Tuesday, November 10, 2015

5 Destructive Things Done to America by President Obama

Barb Wire ^ | 11/10/2015 | Larry Tomczak 

In Spectre, the 25th James Bond film currently in theaters, Oscar-winning actor and villain Christopher Waltz snidely tells Agent 007 these words. While a bit of an overstatement, the point is well taken.
As the years unfold, I am persuaded that countless millions will identify words like these with the Obama presidency. Whether our next president can help dismantle some of what Barack Obama has done remains to be seen. Barring a spiritual awakening in America and the resulting returning to our conservative values led by a uniquely gifted commander-in-chief; the repercussions of Barack Obama’s “transformation of America” will be catastrophic.
It’s why seven years ago Rush Limbaugh said his desire for the Obama presidency was simple: “I hope he fails.”
Scripture tells us, “When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice, but when a wicked man beareth rule, the people sigh” (Prv 29:2 ASV). Plainly stated, people have cause to either rejoice or mourn dependent on whether their governing authorities are God-fearing or unrighteous.
When competent and godly leaders rule, they set a tone for the society as they conduct affairs according to God’s standards. The result will not be utopia but rather a general happiness, prosperity and stability in the land. President Obama does not fit this category and that is a primary reason why there is so much mourning throughout our land.
I step back knowing I prayed for this man every single day of his terms in office yet must respectfully but forthrightly assess his “fruit” as disastrous. What he has done has been unbelievably detrimental to the Judeo-Christian principles upon which our nation was founded. Are you aware of how far we’ve fallen under his leadership and lack thereof?
Five Major Areas of Decline
1. The Military
Besides what has been called the “gayification” of our Armed Forces, we’ve seen the undermining of religious expression among our military chaplains and officers. Lieutenant General (retired) William Boykin put it best, “If chaplains and other personnel are censored from offering the full solace of the gospel, there is no religious freedom in the military.”
There have also been massive reductions in military personnel, leaving us dangerously vulnerable in the event of a crisis, plus military frustration at the highest level in decades. “There’s a level of dissatisfaction among the uniformed military that I’ve never seen in my time here” said John McCain, Senate Armed Services Chairman.
For this I mourn.
2. Marriage and Family
President Obama’s aggressive advocacy of the LGBTQ agenda has brought devastation to the traditional family. He endorsed gay marriage; violated young girls by forcing school districts to allow boys who identify as girls to have full access to the girl’s locker room and showers; undermined the Defense of Marriage Act; celebrated the LGBTQ lifestyle by affirming people “coming out” and appointing unprecedented numbers of LGBTQ proponents to government positions; and, now endorses efforts to ban “conversion therapy” counseling for youth struggling with gay and transgender confusion.
President Obama has worked aggressively to transform marriage, sexuality and our children into considering participation in the LGBTQ lifestyle as a normal, healthy sign of liberation! His official White House website touts efforts to stop counseling young people struggling with same-sex attraction and transgenderism as “protecting America’s youth.”
For this I mourn.
3. Radical Islam and Terrorism
President Obama’s timid approach to dealing with the menace of ISIS and other radical, Islamic jihadists is unbelievably reckless. Believing that we can somehow diminish their strength and effectively defeat these barbarians by ignoring them or downplaying their threat, strains credulity. Their growing threat coupled with the Iranian “nuclear deal” is bringing us to an apocalypse.
The latest terror warning in Sinai with 224 passengers killed in the “downing” of a Russian plane caused the Wall Street Journal to bluntly state in a lead editorial, “The greatest folly of the administration’s Mideast policy has been to imagine that an arms–length approach to the region’s troubles would keep its problems away from us. But as with the refugee crisis in Europe, or ISIS inspired jihadist attacks in the US, the tragedy in Sinai is another reminder that trying to downplay the threat of terrorism only brings its risks closer to home.”
For this I also mourn.
4. The Economy and National Debt
Dr. Laurence Kotlikoff, Professor of Economics at Boston University tried to wake up our leaders in testimony before the U.S. Senate. He stated emphatically that “Americas fiscal insolvency and it’s generational consequences means our country is broke. It’s not broke in 75 years or 50 years or 25 years or 10 years. It’s broke today. Indeed, it may well be in worse shape (currently almost $19 trillion in debt) than any developed country, including Greece.”
Yet our president keeps spending, raising the debt limit, promising entitlements, all the while adding almost as much debt as all previous American presidents combined. And don’t forget he conveys how our economy is booming while conveniently ignoring over 90 million people not in the workforce; 50 million on food stamps; Obamacare premiums skyrocketing; and, the inevitable day of economic reckoning drawing near. “Time is running out. Get ready for a roller coaster ride through hell!” warns economic forecaster Larry Edelson.
Forbes magazine helps us comprehend this staggering amount, which is leading us to the inevitable economic crash: “In 2015, Taylor Swift did 55 concerts and earned $80 million. She would have to perform 365 concerts a year for three years to simply pay for ONE DAY OF INTEREST accrued on our debt.” Get the message?
For this I likewise mourn.
5. Illegal Immigration and Prisoner Release
President Obama refuses to enforce laws concerning the massive influx of illegal immigrants into our country, knowing these are grateful, potential Democratic voters! The majority is Hispanic but there are Muslims as well. Europe is being overrun by the immigrant crisis and what is happening there will be our lot in 10 years unless new leadership acts swiftly, legally and compassionately.
Have you noticed some signs of the times? Hamtramck Michigan City Council now has a Muslim majority. Washington, D.C. joins other locales in giving driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants.
Our president also believes in leniency and amnesty for drug felons. Almost 50% of the inmates in federal penitentiaries serving time for drug offenses are now having their sentences automatically reduced. “These are young people who made mistakes that aren’t that different than the mistakes I made and the mistakes that a lot of you guys made,” the president told journalists recently at a federal prison in Oklahoma.
The reality is 75% of these individuals are violent criminals. Their “mistakes” consist not merely of smoking a casual joint but distribution of hard drugs, often involving gangs and weaponry. Their felony convictions resulted in many of the 44,000 who die from drug overdoses each year. Consider also the scores of young people getting addicted, families being destroyed and children now executed in drug gang wars like the nine-year-old boy a week ago.
Are these harmless, victimless crimes and simply minor “mistakes?” Or is this an example of misguided “mercy” that likewise brings in new Democratic voters? Read “Obama’s Tragic Let ’em Out Fantasy” (WSJ 10/25/15) to learn more.
Yes, for this I also mourn.
Here’s the Deal: In 2009, President Obama declared these words regarding his Obamacare victory, “Elections have consequences. And at the end of the day, I won!”
It would do us well to remember that in the 2012 presidential election, Obama beat Romney by 5 million votes. Over 17 million evangelical Christians stayed home and did not vote. Is voting important?
For the past seven years we learned the hard way that President Obama was serious about his pledge to “fundamentally transform America.” I believe without question that his lack of character and questionable commitment to his professed Christian faith have wreaked havoc on the moral landscape of the United States of America. May we redouble our efforts in prayer, fasting and civic engagement to see competent, godly leaders raised up so mourning may be silenced and some rejoicing begins afresh in our land!


boblonsberry.com ^ | 11/10/15 | Bob Lonsberry 

Everything changed on American college campuses yesterday. A chill wind blew through every president and chancellor’s office.

A reign of terror commenced.

With the announcement that the chancellor and president of the University of Missouri system had been forced out of office, a new national paradigm of collegiate power was established. Its impact on an already tottering system of higher education is uncertain but frightening.

What’s the background: Black students, fueled by the professional protesting at Ferguson, felt slighted. They cited an incident in which the student-body president claimed he was called a racial slur, a swastika was drawn in excrement on the side of a building, and the unsatisfying reaction of the college president when black activists surrounded and detained him and his car during a homecoming parade.

Protesting became constant, a squatters camp was established, and the escalating rhetoric of racial anger grew louder and louder.

And school officials didn’t kiss the angry black ass just the way it wanted to be kissed.

So the president’s neck became the target.

And yesterday it was offered up.

And a lesson was learned.

Namely, that if you shout long enough and angrily enough, you can get anything you want. Further, the precedent is set that college presidents can be toppled for non-specific accusations of racial insensitivity – with racial insensitivity determined by the subjective rantings of a small number of anarchist activists.

The very nature of minority activism in America today is escalating dissatisfaction. No matter what is changed, offered or delivered, there is only a growing demand for more. The grievance is based less in reality and more in greed and bigotry. Blood in the water doesn’t satisfy a shark, it only makes it hungrier.

And the victory yesterday over the University of Missouri system will only inspire in activists today a lust for similar victories on other campuses. The trail has been blazed, and many will now follow it.

The new standard for campus racial activism will include a hammer that hangs constantly over the head of the president. Should a college leader not seem zealous enough in placating the complaints of minority activists, things could go Mizzou.

Every college administrator in America must have realized that yesterday.

As a consequence, minority activists have gained an ever larger role in determining the direction of American higher education. Saying yes buys a college president a season of peace; saying no could cost her her job.

The “progressive” nature of activism requires a constant upping of the ante, a pushing of the bar higher and higher. There is a competition among activists as each situation or person feels the need to outdo and surpass the other. If one marches, they all march.

And yesterday any number of activists on any number of college campuses set their sights on the president’s scalp. That has become the new gold standard of activist power.

In light of that, it should be noted that the basic posture of almost all minority activists on college campuses is discontent. It is hard to find a campus on which some committee does not have some grievance against some policy or percentage. A search of college newspapers and websites shows story after story about minority students complaining of one slight or another. There are a lot of people feeling disrespected.

And they mostly complain that the administration isn’t taking them seriously enough.

Which is what happened at the University of Missouri – and could easily happen at dozens of American colleges.

In a way, the colleges asked for it.

A haven of discontent with society for a generation, with hatred sometimes the unstated theme of a syllabus, it is only natural that colleges should be burned by the spark they flamed and fanned. When you teach people to be angry, you can’t be surprised when they become angry at you.

But somewhere the basic mission of education is jeopardized. When colleges become expounders of a narrow and angry anarchy, when the tail of racial and political activism wags the dog of genuine education, the system collapses and the society is damaged.

We need colleges, we just don’t need them to be like this.

We don’t need groups of shouting activists holding the reins of power.

But yesterday, that is exactly what they were handed.

Why Millionaires Like Hillary Clinton: Here's why the Democrats are the Real Party of the Rich!

PJ Media ^ | 11/10/2015 | Tyler O'Neil 

Hillary Clinton has one key part of the electorate already in the tank for her candidacy — millionaires and CEOs. In Congress, Democrats represent the richest and most unequal districts in America. While liberal pundits attack the GOP as the party of the rich, the real plutocrats are on the other side of the aisle.
How can this be? The Democrats rail against the abuses of the "one percent" and run on a platform of reducing income inequality, but the rich continue to support them. Liberals attack unregulated markets, call for unrealistic "green energy" proposals, and wish to force businesses to pay employees more by increasing the minimum wage or including new family leave or other benefits.
These policies do not actually hurt the rich or the owners of big businesses, however. Rather, they entrench big businesses at the expense of small ones. Established businesses can afford to pay a little more on the margins, but start-up companies cannot. The more government is involved, the more it can benefit those who have already achieved success. Politicians can benefit their supporters, their "cronies," and so this practice is called "crony capitalism" or "cronyism."

Crony Clintonism

Hillary Clinton is a master of crony capitalism. Between 2009 and 2013, Russians assumed control over 20 percent of America's uranium production by taking over the company Uranium One. Such a large merger required State Department confirmation, but luckily Uranium One's chairman had contributed $2.36 million to the Clinton Foundation, and a Russian investment bank paid former president Bill Clinton $500,000 for a speech. Following these contributions, the State Department accepted the merger, as reported by the New York Times [1].
The Clinton Foundation has fallen under strict scrutiny this year after the release of stories like this one. A Wall Street Journal article [2] chronicled "Crony Clintonism," mentioning the ways Homeland Security official Alejandro Mayorkas helped Clinton confidante Terry McAuliffe (former DNC chairperson, now Virginia's governor) and Hillary’s brother Tony Rodham. Mayorkas streamlined the visa process for foreign nationals who invested in projects run by McAuliffe and Rodham.
Perhaps it is less surprising then that more CEOs have donated to Clinton [3] than to any Republican candidate in the 2016 presidential race. Indeed, 769 people who have given to her campaign identified their profession as "CEO" or "chief executive." That is more than Jeb Bush (543) and Marco Rubio (127) combined. Cruz and Fiorina have only 109 and 33, respectively.
Clinton also beats her Republican rivals in polling among millionaires [4]. In a head-to-head matchup of 750 Americans with a net worth of $1 million or more, Clinton beat Bush 53 percent to 47 percent. In the broad field, Clinton leads with 36 percent, Jeb is in second with 20 percent, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has 8 percent, and Governor Chris Christie (R-NJ) follows with 7 percent.

Other Democrats

Wealthy support for Democrats does not stop with Clinton, however. Over the last 25 years, rich donors have favored Democrats [5] over the GOP to the tune of $416 million. Of the 32 biggest all-time donors in American politics, 20 favor Democrats, while only 6 favor Republicans, according to an analysis by National Review’s Jim Geraghty [6].
Soft contributions prove even more skewed. In The New Leviathan [7], Dr. David Horowitz and Jacob Laksin estimate that the Republican Party is outspent by a factor of 7-to-1 when considering the contributions of public and private sector unions, non-profits, left-wing activism, Wall Street banks, universities, and superfund contributors. Even Charles and David Koch, the notorious bogeymen Koch brothers, come in 59th on a list of top political contributors in the past 25 years [8] — behind public and private sector unions.
There are also more Democratic millionaires in Congress [9], and Washington, D.C., is the richest area in the country [10]. Big government does not hurt the rich, it helps them. In the wealthiest area of the country, Obama’s approval rating in 2013 was higher than anywhere else [11].
President Obama has even admitted [12] that, under his presidency from 2009 to 2012, 95 percent of income gains have gone to the top 1 percent. While this fact invigorated Democrats to call for more distribution of wealth, it also illustrates that cronyism is rampant under a Democratic president.
Speaking of inequality, Democrats in Congress represent the districts with the highest income inequality [13]. The Atlantic's Michael Zuckerman suggests that this might explain why Democrats care more about income inequality, but there may well be a different connection. Supporters of big government may end up reinforcing a two-tiered society of the well-connected rich and the poor on benefits.

Dodd-Frank, Obamacare, and Crony Capitalism

In recent years, mergers and acquisitions have spiked across the economy, while small businesses are shutting their doors — but nowhere more pronounced than in finance and health care. Two of President Obama's touted accomplishments passed in 2010 have propped up the big, established businesses at the expense of lean entrepreneurs.
Dodd-Frank, which aimed to reform the financial system and end "too big to fail" — making sure that no bank was so big the economy's stability relied on it — has entrenched big banks [14] and bad business practices, according to a recent Harvard University study [15].
Dodd-Frank failed because it was based on a false premise — the authors blamed the financial crisis of 2007-2008 on the lack of good regulations. In fact, regulations grew every year from 1999 to 2008, according to the Mercatus Center at George Mason University [16]. Too much regulation arguably caused the financial crisis — and what was the government’s response? More regulation!
Before 2010, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) approved an average of 170 new banks a year [14] — since then, it has only approved one. At the same time, government figures indicate the United States is losing one community bank or credit union a day. The Harvard study found that the cost of complying with Dodd-Frank’s regulations was the major reason behind small banks’ loss of profitability.
Larger banks, meanwhile, have seen a boost in market share. As Hot Air's Ed Morrissey points out [17], Dodd-Frank has "proven the point of conservatives, who have consistently argued that regulatory expansion disproportionately impacts smaller players in any market." In other words, cronyism hits the small guy at the expense of the rich — exactly the result one might expect when the party of the rich runs the government.
Similarly, the increase in regulations from the Affordable Care Act, also known as "Obamacare," has sparked a wave of mergers and acquisitions [18]. Just this year, Aetna acquired Humana, Anthem acquired Cigna, and the non-profit "co-op" plans are dropping like flies. Last year saw 95 hospital mergers and acquisitions, as reported by the Wall Street Journal [19].
Much like a monopoly, larger insurance companies and hospitals can corner the market, demanding higher costs and producing less value for their customers. The increases in regulation from Obamacare are pushing large companies to grow even larger, edging out potential competition. This is a bad situation for free choice and markets, and helps account for the increase in costs [20] that average Americans have to pay for health plans.

Income Inequality

If the Democrats are so connected to the rich, why do they support higher income tax rates? Forbes' Steven Hayward [21] has a canny answer — because these rates won’t hurt today's rich. "Higher income tax rates will not touch the bulk of the fortunes of today's plutocrats, for the simple reason that the great bulk of the accumulated wealth of Gates, Buffett, Silicon Valley and Wall Street consists of appreciated asset values — not ordinary income," he writes.
If Democrats oppose economic inequality, Heyward challenges, "where is the call for a straight-up wealth tax?" In 1935, Huey Long proposed that no one should be allowed to keep any wealth beyond a certain limit — but even Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are not proposing such a radical scheme.
From Russian uranium deals to Dodd-Frank, Democrats are the party of the rich, the established. Republicans are the true insurgents. Now the success of outsiders like Donald Trump, Ben Carson, and Carly Fiorina starts to make a little more sense.

Article printed from PJ Media: http://pjmedia.com
URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/blog/why-millionaires-like-hillary-clinton/
URLs in this post:
[1] reported by the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html
[2] A Wall Street Journal article: http://www.wsj.com/articles/crony-clintonism-1427495169
[3] more CEOs have donated to Clinton: http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/20/more-ceos-donate-to-hillary-clinton-than-to-gop.html
[4] polling among millionaires: http://www.cnbc.com/2015/05/05/hillary-is-the-favorite-among-millionaire-voters-survey.html
[5] rich donors have favored Democrats: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/02/the-real-party-of-the-rich-guys-top-dem-donors-have-outspent-top-gop-donors-by-486-million-in-last-25-years/
[6] National Review's Jim Geraghty: http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/371275/biggest-all-time-donors-american-politics-are-jim-geraghty
[7] The New Leviathan: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B006OHIXK2/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?ie=UTF8&btkr=1
[8] top political contributors in the past 25 years: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/it-turns-out-the-evil-koch-bros-are-only-the-59th-biggest-donors-in-american-politics.-can-you-guess-who-is-number-one/article/2544025
[9] more Democratic millionaires in Congress: http://www.ijreview.com/2014/02/116056-wall-street-bankers-top-donors-agree-democrat-party-new-party-rich/
[10] richest area in the country: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/12/why-there-are-so-many-rich-counties-concentrated-around-washington-dc/282481/
[11] higher than anywhere else: http://www.gallup.com/poll/167063/hawaiians-residents-approving-obama-2013.aspx
[12] Obama has even admitted: http://money.cnn.com/2013/09/15/news/economy/income-inequality-obama/
[13] highest income inequality: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/the-polarized-partisan-geography-of-inequality/360130/
[14] entrenched big banks: http://www.valuesandcapitalism.com/after-5-years-of-dodd-frank-too-big-to-fail-is-bigger-than-ever/
[15] Harvard University study: http://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/mrcbg/publications/awp/awp37
[16] Mercatus Center at George Mason University: http://mercatus.org/publication/did-deregulation-cause-financial-crisis-examining-common-justification-dodd-frank
[17] Hot Air's Ed Morrissey points out: http://hotair.com/archives/2015/02/12/harvard-study-dodd-frank-actually-made-too-big-to-fail-even-bigger/
[18] sparked a wave of mergers and acquisitions: http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-the-affordable-care-act-is-reducing-competition-1436136236
[19] reported by the Wall Street Journal: http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-obamacare-effect-hospital-monopolies-1429480447
[20] increase in costs: http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2015/06/29/u-s-health-care-costs-rise-faster-than-inflation/
[21] Forbes' Steven Hayward: http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenhayward/2014/01/08/how-did-the-democrats-become-the-party-of-the-rich/

10 Things You Didn’t Know About The Three Stooges

Screen Crush ^ | April 13, 2012 | Danny Gallagher 

A comedy group like ‘The Three Stooges’ might seem like mindless entertainment to some (i.e. women), but their reach and influence can be seen in just about every form of comedy from the small stage to the big screen.
Their iconic pokes, jabs and slaps turned good ol’ fashioned vaudeville slapstick into an art form. They also poked at more than just eyes in their time. Some of the earlier plots satirized and poked fun of greed and high society, health care, economic depression and even Adolph Hitler and the Nazi Party, long before America would join the Allies to fight the Axis powers in WWII. So whether or not the Farrelly Brothers’ big-screen tribute to the kings of slapstick can live up to their legacy and help a whole new generation find the funny in films the rest of us spent so much time laughing at on Saturday afternoons and Sunday mornings, we fondly look back at some of the more interesting aspects of this amalgamated association of morons (Local 6 7/8ths).

1. Moe got his haircut because his mother wanted a girl

Hulton Archive/Getty
The boys’ notoriously bad haircuts have become as important a part of their legacy as their moves and movies. Moe, aka Moses Horwitz, and his brothers, Curly (Jerome), Shemp (Samuel), Jack and Irving, were raised in a small Jewish community in Bensonhurst, New York to Solomon and Jennie Horwitz. Moe was always seen with his signature bowl cut hairstyle even in his old age, but he had a much different hair style as a young boy.
According to 'The Three Stooges Scrapbook,' Moe actually had long curly hair in his younger days because his mother loved the look since she always wanted to raise a girl. His hair attracted teasing in grammar school and one day, he got fed up and cut off his curly locks himself with a pair of scissors resulting in the spittoon look that made him famous.

2. Curly got his signature walk after accidentally shooting himself in the foot

None of the Stooges have more distinct features and mannerisms than the undisputed king of dumb comedy, Curly. His paunch frame and shaved head had just as much to do with the development of his character and comedy as the physical comedy that made him famous, all of which he developed on the stage and as he made his way into the group. His famous shuffled walk, however, started long before he longed to perform on a stage.
Moe's only daughter, Joan Maurer, said in the Larry Fine biography 'One Fine Stooge,' his Uncle "Babe" accidentally shot himself in the foot at a young age and refused to get surgery because the procedure scared him. He ended up walking with a limp, but he masked it in his films by exaggerating his walk in the recognizable gait we’ve seen in his films.

3. Larry Fine started playing the violin because of a bad accident that almost cost him his left arm

Larry, aka Louis Feinberg, grew up in South Philadelphia to Joseph and Fannie Feinberg and took up his trademark violin at a very young age. However, it wasn’t just a way to learn music. It was the result of a very serious accident that severely burned his left arm.
Larry’s father worked as a jeweler and had some very corrosive chemicals in his store. At the age of four, Larry accidentally grabbed a bottle of oxalic acid, a substance used to test the quality of gold, and spilled some of it on his left arm. The acid burned it from the skin to the muscles. He was able to get a skin graft but the muscles were still weak and the doctor recommend Larry take up boxing to regain control of it. His father didn’t approve, even though he won his first professional fight, and his mother suggested he take up the violin to strengthen his left arm. He turned out to be a gifted musician who would go on to play with the Philadelphia Orchestra at age 9 and took his famous fiddle with him into his show business career.

4. There were way more than just three Stooges

The first group, Shemp, Larry and Moe, got their start in film thanks in part to fellow vaudeville star Ted Healy who called the act his "Stooges." A talent scout for Fox Studios discovered Healy and his Stooges on stage and offered them their first movie ‘Soup to Nuts,’ written by famed comic artist Rube Goldberg. Fine and the Howard boys later teamed up with Healy again for two more films, but Shemp grew tired of being slapped around by Healy and left the act. Moe brought Curly into the act but tensions rose between Moe and Healy and Moe decided to go in films along with his brother Babe and Larry. Healy wouldn’t let them go without a fight. He wouldn't give him the name "Stooges" and Moe had to sue him in court for the rights to the name.
Healy moved on as well and recast his Stooges with comedians Paul “Mousie” Garner, Dick Hakins and Jack Wolf, and once more a few years later with comedians Jimmy Brewster, Sammy Wolfe and Rhett Person. Neither group lasted very long. Shemp, who was already finding plenty of work in Hollywood as a prolific character actor, even created his own group with four other actors for the 1934 RKO comedy ‘The Knife of the Party,’ billed as Shemp Howard and His Stooges. Universal also created their own group for the 1934 film ‘Gift of Gab’ after trying to secure the original group after negotiations failed and they cast news actors Sid Walker, Skins Miller and Jack Harling and billed them as “The Three Stooges.” So if you add up all of these previous Stooges as well as future replacements Joe Besser and Curly Joe DeRita (assuming you don’t have a terrific headache by now), that makes a total of 20 Stooges.

5. Curly actually had a very nice head of hair

In the midst of all this switching and recasting and asking the real Stooges to please stand up, none stood out more than the original chowderhead Curly. Moe’s kid brother, nicknamed “Babe,” was starting to take an interest in show business before Shemp’s exit, most notably by playing a madcap musical conductor for a New York theater orchestra whose tuxedo would break away throughout the song. Healy agreed to take the young comedian into the group under one condition.
Curly said in an interview that he actually had “beautiful wax hair and a waxed moustache” and when he asked Healy what he could do to join the Stooges, he said  Healy told him, “You can shave off your hair to start with.” The new look stuck with him through the rest of his career.

6. No one quite knows exactly how Ted Healy died

Another big reason for the Stooges' split from Healy was his abusive nature, violent alcoholism and refusal to give a fair share of his movies’ earnings with the boys. He was still in high demand for films and a respectable star, despite his off-screen behavior and inability to manage his finances. Then in 1937, Healy had gone out for a drink to celebrate the birth of his son, John Jacob Nash. He reportedly stumbled from bar to bar before ending up at the Trocadero on Sunset Boulevard where he got into a fistfight with 29-year-old Albert Broccoli who would go on to produce the James Bond films. Eventually the two made up, but another eyewitness in the bar said they saw Healy become belligerent with two other men in the bar who were on dates that night. Two of the bar’s attendants carried him out and took turns beating him in the head and stomach before a cab whisked him away from the scene. A friend found him in front of the Hollywood Plaza Hotel and took him to a doctor who bandaged Healy up and sent him home. His condition only got worse. He eventually suffered a massive heart attack that put him into a coma from which he never recovered, just two days after becoming a father.
A hasty autopsy by the Los Angeles coroner ruled Healy’s death was not caused by any skull fractures or brain injuries and found no blood clots or cerebral hemorrhages, but his body was embalmed at a mortuary before the autopsy. Instead, the coroner ruled that acute and chronic alcoholism caused his death. Another report suggested he died of the heart attack but the attending physician, the same who had just brought his son into the world two days earlier, refused to sign the death certificate. His widow Betty and sister Marcia insisted Healy had been sober for eight months prior and only had a few drinks to celebrate his new son. The conflicting reports only fueled more wild gossip and speculation about Health’s untimely passing.

7. Shemp invented the eye poke

Devastated by Healy's death, the boys pressed on with the act. They signed an exclusive contract with Columba Pictures to shoot shorts from the mid 1930s to the early 1940s that were a very popular way to bring audiences to the theaters for the studio’s big budget features and would eventually make Curly, Larry and Moe immortal comedy icons. One of their signature gags, however, was actually invented during this formative time by Shemp who worked in films with Abbott and Costello and W.C. Fields before rejoining the Stooges after Curly suffered a debilitating stroke in 1947 during the filming of ‘Half Wits Holiday.’
Moe recalled in a radio interview that he, Shemp and Larry were playing bridge and Shemp accused Larry of cheating. The argument became so heated that Shemp reared back with two fingers and poked Larry hard in both eyes. Moe recalled, “Larry had tears coming from his eyes for a week. It struck me so funny I leaned backward in a chair and went right through a glass door.” The move became a staple of the boys’ arsenal.

8. The cast got hurt on the set more than you think

The pokes, punches and slaps may have been well choreographed from their years of work in clubs and enhanced with wacky Foley sound effects, but there were still many dangers to be had during filming. The Stooges didn't start using a Foley machine to enhance their physical gags until they started working with director Jules White at Columbia and Healy usually held nothing back while slapping and punching his Stooges.
Larry remembered for his biography that during the filming of 'Three Little Pigskins,’ the script called for all three of the boys to get tackled by a group of pro-football players. The Stooges may have done their own stunts in slap fights but they were hardly stuntmen and insisted they have three professionals stand in for them. The director eventually relented and hired some doubles to stand in for them. The doubles suffered several broken ribs and limbs from the hard tackle and the studio hired doubles ever since to handle the bigger stunts.
Even the infamous pie fights, most of which were thrown by Moe who developed a science for flinging pies, were serious hazards on the set. Since filming required multiple takes and the shorts department had smaller budgets, they had to reuse the thrown pies for retakes. The crew simply swept up the gooey mixtures off the hardwood floor and slapped them back in the pans. Sometimes, one of the recycled pies would have an occasional nail or wood shard from the dirty studio floor mixed in with them.

9. One of Curly’s possible replacements was comedian Buddy Hackett

Curly’s debilitating stroke was a major setback not just to the act, but also to Moe who had always tried to help his little brother settle down and leave his raucous party days and heavy drinking behind him.
When it became clear that Curly wasn’t well enough to return to work, Moe, White and the producers began searching for a replacement. Comedian Jeffrey Ross wrote in his book ‘I Only Roast the Ones I Love’ that White called Buddy Hackett to ask him to move to Hollywood so he could stand in for the ailing Curly. Hackett, a seasoned Catskills stand-up comedian, had a wife and child to support and a second one on the way. He didn’t see the sense in relocating the whole family and didn’t think his new gig would be very conducive to making great comedy. “I just didn’t want to wake up every morning and wonder how the other two guys were feeling,” Hackett told Ross.

10. One of their most famous films was nominated for an Oscar

The Stooges would go on to have a career with amazing longevity and rabid popularity for a slapstick vaudeville act that critics thought wouldn’t last well beyond the life of the men on the screen. And as if this wasn’t enough of an honor, one of their most memorable films earned a surprising honor of its own.
Their third Columbia short ‘Men in Black,’ a parody of the Clark Gable medical drama ‘Men in White’ that had the boys playing well-meaning doctors who do more harm than good, earned an Academy Award nomination in 1934 for Best Short Subject-Comedy. Fortunately for the Stooges, the film's critical and financial success got them a higher weekly salary and a better contract. Unfortunately, it lost to an RKO musical short called ‘La Cucharacha‘ and became the only film in their extensive library to earn them an Oscar nomination.
Then again, there is always hope for the Farrelly Brothers‘ latest entry. Hey, if ‘Norbit’ can earn one, anything’s possible.

Next Target: NYT Tries To Attack Ted Cruz’s Dad

 The Right Scoop ^ | Nov 9, 2015 | Caleb Howe 

Since the CNBC debate, the media, their allies in left-wing blogs and Hillary Clinton campaign surrogates masquerading as non-profits like Media Matters have all launched an aggressive attack on the Republican candidates. One might think it was revenge for calling out obvious media bias. One might think that in seeking that revenge they are also proving the GOP right. I wouldn't argue with one if one thought one or both of those things, once or twice.

The latest target on the media hit list is Senator Ted Cruz, who’s absolutely blistering assault on the CNBC moderators became practically legendary only minutes after he delivered it. But rather than attacking Cruz’s own history, the New York Times is going after his father’s history. From when he was under the thumb of the brutal dictator of an oppressed nation. Because classy.
From the Times:
Since he was a boy, Senator Ted Cruz has said, all he wanted to do was "fight for liberty" - a yearning that he says was first kindled when he heard his father's tales of fighting as a rebel leader in Cuba in the 1950s, throwing Molotov cocktails, running guns and surviving torture.
Those stories, retold by Mr. Cruz and by his father, Rafael, have hooked Republican audiences and given emotional power to the message that the Texas senator is pushing as an increasingly serious contender for the party's presidential nomination. In their telling, the father's experience in Cuba - when the country was swept up by the charismatic, young Fidel Castro, only to see him become a repressive Communist dictator - becomes a parable for the son's nightmarish vision of government overreach under President Obama.
But the family narrative that has provided such inspirational fire and biographical heft to Mr. Cruz's speeches, debate performances and a recently published memoir is, his father's Cuban contemporaries say, an embroidered one.
In case you don’t immediately see the problem here, I give you Mr. Nathan Wurtzel on Twitter:

Basing a story on decades-old eyewitness testimony is garbage. You can't possibly know what's true.https://t.co/tWu5Xije3W
— MR. Nathan Wurtzel (@NathanWurtzel) November 9, 2015
Yes the keyword here is contemporaries. And besides the fact of using such old eyewitness accounts is the fact that they aren’t even really eyewitness accounts for the most part. Example:
Leonor Arestuche, 79, a student leader in the '50s whom the Castro government later hired to verify the supposed exploits of revolutionary veterans, said a term existed for people like Mr. Cruz - "ojalateros," or wishful thinkers. "People wishing and praying that Batista would fall," she said, "but not doing much to act on it."
That is a description of a word that was used for a kind of person. That’s not remotely some smoking gun indictment of what Cruz’s pop has said. That’s actually absurd.
They admit that Cruz was indeed arrested and beaten by brutal dictator Fulgencio Batista, but then call into question if his resistance was really all that beating-worthy. In their eyes his beating barely rises to the level of story-worthy. So he got beaten for being part of the resistance, so what? He wasn’t all THAT resisty. Maybe the guards just had a bad day or someone stole their cigars, you know?
The rest of the article goes on in similar flaccid fashion, acknowledging that there might be others out there with more direct eyewitness accounts that support Cruz. But hey, what difference does that make? Just write the story anyway. It’s really just the headline that matters. Ted Cruz’s dad is a liar. Case closed.
Dumb story. Dumb paper. Dumb liberals. Dump the media.

You know what America? Maybe a college education isn't all it's cracked up to be...

American Irony ^ | 11-9- | The Looking Spoon 

An Associate Master at Yale writes an email complaining that basically college kids...KIDS...are too politically correct and too wimpy to deal with it. The specific topic was on whether or not the university should police what students wear on Halloween to make sure they don't don anything too offensive (i.e. some New England WASP has no business  dressing up as...say...Geronimo wearing black face, or anything at all for that matter).
That is an oversimplification of what was actually said (the link above has the full text of the email), but it's also the gist.
The email became widely known and the kids at Yale did what kids best, throw a temper tantrum about it (<-- comes="" in="" p="" tantrum="" that="" the="" third="" video="">The whole thing follows the five pillars of liberalism to the tee...the students circled the professor to exact an apology for suggesting these intellectual invertebrates develop a backbone instead of maintaining the feeling that Yale is a "safe space." The students are apparently under the impression that demanding an apology entitles them to deserving one. It ended with one little girl jeopardizing her voice box and running off to put on a clinic in weeping, over Halloween costumes, that my own kids could learn from. ("Baby girl, do you hear the pitch in her scream, if you can go that high then maybe next time I'll say yes to cookies before dinner.")
On one hand this is yet another example of why liberalism needs to break its ideological monopoly on academia. These so-called scholars have become a bunch of Dr. Frankensteins with their intellectual bigotry and they've fostered future generations of monsters they can't control, and those intellectual chickens are coming home to roost.
On the other hand it should have us all wondering what the point of college is anymore. They're like reverse-fat camps, except people go in dumb and come out dumber. Why should we subject our kids, to the tune of six-figure debt? This Yale incident reveals more than the danger liberal indoctrination is bringing to America, it reveals education is more like a knock off a Rolex for sale at Rolex pricing.
That is honestly a weird thing for me to say, because I have a college degree. I married ***TRIGGER WARNING: if you're a liberal college student from Yale, or if you've ever thought of going to Yale, or if you've become so wrapped up in your personal triggers in school that you're too dumb to even spell "Yale" then you should bail out of this post......NOW*** a woman who has her masters degree and teaches college students herself. We also met in college, so I can't say I regret going. I can also say I know a lot of people in my life who didn't go to college, many in my own family, and they found great success in life without a degree.
My wife doesn't teach a subject matter that dooms kids to careers as baristas, they actually learn useful skills in her class that should actually be covered more in high school, but aren't. She loves her job and she treats it responsibly, meaning she doesn't impose her ideology on her students.She does her job, and helps them arrive at their own evidence-based conclusions. Every so often she encounters students like the ones at Yale, and she says it gets worse with each passing semester.
There are many sectors of higher education that are very much worthwhile and always have been. There are also so many more that are not. The purpose of higher education was supposed to be the advanced learning of certain professional knowledge and skills that couldn't really be attained with a regular education, which in turn tended to command higher wages in the marketplace.
For generations now young people have been indoctrinated with the idea that their worth as an adult will only come with obtaining (note I didn't sayearning) of a college degree. This is bolstered by a pop and political culture that glamorizes and panders to the college lifestyle as a necessary part of modern life. Somewhere along the away we came to believe it doesn't matter what you study, all you need is to get that piece of paper saying you graduated, a ticket to a "real" career. As a result the number of Americans who are college graduates has never been higher, and it has gotten us nowhere intellectually and in terms of people actually getting jobs.
If standardized tests aren't a valid marker of the effectiveness of education or what a student knows then standardized achievement is even worse. A degree in some "grievance" study doesn't condition any American to take on the real world any better than a plumber with a just high school diploma and a actual skill that's needed in the market place.
You see, Yalies, just because you spent a lot of money for the right to be at that campus doesn't mean attacking dissent with totalitarian ferocity is worth what you're paying for it.
College has become a big business by for and of the left the same way global warming has. There's something distinctly and increasingly un-American about the initiates into this once important institution. There is obviously a place for it in society, but the rising aggression of these group-think mobs raises the question of its continued relevance relative to what is being taught.
When college ceases to be a gateway to adulthood and a higher place in our economy then maybe the culture should consider forgoing it in favor of other avenues of education where people can learn what they need to know to move forward with their lives, without spending themselves into oblivion only to be forged into intellectual and emotional wimps.
Preview image from Grad Planet.

Can These Three Texans Save America and the GOP?

Consevative HQ ^ | 11/9/2015 | CHQ Staff 

Three Texans, limited government constitutional conservative Republicans; Senator Ted Cruz, Representative Louie Gohmert and Governor Greg Abbott are demonstrating how governing according to conservative principle is not only good policy, but good politics.
As our friend Rick Manning observed in an excellent article for NetRight Daily, in just one day last week, Ted Cruz took on Operation Choke Point through an Obama nominee for Justice who should be rejected, Chinese Cruz Gohmert Abbotthuman rights abuses, sanctuary cities that release violent illegal alien offenders, and led a hearing giving voice to U.S. victims of Palestinian and Iranian terrorism.
Cruz followed this one day blitz of policy entrepreneurship with a bill to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization (it is as we’ve said many times and this recent article in National Review by our friend Andy McCarthy reiterates).
AND Cruz sent a letter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch requesting that the Department of Justice (DOJ) preserve all Internal Revenue Service (IRS) documents and information for investigation under the next administration. Sen. Cruzs letter comes after the DOJ recently closed its investigation into improper targeting of conservative groups by the IRS.
Cruz accomplished all of these conservative policy objectives despite the fact that Mitch McConnell, the Senate’s Republican Majority Leader, has admitted that he and his staff regularly 'box out' Cruz and help Obama.
As Ted Cruz does on the Senate side, on the House side of Capitol Hill, one man, Texan Louie Gohmert (TX-1), stands almost alone in holding the Big Government Republican establishments feet to the fire and demanding they adhere to conservative policy prescriptions.
Gohmert was a leading figure in the conservative rebellion that led to the resignation of the feckless John Boehner as Speaker of the House and he was one of the few who stood for conservative principle to oppose the backroom deals that led to the election of Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan as Speaker to replace his mentor John Boehner.
Gohmert introduced H.RES.410 to derail the disastrous Iran nuclear weapons deal and the 'Parental Notification and Intervention Act of 2015' to restore the judge-eliminated rights of parental notification and intervention in the case of an unemancipated minor seeking an abortion.
But Gohmerts real contribution to the future of America isnt introducing bills, it is shining the light of day on government abuse and establishment Republican perfidy.
There is no Republican who takes to the floor of the House more regularly than Rep. Gohmert does to rally conservative votes or hold the GOP leaderships feet to the fire. From defunding Planned Parenthood, to the IRS targeting of conservatives, to border security and sanctuary cities, more often than not the leading conservative spokesman is Texas Representative Louie Gohmert.
Texas Governor Greg Abbott recently earned our kudos for his strong stand against the purported 'sanctuary city' policies of Dallas County Sheriff Lupe Valdez and his clear statement to all Texas elected officials who might be considering following Valdezs unconstitutional example that they would lose state funding if they did so.
But Governor Abbotts greatest contribution to the people of Texas and the conservative brand—has been to continue to build on the conservative policy successes of his predecessor Governor Rick Perry.
At the end of last year, when Abbott took office, employment in the Lone Star State reached a new record high of 12.45 million workers (11.783 million nonfarm payroll jobs and another 667,000 self employed and farm workers), which was above the December 2007 level by 1,444,290 jobs (and by 13.1%). In contrast, total employment at the end of the year in the rest of the country (US minus Texas) still remained 275,290 jobs below the pre-recession, December 2007 level.
To give you some idea of the impact of Texas' low tax low regulation economic policies have on employment, one need only look at the construction boom in Texas. There were more permits for single family homes issued last year through November in just one Texas city Houston (34,566) than in the entire state of California (34,035) over the same period.
Unlike President George H.W. Bush, who inherited the Reagan economic revolution and immediately began to dismantle it, since taking over the Governors office from Rick Perry, Abbott has worked with Texas legislative leaders to continue Perry’s successful model – particularly in the cutting the business franchise tax and reducing regulations and investing in infrastructure and education.
Earlier this year Abbott took his show on the road, meeting with than 30 New York business leaders who represent more than 22 corporations. Abbott said this could realize and additional 11,500 jobs for Texas and Texans. He also met with corporate real estate advisors to give them information for their clients that could bring even more jobs to Texas.
The result, as Breitbarts Bob Price noted; Texas was recently recognized, once again, as Site Selection Magazine’s Governors Cup recipient. This is the third time in a row and the sixth time in the past 11 years Texas has been so honored. Chief Executive Magazine rated Texas as the 'best state for business' for the 11th year in a row.
Three Texans , Ted Cruz, Louie Gohmert and Greg Abbott are leading the conservative agenda and daily breaking new political ground , Republicans looking to recapture the political initiative from Obama need only follow the lead of these three Texas conservatives and the GOP would be a slam dunk to win the White House in 2016 and build a super majority in Congress

A Veteran's Day Tribute from a VA Nurse

allnurses ^ | 11 Nov 14 | dantheman0904, ADN, RN 

I have worked for the VA for quite a number of years, and I have taken care of countless veterans into their finals hours and then some. I was always touched by the post mortem procedures that the VA had in place.
Upon the pronouncement of death and after the family has had ample time to say goodbye, the nursing staff is to prepare the body for transport to the morgue. After preparation, the body is transferred to the morgue's gurney, the lid is placed on top. A black canvas backed shroud cover is arranged over the lid, and an American flag, stars over the veteran's heart, is draped on top with the corners squared, as you would see in a military funeral. After this is completed, the staff escort the body to the morgue where the family can arrange for a funeral home to come and pick up their deceased.
I recently transferred to a new unit, a long term care ward, within my hospital. Not too long after being their, we had our first passing of a vet. We began our post mortem care procedures just like always, when the charge nurse told me that when we we ready to transport, call the front desk.
"Ok, kinda an odd request." I thought.
After all was said and done, we were ready to move our deceased veteran. As requested, I made the call to the desk and opened the door into the hallway.
On the overhead paging system, taps began to play. I thought to myself, "Wow, the staff on this unit really goes that extra mile to honor these guys." I wasn't expecting what happened next.
As the bugle call echoed through the unit, all able bodied veterans came into the hallway and came to attention. As we passed with the morgue cart, it seemed as if there was a silent command to "present arms" because all at once, every veteran brought their right hand up into salute. As we rounded the corner, I saw more veterans at attention, saluting. Upon reaching the nurses station, EVERYONE; nurses, housekeeping, kitchen staff, had all stopped what they were doing and were on their feet. Those of them who were veterans themselves were also saluting. This continued until we had gotten on the elevator and the doors had closed.
Never in my life have I seen such a moving tribute to the human condition. These men didn't know him, several of them due to dementia didn't even know themselves; yet when they heard that bugle call, like clockwork, they knew exactly what to do. It didn't matter that they didn't know this man. All they knew was that one of their brothers had fallen and he needed to receive the honor he deserved.
As a VA nurse, I see the wounds of war, both visible and invisible. Of course I have veterans in my care that are missing various body parts, inexplicable scarring, etc. But then there are the invisible wounds. The metabolic disorders caused by Agent Orange exposure, mesothelioma from being around asbestos on ships, seeing a veteran dive on the ground during Independence Day fireworks because the booms are sending him back to his own personal hell that he experienced in the jungles of Vietnam.

This In-Your-Face Russian Attack Helicopter Advertisement Wants to Destroy You!

Popular Mechanics ^ | November 09, 2015 | Kyle Mizokami 

There's something to be said for an attack helicopter commercial that fires a missile at the viewer in the first twelve seconds.
The Ka-52 Alligator is the latest version of the Ka-50 series attack and scout helicopters, and Russian defense exporter Rosoboronexport has a video tell tell you all about it. Fast, speedy, and packed with weapons, the Alligator actually resembles its namesake, with a long, wide snout and a squat, reptile-like profile.
Alligator's unique design a specialty of the Kamov design bureau. Kamov specializes in helicopters with contra-rotating helicopter blades, two sets of helicopter rotors that rotate in opposite directions. This eliminates the tail boom and tail rotor of conventional helicopters, making Kamov's designs shorter and better able to operate off a cramped Russian Navy destroyer.
Contra-rotating designs also increase engine output efficiency by avoiding diverting power to the tail rotor. The Alligator is powered by two VK-2500 engines generating 2,400 horsepower each. Each generates approximately 20 percent more horsepower than the GE T-700 engines used in the latest version of the AH-64 Apache. The unorthodox rotor configuration, combined with the high engine horsepower, allegedly give Alligator the highest horsepower to weight ratio of any attack helicopter in the world.
n the scout role, Alligator can skirt ahead of friendly forces, using its nose-mounted radar to detect targets and pass on enemy location data to friendly air and ground forces.
For the attack role, Alligator is packed with firepower. A chin-mounted 30-millimeter cannon is backed up by six wing-mounted weapons stations for carrying rockets and missiles, three per each wing. Each station can carry twenty 80-millimeter unguided rockets, middle stations can carry six anti-tank missiles or six Vikhir-1 multipurpose missiles, and external stations can carry two Igla air-to-air missiles.
The Alligator's most interesting feature is the crew ejection system. Few, if any other helicopters allow the crew to escape because ejection seats rocket upward—right into the rotors. Alligator solves this by ejecting the rotor blades, clearing the way for the pilots. Once the blades have fallen away ejector seats, the same as in fighter aircraft, propel the pilots up and away from the stricken aircraft.
Alligator does have some disadvantages. The helicopter's sensors are mounted on the chin, and not above the rotor blades like the AH-64 Apache Guardian. That means the Alligator is completely exposed to enemy fire when using its sensors. Although the Alligator has more weapons stations than the Apache for weapons, it can't carry as many anti-tank missiles than Apache. And despite the manufacturer's claims it "has no equal in conducting operations in the mountains," the Apache Guardian can outfly it to an altitude of 21,000 feet.
Alligator is in service with the Russian Air Force, and the Egyptian military is rumored to have more than 50 on order.

1 posted on 11/10/2015, 5:54:08 AM by sukhoi-30mki





The Seance!


Take a hike!


With guns!


We'll know?


You're Fired!


It took 7 years


MORON of the year


I Hate It!


8 Years