Has Ted Cruz Mastered the Intricacies of the GOP Primary Process?

by Rob Janicki

"It would appear so, but don't be mislead into thinking it was just a lucky break for Cruz.  Cruz began his assault on the GOP presidential nomination a year before he announced his candidacy.  While most of the other 16 original GOP presidential aspirants were traditionally about fundraising to finance their presidential ambitions, 

Ted Cruz, the political alchemist, was also creating a relatively unheard of means of determining the most probable demographic groups to focus on.   Not only did Cruz use the almost unheard of power of computer analytics of demographic groups, he also installed the most extensive grassroots political team in the 50 plus primaries and caucuses in the United States and its territorial holdings.

So what has made Cruz's campaign continue to grow as Trump's campaign has stalled in Wisconsin and Kasich's campaign simply picks up the crumbs from the Big Boy's table?  In other words, what separates Cruz's campaign from all the others?  The answer, in a phrase, is found in demographic analytics, rather than merely reading the tea leaves of polling.

The Cruz campaign has strategically delved into the voter demographics of every congressional district in America and its territories.  They found that every demographic set and sub set could be counted on to produce a quantifiable primary outcome.  They also came to believe that this analytical method was far more accurate and consistent over time than relying upon polling results to develop strategic targeting over the length of the campaign.

The Cruz campaign has managed to accurately analyze each and every demographic category and subset/s, and there are many subsets, to determine where their campaign targeting would be best utilized.  The Cruz Crew knows everyone in America who has voted or failed to vote in a Republican election going back decades.  They know how those votes were cast and this critical data can be found in their demographic analytical programs.  They know more about every voter's propensity on every issue than can be imagined....."   

Continue Reading at Righting on the Wall

The Free Market Flips Obama the Big Bird

By Robert Janicki

Do you remember President Obama's promise to put a million hybrid and/or electric cars on U.S. highways by the end of second term in office?  Well, there seems to be a major hitch in that plan.  It's failing miserably.  Obama is behind 800, 000 hybrid and/or electric vehicles and the market for these vehicles is declining precipitously.

The auto-research group Edmunds.com found that “22 percent of people who have traded in their hybrids and [electric vehicles] in 2015 bought a new SUV.”

This number is higher than the 18.8 percent that did the same last year, but it’s double the number that traded in their electric car for an SUV just three years ago. Edmunds.com reports that only “45 percent of this year’s hybrid and EV trade-ins have gone toward the purchase of another alternative fuel vehicle, down from just over 60 percent in 2012. Never before have loyalty rates for alt-fuel vehicles fallen below 50 percent." 

You don't have to be an economist with a Ph.d. to understand the cause of this phenomenon.  As the price of gasoline has dropped significantly, so has the financial motivation to buy hybrid or electric vehicles that promise lower operating costs relative to the higher previous price for gasoline.  The fact that alternative fuel costs and electrical prices have risen, only adds to the disincentive to buy a hybrid or electric car.
If that isn't enough disincentive, here's the deal breaker for those who really look to the future of electric vehicles.

Electric cars also suffer from issues with battery life. Each hybrid or electric car battery can cost thousands, or even tens of thousands, of dollars, which only helps tip the economic scale in favor of traditional vehicles. This number is higher than the 18.8 percent that did the same last year, but it’s double the number that traded in their electric car for an SUV just three years ago. Edmunds.com reports that only “45 percent of this year’s hybrid and EV trade-ins have gone toward the purchase of another alternative fuel vehicle, down from just over 60 percent in 2012.”

“It wouldn’t make sense to replace a 12-year old battery with a new battery that’s going to last 12 years, because chances are the car’s not going to last that long,” Eric Ibara with Kelley Blue Book told Detroit News.

Never before have loyalty rates for alt-fuel vehicles fallen below 50 percent, Edmunds notes.

 __________________________________________

Rob Janicki is a retired educator, strong supporter of the 2nd amendment and all around good guy, as well as owner/operator of the website Wired Right  and owes me 20 bucks. 

Ethically Challenged & Morally Bankrupt from Inception

by Robert Janicki

If you are opposed to abortion, this will be extremely disheartening and disturbing, if not worse.  

Planned Parenthood is anything but an agency helping women to plan for motherhood.  It would better be called by what it does and what it accomplishes, which is Planned Murder, Incorporated.  And this planned murder of defenseless fetuses is done with a taxpayer subsidy of almost a half billion dollars a year. 

To understand just how despicable and detestable are the practices of Planned Parenthood, one has to just view this video , which captures various Planned Parenthood facilities helping sex traffickers with instructions on how to get abortions for minor child sex slaves.  It's disgusting, but it illustrates the base nature and purpose of Planned Parenthood and their liberal supporters. 

It was  Margaret Sanger and her liberal white cohorts that embarked on their plan to eradicate, or at least reduce, those they felt were the dregs of society through planned genocide of unborn minorities and other groups that Sanger and her acolytes felt were subhuman or served no purpose other than to muddy the genetic gene pool.  

Another Reason to Avoid McDonald's...... besides the Crappy Food

By Robert Janicki

Well, it looks like McDonald's has caved in to the pressures of the liberal mob of labor activists.  If you didn't think much of McDonald's before, I can't imagine this will improve your outlook for Mickey D's.

"McDonald's will raise the wages it pays to its lowest-earning workers to $1 above the local minimum wage, in the latest sign of wage pressures increasing in the U.S.

The move, which Wall Street Journal reported first Wednesday, will not apply to the fast-food chain's franchises, which make up the vast majority of its business. Instead it will affect 90,000 workers at the 1,500 restaurants it owns in the U.S.

By lifting the minimum wage it pays on July 1 and raising wages throughout the payscale up to restaurant managers, McDonald's will raise the average wage for its hourly employees to above $10 by the end of 2015, the company said...."

Wages are determined by local labor wage markets.  That's the free market concept of capitalism.  Minimum wage jobs were never intended to support families and the vast majority of those working in minimum wage jobs are single and living at home with a family income above the average $50K per year.  Meanwhile, liberal activists would have everyone, mostly the economic illiterate that walk among us, to  believe that greedy business owners are using these minimum wage earners as slaves, when in fact employers are paying what is necessary to attract unskilled labor in their labor market area.

Minimum wage jobs are entry level learning experience opportunities for teenagers, college students and others under 25 years of age, requiring virtually no experience and minimum skills involving basic math and the ability to verbally communicate with co-workers and customers beyond crude sign language attempts like a chimp might make.    

The liberal line always brings in imaginary families of four with the minimum wage earner over 40, as examples of the absolute necessity of raising the minimum wage.  This is the liberal's method to emotionally shame opponents of artificially instituted minimum wage levels in order to dominate the debate among low information types oblivious to the economics labor wage markets.

What will happen over time is predictable.  Employers will hire less workers to accomplish the same work product as before any minimum wage increase.  And, in an age of technology, employers will most certainly turn to technology to replace workers.  So, in the end, minimum wage increases will result in a decrease in the numbers of those employed in these unskilled jobs and an increase in automation technology to accomplish the same work product.  

Of course, those engaged in automation technology innovation and development will be handsomely rewarded for their years of education and experience in their technical fields of endeavor, unlike hamburger flippers at McDonald's, who are more interested in agitating and striking for higher minimum wages in a shrinking labor market of their entry level jobs.  So much for developing experience in the wonderful world of work. 

Perhaps they can seek jobs as community activists in Occupy This or That movements. 

Wait!  Those jobs traditionally pay less than the prevailing labor wage rate.  Never mind.

 __________________________________________

Rob Janicki is a retired educator, strong supporter of the 2nd amendment and all around good guy, as well as owner/operator of the website Wired Right  and owes me 20 bucks. 

Serial Prevaricator Susan Rice

A  Retrospective Defense of U.S. Army Deserter Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl

by Robert Janicki

On Wednesday, the United States Army charged Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl with 'desertion of duty and misbehaving before the enemy', while on duty and serving in Afghanistan in 2009.  Most people understand the concept of desertion, which implies voluntarily leaving an assigned military area without permission or privilege.  Since the trade of the five Taliban military commanders in 2014 for Sgt. Bergdahl, a rising chorus has arisen to indicate that Bergdahl voluntarily left his assigned post in Afghanistan because of his disgust and disdain for America, not a charge to be lightly made, which thus characterized Bergdahl as being at the very least a deserter.

Watch the video of Susan Rice as National Security Adviser to President Obama going on the Sunday TV News talk show circuit when the Obama administration traded five Taliban terrorists for the return of Sgt. Bergdahl back in 2014.  Pay special attention to Rice's comments describing Sgt. Bergdahl as having "served with honor and distinction" while in the Afghanistan theater of operations.  At the time this deal was made, there were comments already being made by those who served with Sgt. Bergdahl accusing him of being no less than a deserter and a traitor.

Now flash forward to the Army announcement on Wednesday charging Sgt. Bergdahl with at least two crimes under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  Watch the video of the Army news release.

It is now becoming obvious that the trade to return Sgt. Bergdahl was principally made on a political basis. It appears to knowledgable observers that President Obama used the trade opportunity to reduce the Guantanamo Detention Center population by five inmates in a continuing move to reduce the population to the point of being able to close Guantanamo Detention Center through shear attrition of inmates.  

Secondly, the Obama administration made the specific decision to use the release of Sgt. Bergdahl as a photo opportunity with Bergdahl's parents in the Rose Garden of the White House.  It would appear that the Obama administration believed that they could get a 'two fer' with this photo op.  The Obama administration wanted to be cast in the role of patriotic savior of Sgt. Bergdahl using the tag line of "no soldier left behind", while being able to point to their political supporters that the administration was working to close the Guantanamo Detention Center, which Obama promised to do in the first month of his administration in 2009.

The Obama administration had to know at the time of the prisoner trade that the circumstances of Sgt. Bergdahl's leaving his post was most probably desertion, since so many soldiers who had served with Sgt. Bergdahl, had already spoken up about the facts of Sgt. Bergdahl leaving his post, which clearly implicated him as a deserter and by extension, a traitor.

What is amazing is the arrogance and hubris of the Obama administration in believing that they could actually get away with using Sgt. Bergdahl as a political pawn and the photo op with Bergdahl's parents as an opportunity to enhance the president's political popularity rating in the polls.

Godfather or Tiny Dancer?

Is Rahm Emanuel in Trouble in Chicago Mayoral Race? You Bet.

by Robert Janicki

Rahm Emanuel, the current God Father of Democrat politics in Chicago, is in deep trouble.  So, just how do we know Emanual is in trouble in seeking another term as Mayor of Chicago?  First, we recently saw the results from the supposed nonpartisan mayoral election on February 24th, which requires a candidate get a majority of the vote in order to win the mayoral race.  

No one had a majority.   

By the way, Chicago hasn't had a Republican major since William Hale Thompson (May 14, 1869 – March 19, 1944) was Mayor of Chicago from 1915 to 1923 and again from 1927 to 1931.  Known as "Big Bill", Thompson was the last Republican to serve as Mayor of Chicago. 

It would seem then, that an incumbent Democrat mayor wouldn't have much of a problem being re-elected.  However, it didn't happen in the mayoral election for Emanuel, who basically faced an Hispanic novice, Chuy Garcia, who, by comparison, really did not have a ground game or a substantial Democrat Party organization behind him, that were at the beckon call of Emanuel.

Now on to the latest and most substantial challenge to the God Father's reign as Mayor of Chicago, the shooting gallery central for America.  The Service Employees International Union has come out with a scathing video ad highlighting all the failures of Emanuel in his term as mayor.  Watch below.

Looking back to the mayoral election for a moment, Emanuel garnered just 45% of the vote, while Garcia managed about 35%.  Not bad for a politician relatively unknown in most of Chicago.  Since this election, Emanuel has actually failed to increase or even nudge his percentage upward in polling, while Garcia has managed to decidedly edge up more than marginally.  What Chicago has is a genuine race for the mayor's position not seen in my lifetime.  

Traditionally in Illinois politics, the Mayor of Chicago has also been the kingmaker in state politics by virtually hand selecting and then anointing the Democrat candidate for Governor of the Land of Lincoln, who would then go on to win with the backing of every liberal Democrat in the state.  In retrospect, last year's Illinois gubernatorial race was the first serious clue that Emanuel might be in political trouble.  His hand picked candidate, the incumbent Democrat governor, lost convincingly in the general election to a self made millionaire Republican businessman unknown in Illinois politics.

Other cracks began to appear when the head of the Chicago Teachers Union heavily criticized Emanuel for closing dozens of schools in Chicago.  The CTU head, a black woman, made serious sounds that she might challenge Emanuel, however this scenario never materialized.  In stepped Chuy Garcia and people began to pay attention and that's where the God Father is today.  Emanuel has been politically weakened by his not unexpected pattern of rewarding his political cronies, which often crossed purposes and political paths with the voting base he desperately needs to win another term as Mayor of Chicago.  Stay tuned for one very interesting result come the mayoral runoff election on April 7th.

Having been born and raised in Crook County, Illinois, following politics there has been a hobby for me in adulthood.

 __________________________________________

Rob Janicki is a retired educator, strong supporter of the 2nd amendment and all around good guy, as well as owner/operator of the website Wired Right  and owes me 20 bucks. 

Hillary Still Doesn't Get It.

There are consequences for not being truthful and forthcoming.

by Robert Janicki

Hillary Clinton's mini-presser on Tuesday afternoon at the UN was meant to lay to rest her exclusive use of a private email server for all her government related business emails and private emails during her four year tenure as Secretary of State.  Hillary came no where near to where she has to go in putting this issue to rest, if there actually is anything that Hillary can say that will do so, which is very doubtful at this time.

Her comments were aimed at the ignorant among her acolytes to bolster her claim among them that she is being victimized by the "vast right wing conspiracy."  Hillary is merely trying to circle the wagons for a hardline defense, rather than being forthcoming with all the information on the now infamous private server that could be ascertained with a forensic examination by a third party nonpartisan arbiter.

Hillary adamantly indicated that she will not turn over her private email server for any third party forensic examination.  Her reasoning is immaterial in the face of this potentially career ending episode of personal political hubris.  Without a third party examination of Hillary's private server, there is absolutely no assurance that she has produced all relevant government emails during her four year tenure as Secretary of State.  Refusing to turn over the email server could easily seal Hillary fate and irreparably devastate her political future.

Hillary just won't address that line of logic of a third party examination of her email server and instead clings to the belief that she is somehow to be believed that she has turned over all relevant government emails to the State Department for their release.  This just defies all logic and reason and will merely keep the issue alive going forward.  Hillary is essentially challenging people to believe her or their lying eyes that she is being truthful and forthcoming with all the contents of the now infamous private email server.

Hillary would like low information types believe that she made a simple error in using a private email server under her physical control.  Her excuse is that she believed it was easier to use one email system for both government and private emails than to have to carry around two Blackberry phones.  This is a ludicrous explanation.  Cell phones, including Blackberrys, can carry countless email domains to be used for sending and receiving emails.  It only takes a minute or two to set up each email domain in a cell phone.  A person would have to be completely ignorant to believe that you need two cell phones to send and receive two different email accounts.  As an example, I send and receive emails from two different email servers on my iPhone, as does my wife, and we are hardly techno geeks by any stretch of the imagination.

Earl Done This

Hillary's mini presser and her comments have only exacerbated the issue, which may include potential criminal liability for her failure to adhere to federal law and/or regulations pertaining to maintaining and archiving all federal government correspondence sent or received by her.  What is not being addressed is the potential security issues from using a private email server.  Without a forensic examination of Hillary's private server, there is no way to determine if the email server has been hacked and government information has been exposed to nefarious third parties.

Hillary's problems are not going away anytime soon, despite the efforts of her close circle of spin masters like James Carville and Lanny Davis and all the left wing media that will continue to give the Clintonistas a public forum from which to provide cover for Hillary.  Without the total transparency of a forensic examination of Hillary's private email server, this scandal will only grow.  It will not go away with anything  less than a third party examination and investigation of her email server, period.

 _______________________________

Rob Janicki is a retired educator, strong supporter of the 2nd amendment and all around good guy, as well as owner/operator of the website Wired Right  and owes me 20 bucks. 

The Fiction of "Net Neutrality".

by Robert Janicki

There is no such thing as Net Neutrality and it could not be further away from the truth.  Net Neutrality, as a concept, has been created by liberals and is anything but neutral and it is as corrupt as a concept could be.  It's a false facade created to stifle free speech and in particular the speech and ideas of the political right.

Like all liberal attempts, Net Neutrality purports to be the answer to a problem that, upon closer inspection, simply does not exist.  Net neutrality as proposed by the Chairman of the FCC will actually slow down internet speeds as it ostensibly seeks a social outcome of egalitarianism between all internet users.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.

As it stands now, an individual can pay an internet provider for the internet speed they want and need and pay the price that meets their needs and objectives.  Individuals, today, have a wide choice of internet providers with an even wider choice of services from which to choose.  With Net Neutrality, internet speeds will be leveled to equalize speeds between all customers.  It is simply an attack on an individual's right to freely choose in the open market place, what they want in internet speeds and related services. 

Net Neutrality, by all accounts of those in the industry, will slow down the dissemination and transfer of information without regard for the rights of individuals.  It is a most serious and egregious interference and attack by government on the First Amendment that can be imagined at the present time.

To think that a federal agency, the Federal Communications Commission, with a committee of five politically appointed members can actually take control of the internet and regulate it at their whim, is a monumental blow to individual liberty and freedom.  

As Net Neutrality purports to give greater access to individuals, in reality it will limit access by individuals and increase the power and strength of the oligopoly of the major internet carriers as they squeeze out smaller competitors.   The major internet providers will thus have the capacity to raise prices on all customers without having to maintain and improve internet communications technology for their customers.  Net Neutrality is a destroyer of competition.  It is competition which produces a better product or service, not government regulation.

Nothing says freedom like control and regulation
— Renna (@RennaW) February 26, 2015

Some Random Thoughts on Barack Obama's Love of America or Lack Thereof.

by Robert Janicki

Recently, Rudy Giuliani, former Mayor of New York City and still thought of as a force in Republican politics by some, questioned whether President Obama really loves America, since Obama proclaimed in his 2008 presidential campaign that it was his objective to "fundamentally" change America as president. Giuliani has been roundly castigated by liberal progressives for his questioning Obama's love of America. Here are my thoughts.
If you love your country, why would you want to seek to"fundamentally" change it? Why, then, would Obama love or even like America? It doesn't make sense. It's just counter intuitive.

Obama has repeatedly gone out of his way to denigrate and belittle America's greatness as the world leader in protecting individual liberty, freedom and human rights. At home in America, Obama often injects race in issues and individual confrontations that have nothing to do with race, unless, of course, you are a race baiter using race as wedge to separate Americans, in which case it is a proven way to move up in liberal progressive politics.

So I often ask myself why Obama is fixated on and so heavily invested in finding race issues under every rock he turns up? In my opinion, Obama is obviously and blatantly using race as a political tool to beat upon his political opponents. The fact that Obama really has not had the personal experiences of racism in his life that living the black experience might bring to a black person raised in a black community and interacting with non-blacks is of little meaning to him. The race card is simply a tried and true means to put opponents on the defensive. Interestingly, if Obama were a black conservative, black liberal progressives would say that he is "not authentically black" since he never really experienced growing up in a black community and its culture. Can anyone say hypocritical?

Instead, Obama has experienced artificial support for his blackness as a means to rise all the way to the highest political office in America. And all this has been done ironically with the direction and financing mostly by rich, white liberals guiding and mentoring his rise to stardom status bordering upon his being a black Messiah come to save America from all its supposed evil and pernicious continuing racism today. If playing the race card regularly if not enough, Obama fails to address, acknowledge, publicize or even promote, all of America's virtues, which are many, if not more than any country in history.  

Instead, Obama and his hatchet man Holder continually claim that "Americans are cowards" when it comes to racism, implying that if you're white, you are racist by their definition and have no idea what it means to experience racism. I'm a relatively intelligent person and rather well educated for the means that were at my disposal. And I say this all without bragging, just stating some fact to make a point. I don't have to jump off a cliff to clearly understand the consequences of such an act, which is a metaphor to say I believe I know racism when I see it and I don't need to be lectured by race mongers seeking to promote themselves politically, using racism as a means to gain political advantage.

President Obama never actually experienced typical black American culture growing up. His early years were spent living in Indonesia in a Muslim culture. He spent time living his white grandparents living in whiter than white Kansas. Later he would return to Hawaii, a widely diverse racial culture, but with few blacks. Now tell me again just how authentic a black man Barack Obama is.

Back to Rudy Giuliani's remark and some perspective and context on Obama's love or lack thereof for America. In the 2008 presidential campaign, Democrat candidate Obama publicly called then sitting President George W. Bush "unpatriotic" for saddling future generations with an additional national debt of $4 trillion dollars. Viewed from today's national debt increase under Obama, which has almost doubled all previous national debt incurred cumulatively by all previous presidents, Obama and all his acolytes in the White House and the MSM, have no leg to stand on in berating Rudy Giuliani for questioning Obama's love for America.

* Editors Two Cents:   If Obama can decide who the Real Muslims are, why can't Rudy Giuliani say who the Real Patriots are???? 

Rob Janicki is a retired educator, strong supporter of the 2nd amendment and all around good guy, as well as owner/operator of the website Wired Right  and owes me 20 bucks. 

I did it again, contrary to good sense....

by Robert Janicki

On Wednesday, I watched and listened to President Obama once again publicly support Islam in a rambling nonsensical rant, as if he were lecturing the rest of us for not embracing Islam as the religion of peace. I'm sorry, but I will never embrace Islam as a religion, let alone a religion of peace. The historical facts speak to the contrary. Islam is far more a paramilitary political ideology than a religion. What religion in world history was founded by a brutal and savage murderer of his opponents?

The historical record is undeniable. It's Islam. 

I'm tired of Obama's haughty elitist demeanor in talking down to those who have legitimate disagreements with Islam. It's so typical of liberals to look down at those who oppose them, as if we are ignorant or stupid low life cretins or Neanderthals. Obama's comments were a sickening and rambling nonsensical lecture. He stumbled, mumbled and tried to place the blame for radical Islam, in part, on the victims of radical Islamist Jihadists. His solution was more a sociological treatise than facing the reality of radical Islamist Jihadists and their responsibility for their own actions. 

Of course Obama went on to blame ISIS for hijacking Islam. I take exception to that thought. ISIS has not perverted Islam. Every thing that ISIS does is clearly stated in the Quran, especially the later and much more strident and virulent verses, which supersede similar earlier verses. The fact that ISIS has dwelled upon the most fundamental views expressed in the Quran does not mean ISIS has hijacked Islam. They have simply taken a different approach to the ultimate objective of Islam. ISIS is certainly a death cult that is interested in bringing the end times of the Apocalypse to fruition.

Creating economic opportunities for ISIS members is nonsense. ISIS fighters are making much more money than the opposing military force aligned against them. That fact alone destroys the Obama administration's thought that we should be doing more economically for these poor misguided souls, giving them alternatives to joining ISIS. 

I'm sorry, but that thought simply doesn't take into account the greater psychological drive of ISIS fighters that have bought into the end times of the Apocalypse and their supposed ascension to meet Allah and their 72 virgins.

That's like saying John Hinckley would not have tried to assassinate President Reagan, if he only had better economic opportunities in his life.

Delusional Lefty Sally Kohn Takes Stupidity to New Heights

CNN's Gender Confused Moonbat Commentator Sally Kohn

by Robert Janicki

On Monday, Sally Kohn, liberal commentator for CNN and columnist for the Daily Beast, in an internet exchange with Katie Pavlich of Townhall, stated that we shouldn't bomb ISIS, since that is exactly what they want us to do.  

Now, from my perspective I see no reason not to accommodate ISIS to help fulfill their apocalyptic vision, with one minor consideration and that is the complete destruction of ISIS to introduce them to God in order to let Him sort out the details.

Kohn would also go on to inject biblical scripture to support her theory.  The scripture quoted was: 

"Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good" - Romans 12:21.  

I'm not a theologian, although I have attended Protestant Christian churches throughout my lifetime.  Somehow, I'm thinking that a liberal, and quite possibly a secularist, quoting scripture and then claiming it is on point in the present situation, stretches reality beyond reason and belief.  

Somehow Kohn must think, like so many liberals, that what we are witnessing around the world with radical Islamists, is merely a criminal policing situation.  Kohn apparently does not realize in the daze of her delusional world, that the Islamist Jihadists of ISIS are engaging all those in the world that do not submit to their insane beliefs.  They are simply doing it one country or region at a time in their goal to subjugate all the infidels of the world, including other Muslims not inclined to the insane beliefs of ISIS.  How Kohn believes we should deal with ISIS is not just unclear, but completely unaddressed in her internet exchange with Pavlich.

Redstate editor Ben Howe stated it best:

The savages of ISIS are knocking at the front door, the backdoor and all the windows of the civilized Western world and, theologian of all things liberal, Sally Kohn, preaches peace, love and liberal bullshit.  I'm thinking 6 millions Jews would like the opportunity to rethink how they acted in the face of Hitler's genocidal holocaust of these same good people who could not believe just how evil some fellow human beings could be to them just because of their different religious beliefs.

I propose that Sally Kohn go to Racca, Syria, to dialog in person with ISIS leaders to establish a kumbaya moment for reconciliation and the end of ISIS barbarism.  Failing that suggestion, perhaps Kohn should seriously consider the concept of STFU.

 _________________

Rob Janicki is a retired educator, strong supporter of the 2nd amendment and all around good guy, as well as owner/operator of the website Wired Right  and owes me 20 bucks. 

A Personal Opinion on the Brian Williams Debacle:

By Robert Janicki

Put aside Williams' charm, personality and sense of humor, and his occasional self deprecation for the moment, and look to Williams the journalist and then pivot to his second and possibly greater role as a celebrity.

This celebrity role of Williams, seems to have eclipsed his role as a journalist. Somewhere along the line in time, Williams' celebrity overtook his role as journalist.  I have seen Williams appear many times on various late night broadcast TV or cable TV comedy shows. He has all the tale telling requisites and timing of the very best comedians of our time. He could easily be another Stephen Colbert or Jon Stewart.

And that seems to be the genesis of Williams' conflict between celebrated TV news anchor and multifaceted celebrity across a greater social spectrum. Williams, at some level in his role as journalist, may have believed that he was running out, or coming up short, of heroic and self aggrandizing stories to enhance his dual role of journalist and, by association, his celebrity and needed more and greater tales to perpetuate his celebrity persona, if not his role as professional journalist and top ranked news anchor position.

It seems that being the top broadcast network news anchor was not enough to feed his alter ego of celebrity. Williams needed to expand his celebrity and that's when he went over the line of reality and into a world of self delusion of some sort. Either Williams is self delusional or he purposely has tried to delude the public to enhance his persona.

Is Williams a narcissist? I don't know, but I do know that people that live in those higher reaches of celebrity have at the very least, elements of narcissism. All one has to do to substantiate this assertion is to look to Barack Obama and his complex makeup of narcissist behaviors. Looking to the future as it rolls around in six months, I cannot see Williams coming back as the anchor of the NBC Nightly News and here's why.

Expect many more of Williams' lies and fabrications to pop up as every amateur sleuth turns up video clips on what will turn out to be an avalanche of previous prevarications, fabrications or misstatements by Williams. It will happen. Some will be inconsequential and others will have greater substance and significance. Time will not be kind and forgiving for Williams. Quite the opposite will be true, as more of Williams' prevarications come to the light of day and are published for all to see.

The problem for NBC is not just a matter of having the public forgive Williams, as much as it is having the public forget Williams' serial lying over more than a decade. I think that may well be a hurdle too high to overcome.

Jon Stewart announced that he is leaving Comedy Central by the end of the year. Maybe Williams can pickup that gig. He certainly has the comedic skills of telling tall tales.

Jordan Illustrates to the Obama Administration How to Deal with ISIS Terrorists.

by Robert Janicki

King Abdullah, monarch of the Kingdom of Jordan, cut short his trip to Washington, D.C. and a meeting with our feckless president early Tuesday to return to Jordan for the following day's dawn execution of two Al Queda related terrorists previously convicted and condemned to death for acts of terrorism in Jordan involving the deaths of innocent Jordanians.  

The execution of these two terrorists has now come less than 24 hours after Jordanian intelligence confirmed that the Jordanian Air Force pilot captured and held by ISIS in Syria had already been slain by ISIS earlier in a grisly death by immolation.  At approximately the same time, ISIS released a choreographed video of the entire process of their savagery in murdering the Jordanian pilot. 

ISIS, knowing it had already slain the Jordanian pilot had tried to negotiate a swap for one of the two terrorists, an Iranian woman.  The Jordanian government demanded proof that their pilot was still alive, probably suspecting that he had already been killed.  When no proof was forth coming, the Jordanian intelligence community let it be known their pilot was already dead at the hands of ISIS.  It was then that ISIS released the gory video of the pilot's brutal and inhumane murder by being set on fire by ISIS.

The lesson to be learned from this for the Obama administration is that actions speak louder than words or threats, which seems to be the extent to President Obama's military savvy and understanding in how to deal with Islamic terrorists.  The Jordanian government illustrated how they treat terrorists, contrary to the way the Obama administration weakly and timidly approaches terrorism with halting steps and actions that ultimately lead to a retreat from reality.

Expect Jordan to exact even more retribution on ISIS in the form of increased military attacks on ISIS personnel and facilities.  King Abdullah has already stated that Jordan will seek swift and devastating revenge on ISIS and, unlike America's Commander in Chief, will bring down Jordan's wrath upon ISIS in short order.  

Meanwhile, America's embarrassment for a president has counseled King Abdullah to only use a measured response to ISIS's latest butchery.  King Abdullah, trained by American special forces and once the head of Jordan's special forces, understands the concept of overwhelming force to quickly and thoroughly defeat an enemy, something which escapes President Obama and liberals in general.

King Abdullah does face internal resistance from some tribal forces that believe the attack on ISIS is not their war and supporting such a war places them as supporters of the West against fellow Muslims.  Expect King Abdullah to overcome this resistance despite the political cost to his monarchy.  Also expect King Abdullah, the son of the late king, Hussein, a strong monarch and military man in his own right, to be decisive like his father and act to restore Jordan's honor, which has been besmirched by ISIS terrorists.

King Abdullah understands the Arab mind.  Force must be met with overwhelming force, since anything less is viewed as weakness.  Unfortunately, America's liberal mindset cannot master that concept and insists on a measured proportional response to all attacks on American interests and counsels other nations in this same impotent tactical claptrap.

Latest Study Indicated Reducing Length of Unemployment Benefits Lead to Greater Levels of Employment in 2014.

by Robert Janicki

Something happened in 2014 that conservatives understood and pushed for, but liberals decried as draconian.  I'm talking about cutting off long term unemployment benefits in order to actually stimulate employment.  Long term unemployment benefits were reduced at the end of 2013.  2014 subsequently saw greater employment numbers.  Coincidence?  Not in my book or that of many conservatives.

Liberals decried such Republican action of reducing long term unemployment benefit periods as uncaring and typically characterized Republicans, and especially conservatives, as Neanderthals willing to see men, women and children starve to death as a result of cutting off long term unemployment benefits.  Of course that didn't happen.  

Conservatives have long said that long term unemployment benefits only contribute to long term unemployment, as the unemployed become much more comfortable in picking and choosing employment possibilities, knowing that they have a long term security blanket to fall back on.  

Now comes this latest study that appears to reinforce the conservative belief that cutting the length of long term unemployment benefits actually contributes to reduced unemployment, or, conversely to increasing employment, as more people move to get serious about gaining employment.

This shouldn't come as a surprise, since human nature is to go along with the path of least resistance.  It's difficult to resist unemployment benefits, when more than half the states provide unemployment benefits equal to or greater than what the private sector pays employees on average.

It's interesting to note that the red states that had better rates of employment, concurrently had lower unemployment benefits for a shorter period of time.  There is more than a correlation here.

"A new study attributes the 2014 jobs boom to the expiration of long-term unemployment benefits in late December 2013, a controversial event that Democrats and President Obama warned would hurt workers suffering in the wake of the recession.

Roughly 1.8 million additional jobs were created in 2014 because Congress allowed benefits for workers unemployed 27 weeks to expire, according to the paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research Monday..." Read More

My take away is that people in general will be much more willing to take advantage of unemployment benefits that are closer to what they might earn when employed.  Why work when benefits are at or above what a person could earn in the local labor market?  Of course liberals will decry this latest study as some perverse conservative plan to crush the poor and destroy the middle class.  This is a given response from liberals.  Conservatives are evil, liberals are world class philanthropists (with other people's money) and really do care about people.  That thought, along with a five dollar bill, will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. 

This latest study may not be the most definitive study to date on the negative effects of long term unemployment benefits, but conservative economists believe that subsequent studies will validate this latest finding.  Smaller studies have indicated that those dropping off long term unemployment benefits had a greater rate of reemployment than any other group of unemployed job hunters. 

The Future Through a Looking Glass Darkly

by Robert Janicki

Since the 114th Congress was sworn in on January 6th, we have gotten a preview of things to come from President Obama and they aren't pretty.  Even before the new Congress was sworn in, Obama threatened to veto any legislation sent over from the Republican Congress that he didn't like.  This was a very telling indicator of things to come, despite Obama's follow up rhetoric that 'he was willing to work with Congress where he could.'

No Mr. President.  You have absolutely no intention of working with the Republican Congress.  In six years you have demonstrated one substantial fact.  You have no negotiating skills whatsoever.  You have repeatedly tried, and often been successful with, bludgeoning Republicans, rather than even trying to negotiate with them.  Of course with RINO's, that hasn't exactly been a real challenge for you, since they seem to surrender faster than the French or Italians.  But enough of this historical recitation of Republican weakness.  

Lest we forget Obama's early adult years, remember that he began as a community organizer.  CO's don't negotiate.  They demand.  They lay it out in terms of what you are going to do for them or else suffer the political or monetary repercussions.  CO's are very good at laying out the consequences of not acceding to their demands.  This isn't leadership, unless you're a Capo in the Mafia.  

CO's walk the legal line, which is very close to extortion.  All we have to do is look to the Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson, Sr. community organizing business model.  The only difference between these two otherwise street thugs and the run of the mill street thugs is that they have a better plan and dress better.  And Obama is even a better dressed than these two race baiting hate mongers and with a hell of a lot more means to force compliance to his wishes.

Obama has taken the Sharpton/Jackson business model and run with it as president.  He's taken what can be best described as a cottage industry created by Sharpton/Jackson and made it a corporate model on an almost global scale, with the power of the presidency in the form of his pen and phone as he issues Executive Orders and Executive Memoranda.  By the way, Executive Memorandums do NOT go into the Congressional Record as do Executive Orders.  Hence, the public does not really know of all the orders that Obama has really issued.  

All one has to do is look to the  power Obama has exercised in retribution as he uses the IRS and the EPA as his most notable agents of mayhem, since they are the two most prominent means of coercing recalcitrant victims to see the light of Obama's political righteousness or at least roll over and play dead as RINO's are so experienced at.

__________________________________________

Rob Janicki is a retired educator, strong supporter of the 2nd amendment and all around good guy, as well as owner/operator of the website Wired Right  and owes me 20 bucks. 

Politics Make for Some of the Strangest Decisions in D.C.

by Robert Janicki

In what could be the strangest political turnaround in recent times, comes this news in the face of the recent bungling by House conservatives in mismanaging a revolt against Speaker John Boehner.

As soon as the voting for the Speakership was over, Boehner announced some new changes in committee assignments and chairmanships.  Most thought that the bloodletting had begun, with Boehner apparently bludgeoning the conservative upstarts for their audacity in challenging his leadership.  Moves were made by Boehner and hard core conservative bloggers became enraged.

Now comes some quiet changes that very could bode well for the influence of House conservatives in the 114th Congressional Term.

Rather than punish and isolate those who opposed him as leader, Boehner surprised many on Friday by embracing an immigration plan that's tougher than lawmakers had expected. It would block President Barack Obama's recent limits on deportations and undo protections for immigrants brought to the United States illegally as children.

As the rebellious hard-liners celebrated, mainstream Republicans said Boehner's decision probably portends firmly conservative approaches to other issues. That would complicate life for some of the more moderate Senate Republicans and ensure fierce battles with the Democratic president.

Now, I don't want to throw cold water on what could become something positive for all House Republicans, but I have to admit that I am holding off any celebration until I actually see some consistent movement in the Republican House caucus toward a more conservative stance.  

The key point here is to see a consistent and measured movement to the right in the House.  A one time bone thrown to House conservatives will do nothing to assuage their concern for the same old practices of the Republican establishment leadership in the House.  

Boehner had better be prepared to make this move to the right a regular practice, or else things may only get worse for all House Republicans, thus giving Democrats a wedge to derail a Republican House agenda going forward.

Conservatives have to understand that despite Republicans having a substantial majority in the House, they still have an uphill battle with more moderate Republican Senators, who have their own battles to pass legislation in the Senate.  Some of what comes out of Congress, will undoubtedly find a presidential veto waiting to be exercised by Barrack Obama.  That may not always be a bad thing, since, if exercised regularly by Obama, it will firmly characterize Obama and Democrats as the "party of NO!", a label Democrats enjoyed hanging on Republicans and caused them problems at the ballot box.

__________________________________________

Rob Janicki is a retired educator, strong supporter of the 2nd amendment and all around good guy, as well as owner/operator of the website Wired Right  and owes me 20 bucks. 

The Delusions Continue for Nancy Pelosi

by Robert Janicki

The 114th Congress just began on Tuesday and we have anotherdelusional thought emerge from the House Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi.  Apparently, the tail wants to wag the dog and doesn't realize who's running the show in the House.  Yes, Nancy Pelosi has once again gone off the deep end of an admittedly shallow and diminished Democrat pool in the House.

One has to give Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) credit for trying to push an anti-American agenda as the minority party in Congress.   

Pelosi has unveiled a Democratic legislative “package” that includes the “Stop Corporate Expatriation and Invest In America’s Infrastructure Act,” a bill that prevents U.S. businesses from moving overseas, which according to Pelosi, would prevent these companies from “paying their fair share of taxes.”

Only a liberal Democrat, with no business experience and a less than third grade understanding of taxation, could come up with such an idiotic proposal for a bill in Congress.  American corporations are moving some or all their operations to foreign shores because the American tax code rate for corporations is the highest in the industrialized world.  Liberals Democrats, with their idiotic tax code, have given corporations every incentive to move offshore with the highest corporate tax rate in the world driving them to do so.

The economic principle is simple.  The more you tax something, the less you get in return for your efforts.

Understand that corporations are taxed on their profits at corporate rates and then stockholders are subsequently taxed at personal income tax rates again on the dividends they receive on the same corporate profits already taxed at the corporate level.  

This is exactly what the liberals want.  Double taxation.  They get two shots at taxing the same profits.  Not a bad deal, when you can get it.  Of course there is no moral or ethical justification for this, but then, we know liberals are morally and ethically challenged in doing anything that is morally or ethically right.  That's just the joy of being a liberal.  You get to make up a moral and ethical construction that suits the ultimate goal and, in this case, that is to squeeze and extract as much revenue as possible from corporations and tax payers.

Back to the present.  Liberal Democrats have driven American corporations to do exactly what they are doing for their stockholders, which, for corporations, is to maximize the value of the stockholder's equity holding in the corporation.  Corporations have a fiduciary duty to bring the greatest value to the stockholders.  Liberal Democrats simply can't get that concept through their Marxist socialist way of thinking.  It's completely antithetical to Marxist socialist dogma. 

Liberal Democrats are captives of Marxist socialist dogma, which demands a redistribution of wealth from producers to those who consume the wealth created by others, while those consumers of wealth do little if anything to become part of the producer class in America.  

There are more people are on food stamps than are students attending all levels of education in America.  America has become a nation of grifters living off the producers and why shouldn't they?  Liberal Democrats have given them every incentive to live off the producers of America with the vast and wide ranging social welfare programs they have enacted into law in order to gain political control over these people.  

When liberal Democrat government provides the basic necessities for human existence, without any responsibility for those receiving the assistance, a perpetual underclass is created and this underclass, almost 50% of tax filers, does not pay personal federal income taxes and a good portion actually get rebates in excess of what taxes they had withheld by employers. 

The best possible outcome for America and its economy would be to completely eliminate the corporate tax altogether and shift the tax to the personal tax rates for individuals who receive dividends and capital gains from their corporate income.  Individuals would receive significant increases in dividends which would make it more palatable to pay the personal tax rate.  This will, however, never happen because politicians in general, and liberal Democrats in particular, will never willingly give up control of a source of tax revenue, even if it means it will increase overall revenues by eliminating the corporate tax.

What makes Nancy Pelosi's proposal delusional is that there is no way on God's green earth, with an enlarged Republican majority in the House, that there is any chance of passing such Marxist socialist tripe.  Could a liberal Democrat be anymore anti American than Nancy Pelosi?  Probably not, but there are a lot of liberal Democrats that could compete for that ignominious distinction.

__________________________________________

Rob Janicki is a retired educator, strong supporter of the 2nd amendment and all around good guy, as well as owner/operator of the website Wired Right  and owes me 20 bucks.