Christie is not a conservative Republican. He is conservative only when compared to his opposition.
...which pretty much describes all the GOP nominees for President since 1989.
* * *
This sums up the problem rather neatly. "We’re Dying Out Here Because You Guys Are Being Nice Guys!" goes the headline.
...and it's true. The GOP has shown zero interest in trying to stem the encroachments of the federal government, instead preferring to push token efforts to reduce federal spending while also trying to saddle us with new amnesty for illegal aliens and other liberal programs.
The GOP leadership has been liberal for a very long time, because they are the entrenched D.C. insiders who went to all the "right" schools and prefer the genteel aristocracy to, I don't know, actually opposing things that are bad for the country.
Nixon was a country-club Republican, and he wasn't the first. I know that seems like a strange thing to say, but he is the person who cut NASA's budget, enacted price and wage controls, gave us the EPA and OSHA, and pursued a friendly relationship with China (which, in the 1970s, wasn't even remotely capitalist) because he--like the rest of the GOP leadership and in fact the entirety of Washington, D.C.--thought that the communists would win and we just had to try to do the best we could.
(The fact that the communist nations were presenting fake statistics to the world never seemed to occur to anyone. Leftists always lie. How hard is this?)
The only useful thing to come from Nixon's Presidency was, in fact, the normalization of relations with China. Not for their reasons, though; not because communism's triumph was inevitable, but because its collapse was inevitable--and normalized relations with capitalist countries (or nominally capitalist countries, anyway) could only accelerate that collapse. Note: China's economy is mostly capitalist now.
(Actually, China's economy is mostly fascist now; there's a lot of private ownership of business but the government is maintaining strict control over everything, and that's fascism.)
Barry Goldwater's candidacy was a conservative reaction to the country club Republican control of the party. That's how long it's been the case, because Goldwater happened after years of liberal Republican control of the party.
...but these days, the typical modern conservative is 1965's liberal, because today if you espouse the kind of military and energy policy which was de rigeur even for most Democrats in 1965, you're a fascist warmonger who doesn't care about the environment, and also you're a racist for thinking that minorities ought to be held to the same standards as white people and not be given special treatment. Further, you're heartless for thinking that government ought to spend only what revenue it can generate via taxation when so many people are hurting and need to be cared for. *sigh*
Meanwhile, the GOP in 2013 is part of the aristocracy, and they don't want to rock the boat since they get to handle the purse strings whenever they're in charge. Why try to cut government spending when you're writing the checks? You only want to limit government power when the other guys are in charge!
* * *
Imagine my surprise--just imagine it--that the two men in question are Danny Davis and Bobby Rush.
Two Democratic lawmakers from Illinois worked to help lift economic sanctions against Zimbabwe after being targeted by an illegal $3.4 million lobbying scheme, according to FBI testimony unsealed in federal court.Of course! Why would they be? You're talking about powerful machine politicians, here. Those FBI agents like being able to work and earn a living, after all, and that's hard to do when you're fired with predjudice and blacklisted. "I have a law degree, but I can't get a job in law enforcement! This is my last hope!" "Sorry, sir, but you're overqualified to work as a fry cook." "DAMN IT!"
Reps. Danny K. Davis and Bobby L. Rush, both of the Chicago area, were identified by Chicago media as “U.S. Representative A” and “U.S. Representative B” in the case, given that they were the only Illinois Democrats to have sponsored a failed 2010 resolution to lift sanctions against Zimbabwe cited in court documents.
Two other Chicagoians, Prince Asiel Ben Israel and C. Gregory Turner, are charged with accepting millions in illegal payments from Zimbabwe officials to lobby U.S. lawmakers to remove sanctions against the African nation. Such sanctions have been in place for almost a decade due to long-time President Robert Mugabe’s record of abuses of power.
Davis and Rush were not named in the affidavit filed by FBI Special Agent Steven D. Noldin, dated July 16.
* * *
Two from Borepatch:
Star athlete is upset that his use of steroids has resulted in him being suspended for 1.5 seasons. He complains that the last seven months have been a nightmare.
How many millions does this anus get paid to play a freaking game?
Idiot, IDIOT, IDIOT.
Shorts. T-shirt. Sandals. No helmet. Hands on his belly, FEET ON THE FUCKING HANDLEBARS. And he's riding on the interstate.
It's a fucking motorcycle, NOT A BARCALOUNGER!
* * *
Because they have no other problems to deal with in their lives, science fiction and fantasy authors are upset over the use of words which denote the left side, such as "sinister" and "gauche":
There's one minority still not given proper respect in language: Left handers. The term "sinister" is still used as an epithet for evil, wrong, unpleasant. Likewise, "gauche" is a reference to rude behavior. People are considered "dextrous" if they have good manual skills.Man, it sure must be awesome to have no other problems in your life, you know? Such that someone saying "sinister" when they mean "evil" is a vital issue requiring action?
Why are the negative connotations expressed using references to left handedness, and positive connotations reserved for the right?
I wish I had time to get all bent out of shape over the archaic meanings of words, you know? Because that would mean that I had no other problems to worry about whatsoever except for meaningless bullshit.
* * *
Ann Barnhardt explains how Hillary Clinton turned $1,000 into $100,000 on the cattle futures market. Since Ms. Barnhardt doesn't have linkable posts, I must need replicate the entirety of the discussion here:
I can't remember if I have ever written this up, or maybe just explained it in a interview at some point, but I have had several people ask, so I'll explain it.TL;DR: Clintons are corrupt.
This is how Hillary Clinton "made" $100,000 off of an initial "investment" of $1000 in cattle futures back in the early 80's.
It was textbook money laundering.
I know you're shocked - SHOCKED to think that a Clinton could be involved in anything untoward, but I'm afraid it is true.
Back in the 80's in Arkansas, Bill and Hillary were the power couple ascending first to the position of Attorney General and then to the governor's mansion. Being the psychopathic whores that they both are, they were all about cashing in on their power and accepting de facto bribes and payola.
In Arkansas the Tyson family (as in Tyson chicken) were the big players at the time. Wal-Mart was still getting off the ground. Old Man Tyson wanted to buy off the Clintons, and so a money laundering scheme was hatched. A futures account would be opened with a broker named Red Bone (no joke) in HILLARY'S NAME. Red Bone cleared through a company called Refco, which would later become MF Global. That company through its entire history and iterations has always been a hive of villainy.
Anyway, the account was opened in Hillary's name and Hillary made an opening deposit of $1000.
Every day at the opening bell Red Bone, per Old Man Tyson's instructions, would put in two orders: Buy 50 contracts of live cattle futures AND sell 50 contracts of live cattle futures. (I'm just using 50 as a round number, I don't know exactly what the quantites were.)
At the close the same thing would be done - buy 50 and sell 50.
On days in which the market was higher from the open to the close, Hillary's account would be assigned the lower buy from the open and the higher sell from the close. If the close was $0.25 per pound higher than the open, the math would look like this:
$0.25 X 400 = $100 per contract
$100 per contract X 50 contracts = $5000
A live cattle contract is 40,000 pounds, so the coefficient is 400. Trust me on that. The price is actually quoted in "hundredweights", hence the dropping of two zeroes.
Now here's the money laundering bit. The "losing" trades, namely the sell executed at the open and the buy executed at the close at the same prices would be assigned to Old Man Tyson's account.
On days when the market moved lower from the open to the close, Hillary was given the sell from the open and the buy from the close. Sell high, buy back low. Tyson got the opposite side.
Do that every day for a month or so and you can move $100k from Tyson to the Clintons very quickly. I think Red Bone also threw a few "losers" into Hillary's account just to attempt to cover their tracks - and yes, he made commission on all of it. I didn't back the commissions out of the calculation above, but of course Red Bone charged a hefty commission on every contract.
Giving the "good" trades to Hillary and the "bad" trades to Tyson is simply a way to move money from Tyson to the Clintons without Tyson writing the Clintons a check. This is called "money laundering".
This case was actually the reason why the law was changed and brokers HAD to attach an account number to every order UPON ENTERING THE ORDER. I started in the business in 1997, and that change predated me by 15 years. I can't imagine how it is that they let people assign account numbers at the end of the day - ever. That is just begging for unfair practices with regards to assigning of prices to customers. Favoritism, frontrunning, etc.
Oh, and Hillary claimed complete ignorance about all of this, which is, of course, a complete lie. She and Bill knew exactly what they were doing and why.
Too bad no one cared about the Clintons being psychopathic liars and conartists, because maybe then Hillary wouldn't have been able to murder Ambassador Chris Stevens and run all of those guns and MANPADS to the Muslim Brotherhood/AlQaeda, amongst all of their many other crimes.
Things like this matter. Give a money laundering psychopath enough power and they will move on to murder, genocide and tyranny. Ignore these indicators at your own peril.
Commodities futures is a risky business. A small move can make you rich, or it can make you into a pauper. It's gambling, is what it is, and there is a winner and a loser in each transaction. It's complex and esoteric and if you don't know what you're doing, you will end up broke in a very short time. The idea that a complete novice like Hillary Clinton could enter the market with $1,000 and end up with $100,000 a few months later--it beggars belief, is what it does.
This is why I think that, ultimately, none of Barack Hussein's scandals is going to make a lick of difference. Clinton's scandals were everywhere; there were all kinds of things that were discovered once he took office, and the only thing--the only thing--that stuck to him at all was when he committed perjury by lying to a grand jury about having sex with Monica Lewinsky. (And even then, the press tried to shield him from it.)
The press is even more "all in" for Obama than they were for Clinton, and they'll do whatever they can to mitigate the political damage from Obama's scandals even as they are so much worse than Clinton's. A lot of Clinton's scandals were rife with plausible deniability, but Obama's are pure-and-simple unconstitutional abuses of power. (Fast and Furious. IRS targeting his enemies. Benghazi. Etcetera.)
In order for any impeachment to take place against Obama, the populace must know about his misfeasance and must be angry about it. The Democrats will only bow to unmistakably extreme public pressure, and the GOP won't do anything unless they're sure they can win...and so the press is not going to say anything that makes the populace angry about Obama's misfeasance.
* * *
I really enjoy Richard Elliot's music.
That is to say, back in the 1990s when I would drive a lot and listen to WNUA I was exposed to a large amount of jazz fusion. I thought his work was pretty good so I bought a couple of his CDs, and I still listen to them once in a while.
Especially "In Your Face".
IYF is a very fast song that contains the best saxophone riff I've ever heard. There's about one minute, about 2/3 of the way through, where the guy just machine-guns notes out, and if the keys didn't need a cooldown period, to keep the oil from coking, after that solo was done it was only because he'd used synthetic lubricant. Damn.
...and I can not find it on YouTube.
I get a crapton of playlists, they do not include that song, and they are all the same. I cannot find that song individually, either. Googe is similarly unhelpful, I might add. *sigh*
* * *
As for me, I've done a pretty fair dinkum job of job-hunting this week, but that doesn't mean I get to rest on my laurels. More applications! More fun! Whee!