Warren Buffet, Shut Your Pie Hole

Nobody appreciates condescending self-righteousness more than I do (with the possible exception of The Huffington Post), but Warren Buffet is taking it to a level that even I find intolerable.  How many times do we have to hear his babble that he wants to pay more taxes, or this drivel that he dropped on ABC about how the poor are piped and he wants to make things right because, well, he's suddenly and surprisingly discovered that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary?

Oh, I know he's smart enough to have made a gazillion dollars, but how stupid does he think we are? Warren Buffet doesn't pay a lower tax rate than his secretary because of the system's intent, he pays a lower tax because he has a team of tax experts working the system every way they can and dropping his billions into tax shelters that the government can't touch. Oh, and in his faux generosity Buffet also fails to mention the millions he made through the government bailout of banking institutions that he fully supported after he had previously invested there (and that adds up to a sweet $10 billion from his investment in Goldman Sachs alone).

Yet here we are, still watching Buffet grace his favorite media outlets talking about how unfair the system is . . . the very system he milks for millions like Old McDonald on methamphetamine. Like New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, I'm tired of Buffet's insincere rhetoric. If you want to pay more taxes, Warren, shut your pie hole and write a check.

Saturday Morning Funny

The Santorum Surge, Does It Really Mean Anything?

Now that we've had a few days to think about the Santorum primary surge (those yodeled wins last Tuesday in Missouri, Minnesota and Colorado) it's time to consider exactly what it all means. My take . . . not much. I still see Romney pulling out the nomination, bruised but unbeaten, for three primary reasons. Oh, and yes, and I did go there with that double meaning with "primary."

It Doesn't Matter Reason #1) Face it, Santorum has not been splattered by the mud-slinging yet. Yet. While Romney was spending millions exposing Gringrich's baggage and Newt was promising to run a positive campaign as he repeatedly claimed that only a legit birth certificate distinguished Mitt from Obama, Rick Santorum quietly continued to deliver his smiling, I'm-the-electable-and-silly-sweet-conservative message to voters. Well, after Tuesday's success, that is sure to change. Romney will turn his well-funded scorched earth tactic on Santorum, and it won't be pretty. The former Pennsylvanian Senator has plenty of baggage to serve as fuel for the assault. I'm sure Romney will focus overtly on Santorum's historical penchant for ear marks or his sketchy use of Pennsylvania resident tax credits while essentially living in Virginia, but don't be surprised if some of the stranger things in Santorum's past start to enter political dialogue through back channels. Like his equating of homosexuality to bestiality and incest. Or how he blamed liberal politics for sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. And while some may think it touching or simply a product of intense grief, a significant number of 21st century voters are certain to find it a little bizarre that he brought home the corpse of his dead baby for the kids to "cuddle."

It Doesn't Matter Reason #2) Newt is still in the race. Santorum and Gingrich have spent most of the primary season trying to out-conservative the other, speechifying as though only DNA results could disprove each as a Reagan/Thatcher love child. The result: those who are just voting for the conservative label are splitting their vote. Meanwhile, Romney will continue to pull in some conservatives, most moderates, and many who believe he is the most electable in a general election. Advantage, Mitt.


It Doesn't Matter Reason #3) Santorum's lack of money and campaign capability. Plain and simple: Santorum just doesn't have the money to keep up. Oh, I know that like the work of a conscientious hooker, it's not all about the money. If it were, than the Republican candidate wouldn't have a chance for the White House come November. In the last presidential election, Obama outspent John McCain by a nearly 3 to 1 margin and you can pretty much bet the same will be true the next time around. So even Romney can't hope to simply buy his way past the liberal campaign finance machine to score the White House. But you still need a bushel of green to make any credible, long-term run and Santorum just doesn't have the cabbage. In addition, I'm just not impressed by Santorum's ability to campaign. He has the Conservative shtick down, but his debates and interviews are forgettable. For example, when he . . . . see? Gone. And let's face it, his past is filled with as many lost elections as victories.


Oh, It Doesn't Matter Reason #3) Romney didn't campaign in Missouri and only gave a nod to Minnesota. So only Colorado caught him by surprise. I doubt that will happen again.

The Politics of Unemployment or How 8.3% Became Less Than 5.6%

Every once in a while there's an interesting gem posted on those social networks and here's one I snagged from a friend. I figured the time is right to post it on the heels of yesterday's "the Presidency doesn't matter" riff.

This article comes from our friends over a Newsbusters and is worth a read by anybody who is curious about how the media could be thrilled over 8.3% unemployment in 2012, but was despondent with 5.6% in 2004. It's all in the spin . . . and dependant on which party is in office at the time.

Writer Noel Shepherd kicks off his article (yeah, click there to read it) with,

If you needed more proof of liberal media bias, just look at the orgasms created by Friday's announcement that unemployment in January dropped to 8.3 percent. By contrast, these same folks were practically suicidal as the jobless rate dropped to 5.6 percent when George W. Bush was President in January 2004.

Shepherd then goes on to to provide several examples of how the Obama's numbers are presented as proof for canonical consideration while Bush's superior stats were signs of the apacolypse. Worth a read, but only if you have a strong stomach. I only made it halfway through before my Pepto run.

What? It Doesn't Matter Who Is President?

Remember four years ago? Way back when George W Bush was president, unemployment was under 8%, gas averaged under $2 a gallon and only 32 million people had to resort to food stamps? Oh, here are some comparative specs, just in case your memory needs a jog:

Remember how the media loved to blame Bush for all of the country's economic woes? Those woes which, by today's standards seem a bit like Nirvana?

Now, come back to today, when the presidential elections are drawing closer and Barack Obama is going to be called upon to defend his economic record, which reassembles the Jimmy Carter years minus a Billy Beer chaser. How can we expect the mainstream media to handle the Obama financial debacle?

Option 1: Continue to blame Bush. More on this in future posts . . . I'm sure there will be plenty of opportunities.

 Option 2: Suddenly start proclaiming that it can't be Obama's fault because a President doesn't really have much to do with the economy. That's right, the same folk who only a few years ago accused Bush of personally melting America's wealth like Paula Dean's butter will now propose that a President has little or nothing to do with American prosperity. So be ready for more headlines like this one feature online by Yahoo: "Who Is President Matters Much Less Than We Think" where "experts" will say things like: "The president generally matters so much less than we think, especially when it comes to the economy." Or "[As] the president begins his reelection campaign in earnest, one must keep in mind that the Oval Office makes up just one part of the large governing pie."

Here it comes, folks. Bush was to blame when he was in the Oval office. But Barack Obama? Come on, he's only the President.

Chrysler's Patriotic Super Bowl Ad

Sure, this year's Super Bowl ads gave us stripping M&Ms, a return of the Soup Nazi and Jillian Micheals' bedroom eyes, but for my money it was Chrysler's "It's Halftime in America" that stole the night.

Chrysler's spot was filled with inspirational zeal and Clint Eastwood. What's not to love? The message: things have been rough of late for America, but the game isn't over yet. "Yeah, it's halftime, America, and our second half is about to begin."

Now, I love the positive references to the D in the ad (that's "The D" as in "Detroit" for those of you distant from the Motor City) but it's the commercial's message of hope through effort that will keep it in my mind long after the rest of the night's funny pitches are long forgotten . . . well, except maybe Jillian Michaels.

Here is the full Chrysler add courtesy of YouTube.

Nevada Refuses to Gamble on Newt

As expected, the infinitely unelectable Newt Gingrich lost the Nevada caucus by a substantial number; the overnight night tally placing the margin at 48% to 23%. Oh, apparently Ron Paul and Rick Santorum are still collecting some votes as well. Sure, voter turnout resembled a Richard Marx appreciation concert, but for Romney a big victory is a big victory.

Also as expected, Gingrich vowed to push a positive campaign against Romney who, in Newt's positive words, "has in his career been pro-abortion, pro-gun control, pro-tax increase and who ranks third from the bottom in creating jobs in the four years he was governor." Gingrich went on to dismiss the loss by pointing out that Nevada is home to oodles and oodles of Mormons who evidently have to vote for Romney. It's also the setting for the original CSI . . . is there a connection?

Meanwhile, Mitt Romney gave a victory speech that contained one of his best campaign lines to date: "This president began his presidency by apologizing for America. He should now be apologizing to America."

Jon McNaughton's Controversial "The Forgotten Man"

If the pen is mightier than the sword, where does the paint brush rank? We all know that art can have an electric impact on political dialogue. I mean, who could forget Shepard Fairey's Obama boosting HOPE poster, which was plastered on more college dorm room walls than last night's partially digested beer & slider upheaval? Well, now entering into the conversation is Jon McNaughton's "The Forgotten Man."

McNaughton's work may never reach the iconic nor commercial success of Fairey's oft imitated print, but it is selling in the thousands and creating quite a stir on Al Gore's Internet with its controversial portrayal of presidents past and president. One look from those on the political Left have them steaming, "How could he disrespect President Obama by having him stand aloof and defiant with his foot on the Constitution?" Those on the Right undoubtedly also question the President's foot on the Constitution, suggesting, "He should be unzipping to relieve himself on John Hancok's looping signature, because that's what he's really doing to our document of freedom."

Regardless of where you stand, click here to read McNaughton's explanation of the work.

The Khaki Elephant is back

After a nearly two-year hiatus, the Khaki Elephant is back.

What caused the site to disappear? Too much interference from a real job? Too much work dealing with stress-producing children? Too much money to buy back "khakielephant.com" that was snatched from under our noses? Too much stress watching Obama supporters defend an IBS inducing presidency?

It doesn't matter. The hiatus is over and the Khaki Elephant is ready to write. I hope you, faithful readers . . . the one or two of you that return . . . are ready as well.

And just to make sure we re-start on the right foot: here's a dude with a really weird sunburn.

Obama's Transparency = More Censorship

Lafayette Park is to protests as Madonna is to STDs: it attracts them by the score. Why, during the Bush years your dog couldn't lift its leg without relieving itself on some liberal toting an "I hate" sign. Oh, how things have changed with Obama in charge.

A few would-be protesters decided to criticize the current administration for their stance on gays in the military and a few reporters decided to see what was going on and, well, the police assigned to the White House were dispatched to disperse the reporters and arrest the protesters. The park was suddenly "closed" (a move the reporters on hand had never experience before). So much for diversity.

Interestingly, this incident occured just after a delegation from the White House press corps (pronounced "core," Mr. President) met with Obama Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, to protest the administration's heavy handed control of the press. And, of course, this was not the first time some in the press have tried to shuck Obama's outrageous control. Who can forget left-leaning Helen Thomas joining Chip Reid to break ranks and question censorship from the Oval Office.

Kilpatrick: GUILTY

Today Wayne County Circuit Judge David Groner found former Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick guilty of several probation violations (including hiding some $650,000 that would pay a small portion of what he owes back to the city of Detroit). "You would be well advised to have your affairs in order before sentencing," the judge advised, and I'm guessing this wasn't a reference to former chief of staff Christine Beatty.

Sentencing is currently scheduled for May 20, 2010 when we all learn the punishment for gettin' your groove on Detroit's dime.

Z on Liz Cheney and Debra Burlingame

One of my favorite bloggers took a trip to hear Liz Cheney and Debra Burlingame talk about national security. And when Z takes a trip the results are going to be an A delivery of info. Here summary . . .

Both women are formidable and as patriotic and informed as two women can be. And they're very worried for our country.

Ah, and speaking of fomidable, patriotic and informed women: I recommend that you can read Z's entire post here:

Liz Cheney and Debra Burlingame

Obama's Culture Of Dependency

"And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country." -- John F. Kennedy (1/20/1961)

You're about as likely to hear a Democrat utter those words today as hear a BoSox fan wax eloquent about Derek Jeter. The ruling party in Washington is not your father's Democratic party and it has never been more revealing than during the era of Obama handouts. Just listen to Obama voters like DeCarlo Flythe who explains, " It's just going to be like Christmas, I mean it's going to be great. No worries . . ." or Henrietta Hughes and her tear-jerking plea for something free. It is the culture of dependence on which the current Democratic party thrives. Keep people begging for handouts and you're more likely to maintain power.

The fact that some Americans take umbrage with this approach explains the continued momentum of the Tea Party rallies, but the Obots in the press just don't get it. Take the much played footage of CNN's Susan Roesgen asking a tea party attendee if he knew "that you're eligible for a $400 credit?" And when the man continued to hold his "drop socialism" sign, she went on, "Did you know that the state of Lincoln gets fifty billion out of the stimulus?" She was even more dumbfounded than usual, unable to grasp the concept that not everybody was lining up for free stuff. Some folk, we'll call them Republicans, actually prefer independence to dependence, effort to endowment.

This stands at odds with the Obama Democrat philosophy that is built on a foundation of neediness. The problem this creates is succinctly captured by the Washington Examiner's Michael Barone

Public policy also helps determine the kind of society we are. The Obama Democrats see a society in which ordinary people cannot fend for themselves, where they need to have their incomes supplemented, their health care insurance regulated and guaranteed, their relationships with their employers governed by union leaders. Highly educated mandarins can make better decisions for them than they can make themselves.

That is the culture of dependence. The tea partiers see things differently. They're not looking for lower taxes; half of tea party supporters, a New York Times survey found, think their taxes are fair. Nor are they financially secure: Half say someone in their household may lose their job in the next year. Two-thirds say the recession has caused some hardship in their lives. But they recognize, correctly, that the Obama Democrats are trying to permanently enlarge government and increase citizens' dependence on it.

Gates: There Is No Policy To Stop Iran From Nukes

According to a "classified document" with more leaks than a Cuban refugee escape vessel, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates is warning that the U.S. has no policy to curb Iran's rapid move toward nuclear weapons. I wonder how many Obama supporters still believe you can thwart terrorist objects through understanding and apology.

Those familiar with the memo, speaking on the condition of anonymity, reveal that:

Mr. Gates wrote of a variety of concerns, including the absence of an effective strategy should Iran choose the course that many government and outside analysts consider likely: Iran could assemble all the major parts it needs for a nuclear weapon — fuel, designs and detonators — but stop just short of assembling a fully operational weapon.

In that case, Iran could remain a signatory of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty while becoming what strategists call a “virtual” nuclear weapons state.

Like the Clinton administration, who practiced an appeasement policy that actually went so far as to supply North Korea with a nuclear reactor, the Obama team is counting on passivity to stop pugnacity, but the world does not work that way.

Equally frightening is that fact that a memo this explosive was leaked to the press (not that the mainstream media will cover it, given its obvious reflection on Obama). I'd suggest that from here on the administration place highly classified documents like this under the same security measures as Barack Obama's academic records.

Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution Is Health Care

Yes, Oprah is annoying and Ryan Seacrest is, well, Ryan Seacrest, but both are now connected with a project that I've found myself drawn to: Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution, a program where the afore mentioned British chef (Oliver, not Seacrest) comes to a chubby American community in an effort to change the way it eats, from breakfast pizza at school to deep fryers at home. The show follows a similar effort by Oliver in Britain that actually resulted in a change to their school system's nutritional requirements.

Perhaps my interest in the program is sparked by the fact that it appeared on the tube just a couple weeks after I started my own Khaki food revolution, banning the likes of Coke (acola), processed foods, beer and the occasional cigar from my diet . . . OK, I still sneak the occasional cigar, but the rest of my former diet is swimming with Luca Brasi . . . well, except the beer. Anyway, Oliver's Food Revolution is a must see for any parent who has scanned the school lunch program in search of healthy offerings only to find chicken nuggets, french fries and cheese that smells suspiciously of Elmer's glue.

Oliver's message is as simple as it is critical:

I believe that every child in America has the right to fresh, nutritious school meals, and that every family deserves real, honest, wholesome food. Too many people are being affected by what they eat. It's time for a national revolution. America needs to stand up for better food!

If you're worried about American health care, take a close look at the school lunch programs. You may not sleep for a week. If we want to make a difference in our nation's health while at the same time decreasing the cost of care, let's start by removing heart-pummeling foods from the school lunch rooms. And you can take a first step by signing this petition: America's Food Revolution Petition