RobertsCare

First there was the case against ObamaCare because it unconstitutionally assessed "penalities" against those who declined to buy health insurance. But Chief Justice Roberts stepped in and said, "No, they're not penalties, they're taxes" (a position even Obama hadn't claimed). ObamaCare survived. Then there was the case against ObamaCare because it stated explicitly that only the people within states that had state-run insurance pools could receive federal subsidies. But again, Justice Roberts stepped in and said, "Well, we all know that's not what Congress meant" (he should have said that's not what the Democrats in Congress meant). ObamaCare survived. Finally there was the case against ObamaCare because the Constitution says that all tax legislation must originate in the House of Representatives (the branch closest to the people), but ObamaCare began in the Senate where Harry Reid attached a number to it of an unpassed, unrelated House bill. Of course, Harry never imagined this could be an issue because he thought the taxes were penalties. He had no idea John Roberts would magically transform them into taxes, which meant the bill had to originate in the House. So last week the Supreme Court declined to hear the case challenging the fact that ObamaCare unconstitutionally originated in the Senate, effectively tossing the suit in the trash. So I say that John Roberts now owns the ACA and from now on we should call it RobertsCare. It's now more his legislation than Obama's.    

de Blasio on record snowfall

Mayor Bill de Blasio on CNN (January 25, 2016): "We are clearly living in an era of extreme weather. We're seeing storms like we've never seen before. If this one had been just a tenth of an inch deeper, it would have been the worst in New York City's history."

This is a classic example of how a political agenda can corrupt reason. Think about the contradiction within the mayor's statement: "storms like we've NEVER SEEN BEFORE" vs "would have been the worst." It took only one sentence for de Blasio to contradict himself. Turns out we have seen plenty of storms like this before. As a matter of fact, I've seen snow storms of varying depths every winter for my entire life. Snow is what the northeast gets in winter.

Here are the top ten record snowfalls in NYC:

1. 26.9” on February 11-12, 2006
2. 26.8" on January 22-23, 2016
3. 25.8” on December 26-27, 1947
4. 21.0" on March 12-14th, 1888
5. 20.9” on February 25-26, 2010
6. 20.2” on January 7-8, 1996
7. 20.0” on December 26-27, 2010
8. 19.8” on February 16-17, 2003
9. 19.0” on January 26-27, 2011
10. 18.1” on March 7-8, 1941 & January 22-24, 1935

Yet in the midst of all this "extreme weather," in 2013 NYC got only 26.1 inches for the entire winter season, In 2012 it was only 7.4 inches; in 2008 only 11.9; in 2007 only 12.4; and in 2002 only 3.5 inches. Clearly the case could be made that we are actually in an era of mild weather.

The "White Oscar" problem

The solution to the current "crisis" in Hollywood is quite simple: Quotas.

First, expand the number of nominees to 10 in each category. That keeps the math simple and ensures that the number of nominees from each privileged demographic is represented precisely according to their representation in the general population.

Here’s what the Academy must do:

Each year, ensure that there is one - and only one - black actor/actress/producer/composer/cinematographer/art director/sound editor and so on nominated in each category, regardless of whether 10 black persons gave the 10 most extraordinary performances of the year. Ditto with Hispanic actors/actresses/etc. Once every three years - and only every three years - an Asian gets nominated in every category and once every 10 years a Native American gets a nod. And again, once every 4 years - and only once every 4 years - a member of the LGBT community gets a nomination.

All of these numbers represent reasonable approximations of the privileged group's representation in the general population. If the Academy follows this formula, it will demonstrate its commitment to diversity and inclusion. It will demonstrate, indeed, that it is more committed to these high principles than it is to the survival of the movie industry.

Are you happy now, Jada?

Watch Jimmy Kimmel's take on this.

Prescient warning from Anglican leader

Christianity is facing "elimination" in the Middle East at the hands of an Islamic State "apocalypse", the Archbishop of Cantebury has warned.

http://news.sky.com/story/1612009/welby-christians-face-middle-east-elimination

A compliant citizenry

China’s largest social networks have partnered with the country’s Communist government to create a credit score system that will measure how obedient its citizens are, a chilling prospect that could one day arrive in America if social justice warriors get their way. Entitled ‘Sesame Credit,’ the program aims to create a docile, compliant citizenry who are fiscally and morally responsible by employing a game-like format to create self-imposed, group social control. In other words, China gamified peer pressure to control its citizenry; and, though the scheme hasn’t been fully implemented yet, it’s already working — insidiously well.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-34592186

This has been the goal of the government-education nexus for the past 150 years--to create a compliant citizenry. Our American education system was modeled on the Prussian system, which was developed after the Napoleonic Wars to created more obedient soldiers and citizens. That is always the goal of totalitarians.

Hillary got is backwards again...

To suggest that Donald Trump is responsible for enhancing ISIS recruitment is like saying Churchill was responsible for enhancing Nazi recruitment. What a joke Mrs. Clinton is! The biggest enhancement to ISIS recruitment is actually America's tepid response to Islamic State aggression. Middle Easterners like to be on the winning side, which means that the weaker we appear to be, the more young men are likely to join the ISIS team. In contrast, the more aggressive we become and the more ISIS appears to be losing, the fewer who will want to join up. Overwhelming military force has always been the only thing that stops Islamic aggression against the West.

Hillary got it backwards

In the Democrat debate on Saturday, December 19, Hillary Clinton said, "I worry greatly that the rhetoric coming from the Republicans, particularly Donald Trump, is sending a message to Muslims here in the United States and literally around the world that there is a clash of civilizations, that there is some kind of western plot or even war against Islam, which then I believe fans the flames of radicalization."

This is a typical demagogic ploy: argue against a premise that hasn't even been asserted--a classic straw man. I have never heard any politician call for a war against Islam. Bill Clinton initiated the "war against terror" and some have called for war against the Islamic State, not no one has called for a war against Islam, no one! Actually, Hillary has it exactly backwards: certain factions within Islam believe the Quran calls for a "clash of civilizations" and has declared, in the name of global domination, war against the west. We did not start this war. And those who did start it are recruiting, not because of our response to their attacks, but because they consider it to be their divine mission to conquer the world for Islam.

This is called Jihadism--the call to all devout Muslims to bring the non-Muslim word to its knees before Allah. Perhaps all Muslims do not subscribe to this definition of Jihad. But if only one-tenth of 1% do, that means there are about 1.6 million people out there who are fully committed to converting us, either through persuasion or violence. And often it's their use of violence against a few that they use to persuade the many. It seems to me that since the Islamic State is currently the front line of the Jihadi movement, we ought to declare war against it and start turning some of their cities into ashes. I suggest starting with Raqqah.

Just to be clear...

Jan C. Ting of Temple University and Eric Posner of the University of Chicago say critics are wrong about Trump’s plan to ban the immigration of all Muslims and don’t know much about legal history. Ting says:

“No kind of immigration restriction is unconstitutional. The U.S. government can exclude a foreign national on any basis. The statutes are clear: immigration is different from all other aspects of the law. The Supreme Court has ruled we can enact laws against foreign nationals that would not be permissible to apply to citizens. The courts historically have no role in these decisions.”

Posner agrees saying:

“Constitutional protections that normally benefit Americans and people on American territory do not apply when Congress decides who to admit and who to exclude as immigrants or other entrants.”

Christian Persecution

EP President Martin Schulz says that the persecution of Christians is “undervalued” and does not receive enough attention, which has also meant that it “hasn’t been properly addressed.”

Schulz’s concerns were echoed by EP Vice President Antonio Tajani, who warned that Europe sometimes “falls into the temptation of thinking we can ignore this task,” referring to the protection of Christians throughout the world who suffer persecution.

Speakers cited the work of Open Doors, a human rights organization that monitors the persecution of Christians, noting that 150 million Christians worldwide suffer torture, rape and arbitrary imprisonment. Christians in Iraq, Somalia, Syria, Pakistan, North Korea and Nigeria are among those hardest hit.

The Open Doors report for 2015 found that “Islamic extremism is by far the most significant persecution engine” of Christians in the world today and that “40 of the 50 countries on the World Watch List are affected by this kind of persecution.”

For Islamists, Tajani said, Christians are the new “crusaders” of Europe, and because of Islamic persecution in the Middle East more than 70 percent of Christians have fled Iraq since 2003, with another 700 thousand Christians who have been forced to leave their home in Syria since the outbreak of civil war.

“Each month 200 churches and places of worship in the world are attacked and destroyed. Every day and in every region of the world, there are new cases of persecution against Christians,” said Tajani.

“No religious community is as subject to hatred, violence and systematic aggression as the Christians,” he said.

As reported by Thomas D. Williams (12/3/2015)

The Islamic STATE!

Just last week I was thinking that we ought to start treating the Islamic State exactly as it claims to be: a state. It does after all have territory about the size of Florida. It has a government, an army, a court system, it collects taxes, provides health care, collects the garbage, and so on. In other words, it has all the marks of an actual state. If we decide to recognize the IS as a nation among the family of nations, then we can pass a Declaration of War against it and fight its agents wherever they rear their ugly heads: Paris, Libya, New York City, wherever. In addition, we don’t have to pay as much attention to sparing the lives of the so-called innocent civilians. We can simply bomb them into submission, like we did Japan.

So just last week I was thinking that this would be a good strategic move, and then yesterday the president trashed the whole idea. I am continually amazed at how contradictory my thinking is from his.