The feminists who ought to applaud Carly Fiorina for her successes hate her guts

From, believe it or not, Time magazine!

Feminists Are Total Hypocrites When It Comes to Carly Fiorina

They look at her and see a chauvinist in heels. They don’t welcome her to the debate, and they give her no respect

By Marjorie Dannenfelser and Penny Nance | Dec. 2, 2015

The double standard now on display with regard to Carly Fiorina has driven hypocrisy to new depths, as many of the same political and media personalities who’ve warned conservatives and Republicans to make a stronger appeal to women have gone ballistic with invective and hyperbole in attacking the GOP’s only female presidential candidate.

This goes further than the current blame game over the horrific murders in Colorado Springs. The furor being directed at Fiorina is just the latest example. Why do so many who strongly advocate for more women in office, and more women running for office, turn so despicably against conservative women who are willing to put themselves forward?

New Yorker liberal satirist Andy Borowitz mocked Fiorina’s correct assertion that liberals are consistently wrong in tying tragic events – such as this latest shooting – to rhetoric. The critics did the same to former GOP vice presidential nominee and Gov. Sarah Palin, literally blaming her for Jared Loughner’s shooting rampage in Tucson, Arizona that left six people dead and several others wounded, including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.).

The left has learned nothing over the past five years; in fact it’s worse. Palin was wrongly blamed for the Tucson shooting, but today liberal commentators such as MSNBC’s Chris Matthews have gone so far as to sneer and offer that Fiorina is “enjoying” this tragic event.

It’s worse for Fiorina because, even though both she and Palin are strongly pro-life, it was Fiorina who took it upon herself to put the controversy caused by the Planned Parenthood videos front and center in the presidential campaign. Her display of courage and compassion at the Reagan Library Republican debate went into unchartered territory for a presidential race because, finally, it was a woman candidate who was willing to take the issue head-on when given a national stage.

And Planned Parenthood eventually did announce it would no longer accept reimbursement for organs from aborted babies

Abortion, sadly, is the difference maker when it comes to who gets the feminist seal of approval. Republican women who support abortion get a pass, they represent no threat to liberal feminist orthodoxy.

But to today’s so-called feminists and advocates for equality, who constantly demand more women in the process, more outreach to women and attention to certain issues, Carly Fiorina really isn’t a woman at all. They look at her and see a chauvinist in a pantsuit and heels. They don’t welcome her to the debate, they give her no credit for getting into the game, they don’t even give her the smallest modicum of respect.

There’s more at the original, but it simply goes to show you what we have already said: while Hillary Clinton is running to become the first woman President, Carly Fiorina is a candidate running to become President who just happens to be a woman.

Just as importantly, it exposes the tremendous sexist — and racist — bias of the left. For liberals, only white men are allowed the intellectual freedom to hold different opinions. The left might not like Ted Cruz’s or Marco Rubio’s opinions, but they don’t say that their opinions somehow mean that they aren’t real men; they do say that those fine men simply aren’t really Latino! Ben Carson is being denigrated by the left as an Uncle Tom.

And with Mrs Fiorina’s candidacy, we are now learning from Our Betters on the left that she isn’t really a woman, that she can’t really be a woman, because she doesn’t toe the feminist line. Her accomplishments in life, accomplishments achieved not because she is a woman, and not because she was some Affirmative Action hire, but because she is intelligent, diligent and hard-working, those things don’t count.

Because, you see, for the left only white men can succeed on their own. If a black man succeeds, why he must have had special help, and he must acknowledge that special help. If a woman succeeds in politics or business, it wasn’t because she was a strong, tough competitor, taking on men as an equal, but because Her Feminist Sisters secured the benefits of Affirmative Action for her.

This is the result of the nuttiness of modern feminism. The feminism with which some of us who are older grew up is the feminism which says that if woman are allowed equal access, they can and will compete with men as equals. That’s what Carly Fiorina did! And that’s what other women are doing today: women make up a substantial majority of students matriculating in college, and women today earn the majority of college degrees of all types: associates, bachelors, masters and doctoral. Mrs Fiorina was initially hired for an entry level position — one which was seen as a typical female job at the time — and she worked her way up the way everyone should: when given additional assignments, with a chance to succeed or fail, or say, “this isn’t my job,”1 she worked hard and succeeded.

That was what we old fogies thought feminism was supposed to be about, and that is the kind of feminism I can wholeheartedly support. But, for the feminists of today, equality isn’t enough, because that job has already been done! If feminism means only equality, then today’s Professional Feminists are out of a job!

I absolutely support the old-line feminism, the feminism which says just give women the opportunity to succeed and women will succeed. I even support Secretary of Defense Ash Carter’s decision to open all jobs in the military to women, as long as the standards are maintained and no quotas are placed,2 because I believe that people should all have an equal opportunity to employ their skills and talents and ambition, but that no one should be somehow given special help; I believe in equal competition.

Would the old-line feminists be appalled at the treatment a very successful businesswoman like Mrs Fiorina is receiving at the hands of modern feminists? I’d like to think that they would, though, given liberal politics these days, the answer is: probably not. But if they were intellectually honest and consistent, they’d be celebrating Mrs Fiorina’s achievements, and not trashing her.

Will Carly Fiorina succeed in winning the Republican presidential nomination? I support her candidacy, and hope that she wins, but if she does not, she has still been given an equal opportunity to make her case to the voters, and it is the voters who will decide.
Cross-posted on RedState.

  1. The phrase “that ain’t my job” is the number one killer of careers and advancement.
  2. I am certain that I am in the minority among conservatives on this issue.

Prepare for the “workplace violence” meme for #SanBernardino

From RedState:

The Washington Post Tries to Humanize the Terrorists

By: Erick Erickson (Diary) | December 3rd, 2015 at 11:27 PM

They didn’t do this with the Colorado shooter. They just passed him off as a violent Christian extremist. But the Washington Post wants you to know

The home Farook grew up in was troubled and at times apparently violent. In 2002, when both husband and wife were unemployed and had run up credit card and retail debt of about $50,000, the couple filed for bankruptcy protection. And for most of the past decade, right up to early this year, his parents waged war in court against each other. Rafia repeatedly sought — and at least twice won — restraining orders against a husband who she said abused her verbally and physically.

See. It was not poor little Farook’s fault. He was driven to it by his parents. We need to be understanding of him. The Washington Post goes on to paint a rather fawning picture of the quiet and “respectful” kid who loved Chinese food.

The media always does this to terrorists. Rolling Stone put the glamour shot of the Boston bomber on its cover as if he was a rock star. Now the Washington Post want you to know Farook was a hard worker, quiet, and and smiled.

The American left, time and time again, tries to rationalize that somehow they and/or American society caused these people to become terrorists. It’s not them. It’s us. The Washington Post has just given us another example.

That’s hardly the only thing: Caleb Howe, also on RedState, noted that CNN Asks Slain San Bernardino Man’s Widow If He Was Asking For It, because one of the victims was a messianic Jew. It could be argued that the killers didn’t like Nicholas Thalasinos, but that doesn’t explain why they’d then choose to try to kill everybody.

Make no mistake about it: the left have a vested interest in labeling this workplace violence!

  1. If it is labeled terrorism, and especially Islamist terrorism, then the Democrats start losing the arguments about accepting 10,000 (or more) Syrian refugees;
  2. If it is labeled terrorism, the left’s arguments that this means we need more gun control automatically fail; and
  3. If this is labeled terrorism, then President Obama’s policies to contain and defeat terrorism are once again exposed as wholly ineffective.

The left were cheering after a whacko shot up a Colorado abortion “clinic,” because the three people killed were utterly meaningless beyond their value as political pawns, and some on the left immediately jumped on the fact that there was a Planned Parenthood center only a bit more than a mile away from the San Bernadino killings; when more of the facts came in, noting that the Planned Parenthood center’s nearby location was only a coincidence, the left were disappointed. When it turned out that the killers were Muslims, the left were crestfallen.

Why did Syed Farook and his wife choose to shoot up a Christmas party for his workplace rather than someplace else? It’s logistically simple: Mr Farook was familiar with the layout and the people, and knew he wouldn’t be questioned there! Terrorists look for soft targets of opportunity, and this was the perfect one.

I deliberately chose not to comment until all of the facts were in But such considerations didn't slow down the left!

From RedState:

Blaming White Americans First

By: Erick Erickson (Diary) | December 3rd, 2015 at 04:00 AM

There is an interesting trend worth noting. In the face of tragedy, the political left always blames rational Americans first — not crazies, not terrorists, but rational Americans with whom they have political disagreements, who tend to be white, Christian, and Republican.

It happened yesterday. As word came of a mass shooting in California, the left’s immediate reaction was to blame Republicans. A writer for the Guardian suggested assassinating NRA board members. CNN made to sure to document where the Planned Parenthood facility was. Alan Colmes did too. So too did Bloomberg. News reports spread that it could be a white suspect who did the shooting. Once it turned out to be a Muslim, the left-media would not even mention his name for hours after Fox News had broken the story.

Along the way, leftwing activists began shaming anyone who tweeted or put on Facebook that they were offering prayers. The left was shaming people as victims and relatives in California, with blood still on the ground, were praying together or texting, asking for prayers. Yes, the left was criticizing people for praying as the victims were praying.

When shootings like this happen in the United States, the first reaction of the American right is to blame either lunatics with mental issues or terrorists. They do not instinctively blame their fellow Americans with whom they have political disagreements. But time and time again, whenever there is a shooting, whether it is Floyd Lee Corkins shooting up the Family Research Council, the gay reporter in Virginia killing his two colleagues, the Islamic terrorist in Chattanooga, TN, or the three jihadists in California yesterday, the left always blames their political opponents. Their opponents tend to be mostly white, mostly Christian Republicans.

They peddle made up statistics on violent Christians and angry Republicans. They wrap themselves in comfortable memes. They refuse to acknowledge actual enemies to their freedom and they refuse to acknowledge the problems with mental health in this country. Their agenda is single-minded focused on taking away guns and shaming those who dissent from their agenda.

When the shooters turn out to be gay or Muslim or an environmentalist, the media sweeps it under the rug. When it turns out to be a single while male with mental health problems, the media indicts the entire political right and attacks the NRA.

There’s more at the link. Joe Cunningham, also on RedState, noted two tweets from leftists:


Then, via Leon Wolf, there was Democratic presidential candidate Martin O’Malley:

and, once again, the ever despicable Kos:

I didn’t know that two Muslims were our “peeps.”1

For, yup, that’s how it has turned out: the two “suspects” are named Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, two Muslims. Mr Farook was an American citizen, who traveled to Saudi Arabia to meet Miss Malik, whom he first met online, and they returned as husband and wife. The Wall Street Journal noted that police are still investigating the crime, and the motivation behind it, and are not jumping to the conclusion that it was a terrorist attack assisted by Da’ish or any other Islamist group, or even whether Islamist sympathies simply inspired an otherwise completely separate attack:

Officials didn’t rule out terrorism and said they were investigating any possible connections to Islamic State, but so far had uncovered nothing linking the pair to the terrorist group.

Law-enforcement officials said they were just starting what would be a long investigation, and were searching for others who may have been involved in planning the attack. A third person was still in custody, but officials said it was unclear if that person was connected to the shooting.

“Based on what we have seen and how they were equipped, there had to be some kind of planning that went into this. I don’t think they ran home and grabbed tactical clothes and came back,” San Bernardino Police Chief Jarrod Burguan said at a news conference.

“They came prepared to do what they did, as if they were on a mission,” Mr. Burguan said earlier.

In other words, the actual professional people are investigating this, presumably properly, rather than jumping to conclusions, as President Obama and the left have done.

I will admit to a sense of schadenfreude when, after hearing the left immediately jump on the gun control meme before any of the facts were in, it turned out that the assailants were Muslims. The Obama Administration will probably classify this as “workplace violence,” regardless of what the investigation reveals.

But, if it does turn out that the killers were motivated by Islamist sympathies, or an affinity for Da’ish, or were actually financed or aided by an Islamist group, the Obama Administration and the left will still attempt to use this attack not to try to defend our country against the Islamists, but to disarm law-abiding citizens through further gun control legislation. Why? Because as Erick Erickson noted in his article title, when it comes to the left, they always blame white people first.

  1. The slang “peeps” is defined as “people and especially the people who are your friends.”

It’s got to be tough to craft letters asking people for money And some candidates sure do get it wrong!

I get a lot of campaign e-mails asking me for a donation — including yet another one from Sarah Isgur Flores, Carly Fiorina’s deputy campaign manager — but this one kind of annoyed me:

Dana — I just got the report from my campaign manager and your name isn’t on it.

This must be a mistake.

I know times are tough, and I understand if you can’t donate today…

But before I close the campaign books for Nov., I wanted to give you one last chance.

  Chip in »  
Heidi and I thank you!

For liberty,

P.S. If you did chip in and our emails crossed in cyberspace, thank you very much.

No, it isn’t a mistake, Senator Cruz: you didn’t receive a campaign contribution from me because you are not my preferred candidate! I understand that you think that you should be, and I will certainly vote for you in the general election if you win the nomination, but the tone of this campaign contribution letter is that I somehow owed you that contribution, and neglected to pay my bill!

There’s a right way to ask for money, and a wrong way, and I guarantee you that this was not the right way!

But I do have to laugh about one thing: it’s pretty humorous to say that you want to give me one last chance to donate before you “close the campaign books for Nov.” in an e-mail that I received at 6:14 PM on December 1st!

There’s something wrong with this news story! It just couldn't have happened the way it was reported!

From The Post and Courier:

Summerville man dies, N. Charleston man arrested after shootout with 13-year-old

Melissa Boughton Melissa Boughton Email @mboughtonpc | Nov 10 2015 3:47 pm

A 13-year-old Ladson boy fended off two would-be burglars by using his mother’s gun to protect himself while home alone Tuesday.

He killed one of them in an exchange of gunfire, and the second suspect was later arrested, according to the Charleston County Sheriff’s Office.

Lamar Anthwan Brown, 31, of Summerville, died at Trident Medical Center of gunshot wounds, according to Charleston County Chief Deputy Coroner Bobbi Jo O’Neal. He was dropped off at the hospital by the second suspect, Ira Bennett, after fleeing the Elderwood Drive home where the shooting took place, according to the Sheriff’s Office.

Bennett, 28, of Kent Avenue in North Charleston has been charged with first-degree burglary and possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime.

The boy was not injured in the shootout, and his mother said she is just thankful he is all right.

And now we come to the part of the story which simply has to be a factual error:

Both Bennett and Brown have extensive criminal histories, according to a check with the State Law Enforcement Division. Bennett has been convicted of assault with intent to kill, pointing a firearm at a person and third-degree burglary. He has also been convicted of possession of a controlled substance, manufacturing and distributing a controlled substance and possession of marijuana.

Brown’s convictions included six felony drug charges. He had also been convicted of unlawful carrying of a weapon, disorderly conduct and trespassing.

Given that Messrs Bennett and Brown are both convicted felons, it was against the law for either of them to have had a firearm; gun control laws in every state, including South Carolina, where this incident took place, strictly prohibits felons from having weapons, and thus neither Mr Bennett nor Mr Brown could have been armed! And when “the Sheriff’s Office reported that the man returned fire,” why they just had to be mistaken, because the alleged burglar could not have had a gun with which to return fire.

Sarcasm aside, if Hillary Clinton, Barack Hussein Obama and the rest of the Democrats had their way, Mr Brown would still be alive, because the 13-year-old wouldn’t have had a firearm available to defend his house and himself. As for the boy, well, who knows: he might be dead now, but surely, surely! that would be a small price to pay for the gun control laws which kept Messrs Bennett and Brown disarmed.
Cross-posted on RedState.

Our Betters will tell us what to do concerning climate change The Patricians will decide, while we Plebeians will pay

From The Wall Street Journal:

World Leaders Meet in Paris to Overcome Divisions on Climate Change

Tough negotiations lie ahead between rich and poor economies, high polluters and countries already suffering from rising temperatures

By William Horobin and William Mauldin | Updated Nov. 30, 2015 6:48 a.m. ET

PARIS—World leaders converged on Paris on Monday for international climate talks amid an unprecedented security lockdown, two weeks after gunmen and suicide bombers killed 130 people in a string of terror attacks.

Heads of state and government from some 150 countries will speak in turn at a highly secure airport complex north of the city over the next two weeks in an effort to reach a global agreement on limiting emissions.

To get a deal by mid-December, negotiators must overcome differences between rich and poor economies, high polluters and countries already suffering from rising temperatures.

“Never, and I say never, have the stakes of an international meeting been so high, since what is at stake is the future of the planet, the future of life,” said French President François Hollande. “Yet two weeks ago here in Paris, a group of fanatics sowed death in the streets.”

One emerging sore spot in the talks is the level of funding that richer countries will provide both to aid the transition of poorer countries to cleaner energy and to finance efforts to stave off the early effects of a changing climate.

There’s a lot more at the link, but the really important point comes from William Teach at The Pirate’s Cove:

Bummer: Declining Support For A Tough Climate Deal

By William Teach | November 29, 2015 – 4:29 pm

Perhaps the “spreading awareness” and scaremongering have backfired:

From the link

Public support for a strong global deal on climate change has declined, according to a poll carried out in 20 countries.

Only four now have majorities in favour of their governments setting ambitious targets at a global conference in Paris.

In a similar poll before the Copenhagen meeting in 2009, eight countries had majorities favouring tough action.

The poll has been provided to the BBC by research group GlobeScan.

Just under half of all those surveyed viewed climate change as a “very serious” problem this year, compared with 63% in 2009. (snip)

Canada, France, Spain and the UK are the only four with majorities in favour of their governments taking a leading role.

Spain, Russia, and India (the report calls them stable, though it shows a 5 point increase), Turkey are the only countries which saw increases. Eight countries saw significant decreases. Even those they call “stable”, saw decreases (except for the aforementioned India).

There’s more at Mr Teach’s original, but the point is simple: while the Patricians know what’s best for us, we Plebeians tend to be more concerned with putting food on the table and paying our bills, and we know that whatever plan emerges from the Climate Change Conference will take more of our hard-earned money away from our families, for no tangible benefit.

Fortunately, the United States has been blessed with Republican control of both Houses of Congress, so whatever agreement President Obama signs will be rejected by the Congress, if he even bothers to submit it. He’ll try to impose as much as he can through executive orders, but President Fiorina — from my keyboard to God’s monitor screen! — will cancel those out on January 20, 2017.

Think back to 1998, when the Senate passed, unanimously, a “sense of the Senate” resolution, asking President Clinton not to sign the Kyoto Accords in anything like their then-present form, because Kyoto, if put into effect, would have cost real Americans real jobs, and made life more expensive for those who kept their jobs.

Think about it: 95 to zero, zilch, nada, nought. That’s because the distinguished Senators, Republican and Democrat alike, recognized that real people would have real concerns, and were far more concerned with putting food on the table and paying their bills and keeping their jobs than they were about a change in the climate that might occur, and if it were to occur, might not be preventable by any actions we could take.

If “public support for a strong global deal on climate change has declined,” it is because people are starting to realize that “a strong global deal” would mean that they would become poorer in real terms. It’s easy to support “a strong global deal” if you are wealthy or it isn’t going to effect you, personally; it becomes a little more difficult to support such if it means a hardship for your family and you.

Fortunately, our government leaders are subject to the will of the voters, and while President Obama doesn’t have to worry about re-election, the members of Congress do.
Related articles from The Wall Street Journal:

The case for Carly Fiorina

From Paul Mirengoff on Powerline:

A case for Carly Fiorina

Our friend Dave Begley has been running the rule over the Republican presidential field as it passes through Council Bluffs, Iowa and other venues not far from Omaha, Nebraska where Dave resides. We are proud to have featured his excellent reports on Power Line.

Now, Dave has settled on a favorite candidate — Carly Fiorina. He explains why here.

Dave argues that we need an “outsider” president. I agree that of the three GOP candidates who have never held elective office, Fiorina is the best choice.

Dave skillfully compares the kinds of duties Fiorina had to perform as CEO of Hewlett-Packard with some of those that would be required of her as president. He also defends her record at HP, which I too believe holds up to scrutiny, though perhaps just barely.

Personally, I’m less comfortable than Dave with nominating a total outsider. Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and some of the remaining governors seem sufficiently “outside” to me. However, I agree that Fiorina is an impressive figure, and she is on my short list of favorite candidates.

To quote from Mr Begley’s endorsement article:

Grant me dear reader a slight indulgence. On November 15th of this year, my teacher, mentor and friend Fr. John P. Schlegel, S.J. passed away. He was assigned to Creighton University three times and last served as its President for over a decade. During his time as Creighton’s President, he raised nearly $500 million. Most people probably know Creighton for having a pretty good basketball team but it is way more. Through his enormous talent he transformed my alma mater and Omaha. He was a friend to students and millionaires alike. He said Mass regularly and feed the homeless. He was an athlete and scholar. He focused all of his ability to become a man for others and Carly has that “others” focus. She doesn’t use “I” or “me” constantly like the current President. She appears to me to be sincerely interested in making America a better place for average persons. How novel.

Some people are simply exceptional, and Carly Fiorina is one of them. If she is elected President, there will be a few — probably not many! — times I would disagree with her policies, but one thing I can guarantee will never occur: I would never think that Mrs Fiorina brought together a policy because she didn’t have the country’s best interests at heart.

Image by CARLY for America (Click to enlarge)

Will she make mistakes as President? Of course she will: every President makes mistakes. But she is diligent, hard-working, detail oriented and a very intelligent woman who will be neither intimidated nor buffaloed by lobbyists, opponents or staffers, and this will reduce the probability of poor decisions. All Presidents have all of the information they can ever need available to them to take their decisions, but some Presidents, including our current one, don’t pay attention to the information they have, and listen only to the sycophants;1 Mrs Fiorina doesn’t do that, and aides who come to the table without having done their homework will soon be seeking other employment. All Presidents come into office with some preconceived ideas, and Mrs Fiorina would be no exception to that, but wise Presidents study the information and listen to other smart people who have done their homework before actually taking their decisions, and that is the kind of President Mrs Fiorina would be.2

Most Presidents are faced with tough decisions that they never expected: the elder President Bush with the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the younger President Bush with the September 11th attacks, and President Obama with the rise of Da’ish and other Islamist groups.3 Those were not situations those men had anticipated when running for President, but they were the situations with which they had to deal. This was the idea behind the famous “3:00 AM phone call” advertisement Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign advertisement used; too bad that she proved that, as Secretary of State, she was completely incapable of handling the 3:00 PM phone call as far as Benghazi was concerned. If she is elected President, I have no doubt that Mrs Fiorina will be able to take that call, and handle whatever situation is presented to her intelligently and efficiently.

Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina marches in the Labor Day parade in Milford, N.H. (Kayana Szymczak / Getty Image) Click to enlarge

Finally, Mrs Fiorina understands the American economy in ways that, quite frankly, most Americans, and most elected officials, do not. Leading AT&T’s spin-off of Lucent Technologies as well as being CEO of Hewlett-Packard, Mrs Fiorina had the hard, first hand lessons in how business works in our economy, lessons only hinted at in business school, but learned in the real world. One of our greatest, but most unappreciated Presidents, Calvin Coolidge, once said, “the chief business of the American people is business.” The left and the silly “99%ers” seem to think that prosperity is simply a a given, and that if they don’t have it individually, then someone, somewhere, is robbing them. Politicians, Democrat and Republican alike, seem to think that the government can somehow control the economy; businessmen know that the most that the government can do is to get out of the way, or get in the way, and that, far too often, the politicians think that it is their function to choose who will win, and who will lose, in the economy.4 Mrs Fiorina understands that the role of government in business is to make and enforce only those regulations necessary for public and individual safety, and to otherwise allow businesses to succeed and grow, or fail and fall, on their own; Mrs Fiorina understands that the vast majority of Americans who have jobs work for private businesses, and any government interference in business beyond what is absolutely necessary is a government interference which will cost businesses money, and people their jobs. That is what grows the economy, and that is what creates more jobs.

Is Mrs Fiorina the perfect candidate? Will she make the perfect President? No, of course not; no one on earth is perfect, and only people on earth who will never make another mistake are already dead. But Mrs Fiorina is the best combination of conservative beliefs and leadership ability who is running for President. She is perhaps less forceful than Ted Cruz in enunciating conservative statements, but she is no less a conservative in policy; she might be a bit less erudite than Marco Rubio in her statements on foreign policy leadership, but she has the demonstrated record of actually getting things done. She doesn’t throw out the “red meat” statements which get Donald Trump so much attention, but she understands policy far, far better, and she is someone we can actually trust.

Right now, Mrs Fiorina is lagging in the polls, having slipped since her performances in the first two debates gave her a surge; she needs to win in the debate on CNN on December 15th to regain momentum. But while I cannot be certain that she is the best presidential candidate, I do know that of all the people running, she would make the best President.

  1. I find it difficult to believe that a man as brilliant as Larry Summers would have pushed for President Obama’s 2009 stimulus plan in anything like it’s final form for any reason other than kowtowing to what his boss, and Valerie Jarrett, demanded.
  2. For all of the urgency that the Cuban Missile Crisis made, President Kennedy still waited until the sixth day of the situation to take his decision on how to respond; he listened to smart and well-informed advisers,chose between options, and took a decision that worked.
  3. As nearly as I can tell, President Obama has been virtually paralyzed in his decision-taking by Da’ish, and simply will not deal seriously with the issue because he doesn’t want to deal with it. Your Editor is not particularly fond of the initials ISIS, and the reduction to just IS, for Islamic State, seems even worse. Da’ish is an acronym for the Arabic al-Dawla al-Islamiya fi Iraq wa al-Sham. According to the BBC, the group “objects to the term and has advised against its usage,” and therefore, I shall use it. The Editor shall not edit comments using other commonly-used terms, but the use of Da’ish is now the accepted form in The First Street Journal’s stylebook.
  4. See Kate Pirone’s article, “‘The Business of America is Business’ vs ‘You Didn’t Build That,’” in First Things.

Rule 5 Blogging: la Marseillaise

It’s the weekend and time, once again, for THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL’S version of Rule 5 Blogging. Robert Stacey Stacy McCain described Rule 5 as posting photos of pretty women somewhat déshabillé, but, on this site, our Rule 5 Blogging doesn’t put up pictures of Sigrid Agren in her summer clothes, but women, in full military gear, serving their countries in the armed forces. The terribly sexist authors on this site celebrate strong women, women who can take care of themselves and take care of others, women who have been willing to put their lives on the line in some not-so-friendly places, women who truly do have the “We can do it!” attitude.

For the third weekend in a row, we focus on the soldiers of the Republic of France, who are on the front lines in the war against Islamism, and protecting the approximately 140 national leaders who will be gathering in Paris for the Climate Change Conference.

Operation en Kapisa avec les Chasseurs Alpins du 27e BCA

Continue reading ‘Rule 5 Blogging: la Marseillaise’ »

From Around the Blogroll

From The Wall Street Journal:

The Food Cops and Their Ever-Changing Menu of Taboos

After decades of failure, maybe government should get out of the business of giving dietary advice.

By David A. McCarron | November 27, 2015 3:39 p.m. ET

With the release of the eighth edition of the U.S. government’s Dietary Guidelines expected by year’s end, it seems reasonable to consider—with the “obesity plague” upon us and Americans arguably less healthy than ever before—whether the guidelines are to be trusted and even whether they have done more harm than good.

Many Americans have lost trust in the science behind the guidelines since they seem to change dramatically every five years. In February, for example, the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee declared that certain fats and eggs are no longer the enemy and that cholesterol is “not considered a nutrient of concern for overconsumption.” This, after decades of advising Americans to “watch their cholesterol.”

Such controversy is nothing new. U.S. Dietary Guidelines were first released by the Agriculture Department and the Department of Health and Human Services in 1980. One nutrition expert at the time, Edward “Pete” Ahrens, a groundbreaking researcher on fat and cholesterol metabolism, called the guidelines “a nutritional experiment with the American public as subjects . . . treating them like a homogeneous group of Sprague-Dawley rats.”

The original goals were to: 1) increase Americans’ carbohydrate consumption to 55%-60% of caloric intake; 2) reduce fat consumption to less than 30% from 40% of caloric intake; 3) reduce saturated fat to 10% of calories and increase poly- and monounsaturated fats each to 10% of calories; 4) reduce cholesterol intake to less than 300 milligrams a day; 5) reduce sugar intake by 40%; and 6) reduce salt consumption by 50%-80%.

These six goals, viewed in the context of what we know today, could hardly be more misdirected. That assessment starts with the guideline’s emphasis on increasing carbohydrates and reducing fat consumption, a strategy that research has documented is more likely to add excess weight than to improve health. Most recently, a study published in April in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that “lowering the fat content of dairy or other foods may simply lead to increased carbohydrates consumption and explain . . . associations with weight gain.”

There’s more at the link, but perhaps, just perhaps, it shouldn’t be any of the government’s fornicating business what people eat!

And now, on to the blogroll!

God bless fracking! I have benefited personally

Heating Oil PricesThe environmentalists and the left and the Democrats1 would have us believe that fracking is evil, evil, evil! but I, as a working man, sure have seen the benefits. The chart shows what I had to pay for heating oil last winter, in Jim Thorpe, Pennsylvania, compared with what I paid for a delivery on Wednesday.

The great increase in domestic oil production, coupled with OPEC’s decisions to not cut production, has driven the price of oil down, and that’s a real benefit to working families in the northeast.

Now, to prepare for the oncoming winter, we bought this beauty on the 3rd of October:

Our brand new wood stove

Our brand new wood stove

We had noted previously that the Democrats, in their great zeal to help poorer Americans, had put forth regulations which would increase the costs of wood stoves, but, through smart shopping2 (getting a 10% discount for taking the floor model) and a military discount (another 10% off), we didn’t do too badly in buying the stove. The previous owner of our home had installed a chimney and hearth for the stove, but never added the wood stove herself, so I was able to install the stove myself, without any additional costs beyond the vent pipes.

The wood stove isn’t quite enough to heat our home by itself; a tall, narrow two story duplex with all of the insulation you’d expect in a house built in 1892, the blower on the stove just doesn’t get much heat up into the second-floor bedrooms. We had anticipated this: the wood stove is meant to supplement the steam radiators, not replace them, and should reduce our heating oil consumption, but certainly not eliminate it.3

A bit of irony: with the decline in the price of heating oil, it will take longer to recoup the cost of the wood stove! However, the security of having heat even if the power goes out for an extended period is worth something in itself.

  1. Please pardon the double redundancy.
  2. We purchased the stove at Lowe’s in Lehighton, Pennsylvania.
  3. Total cost was $697.86. I hope to break even on the stove this winter, and then have it as a net positive in the winters after that.