations of bribery and kickbacks. The head of the department has resigned, as have several other senior individuals. Some have pled the Fifth before Congress! Now we hear of a senior GSA employee who took his wife to Hawaii, Guam and the Mariana Islands on the taxpayer’s dime as a birthday gift. . . even after the Vegas scandal hit the news. And we’ve learned that GSA employees routinely invented fake awards so they could get the government to pay for food at meetings. Those are criminal acts.

This is the death of a thousand small scandals. Moreover, these are the types of scandals which catch people’s attention because it’s easy to understand -- unlike something like Fast and Furious. What’s worse, the Democrats are responding poorly by trying to allege this IG investigation is nothing more than a GOP smear or a "war on Vegas." That’s never worked. And Obama stepped in it by trying to claim this was Bush’s fault. That laid this firmly on Obama doorstep because his responding confirmed that this is something which sits at the presidential level of accountability.

● Air Farce One: Anyone remember Pelosi’s plane? Well, Leon Panetta is now answering questions about why the taxpayers had to pay to fly him home on weekends to California at a cost of $860,000 so far. He’s apologizing to anyone who will listen, which means he knows this too is the sort of thing taxpayers remember, especially in an administration known for taxpayer-funded vacations and golf.

● Boogie Down Secret Agent Man: The Secret Service is in the middle of a growing scandal as we learn that between 11-20 of their agents decided to party with a group of hookers in Cartagena, Columbia. I doubt the public wouldn’t attribute this to Obama, except for two things. First, when scandal is in the air, all scandals touching an administration get sucked in and become a pattern of misbehavior or mismanagement. Secondly, Obama put his foot in his mouth saying he would be “angry” if this proved to be true. This makes Obama sound like a chump because this goes back to his not knowing “whose ass to kick” in the Gulf of Mexico. It also makes it sound like these men were directly under his authority. He should have said he trusted the Secret Service to determine the facts and sort this out.

● Crony Industrial Policy: As we discussed yesterday and several times in the past, Obama’s fascist-inspired industrial policy has fallen apart in record time, and many of these are finally hitting the airwaves. This is why even the MSM is beginning to question why companies like Solyndra, Enerl, Beacon Power, Solar Trust for America, and others could possibly have gone bankrupt so quickly, sucking down so much government money. . . after making sizeable donations to Team Donkey.

● Bad Touch: Finally, there is a state-level sexual harassment scandal unfolding in North Carolina, where the NC Democratic Party executive director resigned Sunday after it was revealed he had paid a former staffer to keep quiet about sexual harassment allegations. Normally, this would be no big deal nationally, except for a couple facts: (1) this blew up in the middle of the whiff of scandal moment (and a slow news cycle), (2) it happened right after Hilary Rosen’s broadside against motherhood, which happened right as the Democrats charged the GOP with waging a war against women, and (3) the governor made it so much worse. Indeed, Governor Bev Perdue told reporters to “get over it” when she was asked about the scandal, despite the fact she had just declared April to be “Sexual Assault Awareness Month.” She finally joined calls for the resignation, but the damage was done. Between this and Rosen, the Democratic propaganda about a war on women has exploded in a huge ball of hypocritical fire.

This is all bad news for Obama and the Democrats. It’s not that any one of these scandals is truly bad by itself, it’s that they are getting noticed by the MSM. This suggests the MSM knows Obama is doomed and they’ve decided to gain some credibility on his back by taking down all kinds of peripheral players. This will allow them to pretend they are unbiased when they start hunting for (and manufacturing) scandals under the Romney administration. I’ve seen this every time a Democrat is in trouble.

The one thing that may save them, however, is this fact: according to data compiled by the IRS, only 85 million people actually paid Federal tax last year. That’s only 27% of the population. Yes, you read that correctly. Only 1 in 4 Americans paid federal tax. That means 3 in 4 Americans are getting a free ride on the Federal government. By comparison, 49% of Americans, 147 million people, live in a household where someone received benefits from the government. This means a tremendous class of people is being created who will keep voting for more government, and that means Democrats.

That makes this election extremely important. The Republicans must cut these people off. They must break this cycle of dependence before it takes hold and they need to make more people pay taxes. This is vital the future. They should also mercilessly mock these scandals.

A Whiff of Scandal

View Detail

Obama Fails The Economy

Obama Fails The Economy

Obama has been a failure all around. His foreign policy has been heavy on retreat and his domestic agenda sparked backlashes galore. But even worse has been his economic policies. His plan of high taxes, massive government spending, and corporate subsidies lengthened the recession and created a jobless recovery. Those “green jobs” he promised were all an illusion. And now it turns out, he’s made the biggest danger to the economy even worse.

Before we talk about how Obama “fixed” the “too big to fail” problem, you might be interested in a little data on those green jobs we’re all supposed to have now.

When Obama took office, he promised five million green jobs in the next ten years. He even spent $90 billion to make that happen. That works out to $18,000 per expected job. Of course, it’s actually higher because that $90 billion is just a baseline and will cause further federal spending, but still, that's not too bad.

So how has he done? According to the White House, rather than creating 5,000,000 jobs, this money now will create only “827,000 job years” over Obama’s four years in office. But a “job year” is not a job. It is instead the equivalent of one full-time position for one year. If we spread these job years out over the ten years Obama used for the five million claim, you come up with a total of 82,700 jobs. And that means the cost per job is $1.1 million. It also means, Obama still owes 4.9 million jobs.

And don’t forget that even beyond this, you have a variety of failures under the crony clean energy loan program out of the Department of Energy, such as Solyndra, Enerl, Beacon Power, Solar Trust for America, and others. Not to mention, the $2.4 billion flushed away on building fewer than 8,000 Chevy Volts no one wants.

Call me crazy, but Obama’s attempt to create a Mussolini-like industrial policy appears to have been a colossal failure.

Now we get word that Obama has made the “too big to fail” problem worse. Imagine that. When Obama came to power, he promised an end to “too big to fail” so that taxpayers would never again need to support failed banks. Then he signed the financial reform bill, Dodd-Frank, which supposedly did that. . . though Republicans claimed otherwise. Bloomberg News now reports that the five biggest banks, i.e. those that are too big to fail, increased their share of all banking assets from 43% in 2007 to 56% now. That’s right, those five banks absorbed an additional 13% of all the banking assets in the country under Obama. In total, these five banks (JPMorgan, Bank of America, Citicorp, Wells Fargo and Goldman Sachs) now control $8.5 trillion in assets. Moreover, the size of the banking sector compared to the rest of the economy has doubled in the past decade, making banks even more “too big to fail.” That means the problem is much, much worse than it was before the TARP bailouts.

Obama has flushed money down the toilet while squandering opportunity after opportunity to actually fix the economy and protect the country from another meltdown. His failure to act is shameful and dangerous. Let us hope the Republicans fix these problems when they finally gain control over the government.

As usual, don't forget it's Star Trek Tuesday at the film site!

Obama has been a failure all around. His foreign policy has been heavy on retreat and his domestic agenda sparked backlashes galore. But even worse has been his economic policies. His plan of high taxes, massive government spending, and corporate subsidies lengthened the recession and created a jobless recovery. Those “green jobs” he promised were all an illusion. And now it turns out, he’s made the biggest danger to the economy even worse.

Before we talk about how Obama “fixed” the “too big to fail” problem, you might be interested in a little data on those green jobs we’re all supposed to have now.

When Obama took office, he promised five million green jobs in the next ten years. He even spent $90 billion to make that happen. That works out to $18,000 per expected job. Of course, it’s actually higher because that $90 billion is just a baseline and will cause further federal spending, but still, that's not too bad.

So how has he done? According to the White House, rather than creating 5,000,000 jobs, this money now will create only “827,000 job years” over Obama’s four years in office. But a “job year” is not a job. It is instead the equivalent of one full-time position for one year. If we spread these job years out over the ten years Obama used for the five million claim, you come up with a total of 82,700 jobs. And that means the cost per job is $1.1 million. It also means, Obama still owes 4.9 million jobs.

And don’t forget that even beyond this, you have a variety of failures under the crony clean energy loan program out of the Department of Energy, such as Solyndra, Enerl, Beacon Power, Solar Trust for America, and others. Not to mention, the $2.4 billion flushed away on building fewer than 8,000 Chevy Volts no one wants.

Call me crazy, but Obama’s attempt to create a Mussolini-like industrial policy appears to have been a colossal failure.

Now we get word that Obama has made the “too big to fail” problem worse. Imagine that. When Obama came to power, he promised an end to “too big to fail” so that taxpayers would never again need to support failed banks. Then he signed the financial reform bill, Dodd-Frank, which supposedly did that. . . though Republicans claimed otherwise. Bloomberg News now reports that the five biggest banks, i.e. those that are too big to fail, increased their share of all banking assets from 43% in 2007 to 56% now. That’s right, those five banks absorbed an additional 13% of all the banking assets in the country under Obama. In total, these five banks (JPMorgan, Bank of America, Citicorp, Wells Fargo and Goldman Sachs) now control $8.5 trillion in assets. Moreover, the size of the banking sector compared to the rest of the economy has doubled in the past decade, making banks even more “too big to fail.” That means the problem is much, much worse than it was before the TARP bailouts.

Obama has flushed money down the toilet while squandering opportunity after opportunity to actually fix the economy and protect the country from another meltdown. His failure to act is shameful and dangerous. Let us hope the Republicans fix these problems when they finally gain control over the government.

As usual, don't forget it's Star Trek Tuesday at the film site!

Obama Fails The Economy

View Detail

The Great (film) Debates vol. 34

The Great (film) Debates vol. 34

Everybody wants to quit their jobs and own a bar. . . of something. Yep. There's nothing cooler than handing alcoholic beverages to strangers.

If you could own one club/bar from any film, which one would it be?

Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms

Everybody wants to quit their jobs and own a bar. . . of something. Yep. There's nothing cooler than handing alcoholic beverages to strangers.

If you could own one club/bar from any film, which one would it be?

Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms

The Great (film) Debates vol. 34

View Detail

Film Friday: Remo Williams: The Adventure Begins (1985)

Film Friday: Remo Williams: The Adventure Begins (1985)

Directed by James Bond director Guy Hamilton, Remo Williams was meant to kick start a James Bond-like franchise about an American assassin. It didn’t. The film bombed at the box office. But it has since become a cult classic which still gets television play almost thirty years after it was released. I enjoy this film a lot, but I also know why it went wrong.

Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms

Directed by James Bond director Guy Hamilton, Remo Williams was meant to kick start a James Bond-like franchise about an American assassin. It didn’t. The film bombed at the box office. But it has since become a cult classic which still gets television play almost thirty years after it was released. I enjoy this film a lot, but I also know why it went wrong.

Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms

Film Friday: Remo Williams: The Adventure Begins (1985)

View Detail