Wednesday, November 26, 2014

Essential Reading for Today

Thought for the Day

“Concentrated power is not rendered harmless by the good intentions of those who create it.”  --  Melon Friedman

Maybe Senator Bob Krist Should Go to Ferguson

We were struck by the words of Nebraska State Senator Bob Krist as quoted in the Omaha World-Herald yesterday (Prisons staff not criminals, just inept).     Apparently, the fact that Jon Bruning, the Attorney General of the State of Nebraska, and Joe Kelly, the Lancaster County Attorney, came to the same conclusion that no one should be charged in the Nebraska prison release issue wasn't enough for Krist's sense of justice.   No, Krist apparently thought the Lancaster County Attorney's decision was somehow corrupted by Bruning's involvement in a join investigation.   Apparently, Krist must see Kelly as a puppet for Bruning.

To be precise, here is what the local daily said: "Krist said executive branch officials from the governor on down should have been criminally charged."

It would seem that Krist, like the protesters of the grand-jury verdict in Ferguson, feels he is in a better position to judge the results of the investigation than those who labored through it.    Krist is simply an angry man who apparently sees himself as a better judge than those entrusted with determining whether laws have been broken or whether charges are warranted.   

With Krist's mentality, it's a wonder why he isn't demonstrating on the streets of Ferguson or organizing his own in Lincoln or Omaha.  Maybe he should go to Ferguson if he's not already there.......

A Hollow Message From A Racist President

Apparently we weren't the only one that found the president's words/lecture after the announcement of the Ferguson grand-jury decision a little hollow.    Hence, we thought we'd share Michelle Malkin's Wall Street Journal editorial with our readers.

But first, getting back to the president's hollow message.    We believe that this racist sham of a leader wanted in the worst way to see the police officer charged.   His entire demeanor (as pointed out below) and thought process seemed to be one of disappointment that Officer Wilson wasn't charged.    But somehow his angst was estopped by the grand-jury's decision.   He couldn't call the jury's decision (a jury made up of whites and blacks, men and women) a racist decision.   And, although he could express sympathy for the killed criminal's parents he certainly couldn't find the words to express empathy for a policeman and his family and the terrible months they've gone through or for the fact that a policeman doing his job will probably never be able to continue that career in Ferguson or probably anywhere else in the nation.

In the worst way, the president wanted Officer Wilson charged so he could continue his racist assertions.    Sadly, he still did his best to turn the non-indictment into a racist rant.

This from the Wall Street Journal:

What Obama's Ferguson Sermon Left Out

By Michelle Malkin - November 26, 2014

"In his 967-word statement to the nation about the Ferguson grand-jury decision on Tuesday night, President Obama devoted precisely one sentence to the risks and sacrifices police officers make to keep the peace.

Obama delivered a tepid, obligatory acknowledgement that “our police officers put their lives on the line for us every single day.” But he sandwiched it between a finger-wagging admonition that cops need to “show care and restraint” and a pandering discourse justifying the “deep distrust” that “communities of color” have toward law enforcement because of the “legacy of racial discrimination in this country.” 

Note: Multiple African-American witnesses told the panel that teenager Michael Brown, suspected of robbing a local market, charged police officer Darren Wilson before his shooting death. The grand jury concluded that there was no probable cause for indicting Wilson after considering hundreds of pages and scores of hours of witness and expert testimony.

Yet Obama’s first priority was to dwell on racial injustice against “communities of color,” and his first instinct was to warn police officers to restrain themselves.

Only after expending 756 words on the need to “understand” the “problem” that “communities of color” have with police did Obama address the thugs of color “throwing bottles” and “smashing car windows” and “using this as an excuse to vandalize property” in the name of social justice.

The Nobel Peace Prize winner had nothing to say about the hate-filled “f**k the police” refrain from rioters of color in Ferguson and anarchists of pallor in Oakland and Occupy Wall Street pot-stirrers of privilege poisoning social media.

The nation’s self-styled healer of souls was mum in response to black radical grievance-mongers’ calls to vengefully burn Ferguson to the ground — a seething sentiment echoed the next day by Brown’s stepfather.

Mr. Hope and Change stayed silent about the lynch-mob instigators calling for Wilson to be shot and his family murdered.

And while the uniter-in-chief has given several public shout-outs to Brown and his family, he has delivered no special national speech addressing the families of police officers ruthlessly targeted by domestic terrorists and racist radicals.

Obama used his bully pulpit this week to bemoan the “real issues” of discrimination by some police officers. But he said nothing about the murderous strain of racial animus against America’s men and women in blue.

It’s part of a longstanding cultural war against cops that has permeated academia, Hollywood, media. and “progressive” halls of power for decades — from the “pig”-hating Weather Underground to mainstream rappers to MSNBC’s Al Sharpton to high-ranking convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal’s advocates such as former Obama administration green-jobs czar Van Jones.
And the bloody beat goes on.

In October, a militant black nationalist and jihadist vigilante attacked white New York police officers with a hatchet. Zale Thompson maliciously wounded officer Kenneth Healey in the head and slashed officer Joseph Meeker in the arm. Thompson was no poor, uneducated youth. He is a College of New Rochelle liberal-arts alumnus and onetime master’s-degree candidate at Obama’s alma mater, Columbia University.

As the New York Post reported, Thompson was a radical “black power” proponent who converted to Islam, obsessed over jihad, spent months consuming pro-ISIS propaganda, and “wanted ‘white people to pay’ for slavery.”

Thompson was hailed as a “crusader for justice” by the Queens chapter of the New Black Panther Party. That’s the same anti-white hate group whose members instigated racially charged chaos in Ferguson, racially charged intimidation at a Philadelphia polling place in 2008 that went unpunished by the Obama administration, and racially inflammatory threats against the innocent Duke lacrosse players exonerated of false rape accusations in 2007.

A week after Thompson waged his racist anti-cop jihad, another police officer in Washington, D.C., was ambushed by an ax-wielding assailant in a chillingly similar attack. He remains on the loose.
To these men and women of all colors on the front lines, risking their lives against homeland-security threats of all kinds, Obama last night offered hundreds of lines of warning and lecturing.
But not this one word: “Thanks.” "

Being Fair and Objective About Chuck Hagel (Maybe)

There is no question that we at the Objective Conservative have little use, or sympathy for that matter, for Chuck Hagel.    He deceived Nebraskans into believing he was a conservative after folks around him had to straighten him out about where Nebraska Republicans stood on such issues as gun control and pro-life issues.    He managed to get re-elected by espousing conservative ideas, but then went off to criticize his president and his party as his head swelled and he decided that the best way to become the next president was by criticizing his own.   And then when the time came for him to announce his intention to run for president in Omaha in front of nationally gathered media, he whiffed.    He couldn't pull the trigger.     Probably because of something terribly damaging to his personal image that threatened to rear its ugly head had he had the courage to do so.    And, finally in an attempt to somehow find relevance in his life and career he sold his soul to Barack Hussein Obama, the very antithesis of what Hagel had previously claimed to represent.   

So, in our mind Hagel got just what he deserved yesterday.    We hope he continues to seek relevance in Washington, D.C., or any place other than Nebraska where as far as we are concerned he is persona non grata.  

Now that we've once again said our piece, we thought we'd share with you a view from The Patriot Post that while also recognizing Hagel's incompetence shows a little more tolerance to Chuckie than we do.   But after all we are fair and objective......

"Chuck Hagel's resignation, well, ouster, as secretary of defense is nothing if not a clear repudiation of the defense policy of his soon-to-be former boss, Barack Obama. When Obama chose Hagel two years ago, he did so because he was looking for someone who would implement a two-pronged strategy of shrinking America's military while simultaneously disengaging it from world affairs. Not exactly a task for someone genuinely concerned about the threats this country faced. But Hagel was not a genuinely concerned kind of guy.

Hagel, technically a Republican while he was in the Senate, was a loud voice against the Iraq war who aligned himself with then-Senators John Kerry and Barack Obama in claiming the war against Jihadistan was not worth fighting. Without rehashing that old debate, it's safe to say this stance was based on a wrong-headed view of the world. Hagel did not believe that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, that Saddam Hussein was supporting international terrorists, or that losing Iraq to sectarian and terrorist strife would be disastrous to our Middle Eastern policy. All of these views have come to be disproved in grand style.

Obama chose Hagel, who was not known for possessing keen leadership skills, because Hagel fit his mindset. Hagel was reportedly often silent at meetings, not offering any constructive opinions. He functioned mostly as a conduit for Obama's wishes. He never balked at the social engineering Obama wanted to inject into the military, nor did he put up much protest when it came to drawing down American forces to dangerously low levels. Hagel defended the latter policy by citing concerns related to budgets over those related to growing threats on numerous strategic fronts around the world.

But Hagel never quite fit in with Team Obama. The Chicago mob surrounding the president in the White House and the left-wing intelligentsia didn't trust the man, who they viewed as a Republican latecomer to the party.

It was only in recent weeks that Hagel seemed to get his head on straight. He started opposing Obama's security strategies. White House officials claim he attempted to stall the closing of the prison at Guantanamo Bay because of his concerns about the security risks posed by releasing detainees. He also butted heads with National Security Adviser Susan Rice over policy on Syria, claiming it was in danger of coming apart because there were no clear objectives laid out.

And while Obama wished to slowly chip away at ISIL with little U.S. involvement, Hagel saw a much more serious threat. “ISIL is as sophisticated and well-funded as any group we have seen," Hagel said in August. "They are beyond just a terrorist group. ... I think the evidence is pretty clear. Yes they are an imminent threat to every interest we have whether in Iraq or anywhere else."

It would figure in the Obama White House that, as soon as Hagel showed signs of coming to his senses, his days were numbered. It also figures that after a bruising midterm repudiation of his presidency, Obama would fire the only Republican in his cabinet. It's certainly true the administration is in need of a foreign-policy team shakeup, but ousting Kerry, Rice or any of the other members of the team was never going to be an option.

Hagel was never a good choice for the position of secretary of defense. His level of competence was far below that required to fulfill the duties of his post, and his worldview remained skewed by a prejudice that America's challenges were forged solely by America's involvement in foreign affairs. Yet his failure in the position was not his alone.

Hagel was tasked with executing a series of bad decisions that only further compounded America's problems overseas -- pulling out of Afghanistan, cutting troop strength, cutting procurement orders and implementing social policies that have no business in the military. The list is long and infuriating. In short, Hagel failed in large part because he was in a no-win situation.

Potential replacements include Michele Flournoy, a former undersecretary under Leon Panetta who embraces the small military model, and Ashton Carter, an academic considered to be an expert on budgets and weapons in the Pentagon. The primary element of success for a secretary of defense is serving a president who has an obvious dedication to America's national security and a clear understanding of world affairs. We're not going to see that for at least a couple of years."

Cartoon of the Day

Tuesday, November 25, 2014

Thought for the Day Extra Doin' Christmas Shopping Early

Thought for the Day

Omaha World-Herald 2014 General Election Endorsement Analysis -- Patrick McPherson

How accurate are the endorsements of the Omaha World-Herald, and more importantly, how important are they?    We think we can answer the first question but the second one leaves room for speculation.

In its effort to provide its best input to its readers the Omaha World-Herald made its recommendations to voters for what its editorial board perceived to be the best candidates for election in the November 4, 2014 election general election.   Candidates for local and state-wide offices generally want the endorsement of the paper as well as those of other papers across the state.   But, perhaps having the endorsement of the largest paper in the state carries additional prestige.   Certainly, those candidates who receive its endorsement take advantage of it by using it in print, radio, television and other electronic media.
Over the years, folks/candidates/political activists have pointed a finger at the OWH for what they perceived as bias.   The editorial board has been described by liberals as conservative and by conservatives as liberal.   Often times it seems the paper endorses incumbents who are likely to win anyway.
So taking a look at the 2014 General Election endorsements provides some answers to some of the questions posed above.
First of all, how accurate as a predictor of election success are the paper’s endorsements?   In this election the OWH endorsed 60 candidates.   Of the 60 endorsed forty-seven won election while 13 did not.  That’s a 78% positive result for the paper’s endorsement verses election results.    Not bad, but it might be nice to see how many of those endorsements went to incumbents.    Twenty-nine or 48% of the paper’s endorsements went to incumbents.   Only 5 endorsements went to non-incumbents.   The remaining number of endorsements were for open races (26).   Interestingly, twenty-seven of the 29 incumbents endorsed won re-election.   Only two didn’t.     Of the twenty-six open races where the paper authored an endorsement eighteen were elected or 69%.   Not too bad.  So it appears the OWH’s endorsements are at least pretty accurate as a predictor of election success in open races as well.
The second question that one might ask is if the paper’s endorsements are biased toward one party or another?   An analysis of the paper’s endorsements shows that forty of the sixty endorsements went to Republicans—two-thirds, 66.6%.   While many conservatives distrust the editorial board’s motives on various issues, it appears that the OWH can’t be accused by Republicans of being biased toward Democrats.   On the other hand, can Democrats therefore assert that the paper’s bias is for Republicans?   Republican incumbents received eighteen of the paper’s twenty-nine incumbent endorsements.  Democrats received eleven of the paper’s incumbent endorsements.  In open seats Republicans received nineteen endorsements (in at least two cases there were two Republicans running to choose from) and Democrats received seven endorsements.   In other words, Republicans received 62% of the OWH’s open seat endorsements while Democrats received just 37%.   From this one might draw the conclusion the paper’s editorial board is actually biased toward Republicans.    However, taking into consideration races where only Republicans were running, the paper’s choice between Republicans and Democrats is closer to neutral with a seventeen to thirteen bias toward Republicans. 
It’s likely that other factors contribute toward the seeming bias toward Republicans.   One certainly is voter registration where Republicans outnumber Democrats on a nearly two-to-one basis and therefore simply produce more Republican elected officials and candidates, particularly in rural areas. 
One last question that begs an answer is whether the Omaha World-Herald’s endorsements actually are effective in getting candidates elected?    Certainly the percentage of those endorsed who win elections would indicate a likelihood of election but determination of this would have to fall to accurate polling and statisticians.   Our guess is that in some cases, particularly those involving ‘down ballot’ races, that those who pay attention to the paper’s recommendations may be influenced by such.   But again without detailed polling of the paper’s readers this is simply conjecture.
So what’s the bottom line?    The paper’s endorsements are a fairly accurate predictor of electoral success.    Its endorsements go more toward Republicans than Democrats for whatever reasons and there are certainly reasons that might mitigate that perceived bias.   Probably most important, the endorsements by the Omaha World-Herald editorial board are meaningful to candidates who cherish them if only for political bragging benefits in their advertising and their hope that such endorsements are a good indicator of electoral success.
Patrick McPherson is the founder of the Objective Conservative and a frequent contributor.

Cartoon of the Day

Monday, November 24, 2014

Cartoon of the Day Extra

Thought for the Day

"A gun is like a parachute.  If you need one, and don't have one, you'll probably never need one again."

Goodbye, Chuckie -- You Are NO LONGER RELEVANT

Word is that we're about to say goodbye to Chuckie Hagel.    Being handed his walking papers by the president seems somewhat ironic.    A failed president asking for the resignation of a failed former U.S. Senator and now failed defense secretary.     We're not sure who is the most incompetent, but we do know that Chuckie's quest for relevance with the job he sought and the guy whose butt he kissed is now over.   Now he will have no Republican or Democrat friends.   Let's face it the only relevance that Chuck Hagel has achieved is total IRRELEVANCE!.

Last Hope For Landrieu Comes From New York City????

The headline in the National Journal's Hotline Wakeup Call is:

" LA SEN: Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (D) will host a fundraiser for Sen. Mary Landrieu (D) on Dec. 1 in New York City. (CNN)"

Somehow it seems a fate compli that politically moribund U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu can only get fundraising help from Hillary Clinton by going to New York City.   Of course, since the Democrat Party has decided to abandon her already, maybe that's the only way Landrieu can raise money, but one would think that Landrieu would be working her butt off in Louisiana where apparently Hillary must not be too popular......

Profitable Times for Iowa Media

This headline won't surprise anyone living in eastern Nebraska:

"The Des Moines Register: Iowa saw record $41.2 million in Senate TV ad spending By Jason Noble and Jeffrey C. Kummer
Candidate campaigns and the independent groups supporting them poured $41.2 million into television advertising for Iowa's U.S. Senate race this year, ultimately airing nearly 77,000 commercials that reached voters in all but the farthest corners of the state. "

You can read more if you want, but it just goes to show how much money there is available to win a U.S. Senate race and actually this was pretty cheap compared to what it costs in multi-multi-media states.

Cartoon of the Day

Friday, November 21, 2014

Thought for the Day -- Just So You Understand

Are you confused by what is going on in the Middle East ?

Let me explain.

We support the Iraqi government in the fight against ISIS .

We don’t like ISIS, but ISIS is supported by Saudi Arabia who we do

We don’t like Assad in Syria . We support the fight against him, but
ISIS is also fighting against him.

We don’t like Iran , but Iran supports the Iraqi government in its
fight against ISIS .

So some of our friends support our enemies, some enemies are now our
friends, and some of our enemies are fighting against our other enemies, who we want to lose, but we don’t want our enemies who are fighting our enemies to win. If the people we want to defeat are defeated, they could be replaced
by people we like even less.

And all this was started by us ( as in U.S....) invading a country to
drive out terrorists who were not actually there until we went in to drive them out.

It's quite simple, really.

Do you understand now?

Cartoon of the Day

Monday, November 17, 2014

Thought of the Day: Apolitical Aphorism

  I offer my opponents a bargain: if they will stop telling lies about us, I will stop telling the truth about them.
~Adlai Stevenson, campaign speech, 1952~

Cartoon of the Day