Thursday, April 30, 2015

Redux: Conservatives To “Bear The Unbearable” And Vote For Hillary?


 Conservatives To “Bear The Unbearable” And Vote For Hillary?

29 APRIL 2015 @ 21:02

The quote “bear the unbearable” is from Emperor Hirohito’s address to the Japanese people telling them that all was lost and the country would have to surrender after the devastation of the atomic bombs.
For conservatives to actually pull the lever for Hillary Clinton in 2016 would take the mental equivalent of a similar an act done in apparent hopeless despair, to “think the unthinkable.” But, are there any possible circumstances where conservatives would actually vote for someone who is utterly an anathema to them? Well, actually there is, and it is not as far-fetched as it seems at first (probably cursory and derisory) glance.
For each announcement by Republican contenders that the are running for president there is a cascade of “not another RINO thanks” to put it mildly.
As the prospective candidates plant their standard, their views on common core, immigration, their association with big donors and the GOP establishment and other issues in the hearts of conservatives are weighed in the balance and, on one or the other (or all) they are found wanting.
Noted conservative blogger Bob Belvedere ran a column at his The Camp Of The Saints site after Senator Rubio announced his candidacy and it was not flattering to say the least. Just so nobody misunderstands the tenor of Belvedere’s feelings the article was entitled: Conclusive Proof Obtained: @MarcoRubio Is Just Another Hack.
Belvedere takes issue with Rubio’s reported stance on immigration (there appears to be some degree of confusion between the English and Spanish language versions) which is seen as supporting President Obama’s mechanism by “other means.” He concludes:
The mask has been torn off another wolf in Common Sense clothing. Marco Rubio must be thrown into the elephant graveyard with all of the other faux fighters for freedom and liberty.
Rubio doesn’t have this rejection, from what is actually a quite moderate conservative voice, to himself. Previously announced candidate Senator Paul was similarly excoriated some time ago:Conclusive Proof Obtained: @SenRandPaul Is Just Another Hack.
It would be otiose for me to pick and choose similarly unhappy conservative voices examining Jeb Bush’s record on nearly all matters, and Governor Walker’s on immigration, there are legion all over the conservative blogosphere and radio.
As for the probable candidates to come, Fiorina, Huckabee, Senator Graham, Governor Christie, the jury is not out-it is well in, and the verdicts to come from conservative quarters will not be pretty.
Are there any prospective candidates whose positions do not automatically raise the hackles of conservatives? It would be fair to state that Governor Jindal, Senator Cruz and Doctor Carson would get a fair hearing, although the three times bitten not shy “we are not going to be fooled again, be lapdogs for the GOP Establishments choice” conservatives mean business.
Even Senator Cruz, a Palin endorsed candidate for senator, gets a Belvedere warning:
We’re in a situation where we really cannot afford to place much trust in any political figures, as we have had to learn again today.We’re on our own.

NOTE TO TED CRUZ: We’re watching you very closely too, Bub.
Only former Governor and VP candidate Sarah Palin, whose conservative positions are known, admired, unwavering and unchanged, could be seen as a genuine conservative choice. But she is not running at present-if she does, then of course there is an entirely different situation which can be addressed at that point.
The obvious question arises from this situation; what if the candidates viewed as being more or less genuine conservatives fall away during the primary campaigns and Jeb Bush or Christie or any of the rejected “RINO” candidates get the nomination (or-horrors as a ticket)?
Here the dilemma for conservatives gets really challenging. Vote, nose held, once again for the “RINO” as a Clinton presidency is too hard to contemplate even if it means, once again, voting against cherished principles. Or, for some, once again staying home on election day or voting third party, which of course makes Clinton’s task that much easier.
There is another option which can actually have a better outcome for conservatives than either not voting or voting for the GOP’s Establishment candidate. That is the one that fits the time honored method of voting for the “opposite of what you want as you then have a better chance of getting what you want” A variation of the “Only Nixon could have gone to China rule.”
If, with the help of a massive conservative turnout in 2016 the Establishment Republican wins a solid majority, and has a GOP controlled House and possibly Senate then, with the claim of “mandate” he can flip-flop on immigration and all the other base issues pandered to during the campaign. This concept is hardly a cynical one, anyone who has lived through a number of elections has seen this acted out, on the left and the right, over and over again.
But what if Hillary is elected with the help of the, in this case absolutely cynical and possibly absolutely pragmatic, votes of conservatives who of course also vote solidly Republican down-ticket?
The result would most likely be a neutered presidency with a more or less free hand in foreign affairs, where Hillary has been a hawk and, no matter the campaign pivot to the left, would likely be one after being elected. The possibility of a President Clinton getting leftist immigration legislation through a hostile, solidly conservative GOP Congress would be minimal.
Social issues like same-sex marriage will be decided in the courts and there is nothing, outside of a Constitutional Convention, that Republicans can do about it. On the other hand abortion issues are being decided in the various States by Republican legislatures, and that process will continue with a President Hillary Clinton also not being able to do anything about it, if she were so inclined, which is doubtful.
It may be the choice facing conservatives in 2016 will be between enabling a RINO to bring in legislation they are vehemently against, or electing a Democrat who will be unable to do so. It may be the strongest nose-holding effort ever but one, if emotion is taken out of the picture, that is the most practical with a further reward of yet another conservative Republican landslide in the 2018 mid-terms.
Mr. Sheppard is the proprietor of the blogs Point Of View and Palin4President 2016.  He also writes occasionally for American Thinker and is a man of refined taste.  Follow him on Twitter: @MJosephSheppard.

Wednesday, April 29, 2015

Redux:"Maureen Dowd Shows Why The GOP Must Run Palin-Or Lose"


Los Angeles Times in-resident-Palin-red-meat-thrower-to-her-liberal-audience Robin Abcarian advised:
Liberals: She (Palin) can’t hurt you anymore. It’s time to get over her. it doesn’t appear she will be running for office again anytime soon. She’s basically out of politics.
Some columns later Abcarian ran yet another Palin attack column:

Um, could Sarah Palin please run for president?​

This, of course, had Abcarian snidely lumping Palin in with the likes of Dennis Kucinich and Herman Cain as some sort of droll candidate possibility for 2016 to keep her, and her arrogantly superior liberal audience bemused during the ” verrrry long political season” which she, whilst getting paid to rant finds tres tres tiring “Our process is just so exhausting.”
However, lets say that Abcarian’s premise, which is still to be determined of course, that Palin is not a candidate for 2016 is valid. If that were to be the case is Abcarian’s other premise “Liberals, she can’t hurt you anymore” also valid-it would appear not to so.
As things stand Palin can, in fact has, and increasingly so, fired hard-hitting salvo’s at now candidate Hillary Clinton, with such blasts perhaps reaching a wider audience than any GOP candidate has or can. This is of course because, not only does Palin have millions of Facebook and other social media followers who repeat her messages to who knows how many viewers in total, but also the left ignores Abcarian’s advice
“[W]hen the claws come out for Palin, otherwise enlightened people feel it’s OK to act like clueless sexists.” That, and she uses an example where a response to a Palin quote “unleashed something almost pathological in MSNBC host Martin Bashir.” Thus the call-and-response situation has not changed or lessened one jot. Palin says something, and the media duly reports it en mass, and the leftist bloggers and their comment section goes crazy and, as expected Palin’s words are read by huge numbers of people.
Palin running for president would have benefits for the left far above keeping Abcarian and her ilk amused, in that it might act as a brake on the current utterly free reign Palin has to keep all of Hillary’s manifestly dodgy history in front of the public as she has commenced to do with gusto.
Here’s Palin on Hillary’s first foray into campaigning [“Hmmm, as people all over the country are reminding each other, this Hillary Scooby-Doo Tour thing sure looks familiar…”] where Palin lampoons Hillary for “copying” Palin’s bus tour in 2012. And, right on schedule Salon ran a snide article about Palin’s post and National Review ran a basic cover — the blogosphere, left and right, did their usual dance with hundreds of comments.
Then, straight back on the attack Palin wrote: “America – you ready for the real Hillary? Some of us are; join us and begin here” and she linked to a video “(Hillary) “Trustworthy?” at theWestern Journalism site which details many of the most noted Clinton “scandals” “Benghazi/Emails/Bosnia Sniper Fire.” The video and article would have had some distribution of course, but with Palin having Tweeted it it will catch fire and go viral. In the first day it received 22,000 “likes” and 4,500 “shares”.
Who else has such massive reach and media power? Palin has not forgotten President Obama in her broadsides either: Obama’s New Political Strategy: Attack Individual Republicans Agree — however..’tis not new. Obama joined media goons to do same in ’08,remember? McCain & others still must ask: Where do I go to get my reputation back?
Unfortunately for the left with Palin currently not running and her not holding office she is not under the sort of constraints that a candidate or office holder would be. In office, or running, an individual has to take stock of what financial supporters might think of any given statement, or what possible voter reaction might be. Palin has none of these worries, nor does she have to take a ‘balanced” view of her statements as would be the case in the to and fro of a campaign where the opposition seizes on anything they can to hit back.
Palin is in a Teflon-coated situation where she can attack Hillary at will from now until election eve. She can do it from the unique position of not being able to be called “sexist” of being able to say “whatever I say about Hillary is a million times less harsh than the trash that was thrown at me and my family for the last six years.”
Both of which are undeniable and leave the left with no counter except to run the so tired, boring and predictable “Palin’s a grifter” or the utterly imbecilic “Sarah who?” or the childish and obviously wrong “who cares what Palin says because she is irrelevant?” Worse for the left their last point of attack “Palin is just pretending to run to get money from her followers” will have gone out the window.
However if Palin does choose to run it could be a bigger disaster for Hillary and quite possibly, if not an absolute certainty, the GOP’s only and best hope to win the presidency.
The New York Times Maureen Dowd wrote a ferocious article Granny Get Your Gunbasically calling for Hillary Clinton to grow a pair to “to teach her Republican rivals — who are coming after her with every condescending, misogynist, distorted thing they’ve got — that bitch is still the new black.” With the support of the leftist feminist media who will attack everything a male Republican says about Clinton as “condescending, sexist, misogynist” clearly only a female Republican nominee can take on Hillary on a level playing field.
Which female Republican could do this? The unknown Governor Martinez, Governor Hayley, Senator Ayotte? It would be a walkover. Carly Fiorina who lost her senate bid in California? Not only is she unknown but would be tarred as the “heartless friend of big business who put thousands out of work then lost her job.” Fiorina would actually be the worst choice as she would allow Clinton to soften her image and play the “nice friend of working class Americans. ”
Clearly only Palin could run against Hillary as a hard hitting take no prisoners attacker of all the “planeload of baggage” that Clinton brings with her without a word being said about her as “misogynistic. ” Nobody, Clinton included has suffered such attacks and further, the left has spent so many years calling Palin a “rube” that she is also free of being attacked as “condescending”.
To a large degree the left, through their utterly irrational six year long rant towards Palin, have created this attack monster. That she has survived the worst of their stupidity (“Trig is not her real son” and etc) leaves her impervious to anything they can throw at her now and she is free to hit Hillary as the “unchained attack dog” she wanted to be towards Obama when she was constrained by the McCain handlers in 2008.
It may well be that the left’s secret wish is “Run Sarah Run” not for amusement, but for survival, but they might “beware of what they wish for” as if it came true it would unleash the one person who could defeat Hillary.
Mr. Sheppard is the proprietor of the blogs Point Of View and Palin4President 2016.  He also writes occasionally for American Thinker and is a man of refined taste.  Follow him on Twitter: @MJosephSheppard.

Tuesday, April 28, 2015

My Volunteer Work/Nepal Earthquake

The devastating earthquake in Nepal has badly affected the Anandaban Hospital where the Leprosy Mission, which I volunteer for as an Ambassador supports.

We have launched an appeal at:

any donations would of course be most welcome to this 101 year old totally ethical charity-we are sending a field worker to Nepal tomorrow to further assess the need.

Below is a newspaper article which gives some background to my work;

" Leprosy Mission New Zealand Appoints Ambassador to Ethnic Communities "

Michael Joseph Sheppard, has recently joined the Leprosy Mission New Zealand as the Ambassador to Ethnic Communities. Michael will be building relationships with individuals and groups from various ethnic communities who are interested in directly supporting the Mission’s vital work in some of the world’s poorest communities. Leprosy still exists, affecting millions of people every year.

The Mission is committed to eradicating both the causes and consequences of the disease and has life-changing projects in Bangladesh, India, Nepal, China, Ethiopia and Papua New Guinea. Here in New Zealand the Leprosy Mission fundraises for these vital projects and raises awareness about leprosy.

The Mission’s projects focus on: detection, diagnosis and treatment; health and disability care; community development to combat poverty; and advocacy and education to fight leprosy-related stigma and discrimination. Michael has already recruited a team of dedicated volunteers from the Chinese community who exhibited at the Chinese New Year festival, and has met with various high-level community leaders.

And me with the Nepali Ambassador at a fundraiser

Thursday, April 23, 2015

Alice Barker is 102 years old, was a famous dancer in the Harlem Renaissance 1930s, but never saw herself on screen until now

Alice Barker is 102 years old, was a famous dancer in the 30s, but never saw herself on screen until now. Video credit: Tenfresh.

Posted by Wave 105 on Wednesday, April 22, 2015
Wave 105 Alice Barker is 102 years old, was a famous dancer in the 30s, but never saw herself on screen until now. Video credit: Tenfresh.

Wednesday, April 22, 2015

Redux:Hillary Endorsed By Hookers And Anti-Christ?

From my article at 'THE CAMP OF THE SAINTS'    LINK

@MJosephSheppard → Hillary Endorsed By Hookers And Anti-Christ

21 APRIL 2015 @ 20:53


Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has received, apparently, two “interesting” to say the least endorsements for her presidential quest.
The disgustingly scurrilous “satire” magazine ‘Wonkette’ known best (or rather worst known) for its disastrous “humorous” attack on Governor Palin’s special needs child Trig has, via it’s Editor Rebecca Schoenkopf, given a ringing endorsement to Hillary Clinton for president.
The “Trig” disaster happened before Schoenkopf took over, but the tenor of the site has not improved one jot with Governor Palin being called “a c**t in the comments section on occasion amongst the other flowing sewer of filth the site creates and rolls in. But don’t take my word for the depth of degradation the site exists in-here are the sites own self-description on:​”​
And Twitter:


So from the site that admits it is the anti-Christ here is this ringing endorsement of Hillary by it’s editor with typical gratuitous filth:

Hillary Clinton Don’t Give A Sh*t

“I am now an actual full-fledged Hillary fan, Hillary ’16 and all that bullshit, YOU BETCHA.”
The second ringing endorsement appeared on Twitter recently and apparently these working girls like the values, morals and ethics that Hillary and Bill represent. Whether they speak for America remains to be seen.


Since Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has not refused these endorsements it is still an open question as to whether or not she welcomes them. Even more so as regards Bill Clinton’s welcoming of the latter group endorsement.
Even if these endorsements are rejected there is no doubt they are a reminder of the wisdom of the old adage “A person is known by the company they keep.” Or to be fair, they are know by the company that keeps them in their hearts. That Hillary is seen by Schoenkopf, and a bevy of self-proclaimed hookers, as the best person who meets their criteria and values as to who would be the best president for America speaks volumes.
Mr. Sheppard is the proprietor of the blogs Point Of View and Palin4President 2016.  He also writes occasionally for American Thinker and is a man of refined taste.  Follow him on Twitter: @MJosephSheppard.

Redux;Time For Conservatives To Embrace Drug Decriminalization?

From my article at 'THE CAMP OF THE SAINTS'        LINK

@MJosephSheppard → Time For Conservatives To Embrace Drug Decriminalization?

22 APRIL 2015 @ 20:43

Has “The War On Drugs” as a government policy been effective? There of course endless arguments from all sides but here are some statistics prepared (in 2008) by On The Issues:
Drug offenders who serve jail time or traditional probation have a recidivism rate of 45%. Of those who completed ‘drug courts’ monitored treatment programs, the rate was 4%
60% of federal prison inmates are drug offenders, as are 22% of state prisoners.
20% of all felony convictions are for drug trafficking; another 12% are for drug possession.
About 270,000 people are incarcerated on drug charges, up from 48,000 at the start of the ‘Drug War.’
Direct Federal spending on the ‘Drug War’ is currently $17 billion per year.
We have seen constant headlines about drug cartels in Mexico slaughtering dozens at a time with estimates of total murders running in the tens of thousands. Colombia and Afghanistan were destabilized by the illegal drug trade which contributes to untold, immeasurable death, destruction and ruined families around the world.
There is an alternative to the seemingly futile “War On Drugs” which is to decriminalize, not just “soft drugs” like marijuana, but all drugs.The, immediate effect would be to finish, once and for all, the illicit drug trade with its death and destruction. On the economic front it would immediately stop the $17 billion in spending on the drug war and it would dramatically increase state and government revenues through taxes on marijuana.
It is of course early days as regards the Colorado experiment but so far the results appear to be on the side of general decriminalization.
There would be a further massive economic benefit with the ceasing or lowering of assistance to families devastated by the illness and incapacity of the breadwinner to work through disease incurred by using poor quality or infected drugs.
This would possibly be countered to some degree by individuals being incapacitated by commencing legal drug use but I would imagine the numbers would be relatively small and there would be substantial funds available to assist them through health and education programs.
Is the concept of total decriminalization something that conservatives could not countenance? Or rather, does it fit in with the libertarian thinking of Milton Friedman who addressed this situation, (in his book ‘Free To Choose’) with reference to alcohol as an example, wherein he canvassed the results of government intervention in free choice during the Prohibition era:
“New prisons and jails had to be built to house the criminals spawned by the converting the drinking of spirits into a crime against the state” Criminals became notorious for their exploits-murder, extortion, hijacking.
“If the government has the responsibility of protecting us from dangerous substances, the logic surely calls for the prohibition of alcohol and tobacco.The reaction of the public to the more extreme attempts to control our behaviour is ample evidence we ant no part of it”. Insofar as the government has information about the relative merits or demerits of the items we ingest…let it give us this information. But let it leave us free to choose what chances we want to take with our own lives.”
Friedman quotes John Stuart Mill ( ‘On Liberty’ 1865 ) as a further exponent of the right of the individual to choose unhindered by the state:
“The only purpose for which power can be rightly exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant…Over himself, over his own body and mind the individual is sovereign.”
One country in Europe-Portugal has decriminalized all drugs.Again, there are no doubt endless arguments on all sides about the result, but here is an analysis from the Cato Institute as reported in ‘Time Magazine’:
“The paper, published by Cato in April, found that in the five years after personal possession was decriminalized, illegal drug use among teens in Portugal declined and rates of new HIV infections caused by sharing of dirty needles dropped, while the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction more than doubled.”
“Judging by every metric, decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success,” says Glenn Greenwald, an attorney, author and fluent Portuguese speaker, who conducted the research. “It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country does.”
Compared to the European Union and the U.S., Portugal’s drug use numbers are impressive. Following decriminalization, Portugal had the lowest rate of lifetime marijuana use in people over 15 in the E.U.: 10%. The most comparable figure in America is in people over 12: 39.8%. Proportionally, more Americans have used cocaine than Portuguese have used marijuana.
The Cato paper reports that between 2001 and 2006 in Portugal, rates of lifetime use of any illegal drug among seventh through ninth graders fell from 14.1% to 10.6%; drug use in older teens also declined. Lifetime heroin use among 16-to-18-year-olds fell from 2.5% to 1.8% (although there was a slight increase in marijuana use in that age group).
New HIV infections in drug users fell by 17% between 1999 and 2003, and deaths related to heroin and similar drugs were cut by more than half. In addition, the number of people on methadone and buprenorphine treatment for drug addiction rose to 14,877 from 6,040, after 
decriminalization, and money saved on enforcement allowed for increased funding of drug-free treatment as well.”
These are impressive statistics.We know what the situation is in America under the current legislation. Perhaps it is time for conservatives to consider a new approach. Certainly there is substantial and weighty historical philosophical support for it on the right on a libertarian basis.
I would be confident Friedman and Mill would approve examining this question in that light. Certainly the British, Swiss and Dutch system where addicts can register and get heroin free seems sensible. Treating addiction as a serious health problem and not a criminal one has serious merit.
Mr. Sheppard is the proprietor of the blogs Point Of View and Palin4President 2016.  He also writes occasionally for American Thinker and is a man of refined taste.  Follow him on Twitter: @MJosephSheppard.

“This was done in Denmark where so-called fixing rooms are all over town. It is legal to take drugs in these rooms and a voluntary physician supervises the addict, to help if there is a case of overdose. In one year over a hundred of lives have been saved: The number of people dying from OD has been cut in half.”
Drug use down by half in Portugal after legalization.-Forbes

Tuesday, April 21, 2015


It takes all types I guess but sort of creeps me out. NB -it's definitely not a "mouse" !

Sunday, April 19, 2015

Redux:Years Of Unrelenting Sexism To Palin Means Hillary Can’t Use “Sexism” Card

My latest article at Bob Belvedere;'s most excellent "The Camp Of The Saints" site  LINK

@MJosephSheppard → Years Of Unrelenting Sexism To Palin Means Hillary Can’t Use “Sexism” Card

18 APRIL 2015 @ 17:26

Louis C.K. is the latest from a stream of leftist Palin hate-mongers to apologize, sort of, to Palin for the utter filth he directed towards her. David Letterman who advised she had the “slutty airline hostess look” and Martin Bashir who decided the best thing for Palin would be for someone to “shit in her mouth” preceded Louis C.K. in the belated apology queue.
MJS-Cretins-in-TeesTo detail all the utter filth thrown at Palin by the left would take much more than one article — a PhD thesis by a political scientist, or perhaps a psychoanalyst, would be a better avenue for such a compendium.
The filth beyond reckoning at the hate sites “Wonkette” the nutcases at “Immoral Minority” who, along with Andrew Sullivan and Daily Kos “Kossites” kept up or originated years of idiocy trying to prove that Palin did not give birth to her son Trig, are but a tiny amount of the utter degradation Palin has been subjected to.
Now that Hillary Clinton has commenced her campaign any attempt by her or her supporters to cry foul at any aspect of criticism they can label as “sexism” or personal attack based on gender or “a man wouldn’t get such treatment and the whole mishmash of gender enabled deflections have been rendered useless.
The immediate reply to any such Hillary campaign or bloggers or “feminists” outcry is, and utterly undeniable and final; “You/the left did the same, in fact ten times worse to Palin.”
In point of fact it is especially the feminists the NOW activists and the MSM women journalists and columnists who stood by and stayed mostly silent when Palin was the subject of not only sexist but near insane personal attacks on her as a woman, as a mother and as a wife. Such gross hypocrisy has earned its reward in the complete destruction of any credibility such people can purport to have for the Democratic campaign.
Feeble attempts at getting around this massive obstacle to Hillary’s gender based campaign have surfaced along the lines of “yes, perhaps some people were a little extreme to Palin but we must now go forward on a new level and etc etc.”
Sorry, but six years of a vast outpouring of sewage being dumped on one woman with cease can’t be washed away with a sprinkling of holier than thou water.
The Dem’s made their bed of nails they can now sleep on it.
Mr. Sheppard is the proprietor of the blogs Point Of View and Palin4President 2016.  He also writes occasionally for American Thinker and is a man of refined taste.  Follow him on Twitter: @MJosephSheppard.

Friday, April 10, 2015

Gay Activists Left Their Hearts In San Francisco

I returned to San Francisco last week after a hiatus of about a decade and was shocked, saddened, disappointed and angry at what I saw there. No, that sentence doesn't get to the heart of the emotions raised, I actually can't find the words, but bitterly, bitterly upset is the nearest I can find.

Driving in from Northern California via Sonora, where I found the small towns picturesque and, where I had the pleasure of staying for a few days, the people delightful, friendly open, welcoming and helpful. Whilst clearly great wealth was not in abundance the general standard of living, as seen in well looked after property and busy shops, seemed of a reasonable standard as was the infrastructure-good quality roading etc.

That changed dramatically as I approached the outskirts of San Francisco where the highway deteriorated to a level I had not experienced ever before in America. I found the roads in The Ukraine to be of a higher standard actually. I addressed this with a local who joked that "the roads only get attended to after a major earthquake  and we haven't had one here for 90 years." So much for President Obama's "Yes we can" of "shovel ready jobs." Clearly the only shovel required was for shifting the bullshit which six years of "we are the ones we have been waiting for" created.

But roading, as bad as it is and the light it now shines on all the empty promises of the media created Obama administration, is something that can be lived with until, hopefully, liberal America wakes up like Detroit and makes a radical political change to a sound money, sound social policy conservative administration at the Federal and local levels.

Roads are not people, and the tragedy that was the San Francisco I saw, and which broke my heart, is a human one. As soon as I left the highway and entered the city by the 5th Street exit I saw people, human beings with souls, sleeping under the highway bridges. Then, literally, street after street of people rummaging through garbage bins, begging, sleeping rough, standing around aimlessly. I saw people clearly mentally deranged, others apparently in drug induced stupors-this in the most liberal of American cities.

Good Lord-what has happened to America where this can happen?

In the Union Square city center the picture was of Brooks Brother clothed type people obviously prosperous and many, as is the cities reputation, obviously Gay. I spoke to and had business interaction with many and found all I dealt with to be courteous and pleasant. What their attitude to the gross poverty and human tragedies that ringed this oasis of prosperity was I have no idea as, of course, it would have been impolite to raise the matter as a visitor.

What I can say is that I find the disconnect between the Gay activist community, as exemplified by e.g. Blogs like Joe.My.God. to have a complete disconnect with the reality of the world outside their bubble, if San Francisco is any indication, which it must be.

It is understandable that pressure groups will focus on matters of immediate interest to them. But given the power and influence that the radical Gay community has on the wider public through their presence in the arts and the media, the time has come, surely, for those groups to expand their values set to include helping those who are suffering right in front of them?

Instead of railing at Sarah Palin (still, after all these years) and, at a level out of all proportion to the situation, at mom and pop pizza parlor owners and bakeries, instead putting even a portion of the effort attacking such small fry towards demanding something be done to assist the terrible plight of the poor-and yes, the poor Black community around them.

If the Gay activist community took up social justice, economic change as an addition to their specific group concerns they might find that conservatives could be an ally instead of a constantly antagonized foe of their own creation. I for one would welcome such a rethink, not that that matters in the greater scheme of things, but the important thing is that the terrible human plight that surrounds them be attended to.

It's time to put aside the false premises of the Obama years, remove the blinkers, stop seeing conservatives through a distorted prism and reach out to the poor and helpless.

No Virginia; Rand Paul Isn't Defeating Hillary In Polls

Much to the joy of Senator Rand Paul's supporters the highly respected Quinnipiac Polling firm released a batch of polls showing Paul better placed against Hillary Clinton than the other putative leading Republican presidential candidates.

Quinnipiac has Paul ahead of Hillary in Colorado and Iowa, two key "Bush 2004" states which are essential elements of the very tight GOP path to Electoral College victory. The Electoral college is of course all that matters as G.W. Bush's win in 2008, where he finished half a million or so votes behind Al Gore, showed.

Unfortunately, at this early stage of course, for Paul the third state in the Quinnipiac report, Virginia, showed a different story.

Virginia, once the rock of the "Solid South' then a similar rock for conservative Republican presidential candidates has seen a strong demographic shift with substantial mgration from the D.C. and surrounds into Northern Virginia. This, and other factors, gave then Senator Barack Obama a landslide victory in 2008 by 6.3 points. 

Obama carried it by a still comfortable 3.88 points in 2012. That Clinton is running slightly higher than Obama's final margin at this point is not good news for Paul-especially as speculation was that without President Obama as the candidate Black turnout might be lower.

Certainly Paul is doing better than Messrs.Rubio/Walker/Cruz/Bush in Virginia who are running between seven and ten points behind Hillary but, again, no better than Romney did in 2012.

Why is Virginia so important-the map says it all.

Paul would have to win Florida and Ohio, without which it would be game over right from the start as there is no realistic path to victory without Florida's massive 29 Electoral votes, nor Ohio without which no Republican has been elected president. 

But even if those two states were won, if Virginia is lost then Paul is one vote short (as 269 tie would see the Republican dominated House choose the president).

 It may be that New Hampshire goes maverick, as it did in 2000 when its 4 votes ensured G W Bush's presidency, and goes for the libertarian minded Paul which would put him over the top. On the other hand Paul only leads Hillary by one point in Iowa, basically a tie (she leads all the other Republicans there) so a loss there would doom Paul in this scenario.

Certainly it is early days and anything can happen, but without Virginia the path to Electoral College victory is extremely narrow and being behind by such a comparatively large margin is a poor situation for Paul or any Republican. 

The first GOP candidate who shows a continuous lead in Virginia/Ohio/Florida is the one to consider as the best placed to defeat Hillary Clinton-so far there is no indication of such a person