Proof of an alternative reality

Old Tingles says Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. Dare I say it, Obama will be the next while proclaiming the true essence of its collective glory?

From the Daily Caller:

Betcha didn’t see this one coming.

On MSNBC’s Thursday broadcast of “Hardball,” host Chris Matthews committed the mortal sin — he nearly parroted the theory that mortified so many of the network’s hosts and guests throughout the day. Matthews called Social Security “a Ponzi scheme” the day after Republican Texas Gov. Rick Perry doubled down on his previous statements echoing that sentiment in the Republican debate  (h/t Matt Lewis)

Matthews first put forth what he thought Social Security was originally intended to be: “You pay for it while you work. When you retired and have no other form of income, this will help you out. In fact, a lot were impoverished in the old days without Social Security. It’s a great anti-poverty program. But then people started to live past 65. Even the great Franklin Roosevelt didn’t make it to 65. In those days, if you made it to 65, you were lucky. You got a few bucks on Social Security.” (RELATED: Has Chris Matthews lost his mind?)

Then he put forth what it has become: “Today, lots of people fortunately make it past 65,” he said. “They live into their 80s and 90s. They’re still getting checks. The system doesn’t work that way anymore. It’s not as healthy as it once was. So, how does a Republican deal with the fact it is a Ponzi scheme in the sense that the money that’s paid out every day is coming from people who have paid in that day. It’s not being made somewhere.”

It’s not being made somewhere. Is this some sick joke?

Tingles.

Seize the opportunity, Republicans. If Chris Matthews can see the Ponzi scheme, so can the rest of America.

Perry’s in. Bachmann’s in. Romney’s the odd man out here.

Heh.

It doesn’t take an expert

WINNERS!

Alternate headline: Obama makes like Charlie Sheen to win in ’12!

Allahpundit headlined this yesterday:

Elections expert who’s called every presidential race since ’84: Obama will win.

“Even if I am being conservative,” Allan Lichtman says, “I cannot see how Obama will lose.”

Really? The headline at US News & World Report does even more to assuage liberal hand-wringing over Obama’s polling numbers: Never-Wrong Pundit Picks Obama to Win in 2012.

Allahpundit sums Lichtman’s “keys” to the race:

He’s got The One winning on nine of 13 counts:

1. No contested primary
2. Incumbency
3. No third-party candidate
4. Major domestic-policy changes in his first term
5. No social unrest
6. No major scandals
7. No major foreign-policy failures
8. Major foreign-policy achievements in his first term (killing Bin Laden)
9. Little charisma by his likely opponent

The GOP wins three categories:

1. The incumbent’s party lost seats in the last House election
2. The long-term economy looks poor
3. Little charisma by the incumbent

True, Obama won’t have a contested primary. I’m sure the White House repeats the mantra that over a quarter of Democrat voters want someone else on the ticket doesn’t really matter. It’s uncontested, y’all.

As for #4 and 5, I laughed upon reading it. Sure, Obama has “major domestic-policy changes in his first term.” So unpopular, in fact, that its popularity has hit new lows! Sounds like Obama himself, no? Winning combo, hitting new lows.

No social unrest? Really? Tea Party. Protests on the Mall. Protests across the country. Obama should consider himself lucky that the people most aggrieved by his disastrous administration are the responsible ones.

No major scandal. I can hardly contain my laughter at this point. Fast and Furious is a major scandal, one that should bring the Attorney General to his knees if not the President himself. But when your BFFs in the media plug their collective ears and sing tra-la-la-la to pretend all’s well, then it hasn’t become the explosive issue (no pun intended) that it should be. Lichtman calls the administration “squeaky clean.” Sure, if you wish hard enough.

No major foreign policy failures. ROTFLMAO. Reset button. Blame America. Pulling out of the missile defense shield in Europe. Libya. Um, what was that again? Oh, yeah, no major foreign policy failures. Lichtman argues that failure needs to be on par with Bay of Pigs. After three years of across-the-board embarassment, voters are tired of the blame America first tour.

Major foreign policy achievement. In case anyone’s forgotten, Obama didn’t receive much of a bounce in the wake of bin Laden’s demise at the hands of Navy SEALs. Maybe because of the administration blunders: revealing what Special Operations forces were behind the raid, burying the body at sea with Muslim prayers, etc etc.

Little charisma for the GOP opponent. Boy, they’re prayin’ for Romney, no? I’ll give poor Barry O the benefit of the doubt given the GOP ability to secure defeat in the least likely of circumstances.

So in my column, I have #4-7 going to the GOP and tossing BO the bone on #1,8 and 9.

New score: Obama 5, GOP 7. 

Allahpundit comments:

In which case, how can Lichtman seriously say, “I don’t see how Obama can lose”? Especially since, surreally, he’s counting the stimulus, which the public reviles, and ObamaCare, about which the public is deeply suspicious, as a point in Obama’s favor because they are, after all, major “changes” to American domestic policy. By that standard, even the dumbest, most hated piece of legislation should be treated as an asset to a presidential campaign so long as it’s significant enough to constitute “major change.” If you flip that Key to the GOP, then you’ve got six for the Republicans — enough to take the White House by Lichtman’s own metrics.

 

Clarence Thomas the Frodo Baggins of the right?

So suggests Walter Russell Mead after reading Jeffery Toobin’s profile of Clarence Thomas in the New Yorker. He writes of Thomas:

his lonely and obscure struggle has led him to the point from which he may be able to overthrow the entire edifice of the modern progressive state

Few things have made me smile as broadly as I am now after reading this:

There are few articles of faith as firmly fixed in the liberal canon as the belief that Clarence Thomas is, to put it as bluntly as many liberals do, a dunce and a worm.  Twenty years of married life have not erased the conventional liberal view of his character etched by Anita Hill’s testimony at his confirmation hearings.  Not only does the liberal mind perceive him as a disgusting lump of ungoverned sexual impulse; he is seen as an intellectual cipher.  Thomas’ silence during oral argument before the Supreme Court is taken as obvious evidence that he has nothing to say and is perhaps a bit intimidated by the verbal fireworks exchanged by the high profile lawyers and his more, ahem, ‘qualified’ colleagues.

At most liberals have long seen Thomas as the Sancho Panza to Justice Antonin Scalia’s Don Quixote, Tonto to his Lone Ranger.  No, says Toobin: the intellectual influence runs the other way.  Thomas is the consistently clear and purposeful theorist that history will remember as an intellectual pioneer; Scalia the less clear-minded colleague who is gradually following in Thomas’ tracks.

If Toobin’s revionist take is correct, (and I defer to his knowledge of the direction of modern constitutional thought) it means that liberal America has spent a generation mocking a Black man as an ignorant fool, even as constitutional scholars stand in growing amazement at the intellectual audacity, philosophical coherence and historical reflection embedded in his judicial work.

I have long been a fan of Clarence Thomas. pjHusband and I read his autobiography in awe. Rarely in life will you find someone whose character has been so supremely shaped by the real adversity he faced growing up. Rarely in life will you see someone so completely caricatured and vilified, ironically with the very stereotypes the left claims to fight.

Read the rest of Walter Russel Mead’s piece, the New Blue Nightmare: Clarence Thomas and the Amendment of Doom. It might eke a smile out of you, too.

Sand trap optics

Rather than skip that lush vacay at Martha’s Vineyard, Obama has started skipping holes at the golf course to avoid photographers. He knows it looks bad. Heh:

Approaching the eighth tee in a golf cart with friend and frequent golfing buddy Eric Whitaker, the president noticed three TV cameras and a Globe photographer across the street. Rather than stop and be photographed teeing off, the president skipped the hole.

Further proof Obama suffers from depression at how miserable he is as president: he skipped a chance to campaign fund-raiser:

Nor did the president show up at “Voices for Obama,’’ a fund-raiser for his reelection campaign held the night before. The commander in chief was, in fact, just arriving at his deluxe Chilmark digs as 300 supporters – each of whom paid $100 – were filing into Union Chapel in Oak Bluffs.

Note to organizers: he doesn’t show up for such meager offerings.

Seriously? Obama’s ties to radical lefty terrorists no biggie, but Perry bought stock in a movie rental company that also rented porn. THAT’S a scandal!

Desperation.

No one cared about Obama’s associations with avowed communist terrorists who blew up buildings and killed a few people back in the 60s. But that Rick Perry once invested and sold stock in a southern company that rented porn in a backroom, that’s a scandal? What a long 15 months this will be:

A 16-year-old investment by Texas Gov. Rick Perry in a firm that rented pornographic movies is drawing new scrutiny in light of his just-launched presidential campaign.

Liberal bloggers and a handful of news sites have been taking the Republican candidate to task for his 1995 investment in the now-defunct Movie Gallery, which at the time was an Alabama-based video store chain that attributed some of its profits from renting pornographic films.

“They sold family-friendly material in the front but had adult rooms in the back,” said Patrick Vaughn, general counsel with the American Family Association, a socially conservative group that led the charge for years against Movie Gallery.

As a southerner in my mid-30s, I remember frequenting a Movie Gallery in my youth to pick out “Goonies,” “Ghostbusters,” and the like. It was the only movie rental business in our fairly rural end of the county. By this standard, I must be excoriated for having rented movies regularly from the only business in a 25-mile radius. Obviously.

Had I been old enough, smart enough, or had enough money, I would’ve bought stock, too. The place was always packed.

h/t: Allahpundit

Linked in the Creative Minority Reader. Thanks!

NYT: abortion “before pregnancy” is “more acceptable”

Pam Belluck writes “science” for the Gray Lady. Funny that given her inability to understand basic knowledge of the biology of pregnancy. Writing about sex-selected abortions based on new genetic tests available over-the-counter that detect gender based on secreted DNA available in the mother’s blood or urine, Belluck notes

But clinics and some ethicists say this type of sex selection is more acceptable because it occurs before embryos are implanted, before pregnancy.

Before pregnancy? Deliberate obfuscation. 

So a lesson for you, Pam, since you seem to not grasp elementary biology. First, implantation of embryos occurs 6-12 days after ovulation. A fertilized egg implants itself into the lining of the uterus, resulting in a pregnancy. If the fertilized embryo did not implant into the lining of the uterus, a woman would start shedding the lining, thereby triggering the cycle again. No longer pregnant. It really is this simple, Pam.

If a woman were to purchase one of the aforementioned tests available OTC because she wanted to determine the gender of her baby, an implanted embryo would have to have been implanted for seven weeks minimum in order for her urine to have any fetal DNA present. See how easy? She has to be pregnant in order for the test to work. Pregnant = implanted embryo.

Therefore, your assertion that “clinics and some ethicists” argue that these abortions aren’t abortions because the embryos haven’t implanted implies you’re either a terrible liar with no understanding of logic or biology or you’re an idiot with no understanding of logic or biology.

Take your pick.

h/t: Hot Air headlines

A “Recommended Read” at P&P. Thanks!

 

“That sound you hear is of spreading panic among Democrats”

So explains Peter Wehner of Obama’s new limbo rock: how low can you go?

According to Gallup, 39 percent of Americans approve of Obama’s job performance while 54 percent disapprove. Both data points are the worst numbers of his presidency. Philip Klein points out that no president since Harry Truman​ as been re-elected with approval ratings this low, this late into his first term. And no president since Franklin Roosevelt​ has been re-elected with unemployment this high.

Music to my ears, regardless. Take the following headline the Monday following Michele Bachmann’s win at the Ames straw poll as more evidence of mass liberal panic: Tea Party’s heyday may be coming to a end, say political experts.

Heh. That’s right. The Tea Party heyday must be coming to an end since the only two RINOs Romney and Huntsman cleaned the floor… oh. Wait. Gears spinning wildly over at the Hill.

Update: Jazz Shaw at Hot Air:

It seems like I’ve been hearing about the pending implosion and disappearance of the Tea Party ever since… well, roughly ten minutes after I’d heard of the Tea Party. And yet for progressive activists, the movement continues to stubbornly hang around like that zit you don’t want to pop two days before the prom because you’re just sure it’s going to go away on its own. (And inevitably you wind up with the worst yearbook photo ever.)

Fortunately for Democrats, our balanced, dual nature society has produced an equally effective and opposite counter-movement in the form of the Coffee Party. Right guys?

HEH.

A “Featured Blog” at P&P. Thanks!

Media furiously searches for 23 needles in a haystack

Alternate headline: Remember when they were afraid of Sarah, part II. A continuing series I’m sure.

Via Allahpundit, a fresh lather whipped up at HuffPo: Michele Bachmann’s History As A Foster Parent Remains Murky. A taste of the liberal froth:

In the last three months, at least 100 news stories have mentioned Bachmann’s claim that she raised 23 foster children. But the GOP presidential hopeful has provided few details about her time as a foster mom; in fact, very little has actually been reported about that period in her life. Former Bachmann neighbors and church members, according to a recent New York Times story, recalled few sightings of those foster kids.

Actual details remain murky, and reports and accounts contradict her public statements. Bachmann has repeatedly said she took in a total of 23 foster children. But a 2001 story in The Minnesota Lawyer put the number of children at 20. A recent article in the Minneapolis Star Tribune quotes Bachmann as saying she raised as many as four foster children at one time. But Minnesota officials say she was only contracted to house three at a time.

And according to the head of the private company that licensed her as a foster parent, Bachmann never even hit that limit. “I would say there weren’t any more than two kids at a time,” said George Hendrickson, the CEO of the Professional Association of Treatment Homes (PATH).

Because Bachmann went through PATH, she did not work with state agencies at all. The Minnesota Department of Human Services says that Bachmann was licensed on Aug. 7, 1992. According to Hendrickson, the last foster child was placed in her home in 1998. The license was closed out in 2000, Hendrickson said.

Any records documenting foster placements have since been destroyed; records are kept for seven years before they are thrown out.

Dammit! No records! Must. Find. One. Of. Those. Kids. Stat!

They’re having such a difficult time kookifying Michele a la Sarah. They must destroy her any way they can. It’s for the children.

“I like to say that for the black community, nothing will change until we learn to love our children more than we love the Democratic party”

So argues “Unlikely Supporter” Sonnie Johnson, a 30 year-old wife and mom.

Why so “unlikely” according to ABC News?

Oh, yeah, she’s black. Whoopsie, your liberal slip is showing:

The 30-year-old African-American mother and wife is featured in “The Undefeated” as one of the many people Palin captivated when John McCain thrust her onto the national stage as his vice presidential running mate in 2008. In Pella, Iowa today for the premiere of the film, Johnson said she latched on to Palin when the former Alaska governor took the stage at the Republican National Convention.

“We were watching it on TV and my daughter was like, ‘A girl can be president?,’” Johnson recalled. “And I said, ‘Yes, baby, girls can do anything.’ That was the moment — I saw that look in my daughter’s eye, that anything in possible. The next week, I went to my very first political event, and that was to see Sarah Palin. John McCain and Sarah Palin.”

Johnson has become increasingly involved in the tea party since then, speaking at tea party events around her native Virginia. She’ll give the keynote address at an event held by the Charlottesville, VA. tea party on the Fourth of July with her young daughter by her side.

Amazing, isn’t it, how our children can inspire pursuits never imagined?

The Lonely Conservative chimes in:

Good for her, for looking at the issues, rather than the party. Bad on ABC News for finding it so “unlikely” that Americans whose skin happens to be dark would support Sarah Palin, or other Tea Party candidates. But hey, at least they didn’t mock or belittle her as so many liberals do to those who step outside of their stereotypical boxes. And in all fairness, at least they told her story. I’m sure those who aren’t mocking Mrs. Johnson would rather just ignore her.

Ignore her, malign her. But Sonnie Johnson and the millions of other mothers–black, white and in-between–are a forced to behold.

UPDATE: linked as a Recommended Read by Pundette. Thanks!

Alec Baldwin speaks truth to power

Via Fox Nation, Alec Baldwin on twitter:

Fear Bachman bc she is raising so much money. Anyone that inarticulate and full of *&$#% who is raising money that fast..

See the Tweet here(warning foul language)

..is beholden to some mighty thuggish interests

Funny he should say that given Obama’s fundraising prowess among unions, the dead, illegal overseas donors and cartoon characters. Not to mention “inarticulate and full of *&$#” moments off ‘promter.

Shake it, Michelle. Liberals will foam and froth. Dismiss it rather than complain, and let the loons make fools of themselves in the process once the One starts speaking off ‘promter. 57 states, anyone?

Earlier this week: Remember when they were afraid of Sarah?

UPDATE: linked as a Recommended Read by Pundette. Thanks!