Showing posts with label Top 10. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Top 10. Show all posts

January 2, 2024

Top 15 posts of 2023

I was thinking about avoiding a Top 10 list for the year (2023) but going back and looking through some of my longer forms posts, there are some worth revisiting because I think I did a decent job on them. In fact I have 15 and a couple of honorable mentions as well.

Honorable mentions - two on RFK Jr.

Is an RFK Jr. Independent Run good or bad for president Trump's reelection bid?  I shared some initial thoughts here. I followed up here, along with some additional context from Red Eagle Politics.

While I think his independent bid is a mixed bag, there are bigger fish to fry in the 2024 election season. Jill Stein getting on the ballot for the Green Party in some more states helps Trump's chances.  But the biggest "elephant in the room" is the possibility that Democrats ouster Let's Go Brandon and run a Gavin Newsom or Michelle Obama instead.  It's probably their best option at this point, and I'd say the possibilities are almost 50/50 with the polls still favoring Trump over Brandon.

(15) Slow walk the Hunter Biden investigation / impeachment efforts

I've argued that rushing the impeachment may help Democrats pull the trigger on removing Let's Go Brandon as being their nominee for 2024. Take the win in 2024 and prepare for Newsom as the nominee in 2028. Winning now matters.

(14) The Colorado removal of Trump from the ballot was destined to fail

I knew it.  Maine's effort will fail too. It is inevitable.

(13) The failure of follow the science explained

A non-political explanation of cognitive bias and a short commentary explains why climate change and COVID paranoia, among other junk-pseudo-science proclamations and dictates, were and are bad for America.

(12) The data doesn't lie (except when it does)

Academia is rife with mis-steps, often deliberate, and it's a wakeup call that data can reveal the truth, or reveal what someone wants you to think is the truth.  So be vigilant.

(11) The cyclical nature of stupidity

Here's why not all hope is lost.  Everything is cyclical, even common sense.

(10) Saul Alinsky vs Bud Light

Using Rules for Radicals as an approach to cancel a woke brand, shows the tactics can work for conservatives too.

(9) I provided Democrats some unsolicited advice on COVID

Because I know they won't listen. Here's how the Democrats could recover from some of their own stupidity - take ownership of it.

(8) How to fight the left

I keep harping on about this, year after year, because how we fight politically, matters as much as what we are fighting to support.  If you aren't effective at the battle, you can't win.

(7) More on how to fight the left

The fallacy of using only facts and logic. This is why Trump connects with voters; it's not just common sense, it's guttural.

(6) Why West Virginia matters

It's nothing to do with politics, it's what's happening there socially and economically. It serves as a warning to America.

(5) Chipping away at the foundation

Communists and socialists are doing exactly what you'd expect they would do to take down America. 

(4) Where did woke capitalism come from exactly?

Woke capitalism is a symptom of a bigger problem.  A bad symptom, but it is not the cause of what ails America.

(3) Trust first?  No.

I took issue with a reasonable argument from Mike Slater at Breitbart News Daily. Not because he's not mostly right, he's usually right.  Just not here. Trust must be earned over time.

(2) Reversing my stance (kinda)

In Top 15's #3 above, I argued why trust first is a bad idea.  But I have argued for a long time that America's greatness stems from economic strength. I was wrong.  Not that it's totally incorrect, economic strength matters a lot.  What matters more is character and values. Mike Slater was right on this point, the underlying social conservative is the fabric that must not be torn. Whether that underpinning strength of personal and national character comes from God (as I believe it does), or from just choosing to be moral and virtuous first and foremost, that underpins what makes it possible to have economic strength. Those are the deepest roots.

(1) The pitfalls of capitalism

A critical inward look at capitalism's imperfections. Despite these issues, it's still the best choice available to humanity to date.

October 16, 2020

One of the best videos of 2020

 This guy's enthusiasm is infectious.  His positivity is off the charts. And his logic is highly persuasive.  As someone mentioned in the comments, president Trump should get this guy on his staff. He's that good.


Share this with your unconvinced friends. Please.

August 31, 2020

Top 10 things you don't hear about the 2016 election

The Top 10 things you don't hear about the 2016 election:

10. Republican congressional candidates got a higher percentage of the popular vote than Democratic candidates in 2016 (in total - 63,422,020 votes R to 62,315,293 votes D)

9.  Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump in the 2016 election popular vote by 2.8 million votes.  If you removed California, Donald Trump won the rest of the country by 1.4 million votes. Hillary Clinton in other words, beat president Trump by 4.2 million votes in California, a state with little Republican presence, ensuring Democrats will always run up the vote tally there.

8. If Donald Trump had gotten all the votes that were cast for Libertarian Gary Johnson and conservative independent Evan McMullin, and Hillary Clinton had gotten the votes for Green Party candidate Jill Stein, Donald Trump would have beaten Hillary Clinton in the popular vote 68.2 million to 67.3 million.

7. Democrats did not get more than 50% of the popular vote in Colorado (the only years in recent history that they did were Obama's 2 terms), Georgia (1992 was the last time), Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina (even Obama did not beat 50% there) or Virginia.  While some of this may have been due to Hillary Clinton's unlikeability, there also seems to be a ceiling for Democrats in some of these states.

6. Despite two supposedly very unpopular candidates, there were only 4 states where the presidential vote was less than that of the house or senate vote in that state - Hawaii, Kentucky, Louisiana and Montana.

5. In California, 100% of the votes cast for senate in 2016 were for Democratic candidates.

4. In Senate race votes in 2016, In 12 Democratic (blue) states, Democrats won the popular vote 61.4% to 33.5%. In 16 Republican (red) states, Republicans won the popular vote 60.3% to 33.1%, almost identical ratios.

3. In Senate race votes in 2016 in 10 battleground (toss-up/purple) states, Republicans won the popular vote 50.1% to 45.8%.

2. 10 million more votes were cast for Democratic senate candidates than Republican candidates but in California there were ZERO votes cast for Republicans and yet 12.2 million votes cast for the senate race. Honestly California - why vote if it's only going to be for one party?

1. President Trump won.

July 14, 2018

Saturday Learning Series - Unintended Consequences

A Top 10 list of Unintended Consequences helps explain the phenomenon and the side effects of decisions, particularly of bad decisions.

January 4, 2018

6 of top 10 fastest Dow 1000 point runs have been under president Trump

60% of the Top 10 fastest 1000 point runs for the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) have come under president Trump's tenure as president or president-elect. This is not Obama lag, t's a response to a promise, and then action, by the president and Republicans to fix the anti-business tax structure propped up by Democrats and the previous anti-business administration.

Click to enlarge.

That's no fluke.  Expect to see more records in 2018.

June 24, 2017

Saturday Learning Series Bonus - Top 10 Airport design secrets

A bonus Saturday Learning Series item today - the Top 10 design secrets of airports.

April 27, 2017

Trump Budget Search Engine Bias

*See link to this important article at bottom of this post.
This morning I had planned on detailing some opinion on president Trump's budget proposal.  I went on Google to get some details and did a search.  Actually I did two searches, and the second search gave me pause because it's probably the more common search term being used. The reason it troubled me was the results, which just provided me a sense of search engine bias.

The term I put in for that second search was "gop budget proposal 2017".  The top 2 returns were in regard to the proposal put forward from March 2016 by the GOP. Fair enough, because technically that was the budget proposal for 2017.  But look at the next set of results:







7) This is followed by a Forbes article on the 2016 GOP budget proposal, and then back to the current proposal with;


There's the Top 10 list of search results. 2 links to last year's proposal.  A conservative friendly view of the same, and 7 negative articles on how terrible president Trump's budget proposal is.  Look at the sources - clear a highly liberal group of search results - New York Times, The Atlantic, The Washington Post, Politico, Reuters and then a less obviously liberal source The Denver Post (read the article and tell me it is not a liberal bent article).

Search Engine Bias?  Intentional or not, yes, yes there is.

December 28, 2015

No year in review, no Top 10, no predictions this year

Normally I like to end the year with a review of the highlights of the year and/or some frivolous predictions about the coming year.  Not this year.  The predictions are usually wildly wrong because predicting specific events is very different from normally trying to have a macro perspective on things. Additionally, I expect 2016 to be especially unpredictable.

As for the year in review, while there was a lot of interesting stuff that happened, no particular person or event has been exciting enough to make me want to generate a Top 10 list this year.  Maybe that's a little lazy, but hey, I'm on vacation this week.

November 20, 2015

Friday Musical Interlude - Top 10 movie theme songs

I had originally scheduled WatchMojo's Top 10 movie theme songs.  But now I'm boycotting them.   So let me do this list instead.  I agree with this list more anyway.



December 29, 2013

2013 In review

Everyone puts out their year in review stuff this time of year.  Top 10 lists abound.  Why not participate?

Here's a list of the Top 10 stories from 2013 as reflected in my blog postings.

(10) A Top 10 List embedded in a Top 10 List?  The Top 10 liberal agenda websites you might not know about.  Not super important at first glance but a lot of memes and media focus come from these directions.



(9)  Back in April I noted that the Pope might be a socialist. It seems more evident today. I was slightly ahead of the curve.



(8) Government without brakes.  From EPA to NSA to IRS, this has not been a good year for liberty.  Government without a means to stop itself is like a car without brakes, at highway speed.


(7)  Let's not forget Benghazi.  People died needlessly.  And the administration conveniently had other scandals erupt.



(6) Snowden: not a black and white scandal.  4th amendment vs. national security has no simple answers.


(5) I did blow it on the government shutdown.  Then again, so did a lot of people, including the key players.




(3)  Three problems with Obama in two paragraphs. What the president says, defines his shortcomings.


(2) Aristotle in action: What the philosopher would have thought about Obamacare is no secret.



(1) Are we just greedy capitalist pigs? According to some, yes.  But is that really fair?


August 14, 2013

Top 10 Celebrities Sporting Thug Che Guevara Wear


Che Guevara was a thug. He was a brutal murderer,  a racist, and an organizer of execution squads.  But he makes a great t-shirt icon if you are truly clueless.  As we all know, a lot of celebrities are indeed clueless, despite the super-megaphones they wield.  So it's no surprise to see some celebrities  sporting Che Guevara shirts in an attempt to wear their coolness and feel like they'd fit in with a dorm room full of Trotskyites.
 
Below are the Top 10 celebrities that have been spotted wearing Che material (in ascending order of social influence). 
 
In no way is this list meant to imply there is any level of coolness to those who wear Che. He was a thug. Wearing him means you are clueless, a communist or a brute.  There is no hipster coolness to it, despite what any cool hipster will tell you.

June 9, 2013

Earth's 10 most mysterious events

A palette cleanser for Sunday to take your mind off of all of the government scandals for a little while. Here are 10 mysterious events from the earth's history that cannot be explained (NOTE: Obamacare does not make the Top 10). 

May 28, 2013

Top 10 Eric Holder scandals (to date)

Eric Holder, please step down, go away and don't come back.

Here's a list of the Top 10 scandals associated with Eric Holder, Attorney General of the United States, just because we need a reminder that the current scandal is not the only one.  If you aren't familiar with the specific scandals, links have been included to details of each scandal.  The question is, with 10 scandals associated with the Attorney General, why is he still in that role?

(10) The Holy Land Foundation. (2009-2012) Never heard of it?  Most people haven't but it has to do with the financing of terrorism.
Members of the House Judiciary Committee on oversight on Thursday called on U.S. Attorney General to provide documents and evidence relating to the landmark Holy Land Foundation trial – the largest terrorism financing trial in U.S. history.

The committee made a nearly identical request more than a year ago, however, the documents were never made available by Holder or his department, lawmakers say.

Following court proceedings, the Holy Land Foundation was found guilty of providing millions of dollars in funding to Hamas and other Islamic terrorist organizations in 2008. Named as “unindicted co-conspirators” in the trial were the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). Both have documented ties to the radical Muslim Brotherhood…which then have ties to the Obama administration, but I digress.

Lawmakers, like Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), are again asking to see the evidence presented in that trial, a request that Holder does not seem to be in a hurry to fulfill. In an impassioned speech, the congressman challenged Holder to uphold his oath to “justice.”
(9) Perjury (2013) Tied into other elements of the list, it appears Eric Holder, Attorney General of the United States, lied in testimony. There's nothing wrong with that if you are a Democrat; Bill Clinton set the standard.
...Pay particular attention to this statement made by Eric Holder during sworn testimony last week before Congress:
In regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material. This is not something I’ve ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be wise policy.
...The problem for Holder is that we now know he personally signed off on the order to get a subpoena for Fox News’ James Rosen’s phone records. The entire basis of the warrant for those records relies on Rosen being a potential conspirator and therefore potentially prosecuted.

...I’m sure Holder and his allies will say that they never intended to prosecute Rosen, but that’s 1) not the point and 2) even worse. If that’s their defense, they knowingly lied to the judge who would, hopefully, reject the request if they admitted it was just a fishing expedition for information.

They’re stuck. Either he (by signing the request for the records) lied to the judge or Holder lied directly to Congress.
This guy again?
(8) Contempt of Congress (2012)  Note to Mr. Holder - you are the Attorney General.  You are not supposed to perjure yourself or get yourself held in contempt of Congress.  Again, related to another scandal in this list (proving that when Holder gets in trouble, he lies), Eric Holder demonstrates he clearly does not respect Congress.
The House has voted to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress over his failure to turn over documents related to the Fast and Furious scandal, the first time Congress has taken such a dramatic move against a sitting Cabinet official.

The vote was 255-67, with 17 Democrats voting in support of a criminal contempt resolution, which authorizes Republicans leaders to seek criminal charges against Holder. This Democratic support came despite a round of behind-the-scenes lobbying by senior White House and Justice officials - as well as pressure from party leaders - to support Holder.

Two Republicans, Reps. Steve LaTourette (Ohio) Scott Rigell (Va.), voted against the contempt resolution.

Another civil contempt resolution, giving the green light for the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to sue the Justice Department to get the Fast and Furious documents, passed by a 258-95 margin.
(7) Drone Strikes (2009-2013)  Holder believes that it's okay to drone strike American citizens.  I understand the need to get terrorists.  But for an Attorney General to not care about the rights of actual citizens while being concerned about giving civilian trials to terrorists (yes, another scandal in this list) just seems like severely misplaced priorities.
Holder literally believes the U.S. government has the right to assassinate anyone, including U.S. citizens, without ever having to explain to anyone why they did it. As Obama continues to add names to his "kill list," Holder remains his most stalwart defender. According to Justice Department memos, the President (and any president that comes after him) can kill you just because he decides it would be a good idea.

The Constitution, of course, guarantees that no-one can be subject to punishment without due process. Holder famously redefined the term, saying "'Due process' and 'judicial process' are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security." Never mind that this flies completely counter to both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution...
(6) HSBC Money Laundering  need not be prosecuted. Seriously?  Forget contempt of Congress, this guys has contempt for his own job.  He's taken to task for it by the very liberal New York Times no less:
...Senator Chuck Grassley, a Republican, asked for more information on why federal and state authorities chose not to indict HSBC after it acknowledged laundering money for Mexican drug cartels, helping rogue states avoid international sanctions and working closely with Saudi Arabian banks linked to terrorist organizations.

Mr. Holder said: “I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy.”

It’s nice and all that Mr. Holder cares about the stability of the global financial system, but that is not Mr. Holder’s job. As attorney general he is the country’s top law enforcement officer, and in that capacity he should prosecute criminals and criminal institutions.

As we wrote in an editorial after the no-indict decision, “when prosecutors choose not to prosecute to the full extent of the law in a case as egregious as this, the law itself is diminished. The deterrence that comes from the threat of criminal prosecution is weakened, if not lost.”

(5) Civilian Trials for Terrorists Remember when Eric Holder was all for trying terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the four other al Qaeda planners of 9/11 in a civilian trial in New York?

Attorney General Eric Holder, who dropped this legal bomb on New York yesterday, called his decision to move their trial on war crimes from a military courtroom at Guantanamo Bay to American soil "the toughest" he has had to make. Other words come to mind. For starters, intellectually and morally confused, dangerous and political to a fault.

This decision befits President Obama's rushed and misguided announcement on his second day in office that he would close Gitmo within a year. This was before the Administration had thought through what to do with the 215 prisoners there, though it did win him applause in Europe and on the American left. Yesterday's decision rids Gitmo of these meddlesome detainee cases in order to speed up this entirely political shutdown.
Thankfully it ended up not happening, but it was certainly scandalous at the time of the announcement. Holder ended up backing down.


(4) Non-prosecution of Black Panthers.  When Black Panthers stood outside a polling station to intimidate white voters from entering to place their votes in 2008. They were charged for their actions.  But they were not prosecuted.  In fact, Eric Holder apparently insisted they not be prosecuted.  Via Western Journalism:

A former Justice Department attorney who quit his job to protest the Obama administration’s handling of the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case is accusing Attorney General Eric Holder of dropping the charges for racially motivated reasons.

J. Christian Adams, now an attorney in Virginia and a conservative blogger for Pajamas Media, says he and the other Justice Department lawyers working on the case were ordered to dismiss it.

“I mean we were told, ‘Drop the charges against the New Black Panther Party,’” Adams told Fox News, adding that political appointees Loretta King, acting head of the civil rights division, and Steve Rosenbaum, an attorney with the division since 2003, ordered the dismissal.
(3) America, "nation of cowards" A scandal that does not involve the courts, Eric Holder actually referred to America as a nation of cowards:
In his speech, Holder expressed a brazen skepticism of the concept of America as a “melting pot,” seeing that as a form of self-deception. Despite the achievements of the civil rights struggle, Holder argued, racism and segregation had in some ways increased:
Given all that we as a nation went through during the civil rights struggle it is hard for me to accept that the result of those efforts was to create an America that is more prosperous, more positively race conscious and yet is voluntarily socially segregated.
Holder’s contradictory ideas—celebrating “positive” race consciousness while decrying continued segregation—are a tempered though familiar version of Bell’s radical idea that the civil rights movement had, in many ways, entrenched white supremacy in America.
(2) Fast and Furious  Since people died as a result of this horribly bad idea, arguably it should be the number one Eric Holder scandal. This is Eric Holder's Benghazi - it resulted in American deaths (not to mention numerous Mexican deaths). 
The "Fast & Furious" investigation was catalyzed on December 14, 2010, when U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed in a shootout with Mexican cartel members in a remote Arizona canyon. The bullet that killed Terry came from a gun that was part of the multi-agency government operation called "Fast & Furious." In addition to Terry, hundreds of U.S. and Mexican citizens have been killed by cartel members wielding one of the more than 2,000 weapons paid for by government funds and sent to Mexico during the 2009-2011 "Fast & Furious" operation.
...Brian Terry died in December 2010, fatally wounded by a gun that was purchased by an ATF-semi-supervised "Fast & Furious" gun runner in January 2010, with money the FBI gave him in November 2009. None of those events could have been authorized by Mike Mukasey, the last Attorney General under George W. Bush; both left office January 20, 2009.
"Fast & Furious" is all about Eric Holder, who was Attorney General during all three of the Terry-related events, and who has denied knowledge just as Nixon's campaign chair and Attorney General John Mitchell did about Watergate from 1972 to the end of his life. 
Eric Holder really could be Obama's version of John Mitchell, who went from war hero and "Top Cop" to felon in disgrace.
(1) Press prosecution (AP, and Fox) After going after AP for phone records, the scandal that could take down Eric Holder expanded to a focus on a Fox News reporter.  Who knows how much deeper it goes.  But because this scandal has grown to the point where even many liberals are calling for his resignation and it might result in him losing his job, this will eventually rank as Eric Holder's biggest scandal.

What exactly happened? First, the Associated Press scandal hit the news:
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department secretly obtained two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press in what the news cooperative's top executive called a "massive and unprecedented intrusion" into how news organizations gather the news. 
The records obtained by the Justice Department listed outgoing calls for the work and personal phone numbers of individual reporters, for general AP office numbers in New York, Washington and Hartford, Conn., and for the main number for the AP in the House of Representatives press gallery, according to attorneys for the AP. It was not clear if the records also included incoming calls or the duration of the calls. 
In all, the government seized the records for more than 20 separate telephone lines assigned to AP and its journalists in April and May of 2012. The exact number of journalists who used the phone lines during that period is unknown, but more than 100 journalists work in the offices where phone records were targeted, on a wide array of stories about government and other matters. 
In a letter of protest sent to Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday, AP President and Chief Executive Officer Gary Pruitt said the government sought and obtained information far beyond anything that could be justified by any specific investigation. He demanded the return of the phone records and destruction of all copies.
But the story expanded beyond that and gave Holder little room to extricate himself from his previous misleading statements:
In his speech at the National Defense University Thursday, President Obama said, “Journalists should not be at legal risk for doing their jobs. Our focus must be on those who break the law.”
Maybe it’s time for the president to have a heart-to-heart with his attorney general, Eric Holder. 
NBC News is reporting that Mr. Holder “signed off on a controversial search warrant that identified Fox News reporter James Rosen as a ‘possible co-conspirator’ in violations of the Espionage Act and authorized seizure of his private emails,” per NBC conversations with a law enforcement official. 
In the case of the government’s subpoena for the phone records of as many as 100 Associated Press editors and writers, Mr Holder left the decision for a deputy to make after he recused himself. 
But if NBC News is right, then the attorney general himself green-lighted the FBI to seek a subpoena for Mr. Rosen’s private emails in the spring of 2010.
With so many scandals, averaging about 2 per year so far, Eric Holder is not up to the job as Attorney General. Not only does he need to resign, he needs to be prosecuted himself for some of these.  

April 17, 2013

Top 10 Worst Celebrity Dictator Endorsements (Part 2)

I promised this a few days ago and didn't get a chance to post it.  Here's the top 5 of the Top 10 Worst celebrity endorsements.  You can find #6 through #10 here.  As a bit of a spoiler, there are no endorsements of Obama in the Top 10 despite the fact that he's damaging America, perhaps in a permanent way; and despite the fact that a lot of celebrities have endorsed him and that their endorsements made a big impact.  In that regard, perhaps Oprah Winfrey's endorsement of Obama would rate a Top 5 mention.

Unfortunately the full scope of president Obama's damaging policies has yet to be felt and he certainly doesn't rate the pure evil intentions of the sinister bunch below.  He's naive, Utopian, and progressive, but he's not committing genocide or thuggishly beating down his own countrymen.  He just allows it to go on selectively in other countries.  In other words, he's voting "Present" on doing something about brutal dictators around the world.

Another spoiler, there are no celebrity endorsements of losing candidates as that's more of a Most Ineffective Endorsement category, perhaps deserving of it's own post eventually.  No losing candidate however, can be regarded as a dictator simply because they lost.

And now, the Top 5 of the Top 10 Worst Celebrity Endorsements:

Best-est buddies.
5 Dennis Rodman parties with Kim Jong-un. Kim Jong-un is a not only the third communist dictator in a family string of crazy despots, he's also a basketball fan.  By day he starves his people and threatens to start a nuclear war, by night he parties with his idols.  He'd probably invite Michael Jackson if he could.  But he also fancies basketball and apparently is a now a friend of Dennis Rodman.  Not only did Rodman party with the madman, he's going back to do it again.

The former U.S. basketball star said at a charity event in Miami Beach over the weekend that he's keeping plans to visit North Korea again in late summer to have "fun" with the country's dictator, the website "Gossip Extra" reported. 
"I’m going back August 1," he told the website. "We have no plans really, as far as what we’re going to do over there, but we’ll just hang and have some fun!" 
Rodman raised eyebrows when he became the first American to meet the reclusive young leader in a visit to Pyongyang in February. 
Weeks after the controversial visit, Rodman, 51, described Kim as a friend. 
"I don't condone what he does, but he's my friend," Rodman said in a March interview with North Dakota's KXJB. Rodman continued to say he will be "vacationing" with Kim in August.
I'm sure everyone is glad that Rodman doesn't condone what Jong-un has done.  That's a relief.  Back when Paul Simon created the album Graceland with South African musicians (1986) he was pilloried.  Dennis Rodman hasn't been embraced by either the left or the right over this because as it turns out, nobody is crazy enough to embrace Kim Jong-un.  Except Rodman.  It's a terrible endorsement - and yes it is an endorsement, his actions speak louder than his words - but it doesn't rank higher because despite the evilness and danger of Kim Jong-un, nobody is going to have a more favorable opinion of Jong-un as a result.

4 Sean Penn mourns Hugo Chavez.  Sean Penn makes his second appearance in the Top 10, the only celebrity to do so, marking him as an uber-leftist.  He visited the Castros and wrote about it.  Buth with Hugo Chavez, he embraced him, lionized him and went so far as to mourn his death by attending his funeral.  That's hero worship, not journalism (the guise Penn uses as his cover for his embrace of Chavez).
The mourners lamenting the death of late Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez included the presidents of Iran and Cuba, a Spanish prince and a man that Chavez himself once floated as a possible American ambassador to Venezuela: Hollywood actor Sean Penn.

Penn flew to Caracas for the Friday funeral, where he was filmed among the mourning crowd. Earlier this week, he called Chavez “a great hero to the majority of his people.”

"Today the people of the United States lost a friend it never knew it had. And poor people around the world lost a champion," Penn wrote in a statement sent to the Hollywood Reporter on Tuesday.
That's an endorsement. Sean Penn has a lot of celebrity clout, but he's clearly a socialist.  It matters because he can still influence the vast swaths of low information voters in America and that makes a difference.  Making Chavez likable is not a good thing - he was a thug, he cheated his way into office forever (or at least until he died) and he was an enemy of the United States, cozying up to the likes of Iran and Russia, not exactly friends.  Penn couldn't be more wrong, or more blind.

Robson, left confused civil rights with communism.
3. Paul Robeson morally defects to the Soviet Union. Wait, who? Robeson was a multi-talented artist and athlete  having played football at Rutgers but he was also was a singer and actor;
At the height of his popularity in the 1930s, Robeson became a major box office attraction in British films such as Song of Freedom and The Proud Valley about Wales. Briefly returning to the US he reprised his title role in Dudley Murphy's film version of Eugene O'Neill's The Emperor Jones in 1933. 
The 1936 Universal Pictures film Show Boat was a box office hit for Robeson, and the most frequently shown and highly acclaimed of all his films. His performance of "Ol' Man River" for this film was particularly notable. He was also King Umbopa in the 1937 version of King Solomon's Mines.
Later he would become the grandfather of all celebrity dictator endorsements being the first high profile celebrity to do such a thing, and he did it on a grand scale, embracing Stalin and communism in a big way.
Robeson first visited the Soviet Union in 1934, during a genocide in which the Soviet government intentionally murdered some 14 million of its own citizens through deliberate starvation in an engineered famine. Upon his return, the official Communist Party organ The Daily Worker published an interview with Robeson, in which he gushed about the "workers' paradise": 
“I was not prepared for the happiness I see on every face in Moscow," said Robeson. "I was aware that there was no starvation here, but I was not prepared for the bounding life; the feeling of safety and abundance and freedom that I find here, wherever I turn. I was not prepared for the endless friendliness, which surrounded me from the moment I crossed the border. I had a technically irregular passport, but all this was brushed aside by the eager helpfulness of the border authorities. ” 
Robeson was asked about Stalin's then-ongoing bloody purges: 
“Commenting on the recent execution after court-martial of a number of counter-revolutionary terrorists, Robeson declared roundly: "From what I have already seen of the workings of the Soviet Government, I can only say that anybody who lifts his hand against it ought to be shot!

"It is the government's duty to put down any opposition to this really free society with a firm hand," he continued, "and I hope they will always do it ... It is obvious that there is no terror here..."
Robeson often exhorted African Americans to consider communism.  His impact overall was small, but it was high profile and the impact has the added weight of additional generations to its sphere of influence.  Stalin was not likable in any way.  But communism was something he could sew the seeds of belief in his community and he did so vigorously. He made it celebrity chic to bash democracy and capitalism in favor of a Utopian alternative.

2 Jane Fonda goes to Vietnam and becomes Hanoi Jane. During the Vietnam War, Jane Fonda, already a star, visited the North Vietnamese and betrayed her country, indelibly staining her stardom with the military community while cementing her image as a counter-culture hero for the liberal crowd.

Fonda visited Hanoi in July 1972. Among other statements, she said the United States had been intentionally targeting the dike system along the Red River. The columnist Joseph Kraft, who was also touring North Vietnam, said he believed the damage to the dikes was incidental and was being used as propaganda by Hanoi, and that, if the U.S. Air Force were "truly going after the dikes, it would do so in a methodical, not a harum-scarum way". 
In North Vietnam, Fonda was photographed seated on an anti-aircraft battery; the controversial photo outraged a number of Americans. In her 2005 autobiography, she writes that she was manipulated into sitting on the battery; she had been horrified at the implications of the pictures and regretted they were taken... 
During her trip, Fonda made ten radio broadcasts in which she denounced American political and military leaders as "war criminals". Fonda has defended her decision to travel to North Vietnam and her radio broadcasts. Also during the course of her visit, Fonda visited American prisoners of war (POWs), and brought back messages from them to their families. When cases of torture began to emerge among POWs returning to the United States, Fonda called the returning POWs "hypocrites and liars". She added, "These were not men who had been tortured. These were not men who had been starved. These were not men who had been brainwashed." Later, on the subject of torture used during the Vietnam War, Fonda told The New York Times in 1973, "I'm quite sure that there were incidents of torture ... but the pilots who were saying it was the policy of the Vietnamese and that it was systematic, I believe that's a lie."  Fonda said the POWs were "military careerists and professional killers" who are "trying to make themselves look self-righteous, but they are war criminals according to the law"

She may have been duped, or she may have been a sympathizer, but her impact was more profound than she lets on.  Her decision reverberates to this day. 


Fonda has apologized numerous times and tried to explain her actions.
In 2005, Fonda published her autobiography in which she described in detail her decision to go to North Vietnam. She said it was primarily motivated by her desire to document the U.S. bombing of important dikes that, if destroyed, could kill tens of thousands of people and devastate the lives of millions.  The U.S. had denied the bombings. In the book, Fonda is unapologetic about the trip or her participation in broadcasts on radio Hanoi but regrets the pictures taken of her at the gun emplacement.  She said it made it appear as though she was celebrating armaments aimed at American planes, which was not how she felt and was not the context in which the pictures were taken.  She reminds readers that the U.S. investigated her trip and found no reason to bring any charges against her.  She also describes her longstanding support of, and interaction with, U.S. military personnel and says her only beef was with the U.S. government, not the troops.
But many do not believe the sincerity of those apologies,

Were Jane Fonda's actions treason, or were they the exercise of a private citizen's right to freedom of speech? At the time, the legal aspects of this question were moot: President Nixon was engaged in trying to wind down American involvement in Vietnam and had to face another election in a few months, so politically he had far more to lose than to gain by making a martyr out of a prominent anti-war activist. (No requirement in either the Constitution or federal law states that the U.S. must be engaged in a declared war -- or any war at all -- before charges of treason can be brought against an individual.)
On the one hand, Jane Fonda provided no tangible military assistance to the North Vietnamese: she divulged no military secrets, she gave them no money or material, and she did not interfere with the operations of the American forces. Her actions, offensive as they were to many, were primarily of propaganda value only. On the other hand, Iva Ikuko Toguri (also known as "Tokyo Rose") was convicted of treason for making propaganda broadcasts on behalf of the Japanese during World War II (although she claimed her betrayal was forced and was eventually pardoned many years later by President Gerald Ford), and Fonda's efforts could fall under the definition of "giving aid and comfort to the enemy." It is also undeniable that some American soldiers came to harm as a direct result of Fonda's actions, an outcome she should reasonably have anticipated.
In 1988, sixteen years after denouncing American soldiers as war criminals and tortured POWs as possessed of overactive imaginations, Fonda met with Vietnam veterans to apologize for her actions. It's interesting to note that this nationally-televised apology (during which she attempted to minimize her actions by characterizing them as "thoughtless and careless") came at a time when New England vets were successfully disrupting a film project she was working on. It's also interesting that not only was this apology delivered sixteen years after the fact, but it has not been offered again since. More than a few have read a huge dollop of self-interest into Fonda's 1988 apology. (Finally, in an interview in 2000, almost thirty years after the fact, Fonda admitted: "I will go to my grave regretting the photograph of me in an anti-aircraft carrier, which looks like I was trying to shoot at American planes. It hurt so many soldiers. It galvanized such hostility. It was the most horrible thing I could possibly have done. It was just thoughtless.")

She clearly has not repaired her image because she really did some damage with her unjustifiable actions.

1. Charles Lindbergh supported Adolf Hitler.  It's hard to imagine topping some of the other celebrity stupidity on this list but when you endorse the policies of Adolf Hitler, it almost doesn't matter what your own star power is, or what impact it might have, it's about as close to endorsing Satan as a person can get.  It's hard to imagine blowing celebrity like Lindbergh had:
In May 1927, a shy, handsome 25-year-old suddenly sprang from obscurity to instant world fame when he flew a small single-seat, single-engine airplane, called the “Spirit of St. Louis,” from Long Island, New York, to an airfield in Paris. In a grueling 33-hour flight that covered 3,600 miles, Charles A. Lindbergh became the first person to fly the Atlantic ocean, alone and non-stop. His daring flight, and his aviation pioneering afterwards, made him, for some years, the most admired man in America, and the most admired American in the world.
There;s no denying his infatuation with the Nazi leader.  Lindbergh, a decade plus later, was not shy though about sharing his admiration of Adolf Hitler, and his achievements.  He went so far as to almost move to Nazi Germany.

“While I still have many reservations,” he wrote to a U.S. Army officer who was also a personal friend, “I have come away with a feeling of great admiration for the German people. The condition of the country, and the appearance of the average person whom I saw, leaves with me the impression that Hitler must have far more character and vision than I thought existed in the German leader who has been painted in so many different ways by the accounts of America and England.” 
In a letter to another American friend he wrote: “With all the things we criticize, he [Hitler] is undoubtedly a great man, and I believe has done much for the German people. He is fanatic in many ways, and any one can see that there is a certain amount of fanaticism in Germany today. It is less than I expected, but it is there. On the other hand, Hitler has accomplished results -- good in addition to bad -- which could hardly have been accomplished without some fanaticism.” 
Lindbergh’s wife was Anne Morrow Lindbergh, a remarkable woman who was, in her own right, an accomplished aviator and a successful author. In a 1936 letter to her mother, she wrote: 
“Hitler, I am beginning to feel, is a very great man, like an inspired religious leader -- and as such rather fanatical -- but not scheming, not selfish, not greedy for power, but a mystic, a visionary who really wants the best for his country and, on the whole, has a rather broad view.” 
Charles Lindbergh was so impressed with Hitler’s Germany that he seriously considered moving there with his family. “I did not feel real freedom until I came to Europe,” he remarked in 1939. “The strange thing is that of all the European countries, I found most personal freedom in Germany, with England next, and then France.” After a search for a suitable place to live, he found a property in a suburb of Berlin that he came close to buying. But as the threat of war grew in Europe, he abandoned those plans.

That;s admiration. It's also completely wrong-headed.  It may have been less obvious to some at the time than it is today, but many people knew even then about the dangers that Hitler represented.  

Today far too many people associate Nazism with right wing fascism but the Nazi Party in Germany were socialists.

There you have it.  The worst celebrity endorsements of all time.  The lesson it seems is that celebrities should keep their political beliefs to themselves but we all know that's not going to happen. In the coming decade there are bound to be new entrants into the Top 10.  Look forward to that.

April 12, 2013

Top 10 Worst Celebrity Dictator Endorsements (Part 1)

It seems to be happening more often these days, but history is replete with celebrities endorsing dictators  murderers and thugs, providing evidence that celebrity does not equate to intelligence or moral compass.  Here are the ten most egregious celebrity endorsements of dictators in the 20th and 21st centuries.  The definition of endorsement here is broad it includes deeds as well as words.  The ranking is based on a mix of three factors - the star power of the celebrities in question, the evilness of the endorsed dictator and the potential impact of the endorsement.

There are a few dishonorable mentions before we start with the list.  Hillary Swank and Jean Claude Van Damme attended a birthday bash held for Ramzan Kadyrov, the Kremlin-backed leader of Chechnya, responsible for torture, killings abductions and more by human rights groups.  Swank did later apologize but fell squarely in the camp of useful idiots at the time of the event.  Her apology was quickly accepted by the left, or at least at Huffington Post.  Useful idiots aren't as common as you think, and the left needs them. This doesn't make the list since attending the event was less an endorsement than just plain dumb.

Another dishonorable mention goes collectively to Beyonce, Usher, Mariah Carey, Nelly Furtado and 50 Cent for putting on a concert for the barbaric sons of the barbaric Libyan strongman Colonel Muammar Gaddafi and taking money for it.  They reportedly all agreed to donate the money to charity. Again, this is more a matter of not thinking through a situation rather than endorsing a dictator.  But to do business with someone so brutal and repressive, even through stupidity, is myopic and ill-informed.  In addition to donating the money, a clear no-brainer, condemning the leader would have been a courageous and meaningful distancing of themselves from the terrorist.


March 8, 2013

10 liberal agenda websites you might not know about

NOTE:  This list is not intended as endorsement of any of the following websites.

You know about DailyKos, and The Huffington Post.  Maybe you know about Mother Jones and Media Matters.  But there are a number of liberal websites out there that could be influencing the national debate that you might not know exist. Size matters. But influence matters more.  You might wonder why it matters to you - after all, they are liberal sites, you're not going to be reading them.  The answer is that you need to know your opponent.  Many of the arguments that you face, or will face, can be seen at sites like these before you hear about them in the media or face-to-face.  It gives you time to prepare a counter-argument to talking points you are sure to face.  Then again, it might just give you a laugh.

Here are 10 liberal agenda websites that you might not know about, that nevertheless hold sway in some way that deserves pointing out.  These are in no particular order.

(10) Climate Desk - a liberal climate change website, that has an opinion on everything even remotely related to energy - from wind turbines to China being ahead of the U.S. on climate change, to fracking, to wolves.  The website's banner links it to some highly left-leaning high profile sites - Slate, The Atlantic and Mother Jones among them, and it leads directly to dubious stuff like this.

Click to enlarge (and laugh).

(9) Center for American Progress.  They must have taken the "ives" off the last word.   They cover every imaginable topic from gun rights violence to energy and environment (two issues they not surprisingly, group together).  Watch out for their push on the new catch phrase buzz word (courtesy of president Obama) Middle-Out Economics.  The slick presentation will convince many of those who pay little attention but happen to see the video and don't question the premise or the approach.  Don\t watch this on a weak stomach or with an empty head. (It's sickeningly wrong and misleading).


Seriously,  the video was so rife with propaganda, it made my blood pressure rise.  Thankfully only a little over 1000 visitors have seen it on Youtube, so there's that.

Nevertheless, they realized that they could beat economics with demographics in the 2012 election if they pursued a focused approach, and Team Obama clearly did exactly that.  We didn't see that on the republican side.  Yes the argument about economics was the right one, but the GOP failed to engage in demographic modeling and targeted marketing efforts.

(8) World Socialist Website.  Don't go there, it's truly a waste of your time.  The rhetoric is so far left, that you can't even try to converse with someone with such out-there viewpoints.  Nevertheless , you'll be sure to hear some of their philosophy turning up in the 'august' works of Micheal Moore and his ilk.  It seems that like journalism school, film school and art school preclude any attention to real economics classes.  Yet somehow they have time to get all this socialism stuff in.

(7) Democracy Now! brands itself as a news channel.  It's a hard left organization that today is mourning the death of Hugo Chavez, yet is more than happy to deride the outgoing Pope and describe the church's structure as passe and argue that it needs to adapt "liberation theology".  If that's not an agenda, and some Alinsky tactics at work, I don't know what is.  I'm not a big fan of the outgoing Pope, he certainly couldn't fill the shoes of his predecessor, and the Catholic church is not without its problems.  But to harbor an attack on the man is out of line.  That is, unless you've got a progressive agenda to propagate.



At 35:55 they launch into all of the negatives and then bring on Matthew Fox, who clearly has an ax to grind. They have no shame.

(6)  Al Jazeera isn't exactly a progressive organization, but by buying out Al Gore's liberal Current TV, Al Jazeera does have an agenda to promote an agenda of an Arabic-centric view of news around the world, with the American audience in mind.  Al Jazeera has shared terrorist video and interviews on it's non-English network, and they are clearing coming from a place that is not truly aligned with the American principles of liberty and dissent.  From that perspective they are promoting change in a way that could be described as progressive.  As a conservative, I would not argue their opportunity to purchase the network, nor try to promote themselves or even their agenda, whatever it might be.  That said, I hope they fail.  An Arabic-centric viewpoint in America will only pull the anti-war left crowd even further left, having them pushing the U.S. entirely out of the Middle East and abandoning Israel in the process.

For the record, in Canada, Al Jazeera has so far had little impact, though they pull no punches when it comes to criticizing Canada.  Not exactly a reasonable portrayal in the linked piece.

(5) Truth-Out is really putting out stories without truth.  The truth is out - of their articles.  Any publication that would argue,
I am blaming President Obama and his administration for trying to be cute and clever rather than telling the public the truth about the economic crisis. The result is that the vast majority of the public, and virtually all of the reporters and pundits who deal with budget issues, do not have any clue about where the deficit came from and why it is a virtue rather than a problem.

The basic story is incredibly simple. Demand from the private sector collapsed when the housing bubble burst. We lost $600 billion in annual demand due to residential construction falling through the floor. We will not return to normal levels of construction until the vacancy rates return to normal levels. Vacancy rates are still near post-bubble record highs.

We also lost close to $500 billion in annual consumption spending due to the loss of the $8 trillion in housing-bubble-generated equity that was driving this consumption. This demand will also not come back.

This creates a gap in annual demand of more than $1 trillion. The stimulus, which boosted demand by roughly $300 billion a year in 2009 and 2010, helped to fill part of this gap, but was nowhere near big enough. Furthermore, stimulus spending fell off quickly in 2011, and the stimulus is now pretty much gone altogether. This means that we are still faced with a huge hole in private-sector spending.
So after arguing that the stimulus was too small, and that it's now used up, the author wants you to believe that the solution was to spend a lot more.  But by pointing out that the effect were temporal, he's implying that the crazy level of deficit spending would have to continue, at a much higher level than it was at, to be able to keep the economy going.  Wow. Talk about spend-yourself-rich thinking.  There's no consideration given to cutting spending, creating business incentives and trying to drive up supply and demand in a natural, free market type approach.  That's because it's completely outside of their thought processes.  In fact, it sounds a lot like the White House in that regard.

It's the type of thinking that espoused by many Democrats and it led to their losses in 2010.  Unfortunately, it is a view still held by enough people, that the 2012 elections were a mini-rebound from 2010.

(4) Common Dreams.  This picture captures their entire way of thinking.  It's a mentality that there is a massive cliff wall that separates the top 1% of the population from the remaining 99%.  If ever there were a land of opportunity it is America - a nation where it is indeed possible to make something of yourself. That doesn't make it easy.  It requires a lot of hard work, and some luck to make it.  But it IS possible. I'm pretty sure that's not the case in most nations in the world, and those where it is possible, it isn't as easy as it is in America.  In addition, that 99% metric is silly simply because there is no massive gap between 99% and 98%, or 98% and 97%.  It's a bell curve of income.  Those who are in the 50th percentile are pretty well off.  In fact it's been argued that those in the bottom 10% are still better off than people in other nations or even wealthy people in history.  Bill Whittle tells it well. I strongly urge you to watch that video first before continuing.

Why the big preamble?  Because when you watch this video from Common Dreams about wealth distribution (and re-distribution) you'll see the difference between a factual approach and a feelings-based approach to wealth.  It's the sneaky way the left - from Common Dreams to the president - make it seem like right is on their side, when really it's only manipulation of your perception that is in play.


What's important is their ability to present a slick, influential view of the world, and based on perception. Even if every visual they provide is 100% accurate, Bill Whittle's counter-point shows that "scraping by" isn't exactly what it used to be.

(3) ThinkProgress.  You've probably heard of ThinkProgress.  It's as progressive as it gets.  But they put memes out there and hope that their version of the truth can take hold.  Recently they posted a story about how corporations are artificially inflating the NRA's membership numbers.  In the story they included a Bass Pro Shop discount for NRA members. Of course if you really don't want to be an NRA member you can bypass this coercive, 'evil' promotion and spend your own money - because clearly only government should be giving out freebies. Oh, and also, people can't think for themselves - they are going to all be duped into NRA memberships.

If you want the coupon info, go here. I'm not sure if the deal is still being offered, but a search for the offer meant going to a number of bulletin boards because it wasn't on the Bass Pro Shop site as far as I could tell. (Let me know if that's not correct).

(2) Talking Points Memo.  The name says it all.  Remember the JournoList?  Talking Points Memo is essentially a JournoList for the liberal masses.  It is fairly well known in the blogosphere but for the rest of society it's not really well known.  Want to know how to treat the issues and apply liberal spin?  Go to TPM and find out why GOP senators are praising Obama's outreach on a grand bargain for deficit reduction.  Wait, what?  That can't be real. But it is real - real spin that is.  If it's about the president or a liberal it will be presented as all sunshine and rainbows, but if it's about a conservative or Republican, it's bound to be dirt. Talking Points Memo is the very definition of spin, and the very definition of how to spin for liberals.

(1)  Wonkette.  Okay, Wonkette is reasonably popular and well known by those of us interested in politics (or not). I'm not sure her blog is all that influential though.  Ad there are plenty of posts that simply use news reports as an opportunity to dive head first into name-calling or to pile onto the name-calling or to infer some name-calling.  So what's the agenda? I guess to insult conservatives, a la Alinsky, incessantly.  But hey, she's got an image of a woman in a Catwoman suit as part of her current logo, and who doesn't love that? .
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Share This