Click to see

Click to see
Obama countdown

Thursday, February 28, 2013

Gosh, those bangs are long

I just need to say it again. The bangs are TOO long.
Who could disagree?

A threat from the office of the POTUS? You bet it's important

  By now, informed citizens will have heard about the Woodward/Sperling controversy. Woodward felt threatened by a comment White Administration aide Eugene Sperling made to the effect of "you'll regret this." 
  The press has jumped on the bandwagon, saying Woodward has blown it out of proportion; Rush said the comment sounded innocuous but he had to believe it since that is the way Woodward took it.
   I guess I would say this.
  This is the office of the President of the United States.
  The POTUS has--apparently far more than any other presidency--access to the IRS, the FBI, Homeland Security, the DHS....and on and on and on.
  Including drones.
  Do we not think these offices wield an incredible amount of influence on an average citizen's life?
  Has the Office of the Presidency no dignity, no decorum anymore, even publicly?
  Others have come forward to complain of White House bullying. Add to it Pfouffle's derisive tweet and you have a considerable case that the White House certainly is threatening a citizen whose job it is to keep an eye on the government.
  But that would be nothing new for this POTUS, would it.
  The point is that a perceived threat from the office of the POTUS has significant repercussions.
  We might recall what the Watergate "criminals" went to jail for and wonder.
  Isn't this worse?

Woman: They'll just have to kill me

  I love this. LOVE this because it reveals what idiots these peaceniks are. They'd rather be murdered by a depraved individual than defend themselves, THEY SAY.
  A few dozen people show up in Atlanta to "mourn" the shooting of Trayvon Martin and protest gun violence. 
  Their solution is to get rid of "gun vi-lence [sic]." Presumably this is by depriving honest citizens from owning guns to defend themselves, because as you can hear, this woman implies she would not want ONE CHILD to die because she owned a gun. No, she'd rather DIE (be murdered by) that child.
Woman:Sef defense is not an option. It is not an option.
Reporter:But what if someone's trying to kill you?
Woman:They'll just have to kill me, Christopher.
  Ok, no.
  They're not killing me, if I have a choice.
  I wonder if this woman has ever heard of the Darwin Awards.
  Because both she and her attacker, IMHO, would be great candidates.
CBS Atlanta 46

It's the end of the world! Oh, wait. No, it's not.

  So Phil Gramm helped write the sequestration bill; he says that Obama can make the cuts where they need to be rather than stuff like, you know, letting illegal alien criminals loose, claiming that it was because of the severe cuts in the sequester and that there was absolutely no other place they could possibly find to cut.
  Finally transparency from this administration!
  I don't know about you, but when I heard the press dutifully pronounce that as a result of sequester cuts (which hadn't happened yet) the government (ICE) was having to let criminals go in anticipation of a 2% cut, I smelled a rat immediately.
  More intimidation from the Chicago White House, as Bob Woodward has learned to appreciate.
  Of course, the White House claims this was all done independent of the White House; some poor schlub in ICE retired to take the fall.
  Let's remind ourselves that this is a 2.4% cut over the next year's increase of growth. 
  I mean, really? A 45 billion cut for this year of an increase?
  Give me a break. 
  Even in the Bush days when only 850 billion dollars was in circulation--before Obama's dude in the Fed printed trillions of additional dollars--45 billion was chump change.
  This is all political theater, as the informed voter knows.
  Today (in case you haven't caught up with the out-of-mainstream-news) Obama--the liar--is backtracking, saying that most people won't notice when the sequester comes and goes Friday.
  Well, of course, Obama realizes he's losing the whole sequester end of the world rhetoric he's been employing.
  There's nowhere else to cut! We're cut to the bone!
  Do the voters really believe that?
  Now POTUS has switched tactics, claiming that most people won't notice b-b-but the sequester is "gonna be a big hit on the economy."
  Well, you know what THAT's about.
  The economy is still tanking and Obama needs a new scapegoat.
   Watch. It's going to be, "Well, if the Republicans hadn't messed the economy up by not negotiating to raise taxes we'd be doing great."
  This will be from a president who has submitted budgets so ridiculous that even his own party won't vote for them.
  The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
  The sky is not falling! The sky is not falling!
  But you just wait. The Prince will move on to a new crisis tomorrow.
  And it's great that Obama's finally scheduled a meeting the day after the crisis, eh? 
  Now that's real leadership!

Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Is the tide beginning to turn against Obama?

  The cheery Red Eye Radio guys are really the best on the radio. This morning's discussion was about Harry Alford's very public rejection of Obama as a "leader" as shown in the post below.
  Bob Woodward said that the behavior Obama is exhibiting is "madness" regarding the claims that Republicans are responsible for the sequester that Obama proposed.
  Earlier Brezinsky had argued with Scarborough that it was "silly" to argue over whether Obama lied about the sequester, just as Howard Kurtz had said it was "pointless" to argue over whether the POTUS was a liar.
  Scarborough and Brezinsky agreed that the sequester needed to be solved but Brezinsky claimed that Republicans were at fault because they wouldn't meet with the POTUS (???).  Eric and Gary also played audio of conservative RINO token moderate Democrat Joe Scarborough on MSNBC and the ultra condescending Leftist Mika Brezinski's conversation in which they both seemed to agree that Obama had some fault in responsibility for the sequester.
BOB WOODWARD, WASHINGTON POST: I'm not sure the White House understands exactly what happened in all of these negotiations at the end of 2011 with the sequester and the super committee and God knows what because they were really on the sidelines. But I think it's possible to take one example here where President Obama came out and acknowledged that we are not sending the aircraft carrier Truman to the Persian Gulf because of this budget agreement. 
WOODWARD: Joe, I mean, this will resonate with you, I think. Can you imagine Ronald Reagan sitting there and saying, “Oh, by the way, I can't do this because of some budget document,” or George W. Bush saying, “You know, I'm not going to invade Iraq because I can't get the aircraft carriers I need,” or even Bill Clinton saying, “You know, I'm not going to attack Saddam Hussein’s intelligence headquarters” as he did when Clinton was president “because of some budget document?” Under the Constitution, the president is Commander-in-Chief and employs the force. And so we now have the president going out because of this piece of paper and this agreement, “I can't do what I need to do to protect the country.” That's a kind of madness that I haven't seen in a long time. 
  What's becoming increasingly apparent is that patience is running out with Obama's petulant behavior. 
 And, as Harold Alford says, Obama is the one causing pain and certainly not sympathetic to it.
  RER guys said that they believed that Obama's choice to take off to go golfing with Tiger Woods in the middle of the sequester drama, they believe, has set off the Leftists because they feel betrayed by the noble Leftist ideals they all hold dear.
  You know. Ideals like creating a Department of Peace.
  See, there's no evil in the world. There's no one determined to kill Americans simply because they have such hate in their hearts for Christians, Jews and free people.
  No, there's no one out there like that. We're the ones at fault. That's why we need to have a Department of Peace.
  So we can study how to change our behavior to make everyone like us.

Black Chamber of Commerce president speaks out against Obama

  Harry Alford is the Black Chamber of Commerce president; his remarks in recent days have been remarkable, if not breathtaking.
  Alford laments the fact that he voted for Obama because he's Black, claims Obama is virtually a "communist" and says Obama has never run anything and doesn't understand the pain of the American people and, in fact, is responsible for causing much of the pain of the American people.
  The complete transcript of the Hannity interview is here. Here's video of another interview.

Showdown on Hannity

  When even the liberal media notices how offensive certain Democrat parties are, you know you have a problem. Last night on Hannity, the Congress's only Muslim threw a hissy fit--appearing petulant and demanding not unlike another Democrat leader--so much so that even Howard Kurtz wonders why he's so badly behaved.

Campaigner in Chief

I think it is about time someone tap the President on the shoulder, lean over and whisper in his ear, and tell him that the 2012 campaign is over...and he won.

The President and his minions have been telling the American people daily that unless the Republicans concede to raising additional taxes on the rich and corporations to prevent the implementation of President Obama's sequestration plan, the US is headed for the financial abyss.

The President has travelled around the country telling everyone how bad it's going to be.

Since the State of the Union, the President has climbed about Marine One, hopped to Andrews Air Force Base, and flown on Air Force One to numerous cities to appear in campaign-style photo op's regarding the sequester.

The President has visited Palm Beach; Florida; Asheville, North Carolina; Decatur,Georgia; Chicago, Illinois; and most recently Newport News, Virginia explaining why sequester is bad for the country.

He has met with the National Governors Conference; the Democratic Governors Association; Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe; Italian President Giorgio Napolitano; recorded radio interviews with Al Sharpton, Joe Madison and Yolanda Adams; and found time to participate in a Facebook Town Hall meeting on gun violence sponsored by Parents Magazine.

But it doesn't appear he has found time to meet with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid about ways to cut the 16 trillion dollar deficit. It also doesn't appear he's picked up the phone to House Speaker John Boehner in an attempt to come to an agreement that would prevent sequester.

I guess he'd prefer walking across the South lawn to his private helicopter to take him to his private jet rather than catch a cab to Capitol Hill.

The President has told the American people how their lives will be affected by sequester. He tells of layoffs of teachers, firemen, and police officers. He warns of a decimated military. He says sir travel will be delayed  because of the layoffs of air traffic controllers. The Administration has said there will be cuts in Head Start programs and just Monday, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said that numerous illegal aliens who are being held in detention centers may be released because she didn't have funds to keep them incarcerated.

Yes, the President has spent a good deal of time warning of what's to come.

Unfortunately, he hasn't spend any significant time trying to fix the problem.

It appears he is still stuck in campaign mode. He is more comfortable appearing in front of a crowd of people blaming others for government's shortcomings rather than roll up his sleeves and do the work.

The National Taxpayers Union has said the cost of operating Air Force One is roughly $181,760.00 per HOUR. This doesn't include any support aircraft, Secret Service personnel and local law enforcement costs associated with a Presidential trip. It is reported the cost of a Presidential jaunt can exceed one million dollars per day.

So maybe it's about time the American people tell President Obama:

1.That his job is in Washington, DC.

2. Campaign-style photo-ops aren't leadership.

3, The sequester that he is so concerned about was his idea.

4. It's time he do the job he has been campaigning for and was elected to do.

5. Hang up the keys to Air Force One and get to work.

There comes a point in time when the campaigning stops and the work begins. Someone needs to tell this President that time is now.

Monday, February 25, 2013

Michelle's $9000 dress

  It's good to know Tea Partiers aren't the only ones sick of Michelle Obama, who crashed the Oscars Sunday (apparently). 
  She of the 99% wore a $9,000 dress to "present" the award.
  I gotta say, the bangs suck. 
  The huge glossy lips are weird and the bangs are way, way too long. You can hardly see her eyes. I take my dog to the vet when her bangs get that long (not that I'm comparing FLOTUS to my dog. My dog's a great dog.).
  People as backdrop. Yeah. That's the Obama way. Especially great when the people are military. Like, yeah. 
  Why not have the unacknowledged formally dressed military buttress your appearance when you're presenting an Academy Award, after all. 
  That makes a LOT of sense!
  I'm trying to imagine an instance where I in any instance could justify spending at least $9000 on one outfit that people would see for 5 minutes.
  But I guess when you're one of the 99% 1% chosen elite--the anointed aka Democrat--you can do anything you want without the press going after you.
  I forgot to mention that she says Hollywood is doing "vitally important work," unlike her husband's lack of interest in the 4 murders of Americans in Benghazi while he went to bed.

Gun control IS racist

  It's been long suspected that gun control laws are racist.  
  Take a look at the much ballyhooed Planned Parenthood whose original goal was limiting the Black population; that it certainly has done with millions and millions of Black babies aborted every year, so much so that the Black population is no longer the largest minority in this country.
  The concern appears to have occurred to a number of people that gun control laws are aimed at the poorest minority communities in the country. The major liberal cities have the most stringent gun control laws, the most violence, and the most defenseless law abiding citizens who have no way to defeat the most horrible of criminals.
  The general populace is being subjected to various ploys to line up public sympathy against gun ownership and, as usual, this administration chooses to legislate and activate by sob story with cadres of miserable victims lined up behind them as they agitate to pass new [fill in the blank] law/regulation.
  Now that Black ministers have stated on record opposing more gun control as "people control" (of Blacks) rather than gun control, it will be interesting to see if this administration bothers to respond to the anger they have engendered by advocating that the Second Amendment be ignored.
  And now that the NRA has exposed the DOJ memo detailing a path toward registration and eventual confiscation of all firearms, the heat is turned up by the thousands who turned out for pro gun rallies across the country Saturday, even while Obama's people resorted to paying people $11 an hour and busing them in to show up at gun control rallies because so few are interested. (Of course, this is nothing new for the unions. They've been busing people in for years.)
  Yet Joe Biden had the temerity to claim that most Americans want gun control and that no one, NO ONE is concerned that their Constitutional rights are being infringed.

  Funny, but we seemed to have the impression that Biden, as usual, as not only wrong but spectacularly and doofusly wrong.
  Here's a transcript of Biden's speech at Western Connecticut University:
We should all know the American people are with us. We all should know there's a moral price to be paid for inaction.....The organized opposition...throws up question after question not because they're looking for answers, not because they're driven by facts, not because they're looking for a way forward but because they're looking for roadblocks. Every one of these chats I do on the internet....on's amazing some of the questions I get...they say, "All you're gonna do is....deny a lady abiding citizen their's not true! They say assault weapons like AR 15s are needed for self protection and recreation. They are not! (applause) There's [sic] plenty of ways to protect yourself!....They say it isn't about guns. They're wrong! It is about guns! [applause] Let me say at the outset to all the press: NO LAW ABIDING CITIZEN OF THe United States of America has ANY FEAR THAT THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WILL BE INFRINGED IN ANY WAY! [applause] NONE! ZERO!
  I dunno. What do you think? 

Wah! We need more nannies to tell us what to do!

  Those of us out here in the red states look at Nanny Bloomberg as an oddity, someone who has vastly overstepped his boundaries as a leader. 
  The soda ban takes effect in NYC in March; shop owners are just now beginning to see the web of regulations that determine how they get to run their businesses.
  From the New York Post, we learn that pizza shops are not allowed to deliver 2 liter bottles with pizzas nor are bar owners allowed to serve caloric mixers no matter how much alcohol is delivered to the table:
The carafes in which mixers are typically served hold 32 ounces, and the most common mixers — sodas, cranberry juice and tonic water — will be limited. Only water and 100 percent juice will be unlimited. 
“Oh, my God. Seriously?” said Lamia Sunti, owner of the swanky West Village club Le Souk Harem. “It’s not like one person is going to be drinking the whole carafe. It’s silly.”
  What gripes me most is a few people in positions of power get to determine the course of our lives: the POTUS, Democrats, the Supreme Court and locally, a do gooder who does not apply the same rules to his own life, gets squired around town by a driver and has his own gym, trainer and cook.
  In a nation of over 300 million people, under a thousand people in federal government in DC get to tell us how we lives our lives; they decide to ruin the health care system, making it political, and are still acting like it's an improvement. 
  People have already figured ways around having to pay for health care until and unless they need it. There aren't enough doctors for the new patients, the government is trolling for Mexicans to come to this country and get on our welfare and health care provisions, companies are dropping part time employees' hours or their employment altogether and by the end of the year they will have dropped health insurance for all employees in favor of the government exchanges. Health care costs have risen and will rise more and there's no money for the enormous bills that will accompany health care.
  Oh, well.
  Those politicians sure know best.
  And a community organizer is doing what he does best: causing dissension, pitting people against "the system" and setting his own schedule by living off the largesse of the government.
UPDATE: Oh, and let's DEFINITELY make the whole state give up their sodas!

Saturday, February 23, 2013

Toledo 11th most miserable city

  Mais oui! But of course! Zees is why zee Tea Partiers have move to cities outside zee Toledo area.
  Forbes outs Toledo here.
  But what do all these miserable cities have in common?
  Why, they're run by Democrats, of course! I admit I like Mayors Bell and Bing of Toledo and Detroit respectively, but it's not just the mayors who run the cities who are entrenched liberals.
  It's the city councils and the people who vote them in who are so dedicated to the union mentality of overcommitment to government workers, plush benefits, nanny state regulations and lots of broken city streets and vast cracked concreted ghostly landscapes replete with tumbleweed and broken bottles reminiscent of the businesses who formerly thrived there.
  Toledo has possibilities; it's a great location, it could have an attractive waterfront and the people in Northwest Ohio are generally friendly. But the city itself cannot seem to sustain any kind of business. The quality of student in the schools is abysmal and few people actually pay property taxes because of the poverty level. Dependency on government? You bet.
  And that's the core of the problem, is it not.

Friday, February 22, 2013

Elitists exclude themselves from laws, taxes

  Victor Davis Hanson, the eloquent educated spokesman for the conservative movement...why couldn't we have politicians who can think, write and speak like this?
 More at  NRO:
Today’s leftists like the high life as much as their demonized conservative rivals do. The more they damn the bad “millionaires and billionaires,” apparently the less guilt they feel about living it up in Palm Beach or Aspen — paying no taxes, offshoring their profits, or wearing Rolex watches. 
The vast growth of the federal government has splashed so much big money around New York and Washington that even muckraking progressives can’t resist. Loud redistributionist rhetoric offers the necessary vaccination shot that makes privileged leftists immune from any criticism — or guilt — over indulging in tax avoidance, billion-dollar speculation, or aristocratic tastes.
  OTOH, we have the typical Democrat Mayor Oscar Hernandez, who paid himself $100,000 for a part-time job. His lawyer claims it's not his fault that he and others kept upping their salaries for doing nothing since he didn't even finish elementary school and other dummies had been in office too.
  Instead (CBS News):
"They didn't say, 'Stop in the name of the law. These salaries are illegal,'" he said. 
Hernandez was known around town for having a big heart and being willing to listen to everyone's problems, and like many other politicians of simple backgrounds, he wasn't required to be scholarly to be mayor, the lawyer said. 
"We elect people who have a good heart. Someone who can listen to your problems and look you in the eye," Friedman said. "There are a lot of elected officials who may not be the most scholarly. We had a vice president of the United States who didn't know how to spell potato." 
  Well, let's not mention that the word was misspelled on the card Quayle was handed by the school. That's an inconvenient truth the press only released after Quayle was safely part of history and unelectable.

Biden: I shot a round into the air was illegal

  In tandem with Maumee Vice's blog post below, I thought it would be appropriate to post the Joe Biden video of a few days ago in which he encourages women to buy a double barreled shotgun rather than an AR 15.
  How wacky Joe got into office again after his disgraceful debate performance is a mystery and now here he goes again. Oh, that's just Joe being Joe.
  Here's where we are these days. Our politicians are telling us what we can buy. Which kind of weapon. Which kind of ammo. What size drink. What kind of car. How much we should travel, excluding themselves.
  On it goes.
  Unfortunately what Biden suggests his wife do if intruders are threatening her--shoot a few rounds in the air with a shotgun on the balcony--is illegal in his state and could wind up with his wife in jail, particularly since there's a school near their property.
  I shot a round into the air. It fell to earth, I know not where. Oh, and there's that.
  (What's up with the interviewer's voice in this video also? Geez, he sounds like he's sucking on helium or something.)

  Take a look at the difference between the effects of firing a double barreled shotgun and an AR 15.
  I know which advice I'd take about which gun to buy.
  But bad advice is just Joe being Joe.

Gun Violence: Liberalism's Unintended Consequence

A lot has been said lately regarding the supposed outbreak of gun violence in America. Many politicos are using the opportunity to push for new restrictions on gun sales and ownership.

Vice President Joe Biden, who is spearheading the President's policy on gun control,  should know. After all, by his own admission, for the past 35 years no one has been a better friend to law enforcement than he has.

But...according to Joe, "Common sense facts are these assault weapons are unneccesary and dangerous weapons that put our law enforcement personnel at risk..."

 "Assault rifles" and "large-capacity magazines" are the new buzz-words that liberals throw out in an attempt to scare the populace and minimalize the Second Ammendment. Most of the liberals would be happy to ban all guns completely. But, there is another twist to this story. One that liberals would very much like not to be remembered..

In looking at recent and not so recent shootings that have garnered national press, there seems to be a common thread. That is, for the most part, the shooter(s) were either going to the school in question, were graduates of said school, or were family members of faculty and/or staff of the school.

That said, there were also signs of some psychological issues well before the act. Most of the time, people interviewed after the incident, could point out specific items that occurred before the shootings that they believed were precursor to the event. But nothing was done until it was too late.

And that, is the problem the liberals would prefer you not to remember.

Many years ago, there were statutes on the books that were referred to as "status offenses." These were laws that were used by law enforcement officers at times when a person's behavior was not exactly criminal, yet not civil either.

In some instances, the offender was an unruly youth whose parents could no longer control. The "incorrigible" teenager. This would give the parent an opportuniy to have the teen removed from the home or in some instances, the teen could be dropped off at the police station until the parent had the opportunitiy to seek resolution in Family Court.

The other widely used status offense was referred to as SK/Dependant or commonly known as "safe-keeping." This "charge" was used when it was obvious to a responding crew that the person had some psycholigical issues and posed a danger to either himself or another. The offender was transported to a medical facility where it was REQUIRED he be seen by a medical professional within 72-hours.

If, in the opnion of the Doctor, there were some underlying problems, the Court would decide if there should be an involuntary commitment order. If there were no problems, the person was released.

But to many liberals, this was seen as huniliating. How could the police take a person who is standing in the middle of the street, naked as a jaybird, howling at the moon as someone doing nothing more than expressing his "inner-self." The police have no right to seek medical treatment for this obvious "victim" of a repressive society.

And so the laws were repealed.

And look where we are today.

If the laws were still on the books, would there have been no shootings at Columbine, VMI, or Newtown? I honestly don't know. But if these shooters had had an intervention with a medical professional, could you honestly say the shootings may not have occurred?  Unfortunately, we will never know the answer. Unfortunately, those who perished in those events will never know either.

Thursday, February 21, 2013

No registration—no confiscation—no extermination!

  Watching the national gun arguments among politicians from a local level is disturbing, to say the least. All the gun owners I know are responsible people who are passionate about this country, about individual rights and especially the rights to free speech and gun ownership.
  Recent arguments being made around the country are absurd; peaceful gun owners are being depicted as loonies whose names need to be on a national registry somewhere are, in fact, the most reasonable and patriotic people in this country.
  A recent example of how stupid Leftist "rationale" has become was delivered by Colorado Democrat Salazar who doesn't trust women with guns. They'll get hysterical, he claims, and shoot innocent parties because they might "feel like" they're going to be raped, related here at the Washington Times:

“That’s why we have call boxes, that’s why we have safe zones, that’s why we have whistles, because you just don’t know who you’re going to be shooting at,” Mr. Salazar said. 
He said he worried that armed women on campus could wind up shooting innocent bystanders. 
“And you don’t know, if you feel like you’re going to be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around, or if you feel like you’re in trouble, and when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop around that somebody,” he said.
  Doing dutiful CYA for Mr. Salazar, the press maintains that his comments were only "klutzy" and in no way similar to comments made by Republicans.
  Homeland Security regularly enters the fray by producing "informative" videos like this doozy of a video in which we are told to hide under desks or use scissors in case some criminal comes after more victims. No gun for you! If you're in a room with a desk, you can always push it in front of the door because, of course, the shooter wouldn't think of shooting you through the door.
  One has to wonder who's in charge of video editing over there at DHS considering the quality of film being produced, the politically correct nature of prospective "terrorists" (they're all white) and the unbelievably stupid advice being handed out. Can you say Mr. Obvious?
  Another Democrat politician proposed a bill which would require sheriffs to enter the homes of citizens to be sure guns are "properly" stored.
 Yet another Democrat suggests using "ballpoint pens" as a way to "address violence."
  A senile singer suggests an incredibly ignorant analogy that the US is turning into Nazi Germany without gun control, apparently unaware that the Nazis first took the Jews' guns, learning how easy it was to herd thousands into cattle cars with a few armed soldiers. 
  In an historically detailed account of other countries' seizure of the guns of private citizens and the resultant genocides, Western Rifle Shooters' Bracken discusses why Americans will never allow their government to take their weapons:
Can any glib politician, pundit or ivory tower academic give us an ironclad guarantee that tyranny will never arise in the United States? Not even a popular tyranny, like those of Ataturk, Stalin, Hitler or Mao? Can anyone assure us that today’s “commonsense” gun registration lists will not be used for future gun confiscation? Of course not. 
The future may be unknowable, but history is well understood, and American gun owners know and understand the history of democide in the 20th century. That is why they will never accede to what is currently portrayed in the predominantly left-wing mainstream media as “commonsense and reasonable” new gun control laws. 
While American gun owners lament and regret the inescapable fact that deranged individuals in a free country may on rare occasions murder a dozen or a score of unarmed victims, they also understand that government democide murders by the million. And in every case, tyrants can conduct these democides only after disarming their unwanted minorities, rendering them helpless to resist murderous government pogroms.
  This allegiance to the Second Amendment is not inspired by fantasy or drama or excitement. It is inspired by history.
  It becomes quickly apparent that registration is the path to confiscation.

The process of artful dodging by our politicians

From Guest Blogger Off Duty Again:

I was having a discussion with a good friend the other day and the topic turned to art.
Now, you must understand my friend. I have never actually seen any of her work other than in pictures. But she professes to be an artist and I believe her. As a matter of fact, she has such credibility in our conversations that she could say she performed brain surgery last week and I would buy that too. But, I digress. 

The topic turned to art and the “process.” If I understand her properly, she wants people to appreciate her art and the work it took to create it. 

I think I understand this concept. We could place the same art supplies on a table between us and at the end of the day, she would create something alive, wonderful, and marvelous.  I...well... suffice it to say there won’t be any of my art hanging in a gallery sometime soon. It’s not that I cannot “see” the art. It is the major disconnect between brain and hands. It’s all in the “process.”
But like a bad 80’s era tune that you cannot get out of your head....I cannot shake the word “process.” It’s rolling around upstairs and refuses to leave.
Lately, the word has been in use (or possibly overuse) by our friends on Capitol Hill. It seems everyone is concerned about process. Democrats are concerned with the process of getting Chuck Hagel confirmed and worry the Republicans will try to deep-six John Brennan’s nomination for the CIA.
Republicans are concerned about the “process” that went into the decision-making during the attack on our consulate in Benghazi and the “process” that was used to determine talking points that UN Ambassador Susan Rice relied upon to spin the story on the Sunday shows. Process here...process there...EVERYONE seems to be worried about the process except me.
Frankly, I understand the process. What I want now is the “art.” The “finished product” if you will.
I want to know why Chuck Hagel made the remarks about the “Jewish lobby” and I want to know who the Senators are on the Hill who, he says, are so intimidated they changed their vote.  I want to know why John McCain and Lindsay Graham asked some tough questions of Chuck Hagel, yet threw marshmallows at Hillary Clinton.
I am curious if John Brennan considers himself, or better yet, does the Attorney General consider him a “high-ranking government official” that can authorize the killing of an American citizen who may be considered an “imminent threat” to the security of the United States?
It’s time we not worry about the “process” but start looking for some “art’”
It is beyond belief the President of the United States, can have a 15 minute brief with Secretary of Defense Panetta, who tells him about the attack on the consulate, yet issues no orders, nor follows-up on the attack at ANY time prior to leaving for Vegas. Likewise, it strains credibility the SecDef didn’t pick up the phone at some time to talk to his boss as the attack continued. 


This from the same team that brought us the minute-by-minute, photo-op extraordinaire of Seal Team Six’s take-down of Osama bin Laden? Oh, and did I mention two films too? Sorry, doesn’t pass the smell test.
And, where was our courageous 2016 Presidential heir–apparent,  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton?
Hmmm, we have testimony from Charlene Lamb who indicated there was real-time intelligence available from the two drones that were overhead that night. Also it was intimated during testimony the intelligence was available to not only CIA, but also State, White House and others.
But Hillary was conveniently absent. Why? More importantly, she had the audacity to reference the suspect video numerous times during the ceremony at Andrews AFB when Ambassador Stevens and the other brave American’s bodies were returned to the US. She stated with indignation the maker of said video would be arrested without delay. And he was. 

Either she was still conveniently out-of-the-loop, or she doesn’t think lying to the families of the slain heroes and the American people is such a big deal.
And what about the numerous cables from Ambassador Stevens in the months preceding advising State the facility was vulnerable to a coordinated attack? Not to mention the recent mortar attack that had breached a compound wall and the British government’s decision to close their Embassy because it was too dangerous. Good to know our Sec of State had her eye on the ball.
Former CIA Director David Patreaus eventually did testify, but his testimony was curiously tainted by the revelation of an affair just prior to his scheduled appearance. Coincidence? Or was he collateral damage?
Yet, in all the Committee hearings in both the Senate and the House, we still know nothing more than we did before. Could it be we are too concerned about the “process” rather than the truth?
I am appalled the Congress chose to close ranks along party lines rather than get to the bottom of why 4 Americans died that day. To all the Democrats who applauded the globe-trotting former Secretary of State and didn’t ask a single pertinent question, please explain how you will look a grief-stricken family member in the eye and justify your actions. 

To you Republicans who chose to use your time to make another speech rather than ask direct questions, was it to go along to get along?
Recently, Texas Senator Ted Cruz has come under fire from both Democrats and Republicans for his less than collegial treatment of Secretary of Defense nominee Chuck Hagel. Senator Barbara Boxer inferred Cruz was the modern-day Joe McCarthy. John McCain said he had “gone too far.” McCain continued saying Cruz can be a tough questioner without being “disrespectful.” 

This was the same John McCain that sat next to Senator Chuck Shumer and other Democrats at the SOTU address.
Cruz has also been criticized by Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanual. It seems Cruz doesn’t like Emanual’s idea of writing to banks and asking them to no longer do business with gun manufacturers. I don’t suppose it could be because what Emanual has suggested is a violation of Federal law? No, apparently it’s about the “clubby” atmosphere that is supposed to exist in the Senate. It’s about the process.
Senator Cruz and to a lesser degree Senator Marco Rubio have been soundly criticized by their colleagues and the media for not going along with the “process” and instead marching to a different drum. A mis-placed water bottle is more newsworthy than the content of Rubio’s speech. Already a disqualifier for seeking a higher office.
And now we have Senators McCain and Graham realizing the “process” is more important and have walked back their opposition to the Hagel appointment. Did anyone think they’d do otherwise? Especially Graham who accepted Hagel’s explanation to his question about the Jewish Lobby by answering later “he couldn’t remember.” Wow, what an in-depth response.
Nope, looks like our elected leaders in Washington have got this “process” thing down pat.
But when will I see the “art?”

5 Ways Americans are bullied by the government

Saw this over at Legal Insurrection. It tells a story, one I wish we didn't have to hear.
Government Bullies: 5 Ways Americans are Bullied by the Government
Source: Government Bullies: 5 Ways Americans are Bullied by the Government

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

USPS clothing line? Why not? Nothing else works

  I guess I have no objection to the flailing USPS branching out to try to start another business considering the mess they've made of the current one. I mean, why not move when you've completely ruined the house you live in.
  I just have a few questions, as we learn that the Postal Service will be making a lines of clothes named "Rain Heat and Snow." It's actually not a bad idea to produce well-made weatherproof clothing, as long as the pants don't have stripes down the leg and the shirts aren't emblazoned with the USPS logo.
  Considering that their business model basically sucks, one wonders what kind of business model the line of clothing will have.
  Like this, for example.
  Will the makers of this clothing be state side? Or in China?
  In a right to work state where costs are containable? Or will the clothing be so expensive that no one will buy it but postal workers?
  Or will they be union members who will receive all the same holidays as their Rain Heat Snow counterparts, housed in staunchly liberal run overpaid cities?
  If these clothes makers are unionists, will they receive the same fat pensions that the current USPS workers receive? The fat pensions that are causing the USPS to go belly up?
  And the final quandary I have as I study the proposal that the government go into clothes making is this.
  Everyone knows that their mail isn't delivered during "rain heat and snow." In fact, sometimes the mail persons do not deliver mail at all. They skip your house if you've something heavy to be delivered or if they want to get to an early lunch. 
  The whole rain heat snow thing is based on something that maybe happened about 150 years ago when the Pony Express delivered mail but it sure doesn't happen now. It's quite odd when it rains very hard that no mail is delivered.
  Oh, and one last thing. 
  Has anyone noticed how slovenly most USPS workers dress these days? Because if current employees are the models, I'll pass.
  There used to be a dress code required, back in the days when the Post was actually making money. Now you see shirts hanging out, dirty pants and shoes, sports team caps.
  So anyway I was just thinking maybe the USPS ought to rethink these matters before they get too deeply in the clothes business.

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Democrat hysteria over sequester political drama

  The press is currently obsessed with the Republicans' lack of willingness to accede to Obama's demand to put off the sequester. The Prince himself has declared that the oceans themselves will overtake the planet if the sequester isn't stopped from happening next week.
  Today he declared, with the usual sob story props beside him, that the end of the world is near:
The "meat cleaver approach" will lead to such things as the layoffs of teachers, cutbacks in the air traffic control system, furloughs of FBI agents and a compromised military, Obama said as he again called for heading off sequestration with a "balanced" debt reduction plan -- and laid the groundwork for blaming the Republicans if the automatic cuts come to pass.
"These cuts are not smart, these cuts are not fair," Obama said. "People will lose their jobs."
  Of course, the sequester was Obama's idea because he knows he can roll the Republicans' whenever he feels like it. He doesn't reason with them, doesn't attempt to govern, first and always resorting to bullying the poor dummies.
  But let's take a look back at what Obama said about the sequester cuts back in October when he declared that the Des Moines Register had taken an "off the record" conversation and publicized it. The scandal at the time, if you'll recall, was that Obama expected the sequester to take effect: 
"The good news is that there's going to be a forcing mechanism to deal with what is the central ideological argument in Washington right now ... when you combine the Bush tax cuts expiring, the sequester in place, the commitment of myself and my opponent ... we're going to be in a position where I believe in the first six months we are going to solve that big piece of business," Obama said.
“It will probably be messy. It won’t be pleasant. But I am absolutely confident that we can get what is the equivalent of the grand bargain that essentially I’ve been offering to the Republicans for a very long time, which is $2.50 worth of cuts for every dollar in spending, and work to reduce the costs of our health care programs,” Obama said.
  Brian Preston at PJ Tatler commented at the time of the Register interview:
Recall that in the third debate, President Obama claimed that he did not come up with the sequesters and that “it will not happen.” It has already been reported that his administration did come up with the sequester. Now, in that Des Moines Register interview that was briefly off the record, he touts the sequester as a means by which he will achieve spending cuts. 
  Hello? Anybody out there? Let's connect the two.
  It sure sounded then ---THE SEQUESTER IN PLACE--as if POTUS was planning on the sequester going through, his using it as a bludgeon against Republicans and then claiming, "Oh! People will suffer if it happens!!"
  This is just more political theater.
  From Front Page Magazine, we learn how much the sequester really matters compared to other commitments and debts:
 In FY2013, the sequester would result in cuts totaling $85 billion. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), federal spending for 2012, excluding certain credit adjustments for items such as the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), was $3.5 trillion. Assuming federal spending would stay completely flat, such a “massive” spending cut would comprise 2.4 percent of the 2013 budget. For perspective’s sake, as well as a good indication that flat federal spending is an elusive reality, it should be noted that Congress recently authorized a total of $60.2 billion in additional deficit spending for Hurricane Sandy relief.
  So Boo-Freakin-Hoo.
  You're all actors on a stage and not very good ones at that. 

Suddenly the press is concerned over Obama "transparency"

  So the MSM got their young man back into the White House. Happy now?
  Well, no, of course not. There are reputations to be made in the MSM! Books to be written!
  And here we are suffering the consequences around the nation. We all know what the symptoms of the disease are: low employment, great numbers on public assistance, drones circling overhead and constant snooping, threats of surrendered civil rights.
  But now apparently the press are outraged, OUTRAGED that the Obama White House is blocking their access to his Wonderful Self.
  Peeps of dissatisfaction having been popping up in the press, the latest of which is the Politico article entitled "Obama the Puppet Master": I predict this article will be widely referenced by talk radio today so we'll summarize it here.
  Vandehei at Politico squawks that it's not their fault! not their fault! that Obama is literally getting away with murder. The right side of the aisle has complained about this for years but to inoculate themselves from appearing 1) endorse conservative complaints or 2) be wrong, Politico says this:
President Barack Obama is a master at limiting, shaping and manipulating media coverage of himself and his White House.
Not for the reason that conservatives suspect: namely, that a liberal press willingly and eagerly allows itself to get manipulated. Instead, the mastery mostly flows from a White House that has taken old tricks for shaping coverage (staged leaks, friendly interviews) and put them on steroids using new ones (social media, content creation, precision targeting). And it’s an equal opportunity strategy: Media across the ideological spectrum are left scrambling for access.
Conservatives assume a cozy relationship between this White House and the reporters who cover it. Wrong. Many reporters find Obama himself strangely fearful of talking with them and often aloof and cocky when he does. They find his staff needlessly stingy with information and thin-skinned about any tough coverage. He gets more-favorable-than-not coverage because many staffers are fearful of talking to reporters, even anonymously, and some reporters inevitably worry access or the chance of a presidential interview will decrease if they get in the face of this White House.
  Hmm. Here it is February, past the second inauguration and suddenly these weasels find their voices.
  Vandehei goes on to reveal that reporters are upset that Obama and his people control all the images (photographs, audio and video recordings), the release of damaging information to weekends, hold only interviews with sympathetic reporters and then punish the press if they dare to ask hard questions. (Hm. Ed Henry of Fox News is president of the White House Press Corpse. Hm.)
  The trigger event was having absolutely no access to The Prince golfing last weekend. Well, I guess golfing is more important than the loss of life in Benghazi.
  And NOW we find out that the only video interviewed of Elena Kagan (former Obama personal lawyer) was taped by the White House. No lively questions there.
  It is notable that a few MSM reporters were willing to go on record to complain. 
  But what are you going to do with a press who writes things like this in the LA Times just after Obama returns from Florida several weeks after returning from Hawaii:
Obama's vacations have been rare, brief and regularly interrupted by crises at home and overseas. Most recently, he suspended his Christmas holiday in Hawaii to rush back to Washington for a few days to deal with congressional negotiations over the so-called fiscal cliff.
  His vacations are rare?
  And, boo hoo, "interrupted by crises"?
  Double boo hoo.
  Let the phonies begin writing their magnum opuses. 
  Just remember.
  We don't believe a word you write anymore, you scaredy chicken cats.
  We'll be waiting for Obama's Watergate moment.
UPDATE: As Frank Beckmann points out, the big deal about "transparency," the petty whining over so little access to the POTUS, and what is the question asked of POTUS after their imperially imposed ostracism from him?
  Why, yes. That question of grave importance is: "Did you beat Tiger Woods, Mr. President?"
  Stunningly significant.

Saturday, February 16, 2013

Let's be FAIR to Jesse Jackson, Jr,

  Jesse Jackson, Jr, has been (miraculously?) discovered to have been pilfering money from his campaign coffers to buy stuff. 
  Expensive stuff like a watch worth tens of thousands of dollars. 
  And fur capes. Lots of fur capes.
  Rather than excoriating Jackson for being the scoundrel he is, it's interesting to watch the press and Democrats but I repeat myself rush to his ready made defense which is, of course, the whole "bi-polar" smokescreen of hysteria Jackson put up when he realized someone noticed and was about to say something, unlike the treatment Jesse Jackson SENIOR usually gets.
  Jackson's being caught is "unfortunate," the press dutifully reports, but his downfall was due to wanting stuff rather than "power," as if that's somehow a worse (or better? I'm so confused!) reason for being revealed to be both thief and liar. 
   Here's what a neighboring corruptocrat in Illinois says of Jackson's "unfortunate" behavior:

"I think things probably just got out of hand for them and they got involved in making decisions that just didn't make a lot of good sense," Davis said. 
Davis wondered whether the long list of luxury purchases mentioned in the federal criminal complaint were "an indication that his bipolar condition kind of was manifesting itself even then." 
If so, he said, it's unfair to compare this situation to other Illinois corruption.

  Let's be honest, here.
  The desire for power revolves around the desire for objects and certainly for the control of others' lives.
  Regardless the motive, both are wrong and evil and proprietary of others' lives. 
  But I guess when you're immoral like that, there's a difference between being a liar and thief or a power hungry liar and thief. 
  It only counts, though, if you're on the right side of the aisle.
  But for sure don't rub your leg up accidentally or not against somebody's else's in a toilet stall because that would be abominably immoral.
  Unless, of course, you've already established a predetermined defense like bi-polar disorder. Or something like that.
  We wouldn't want to be unfair, after all.

"Blue" model is reflected in the educational system

  How absurd Leftists are becoming. 
  It's ludicrous, really, watching them pontificate and spasm over foolish incidents like Marco Rubio's awkward water grabbing, an incident that MSNBC played155 times in one day, or watching them try to explain that the government hasn't spent too much money
  We've simply run out of "revenues."
  You remember. I don't weigh too much. I'm just not tall enough.
  If you're a sane reasonable taxpayer, you have to sit back in amaze/amusement as Leftists beclown themselves daily, exalting cop killer Dorner while mocking Dr. Carson's sensible gently profferred comments as "inappropriate." So now it's "inappropriate" to suggest POTUS might not have the best ideas but it was funny to write plays about ways to murder George W. Bush.
  But we worry, not just because we are being watched by government eyes in the sky, on our computers and in our homes but for fear our civil rights are being bargained away. 
  Say what you will about W, still, he appointed many decent people in positions of government, people who were not determined to punish one class or race of people while babying another like the current administration.
  Democrat Walter Russell Mead writes at The American Interest about the breakdown of the "blue model," the FDR inspired, Obama perpetuated style of government that includes one social program after another to provide that intrusive "support" in the form of taxpayer funded services; the blue model is evidenced particularly in politically "blue" states.
  In fact, Obamacare may prove to be the downfall of the blue model, considering how many Democrats are contemplating jumping ship, even as they ramp up the indoctrination:
The fate of the Democratic party in America over the next decade is tied to Obama’s healthcare reform. If it is seen to be a success, America could trend Democratic for the foreseeable future. If it fails, liberalism as we’ve known it will take a massive hit. But, so far, support for Obamacare has been waning instead of waxing. Even a recent piece by Talking Points Memo that placed the blame for Obamacare’s potential failure on Republicans noted that the law’s unpopularity with the public at large was the number one threat to its success. Democrats are getting nervous and consequently are trying to put some distance between themselves and the ACA.
  In "The Once and Future Liberalism, Mead's description of the blue method of education is particularly apt and compelling.  In this article, Mead discusses an historical perspective of the rise and fall of the blue model which is now being challenged by a global marketplace, enormous debt, the burden of unionization and its costs, and an inability to adapt to the evolving job market:
Fordism was once a term of abuse hurled at the factory system by Marxist critics who, rightly, deplored the alienation and anomie that mass production for mass consumption entailed. Has the Fordist factory system and the big box consumerism that goes with it now become our ideal, the highest form of social life our minds can conceive? Social critics also denounced our school system, justifiably, as a mediocre, conformity inducing, alienating, time wasting system that trained kids to sit still, follow directions and move with the herd. The blue model built big-box schools where the children of factory workers could get the standardized social and intellectual training necessary to enable most of them to graduate into the big-box Ford plant and shop in the big-box store. Maybe that was a huge social advance at one time, but is that something to aspire to or be proud of today? Don’t we want to teach our children to do something smarter than move in large groups by the clock and the bell, follow directions and always color between the lines
  The blue model isn't working so well anymore, according to Mead (and reality);  changes need to take place, not changes to sustain the current blue model but to attain a better model for the larger group of Americans who value the same things they've always valued but resent the intrusive policies of current elitists who think they know better than the rest of us and have exploited the initial "good intentions" of statism for their own political gains.
The core institutions, ideas and expectations that shaped American life for the sixty years after the New Deal don’t work anymore. The gaps between the social system we inhabit and the one we now need are becoming so wide that we can no longer paper over them. But even as the failures of the old system become more inescapable and more damaging, our national discourse remains stuck in a bygone age. The end is here, but we can’t quite take it in.
  More recently Mead says it has become so obvious that the blue model is tanking--and fast--that even the New York Times has noticed. This is the Grey Lady, whose commentators continually lament the "inequality" of some people having stuff while others are forced to resort to whining on Occupy Wall Street or such:
Twentieth-century liberalism is a victim of its own success: it gave us longer and more prosperous lives, in turn putting tremendous pressure on social services and pensions. The result is the fragmenting coalition Edsall points to. Though he places part of the blame for the blue civil war on Republican-backed austerity measures, Edsall admits that demographic shifts and outmoded ways of delivering social services also played a role.
The reality of blue model decline is so obvious that nobody can ignore it any longer.
  In "Life after the Blue Model: the Middle Class Will Beat the Seven Trolls," Mead acknowledges the pessimism of the American middle class but is himself optimistic about its future in this country, noting that the energy of job creation has shifted but not disappeared.
The information revolution destroys jobs, but it also creates them, and we are already in the early stages of a jobs explosion. And as it proceeds, the information revolution is likely to propel the rise of a middle class that is more productive, better educated, more autonomous and more interested in and capable of civic leadership than the Fordist middle class of the late industrial age. 
The new jobs will be different from the old jobs, and this is one of the reasons many fear the economic transition we’re in. There are a lot of people on both the right and the left who think that in a country that doesn’t “make stuff” there won’t be any jobs. If it isn’t a widget that you can grab in your hand and do something with, it isn’t real. This is nonsense. Two hundred years ago people thought that the only real jobs involved growing food, and that people who made non-necessary consumer goods were engaged in a socially parasitic activity. Nobody in 1800 could have imagined the plethora of manufactured goods that gave people jobs once the industrial revolution took hold: mass produced Elvis on velvet portraits? Fuzzy dice to hang from car mirrors? 
   Mead's assessment of education in this country is already bearing a particularly bitter fruit, including aimless unemployable graduates skilled in nothing and unsustainable pensions for overpaid professors who are frequently on sabbatical while designating the part time underlings to do the heavy lifting of actual teaching.
  Now those adjunct hours and jobs are being cut, not just due to the already overcommitted pension demands but also the demands of Obamacare.
  BGSU is cutting 100 university staff to great protest.
  University of Toledo has increased the load of regular professors, thus cutting part time jobs and increasing the number of students in every class.
  And some taxpayers think that, for the children, any amount the children need should be invested in TPS schools, regardless that most taxpayers have rejected the many requests for more money and regardless of learning outcomes. Recently it was decided that TPS will not pursue a renewal tax request.
  Mead writes that the petri dish of academia in particular reveals the flaws in blue model thinking:
But beyond alerting us to one of the many problems that implementing Obamacare will cause, this news provides a depressing look at the underbelly of the academy. Universities are citadels of blue model thinking and most faculty members are relentlessly liberal in their politics. But the reality is that these same universities are some of the nastiest and most exploitative employers in America. The exploitation of adjuncts is an ugly feature of contemporary American academic life, and the smug complacency about it among many beneficiaries of the two tier system should remind us all that moral hypocrisy can co-exist with impressive degrees. 
Partisans of the blue social model like to think of it as a utopian commonwealth; academic adjuncts know the truth, and the revolting treatment of adjuncts by colleges understandably anxious to avoid the high costs of Obamacare should remind us all that the blue social model, especially in decline, is not as benign as its supporters and beneficiaries believe.
  K-12 schools are moving toward sterile data collection and more testing to determine and improve student learning outcomes. Is this the answer?
  Data collection seems to be yet another extension of the "big box" mentality which does not take into account the world in which we live, the direction the job market is taking and the adaptability necessary to be successful in a rapidly changing marketplace.
  Recently the teachers' state retirement system has changed the rules about retiring: no teacher may retire until at least the age of 60. While this is a reasonable demand in view of preserving the viability of the pension systems, how will school districts pay for those more expensive teachers who are at the top of their pay scales? 40 years in the classroom is a very long time. Will these now elderly teachers be able to handle the challenge, changing with the demands of the increasingly technology society which craves engineers, science, math and, above all, the creativity to adapt?
  The contemporary class is the petri dish of the Leftist movement. It's slowly breaking apart.
  As right-to-work proliferates across the nation--even in Michigan--the academic system is also morphing as charter schools become more available, some successful, some not so much depending on how you evaluate the data.
  But it is a bright sign for the future that the American people will not be bound by the strictures imposed by the blue model, even in that most indigo of arenas, the classroom.