The hardest thing about being conservative is dealing with the fantasies of the Left. Keynesianism should be buried with a stake through its heart. $850 Billion in direct spending coupled with a Trillion dollars in debt every year for the last four years should show that government spending does not increase the economy.
Since Obama has been reelected, attention is now being turned to the fiscal cliff. Harry Reid wants higher tax rates on everyone making over $250k, Chuck Schumer doesn't want to fix the tax code, (so that he can still give his friends the perks they paid him for) and Speaker Boehner says that he doesn't want higher tax rates. Seems like a recipe for stalemate. But in addition to the tax increases that are coming, we also have the results of Obamacare being implemented. The number of companies that are going to be forced to lay off workers is only going to be matched by the rise in prices that those companies that don't lay off workers are going to have to impose. It's entirely possible that you will see your hours cut to 28 a week and an increase in prices all at the same time.
So how about this - Let Boehner go along with the tax increase on the wealthy, but with a caveat: If the unemployment rate goes about 8.2%, the Bush tax cuts are fully reinstated and made permanent. Obama has been touting his "Summer of recovery" for the last three years, and unemployment has finally fallen below 8%. If his economic model is so wonderful, by historic standards we should be really rocketing up in GDP by now (bad base line is an easy way to show rapid growth).
Would have the advantage of saying to Obama, have it your way, which would remove the cudgel of class warfare, while at the same time making a bet that his economics don't work.
Friday, November 09, 2012
Wednesday, November 07, 2012
Boy Was I Wrong
Wow, just wow. The fundamentals dictated that no President could possibly overcome all that was going on in this country. The economy, 23 million unemployed, Benghazi and the rest of the Middle East, the coming fiscal cliff all should have led to a complete dismissal of The One. The fact that Mitt was competent even if not inspiring should have given hope that the USS Economy could finally be steered out of the shallow waters and once again prowling the oceans at full speed.
Instead, we get more of the same. Which was really the biggest reason I thought that Obama would lose. When people went to vote, would they ask themselves if this is as good as it gets, or can it be better? Unfortunately, it seems to be that they think that this is as good as it gets. And with his reelection, I guess this is as good as it gets.
But there are some fundamentals that can be learned from this election. First, go negative early and often. Keep hammering your opponent even if it's not the truth. The low information voter seems to be especially susceptible to the first message that hits him or her. Do not allow any accusation to go unchallenged. What would have happened if Mitt had responded to Obama, "Mr. President, you said that I was against government assistance to the auto companies. You either retract it right now or show yourself for the liar that you really are." Pretty disrespectful, but certainly merited. In fact, probably the most iconic moments of irony had to be Bill Clinton asking if we really wanted a President who lied to us. Apparently so.
Structurally, the Libertarian Party has to go. Republicans are going to have to work to include them, since they are a drain on votes for their candidates. If you add the 29k votes for Cox to Denny's total, Denny wins. Same with Rick Hill, who only needed half the Libertarian candidate's votes to win. Republicans can try and ostracize the Libertarian Party, but that's just like wrestling with a pig, the pig likes it and you get dirty. It wouldn't take that much to bring libertarians into the party, since both agree on the principles of limited government and fiscal responsibility. The problem is always the social conservative movement of the Republicans. Not to say that they aren't vital and valid, but you are never going to get anywhere with a libertarian by arguing that his principles on limited government have to be sacrificed in the name of a war on drugs or whatever. At the same time, libertarians have to be made abundantly clear that pulling votes from Republicans just elects Democrats. So, while the Libertarian may feel the Republican is not pure enough, he gets the Democrat elected who is completely antithetical to his beliefs. Half a loaf and all that.
Going forward, we have to address the concerns of the low information voter instead of ignoring them. The Democrats took full advantage of these people in order to get elected. Who are they? The ones who believe that Mitt Romney was going to take abortion away, or only cared about the rich. Now, Romney never really addressed abortion because the reality is that the big problem was the economy. If he had just asked the rhetorical question "If we allowed abortion on demand until the fetus graduates from High School or turned 18, which ever occurred later, how would that change the economy?" it would have pointed out the absurdity of the whole issue. But it certainly turned a lot of women voters. Second, Mitt should have addressed the rich issue by pointing out that right now if you implemented Obama's tax increases, you would fund the deficit, not the debt for about four days. The problem is the spending, not the taxes.
The whole rich versus poor thing is a fools errand. We become forced to fight on the battleground of their choosing. We should be pointing out instead that government is the problem. What if Mitt had been saying that Obama wants to bankrupt Social Security in order to keep paying Planned Parenthood, or that Medicare payments were reduced to the point that no doctor will take Medicare because of the low reimbursement rates in order to transfer "green money" to Obama's political contributers.
In fact, the Republicans miss the biggest easy target that the Democrats can never successfully defend. Every year, Sen. Coburn comes out with a list of government waste. Why are we raising taxes when we have so much waste? Most people would agree that it is better to get rid of government waste than to raise taxes, but Republicans just don't seem as interested in presenting the issue. Using a modified version of Malthus, doubling of the size of government results in an exponential growth in government failures and mismanagement. That is where the Republicans need to concentrate. Democrats would be running from fire to fire trying to put out the stupid stuff that the government does.
Yesterday was a loss. Today is the first day of the new fight. Let's fight smart.
Instead, we get more of the same. Which was really the biggest reason I thought that Obama would lose. When people went to vote, would they ask themselves if this is as good as it gets, or can it be better? Unfortunately, it seems to be that they think that this is as good as it gets. And with his reelection, I guess this is as good as it gets.
But there are some fundamentals that can be learned from this election. First, go negative early and often. Keep hammering your opponent even if it's not the truth. The low information voter seems to be especially susceptible to the first message that hits him or her. Do not allow any accusation to go unchallenged. What would have happened if Mitt had responded to Obama, "Mr. President, you said that I was against government assistance to the auto companies. You either retract it right now or show yourself for the liar that you really are." Pretty disrespectful, but certainly merited. In fact, probably the most iconic moments of irony had to be Bill Clinton asking if we really wanted a President who lied to us. Apparently so.
Structurally, the Libertarian Party has to go. Republicans are going to have to work to include them, since they are a drain on votes for their candidates. If you add the 29k votes for Cox to Denny's total, Denny wins. Same with Rick Hill, who only needed half the Libertarian candidate's votes to win. Republicans can try and ostracize the Libertarian Party, but that's just like wrestling with a pig, the pig likes it and you get dirty. It wouldn't take that much to bring libertarians into the party, since both agree on the principles of limited government and fiscal responsibility. The problem is always the social conservative movement of the Republicans. Not to say that they aren't vital and valid, but you are never going to get anywhere with a libertarian by arguing that his principles on limited government have to be sacrificed in the name of a war on drugs or whatever. At the same time, libertarians have to be made abundantly clear that pulling votes from Republicans just elects Democrats. So, while the Libertarian may feel the Republican is not pure enough, he gets the Democrat elected who is completely antithetical to his beliefs. Half a loaf and all that.
Going forward, we have to address the concerns of the low information voter instead of ignoring them. The Democrats took full advantage of these people in order to get elected. Who are they? The ones who believe that Mitt Romney was going to take abortion away, or only cared about the rich. Now, Romney never really addressed abortion because the reality is that the big problem was the economy. If he had just asked the rhetorical question "If we allowed abortion on demand until the fetus graduates from High School or turned 18, which ever occurred later, how would that change the economy?" it would have pointed out the absurdity of the whole issue. But it certainly turned a lot of women voters. Second, Mitt should have addressed the rich issue by pointing out that right now if you implemented Obama's tax increases, you would fund the deficit, not the debt for about four days. The problem is the spending, not the taxes.
The whole rich versus poor thing is a fools errand. We become forced to fight on the battleground of their choosing. We should be pointing out instead that government is the problem. What if Mitt had been saying that Obama wants to bankrupt Social Security in order to keep paying Planned Parenthood, or that Medicare payments were reduced to the point that no doctor will take Medicare because of the low reimbursement rates in order to transfer "green money" to Obama's political contributers.
In fact, the Republicans miss the biggest easy target that the Democrats can never successfully defend. Every year, Sen. Coburn comes out with a list of government waste. Why are we raising taxes when we have so much waste? Most people would agree that it is better to get rid of government waste than to raise taxes, but Republicans just don't seem as interested in presenting the issue. Using a modified version of Malthus, doubling of the size of government results in an exponential growth in government failures and mismanagement. That is where the Republicans need to concentrate. Democrats would be running from fire to fire trying to put out the stupid stuff that the government does.
Yesterday was a loss. Today is the first day of the new fight. Let's fight smart.
Monday, November 05, 2012
What if . . ?
What if contrary to all the energy, Obama is able to steal enough votes in Ohio win,what will happen after the election? It's clear that the Republicans are going to keep the House and may take the Senate. If they do, we will have an ideologue in the White House who has said that he is willing to work with anybody. Sure he hasn't shown it yet, but he's saving it for his second term, I'm sure. You know, when he will have more freedom, like with Putin.
The one advantage for keeping Obama is that he can immediately start working on the "fiscal cliff" that is looming on the first of January. I predict that he will tell the Republicans that they have to cave because "I won" just like last time. Only this time, there is not going to be any pretense of civility between the two sides. Republicans are going to hold fast to their no tax pledge and with good reason. Remember, Obama has more of a habit of conceding than seeing something through to the end. While Republicans will be excoriated for their failure to compromise, they have some things going for them. First, while Congress is held in low esteem, everyone of them will probably have won with more than 50% of their home district support. As in, "Screw Congress, but I love my congresscritter."
Assuming we run over the cliff, the economy is going to shut down. Anyone with money will be parking it offshore in some form of stable currency like whatever Somalia uses. But it's the principle of the thinkg to Obama. He would rather see the economy tank, 720,000 people losing their jobs and riots in the street than give up on his punitive tax on the so called wealthy. Remember, it's not about reducing the deficit or increasing revenue to the government. This is all about class warfare baby. If it wasn't, why would Obama have agreed to an extension of the Bush tax cuts back in 2010?
There will be a surfeit of new regulations designed to punish the few remaining businesses that failed to have the good sense to contribute significantly to his re-election. Not that it will matter, except to all the Obamavilles that will spring up and be required to put a catalytic converter over their fire barrels.
But it's not all bad news. Because there will be no limits on what Obama will attempt to do by executive fiat, the 2012 elections will probably result in the complete and utter destruction of the Democratic Party. My forecast is that there may be fewer than 50 Democrats combined in Congress after the election. Hmmm, isn't Max coming up for re-election then?
But you don't have to worry. The assumptions built into the polling models are just enough wrong that they end result will be 53-47 Romney with over 300 electoral votes. If in this highly energized year you don't understand that the Democrat turnout will be matched by Republicans, it will be the independents who will provide the necessary energy to propel the first Mormon President. When Romney leads among them by 22%, Obama doesn't have a chance.
And Nate Silver is going to have some explaining to do over at 538.
The one advantage for keeping Obama is that he can immediately start working on the "fiscal cliff" that is looming on the first of January. I predict that he will tell the Republicans that they have to cave because "I won" just like last time. Only this time, there is not going to be any pretense of civility between the two sides. Republicans are going to hold fast to their no tax pledge and with good reason. Remember, Obama has more of a habit of conceding than seeing something through to the end. While Republicans will be excoriated for their failure to compromise, they have some things going for them. First, while Congress is held in low esteem, everyone of them will probably have won with more than 50% of their home district support. As in, "Screw Congress, but I love my congresscritter."
Assuming we run over the cliff, the economy is going to shut down. Anyone with money will be parking it offshore in some form of stable currency like whatever Somalia uses. But it's the principle of the thinkg to Obama. He would rather see the economy tank, 720,000 people losing their jobs and riots in the street than give up on his punitive tax on the so called wealthy. Remember, it's not about reducing the deficit or increasing revenue to the government. This is all about class warfare baby. If it wasn't, why would Obama have agreed to an extension of the Bush tax cuts back in 2010?
There will be a surfeit of new regulations designed to punish the few remaining businesses that failed to have the good sense to contribute significantly to his re-election. Not that it will matter, except to all the Obamavilles that will spring up and be required to put a catalytic converter over their fire barrels.
But it's not all bad news. Because there will be no limits on what Obama will attempt to do by executive fiat, the 2012 elections will probably result in the complete and utter destruction of the Democratic Party. My forecast is that there may be fewer than 50 Democrats combined in Congress after the election. Hmmm, isn't Max coming up for re-election then?
But you don't have to worry. The assumptions built into the polling models are just enough wrong that they end result will be 53-47 Romney with over 300 electoral votes. If in this highly energized year you don't understand that the Democrat turnout will be matched by Republicans, it will be the independents who will provide the necessary energy to propel the first Mormon President. When Romney leads among them by 22%, Obama doesn't have a chance.
And Nate Silver is going to have some explaining to do over at 538.
Friday, November 02, 2012
Why We Need Tester to Leave
Harry Reid has just declared that he will not work with Mitt Romney when he becomes President. I suppose this is meant to be payback for Mitch McConnell's comment that he wanted Obama to fail. Now the reality is that is not exactly what McConnell said back in 2010 (or well into the fiasco of Democratic control of the executive and legislative branches of government). McConnell wanted him to change, and if he didn't change, then he would fail. And lo and behold! Obama didn't change. Hence his impending failure at the ballot box (absent sufficient vote stealing of course.)
But the easiest way to keep Reid from obstructing the people's will is to boot Tester and replace him with Rehberg, then do the thing that Reid had threatened - do away with the filibuster.
For the sake of this great nation, we cannot allow Tester to continue to support Harry Reid.
But the easiest way to keep Reid from obstructing the people's will is to boot Tester and replace him with Rehberg, then do the thing that Reid had threatened - do away with the filibuster.
For the sake of this great nation, we cannot allow Tester to continue to support Harry Reid.
Thursday, November 01, 2012
That's got to leave a mark!
The Las Vegas Review Journal has decided not to endorse Obama. From the article:
Read the whole thing.
This administration is an embarrassment on foreign policy and incompetent at best on the economy - though a more careful analysis shows what can only be a perverse and willful attempt to destroy our prosperity. Back in January 2008, Barack Obama told the editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle that under his cap-and-trade plan, "If somebody wants to build a coal-fired power plant, they can. It's just that it will bankrupt them." He added, "Under my plan ... electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." It was also in 2008 that Mr. Obama's future Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, famously said it would be necessary to "figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe" - $9 a gallon.
Yet the president now claims he's in favor of oil development and pipelines, taking credit for increased oil production on private lands where he's powerless to block it, after he halted the Keystone XL Pipeline and oversaw a 50 percent reduction in oil leases on public lands.
These behaviors go far beyond "spin." They amount to a pack of lies. To return to office a narcissistic amateur who seeks to ride this nation's economy and international esteem to oblivion, like Slim Pickens riding the nuclear bomb to its target at the end of the movie "Dr. Strangelove," would be disastrous.
Candidate Obama said if he couldn't fix the economy in four years, his would be a one-term presidency.
Read the whole thing.
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Monday, October 29, 2012
Talk About Timely
I posted about Greens bearing gifts below and today the Hill is reporting that the rats are scrambling to get off the ship. My, my, my. What do we have here?
As of Sept. 30, LCV (League of Conservation Voters, otherwise known as shills for Tester) had donated $410,000 of the nearly $417,000 in the Montana Hunters and Anglers Leadership Fund’s PAC, which is responsible for the TV ad. LCV is backing Tester, in part, for his vote against a measure that would have blocked implementation of Obama administration air emissions rules.So, the Montana Hunters and Anglers Leadership Fund raises $7k on their own, but they have help from Big Brother in the form of $410k? But we know that money would never impact the good folks at HAL Fund. In fact, I am sure that they are happy to be demonstrating their independence. As the article says:
When contacted about the ad, Joe Splinter, treasurer for the Hunters and Anglers PAC and an associate with Washington, D.C.-based Hilltop Public Solutions, declined to comment.Whoops, maybe not.
To My Libertarian Friends
Beware of Greens bearing gifts. No, that's not a typo, I mean the Green lobby helping the Libertarian cause should raise some concerns for us. I consider myself to be a small "l" libertarian, in that I believe in the principles of limited government and fiscal responsibility, the same principles as the Republican Party even if they don't always follow them. But I have really taken a disliking to the big government approach of the so called Green Movement, and their encroachment on property rights and the expansion of government power through regulations. Want to exercise your dominion over your property? Not if the the Greens disapprove. You have to have permits, reviews, approval from the proper authority before you can do anything. And their lust for power and control just keeps growing.
So, why would the Green Movement suddenly decide that they want to help Libertarian Senate Candidate Dan Cox? You can watch their video here. Are the Montana Hunters and Anglers Leadership fund really interested in the principles of limited government and property rights? If you go into who the leadership is, you find some telling points:
I will admit, that I have been encouraging my Democratic friends to vote Gary Johnson instead of Obama because Montana is so thoroughly in Romney's camp that their votes won't make a difference. It will help the cause of libertarianism if we get more of a presence through the ballot box and increase the likelihood that a Libertarian will be included in future Presidential debates. But the idea that Democrats are trying to convince us to vote for a Libertarian Senate candidate in order to retain control, and doing so underhandedly just ticks me off. Why can't they have the decency and integrity to say exactly who they are and why they are trying to distract us? Probably because they have neither integrity nor decency.
Shame on them, and shame on us if we fall for these types of tricks. While Denny may not be the ideal candidate for a Libertarian, Tester definitely is not the one we want.
Vote for liberty and property rights. Rehberg, not the puppet Cox!
So, why would the Green Movement suddenly decide that they want to help Libertarian Senate Candidate Dan Cox? You can watch their video here. Are the Montana Hunters and Anglers Leadership fund really interested in the principles of limited government and property rights? If you go into who the leadership is, you find some telling points:
Montana Hunters and Anglers” is run by Members of President Obama’s Campaign Leadership Team in Montana and Political Operatives with Close Ties to Sen. Tester and Sen. Baucus.
Montana Hunters and Anglers President, Land Tawney
Member of Montana Sportsmen for Obama Committee (http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/mtsportsmen/)
Member of Senator Tester’s Montana Sportsmen’s Advisory Panel (http://tester.senate.gov/Newsroom/pr_021011_sportsmen.cfm)
Montana Hunters and Anglers Secretary, Kendall Van Dyke
Member of Montana Sportsmen for Obama Committee (http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/mtsportsmen/)
An elected Democrat State Senator from Billings (http://kendallvandyk.com/)
Montana Hunters and Anglers Treasurer, Barrett Kaiser
Former staffer to Sen. Max Baucus
Former consultant to Sen. Tester’s 2006 campaign (http://www.hilltoppublicsolutions.com/about/team_barrett.html)
Donor to Senator Tester (http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/qind/)
Montana Hunters and Anglers Treasurer, Beau WrightNow it's possible that these good Democrats have suddenly become small government activists and are interested only in preserving property rights. But a simpler explanation is that they are trying to siphon votes from Rehberg in order to maintain Democratic control of the Senate.
Democrat activist and long time Tester supporter
http://bigskydemocrats.org/meetus
http://intelligentdiscontent.com/2006/05/28/490/
http://bigskydemocrats.org/
Montana Hunters and Anglers Director, George Cooper
Donor to Senator Tester (http://w5.melissadata.com/lookups/Fec.asp?cyear=2012&cident=C00412304)
Lobbyist for Forbes, Cauthen and Williams (The Forbes is Jeff Forbes, former Chief of Staff to Sen. Max Baucus)
Montana Hunters and Anglers Donor, Robin T Nichols
Donor to Montana Hunters and Anglers: total contributions $5,000
Donor to Tester: total contributions $2,500 (http://tinyurl.com/67xavm3)
I will admit, that I have been encouraging my Democratic friends to vote Gary Johnson instead of Obama because Montana is so thoroughly in Romney's camp that their votes won't make a difference. It will help the cause of libertarianism if we get more of a presence through the ballot box and increase the likelihood that a Libertarian will be included in future Presidential debates. But the idea that Democrats are trying to convince us to vote for a Libertarian Senate candidate in order to retain control, and doing so underhandedly just ticks me off. Why can't they have the decency and integrity to say exactly who they are and why they are trying to distract us? Probably because they have neither integrity nor decency.
Shame on them, and shame on us if we fall for these types of tricks. While Denny may not be the ideal candidate for a Libertarian, Tester definitely is not the one we want.
Vote for liberty and property rights. Rehberg, not the puppet Cox!
Friday, October 26, 2012
How Long Do We Wait?
The Benghazi debacle is getting worse and worse. From Obama denying that it was an Al Qaida attack for nearly two weeks, the arrest of some dope of a film maker as justification for the attack we now learn that the four Americans died while nothing was done. Initially, I was thinking that it would have been difficult to move assets to support the consulate based on the distances. Then I learned that there are AC-130s less than five hundred miles away that could have been sent. These are just the type of plane that you would want in an urban environment. They have the ability to deny use by area or to pinpoint attack a position. And yet they were never sent.
While Panetta says that it's unwise to send forces into a situation when you don't know what is going on is correct, that doesn't mean you don't have options. Why not at least launch one or two of the Spookys to give an option to the President. Instead they were told not to go.
Why?
The man who made the "courageous decision" to kill bin Laden couldn't make up his mind to save Americans? That the President went to bed while our consulate was under attack because he had a busy day fund raising scheduled? I am so looking forward to the end of this misery.
While Panetta says that it's unwise to send forces into a situation when you don't know what is going on is correct, that doesn't mean you don't have options. Why not at least launch one or two of the Spookys to give an option to the President. Instead they were told not to go.
Why?
The man who made the "courageous decision" to kill bin Laden couldn't make up his mind to save Americans? That the President went to bed while our consulate was under attack because he had a busy day fund raising scheduled? I am so looking forward to the end of this misery.
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
There is no such thing as Voter Fraud
Check it out.
Apparently the people claiming that the concern over voter fraud is not true are the ones who are actually doing it.
Guess they didn't want the competition.
Apparently the people claiming that the concern over voter fraud is not true are the ones who are actually doing it.
Guess they didn't want the competition.
Friday, October 12, 2012
"Never Attribute to Malice . . .
That which is adequately explained by stupidity" (otherwise known as Hanlon's razor) should be the motto of the Obama administration regarding Benghazi and the death of our ambassador. But I believe we may have a new variant - Obama = malice plus stupidity. Allow me to explain.
The first response by the administration was that this was just an unruly mob that got out of control. In fact, they used it for their political advantage when Gov. Romney decried the silly notion put out by the Egyptian embassy that the video was responsible for the unrest. Milking the political advantage of Romney's so called gaffe, they continued with the meme of blaming the video for weeks after, even having the President go in front of the UN to apologize for the basic rights under the Constitution. Our UN ambassador went on five different Sunday news shows to argue that it was all the natural reaction by the mobs to the video. But things just don't make sense with the additional information that keeps coming out.
The Congressional hearings have let us learn that the State Department was watching the attack in real time and knew this wasn't a protest. So, why did the head of Intelligence say more than two weeks after the attack that it was his fault that the administration was told that it was a mob that attacked the embassy? Certainly it's possible that our intel was so incompetent that they forgot how to pick up a phone and let the White House know that they had the story wrong any earlier than they did. That would certainly explain the incompetence, but it really does stretch the bounds of idiocy to make it go on so long. Unless there is a reason that they needed to make it go on so long.
So, let's take a look at what we do know in order to form a basis for a different explanation of what happened. First, Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi, not the capital Tripoli. While it is certainly possible that it was just a coincidence, the Ambassador's diary complaining about the lack of security and his concerns for his life make it curious that he would be there. Especially on the eleventh anniversary of the worst terrorist attacks in our history. Our next fact is that the two former SEALs who were killed in the attack were not there to provide security to the consulate but instead were there to locate and destroy antiaircraft weapons that had fallen into the wrong hands. They apparently were off site from where the attack took place but responded when they heard it begin. Last, there is the fact that there was a CIA "base" in Benghazi that was in operation looking for lost weapons. This base had more fortifications as well as video surveillance which may be where the video came from.
With these facts in mind, Small Craft Advisory blog has come up with a theory on what happened. His theory is that the Ambassador was in Benghazi in order to collect the weapons that the Obama administration gave to Al Qaida during the overthrow of Khadaffy. Testing his theory against the facts, we have two former SEALs working under contract to procure the weapons otherwise known as MANPADS and the Ambassador on a special mission to make a deal for the weapons. So let's assume that the Al Qaida version operating in Libya decides to set a trap that would also be a statement of their viability on the eleventh anniversary of the attacks on New York and the Pentagon. They arrange a meeting to supposedly hand over the weapons but only to the US Ambassador. But Al Qaida wants more than just to kill the ambassador of the US, they want to also attack the CIA where they are tracking the weapons. Perhaps they place conditions on the handoff that the Ambassador was not to have a security detail. They then attack the consulate building and flush their prey into the CIA base which is where the video came from. At this point, the contractors arrive and are killed and the base is overrun.
Certainly an interesting theory, and it probably explains the reasons for the Obama administration wanting to keep the story on the video as they attempted to ascertain how much they had lost in the attack. Of course, it could also be as Small Craft explains it that they didn't want anyone knowing that they had armed Al Qaida, since that would make the whole arms for hostages deal of the Reagan administration look like a misdemeanor compared to what they had done, especially when the next airliner crashes outside of an airport thanks to weapons the administration had supplied.
Never underestimate the stupidity of this administration, but I think we can add malice in that they saw an opportunity to take Romney down a peg or two at the same time that they were trying to figure out where the MANPADS went. Not very flattering for either their ability to work politically or in secret.
The first response by the administration was that this was just an unruly mob that got out of control. In fact, they used it for their political advantage when Gov. Romney decried the silly notion put out by the Egyptian embassy that the video was responsible for the unrest. Milking the political advantage of Romney's so called gaffe, they continued with the meme of blaming the video for weeks after, even having the President go in front of the UN to apologize for the basic rights under the Constitution. Our UN ambassador went on five different Sunday news shows to argue that it was all the natural reaction by the mobs to the video. But things just don't make sense with the additional information that keeps coming out.
The Congressional hearings have let us learn that the State Department was watching the attack in real time and knew this wasn't a protest. So, why did the head of Intelligence say more than two weeks after the attack that it was his fault that the administration was told that it was a mob that attacked the embassy? Certainly it's possible that our intel was so incompetent that they forgot how to pick up a phone and let the White House know that they had the story wrong any earlier than they did. That would certainly explain the incompetence, but it really does stretch the bounds of idiocy to make it go on so long. Unless there is a reason that they needed to make it go on so long.
So, let's take a look at what we do know in order to form a basis for a different explanation of what happened. First, Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi, not the capital Tripoli. While it is certainly possible that it was just a coincidence, the Ambassador's diary complaining about the lack of security and his concerns for his life make it curious that he would be there. Especially on the eleventh anniversary of the worst terrorist attacks in our history. Our next fact is that the two former SEALs who were killed in the attack were not there to provide security to the consulate but instead were there to locate and destroy antiaircraft weapons that had fallen into the wrong hands. They apparently were off site from where the attack took place but responded when they heard it begin. Last, there is the fact that there was a CIA "base" in Benghazi that was in operation looking for lost weapons. This base had more fortifications as well as video surveillance which may be where the video came from.
With these facts in mind, Small Craft Advisory blog has come up with a theory on what happened. His theory is that the Ambassador was in Benghazi in order to collect the weapons that the Obama administration gave to Al Qaida during the overthrow of Khadaffy. Testing his theory against the facts, we have two former SEALs working under contract to procure the weapons otherwise known as MANPADS and the Ambassador on a special mission to make a deal for the weapons. So let's assume that the Al Qaida version operating in Libya decides to set a trap that would also be a statement of their viability on the eleventh anniversary of the attacks on New York and the Pentagon. They arrange a meeting to supposedly hand over the weapons but only to the US Ambassador. But Al Qaida wants more than just to kill the ambassador of the US, they want to also attack the CIA where they are tracking the weapons. Perhaps they place conditions on the handoff that the Ambassador was not to have a security detail. They then attack the consulate building and flush their prey into the CIA base which is where the video came from. At this point, the contractors arrive and are killed and the base is overrun.
Certainly an interesting theory, and it probably explains the reasons for the Obama administration wanting to keep the story on the video as they attempted to ascertain how much they had lost in the attack. Of course, it could also be as Small Craft explains it that they didn't want anyone knowing that they had armed Al Qaida, since that would make the whole arms for hostages deal of the Reagan administration look like a misdemeanor compared to what they had done, especially when the next airliner crashes outside of an airport thanks to weapons the administration had supplied.
Never underestimate the stupidity of this administration, but I think we can add malice in that they saw an opportunity to take Romney down a peg or two at the same time that they were trying to figure out where the MANPADS went. Not very flattering for either their ability to work politically or in secret.
Thursday, October 11, 2012
If You Want Good Govt. Vote Republican
Behghazi Gate, foreign contributions through sham credit card collections, Fast and Furious, Sibelius violating the Hatch Act, sending the IRS after political enemies, and that is just in the last month. Where is the outrage? Where is the investigative reporter bringing down a corrupt government?
Nobody died in Watergate, but the numbers of the dead from this Administration's actions keep growing, all the while they keep lying. If we had a Republican administration, the calls for resignation would have been overwhelming. Instead, the press agents for the Democrats remain mostly mute.
You want good clean government supervised by a watchdog press? It ain't going to happen with a Democrat in the White House.
Nobody died in Watergate, but the numbers of the dead from this Administration's actions keep growing, all the while they keep lying. If we had a Republican administration, the calls for resignation would have been overwhelming. Instead, the press agents for the Democrats remain mostly mute.
You want good clean government supervised by a watchdog press? It ain't going to happen with a Democrat in the White House.
Monday, October 08, 2012
Mr. President, You Are Just Wrong.
Post debate, the Left is spinning that everything that Romney said was a lie. It was only a lie if you believed the lies of Obama. Trying to claim that the recovery was doomed because of the worst financial crisis ever and the "mess he inherited" is just plain wrong. The problem is that it is a counterfactual that can't be disproved since we can't run a similar set of circumstances and try something else. But the claims that all this mess is the result of Bush's policies are absolutely untrue.
Check out this chart:
Mr. President, you can have your own house and your own plane, but the only people believing your BS were voting for you anyway. The rest of us are highly annoyed at your lack of contact with reality.
Check out this chart:
Mr. President, you can have your own house and your own plane, but the only people believing your BS were voting for you anyway. The rest of us are highly annoyed at your lack of contact with reality.
Friday, October 05, 2012
You Are Not Entitled to Success
I hope you are happy with your station in life, because Obama wants you to stay there.
Thursday, October 04, 2012
Maybe I was wrong about Biden
I always figured him for a clown, nowhere near his reported "gravitas" that the Left portrayed. Remember that this is the same group that thought Palin to be stupid. But when you couple him saying that the middle class has been buried for the last four years and now that he and Obama want to raise taxes $1 Trillion, I figured out that he is really a deep cover Republican mole.
Keep up the good work Joe, your reward will come in less than five weeks.
Keep up the good work Joe, your reward will come in less than five weeks.
Wednesday, October 03, 2012
Post Debate
Clearly a Romney win, but more than a point score, Romney gave people a reason to vote for him besides the fact that he is not Obama. I also came to the realization that the difference between Obama and Reagan is that Reagan was a well rounded person with a coherent philosophy. Obama is an actor reciting lines written for him by others.
Watching the Debate
Watching the first 20 minutes of the debate, I am struck by how stark Obama is holding to his talking points even when Romney says it isn't true. I just wist after the third iteration of the $5 Trillion in cuts that Romney says he isn't going to do, that Romney would turn to Obama and say "I think I know what the problem is with Washington not functioning. You don't listen!"
Prepare Yourself
Six months ago, I had predicted that Romney was going to win the election which was in spite of the polls at the time. Lately, it seems that the polls are even more suggestive of an Obama victory, but I continue to maintain that Romney will win nonetheless.
A recent poll shows that Obama and Romney are tied at 47% each. But if you look at the internals, there are some real problems with the poll. First, the poll assumes a weighting of 36% Democratic, 29% Republican and 30% Independent. They are basing these weights off the 2008 election results when
Setting aside the obvious problems with the polls, there is one sure test for why Obama is going to lose: Democrats fear Romney, but they don't love Obama. Their intensity is nowhere near as great as it was four years ago. Without that intensity, there may be the belief that the polls are accurate and that there is no need to actually go and vote.
Republicans on the other hand may not love Romney, but he has that one shining asset that makes him their favorite: He's not Obama. Throw in the independents who when faced with the choice of four more years of the new normal or take a chance on changing things, and Obama may not even get the full value of his 47%. When we wake up on November 7th and find out that Romney has just been elected by the biggest electoral victory since 1984, what do you think all the good Democrats are going to be thinking? That's right, there will be a hue and cry throughout the land "We wuz robbed!" And the only way that they could have been robbed was through voter fraud and voter intimidation by Republicans, because all the polls showed that Obama was going to win.
And so, we have the first shot in the salvo to deligitimize President Romney. Just like they tried to deligitimize G. W. Bush in 2000 and 2004 (remember the tampered with voting machines in Ohio?) and the Republicans did with the birther nonsense, the idea is to remove the moral authority to govern. Throw in the newly discovered racism of all the people who lied to the pollsters, and you can be sanctimonious in your outrage that the first black President of the United States was denied his opportunity to bring us all to a healthy and happy place.
Just don't remind them that opposition to bad policy is not racist when it's bad policy.
according to CNN exit polling, 74 percent of voters were white, 13 percent black, and 9 percent Latino, with Democratic turnout at 39 percent, Republicans at 32 percent, and independents at 29 percent.Hmm, I wonder if the conditions could have changed from the greatest Democratic wave election since 1974? Is it possible, that Republicans who were dispirited in having to defend Bush for eight years would have been more anxious to vote then than they are now? How else do you explain the 3% drop in Republican weighting? Or for that matter, are Democrats really so enthused that they only have lost 3% since 2008? Most of the Democrats I know, are saying that they are going to grit their teeth and vote for Obama in spite of his record. And that's not counting those on the Left who were so morally outraged over wiretaps, Gitmo, tribunals, lawbreaking by the administration, etc. when Republicans were in office and who continue their outrage against the same thing when a Democrat does it. Of course, that's probably only 1% of all Democrats. The rest were just posturing for political advantage.
Setting aside the obvious problems with the polls, there is one sure test for why Obama is going to lose: Democrats fear Romney, but they don't love Obama. Their intensity is nowhere near as great as it was four years ago. Without that intensity, there may be the belief that the polls are accurate and that there is no need to actually go and vote.
Republicans on the other hand may not love Romney, but he has that one shining asset that makes him their favorite: He's not Obama. Throw in the independents who when faced with the choice of four more years of the new normal or take a chance on changing things, and Obama may not even get the full value of his 47%. When we wake up on November 7th and find out that Romney has just been elected by the biggest electoral victory since 1984, what do you think all the good Democrats are going to be thinking? That's right, there will be a hue and cry throughout the land "We wuz robbed!" And the only way that they could have been robbed was through voter fraud and voter intimidation by Republicans, because all the polls showed that Obama was going to win.
And so, we have the first shot in the salvo to deligitimize President Romney. Just like they tried to deligitimize G. W. Bush in 2000 and 2004 (remember the tampered with voting machines in Ohio?) and the Republicans did with the birther nonsense, the idea is to remove the moral authority to govern. Throw in the newly discovered racism of all the people who lied to the pollsters, and you can be sanctimonious in your outrage that the first black President of the United States was denied his opportunity to bring us all to a healthy and happy place.
Just don't remind them that opposition to bad policy is not racist when it's bad policy.
Saturday, September 15, 2012
We Are So Doomed
It's the end of the Constitution as we know it. A crappy filmmaker is rousted from his home after midnight ostensibly to meet his probation officer (what, too busy during regular hours?).
Notice the brownshirts enforcing Sharia Law in the US.
Thankyou President Obama.
Notice the brownshirts enforcing Sharia Law in the US.
Thankyou President Obama.
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Jon, We Hardly Knew Ye
My how the times have changed since the halcyon days of the Democrats in 2006. You may remember that as the year that the Democrats took over the Senate from Republican control, but locally as the year that Conrad Burns lost his re-election bid to some farmer from Big Sandy.
One of Jon Tester's points for electing him was that he was going to bring honesty to government, which was especially salient with regard to Jack Abramoff and his cronies.
Remember how Jon said that he was never going to take money from lobbyists?
Let's see now. Outside of the obvious, how is that checkbook balancing going? Oh, that's right, we have added more debt faster than ever before, and we don't even have a war in Iraq to blame for this. And what is the plan for changing that? Nothing really. Not even a budget has been passed for half the time that Jon has been in the Senate.
It also sort of irks me when Jon and the DSCC are running ads lambasting Denny for voting for pay raises. First, the pay raise is automatic. Second, did Jon who also benefited from the raises introduce a bill to end the automatic raises? I sure can't find any instance that says he does, but he is still willing to hit Denny on the votes. Another cheap shot I suppose.
Let's face it, there are lot's of reasons to vote Jon out. He is Harry Reid's third vote for Nevada, a rubber stamp for Obama, and has accomplished very little. Those are all good reasons. But the main reason to vote Jon out has to be the fact that he never apologized to Conrad Burns. The man that Jon demonized, said that he was in the illegal clutches of Abramoff. The man who was subsequently exonerated.
He accused a man of wrongdoing that wasn't done. He ran his campaign on not taking earmarks or lobbyists funding like Conrad did supposedly then turns around and does just what he said was the reason for Conrad to not go back to Washington.
No apology. Not even a "I may have been mistaken."
Jon Tester. No integrity, and no return to Washington.
One of Jon Tester's points for electing him was that he was going to bring honesty to government, which was especially salient with regard to Jack Abramoff and his cronies.
Remember how Jon said that he was never going to take money from lobbyists?
“I’m all for strengthening rules, but it’s even more important to change the culture of corruption. We need to let Washington know now that the ‘For Sale’ sign has to come down, and Conrad Burns’ days of ‘pay-to-play’ are ending,” Tester said. “But judging by how some of the so-called reforms are already meeting resistance from Washington insiders-senators and lobbyists-I’m not going to hold my breath.”I bet he hopes that you forgot. But back then, Jon said
But that’s not the people who have control- the cronies on K-Street that buy votes have more control than the folks that elect us. You need to have people back there in Washington who have experience balancing a checkbook and setting priorities. I have balanced a checkbook in the private sector and in the public sector. My opponent has not been able to do that.So, the cronies on K Street have been denied by the righteous indignation that Senator Tester has brought to Washington? Apparently, it is all good now. Some of my favorites are JP Morgan who gave $57,000 (weren't they involved in that bail out somehow, the one that Tester says he voted against?) Visa, $47,400 (now you know where your interest payments are going), American Bankers Association $35,500. But then you get down in the weeds, and we have Mortgage Bankers Association only giving $27,000 and New York Life giving $26,500. Kind of makes you ashamed that our Senator can be bought so cheaply. He should have held out for the big bucks, instead, he sells his integrity for such a cheap amount. Although if I remember right, isn't Jon the lawmaker who has raked in the most in lobbyist contributions for this election cycle. The most. Sure for this cycle, but the most.
Let's see now. Outside of the obvious, how is that checkbook balancing going? Oh, that's right, we have added more debt faster than ever before, and we don't even have a war in Iraq to blame for this. And what is the plan for changing that? Nothing really. Not even a budget has been passed for half the time that Jon has been in the Senate.
It also sort of irks me when Jon and the DSCC are running ads lambasting Denny for voting for pay raises. First, the pay raise is automatic. Second, did Jon who also benefited from the raises introduce a bill to end the automatic raises? I sure can't find any instance that says he does, but he is still willing to hit Denny on the votes. Another cheap shot I suppose.
Let's face it, there are lot's of reasons to vote Jon out. He is Harry Reid's third vote for Nevada, a rubber stamp for Obama, and has accomplished very little. Those are all good reasons. But the main reason to vote Jon out has to be the fact that he never apologized to Conrad Burns. The man that Jon demonized, said that he was in the illegal clutches of Abramoff. The man who was subsequently exonerated.
He accused a man of wrongdoing that wasn't done. He ran his campaign on not taking earmarks or lobbyists funding like Conrad did supposedly then turns around and does just what he said was the reason for Conrad to not go back to Washington.
No apology. Not even a "I may have been mistaken."
Jon Tester. No integrity, and no return to Washington.
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Rehberg over Tester
According to Rasmussun Reports, Denny leads Jon 47-43 in a sample of 500 likely voters conducted August 20th.
Could be an interesting few months to the election, but I have to think the DNC is going to be relooking spending any more money for Jon. Forty-Three percent for an incumbent is usually a loser.
Could be an interesting few months to the election, but I have to think the DNC is going to be relooking spending any more money for Jon. Forty-Three percent for an incumbent is usually a loser.
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Stick a Fork in Him. He's Done.
Interesting article by Michael Medved in the Daily Beast about how little chance Obama has of being re-elected. While Michael has many good points, here is one that I find particularly interesting:
The energy from Democrats in 2008 is not being replicated in 2012. Obama cannot run on his record since almost everyone of his policies are underwater in the polls. My wife (The Good Democrat) is still pro-Obama, and as a solid Democrat will always be. She is one of the votes that the Democrats can always rely on. But her zeal is not there. She is only voting for Obama because she feels she has to. No more inspirational speeches, or re-reading fictionalized autobiographies. She is just plodding along trying to soldier on in spite of the situation.
Sort of like me in 2008. I didn't like McCain, was enthused by Palin before her drubbing, but glad to see George W. go. In fact, you could trace the lack of Republican enthusiasm back to 2006 when the Abramoff scandal was all the rage. Unfairly or not, the accusations by the current Obama press secretary coterie weighed heavily. Of course, it was also weighed down by No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, and other social engineering programs that have nothing to do with the Republican tenets of limited government.
I was thinking about this yesterday when I came to the realization that the Republicans/conservatives are the ones who actually do decide the election. Like I said, there was a disillusionment with the Republicans in 2006 and malaise by the time 2008 came around. But now, there is a significant amount of energy that is directed against the current resident of the White House and the Democratic senators who are his enablers. This is not taking place in the form of demonstrations. In fact, since the Tea Party has been so viciously libeled and slandered for wanting effective but limited government, the only times that you see them anymore is at the ballot box. And they are just as fired up as before.
As the article notes, you don't find many people who are saying that they voted for McCain but now are going to vote for Obama. But you do see a lot of listlessness in Democrats and energy in Republicans.
The net result may be the largest electoral win by a Republican since 1980. And we owe it all to the incompetence, outright lies, corruption and crony capitalism of the current administration.
Thanks Obama.
From the dawn of the republic, no president has ever won consecutive terms while drawing less support (in both the electoral college and the popular vote) in his second bid for election than he did in the first successful campaign. In other words, presidents who win reelection manage to earn more backers, not more opponents, during their first four years in the White House. If, on the other hand, their critics multiply and the pool of admirers shrinks in response to their record of leadership, the embattled president always loses. When some significant portion of the voters who backed a president the first time now feel disillusioned and join the opposition (or stay home), and if the incumbent can’t replace these losses with comparable gains from people who rejected him four years before, it’s an indication of a failed presidency.
Those who doubt the relevance of this rule to the present race should address a revealing question: what’s more common in today’s public discourse—people who say they voted for Barack Obama but now feel disappointed and betrayed, or voices declaring that they backed John McCain four years ago but now support the president because they’re inspired by the magnificent job he’s done?
The energy from Democrats in 2008 is not being replicated in 2012. Obama cannot run on his record since almost everyone of his policies are underwater in the polls. My wife (The Good Democrat) is still pro-Obama, and as a solid Democrat will always be. She is one of the votes that the Democrats can always rely on. But her zeal is not there. She is only voting for Obama because she feels she has to. No more inspirational speeches, or re-reading fictionalized autobiographies. She is just plodding along trying to soldier on in spite of the situation.
Sort of like me in 2008. I didn't like McCain, was enthused by Palin before her drubbing, but glad to see George W. go. In fact, you could trace the lack of Republican enthusiasm back to 2006 when the Abramoff scandal was all the rage. Unfairly or not, the accusations by the current Obama press secretary coterie weighed heavily. Of course, it was also weighed down by No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, and other social engineering programs that have nothing to do with the Republican tenets of limited government.
I was thinking about this yesterday when I came to the realization that the Republicans/conservatives are the ones who actually do decide the election. Like I said, there was a disillusionment with the Republicans in 2006 and malaise by the time 2008 came around. But now, there is a significant amount of energy that is directed against the current resident of the White House and the Democratic senators who are his enablers. This is not taking place in the form of demonstrations. In fact, since the Tea Party has been so viciously libeled and slandered for wanting effective but limited government, the only times that you see them anymore is at the ballot box. And they are just as fired up as before.
As the article notes, you don't find many people who are saying that they voted for McCain but now are going to vote for Obama. But you do see a lot of listlessness in Democrats and energy in Republicans.
The net result may be the largest electoral win by a Republican since 1980. And we owe it all to the incompetence, outright lies, corruption and crony capitalism of the current administration.
Thanks Obama.
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
A Sense of Deja Vu
After the malignant lies from Harry Reid about Romney not paying any taxes, the accusation that Romney is responsible for a woman's death from cancer, the President of the United States claiming that Republican's want "dirty air and water" I finally reached the tipping point when the Vice President of the United States charged that Republicans want to put black people in slavery. This has become the most despicable and desperate campaign for the Presidency since 1980.
In 1980, I was a young lieutenant in the Army and just becoming aware of the disaster that had been the Carter Presidency. Desert 1, the Iranian hostage situation, the "malaise" speech (in which he never said the word) all were the nadir of my experience of being American up to that time. Before that, I had cheered while watching the Watergate hearings, and will never forget the exact moment that I was told Nixon resigned and how happy it made me. But after four years of Carter, I knew that I could never vote for him again. The man was a buffoon. A well meaning one, but a buffoon nonetheless.
But in 1980, the Republican candidate was that crazy lunatic Ronald Reagan. His hyper patriotism turned me off based on my experiences from the previous four years. On top of that, the Democrats did an excellent job of convincing me that if Reagan was elected, we would be at war in a very short time. What to do? Stay with the status quo or go with the wild eyed lunatic Reagan? Luckily at the time, there was an Independent candidate John Anderson.
While Anderson only took 6% of the national vote, he did something with an even more lasting impact. He changed me and a lot of others into Republicans. He did it by exposing the false narrative that had been pedaled by the Democrats when under Reagan, the country did begin to turn around at least in attitude and later in economic power. Oh, and we didn't have a war with the Soviets either.
There is no viable third party candidate this year like Anderson, so the attacks on Romney and Ryan will not drive the 6% of potential voters away from Obama, but that same six percent may not vote at all.
And if Romney and Ryan are successful at reinvigorating the economy and doing something about the fiscal peril that we are facing, Barak Obama and "Chains" Biden may have just put the final nail in the coffin of the Left of center Democrats. Leaving the only viable candidate from the Democrat party being another Bill Clinton, the only successful Democrat in more than fifty years.
And they may just make a few more Republicans.
In 1980, I was a young lieutenant in the Army and just becoming aware of the disaster that had been the Carter Presidency. Desert 1, the Iranian hostage situation, the "malaise" speech (in which he never said the word) all were the nadir of my experience of being American up to that time. Before that, I had cheered while watching the Watergate hearings, and will never forget the exact moment that I was told Nixon resigned and how happy it made me. But after four years of Carter, I knew that I could never vote for him again. The man was a buffoon. A well meaning one, but a buffoon nonetheless.
But in 1980, the Republican candidate was that crazy lunatic Ronald Reagan. His hyper patriotism turned me off based on my experiences from the previous four years. On top of that, the Democrats did an excellent job of convincing me that if Reagan was elected, we would be at war in a very short time. What to do? Stay with the status quo or go with the wild eyed lunatic Reagan? Luckily at the time, there was an Independent candidate John Anderson.
While Anderson only took 6% of the national vote, he did something with an even more lasting impact. He changed me and a lot of others into Republicans. He did it by exposing the false narrative that had been pedaled by the Democrats when under Reagan, the country did begin to turn around at least in attitude and later in economic power. Oh, and we didn't have a war with the Soviets either.
There is no viable third party candidate this year like Anderson, so the attacks on Romney and Ryan will not drive the 6% of potential voters away from Obama, but that same six percent may not vote at all.
And if Romney and Ryan are successful at reinvigorating the economy and doing something about the fiscal peril that we are facing, Barak Obama and "Chains" Biden may have just put the final nail in the coffin of the Left of center Democrats. Leaving the only viable candidate from the Democrat party being another Bill Clinton, the only successful Democrat in more than fifty years.
And they may just make a few more Republicans.
Friday, July 20, 2012
Their Deaths Served a Higher Purpose
There is a fine line between being a realist and a cynic. Michael Grunwald crossed it. Add in the false accusations so quickly made that the shooter was a member of that wrongly maligned group of citizens interested in good government, the Tea Party and you would think that this would be a one off. Unless someone decided that it's Rush Limbaugh's fault.
When you have a history of falsely blaming your political opponents for things which they did not do, you would think they would eventually apologize. But no! They serve a higher good of telling the truth as they want you to hear it. Of course it's not the truth, but don't let that stop them. They are on a higher mission.
I am sure that the victims of this madman will be happy to know that their deaths were not in vain, but that their sacrifice will be exploited to the utmost at every opportunity for the greater good.
When you have a history of falsely blaming your political opponents for things which they did not do, you would think they would eventually apologize. But no! They serve a higher good of telling the truth as they want you to hear it. Of course it's not the truth, but don't let that stop them. They are on a higher mission.
I am sure that the victims of this madman will be happy to know that their deaths were not in vain, but that their sacrifice will be exploited to the utmost at every opportunity for the greater good.
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Legally Insane, or just Cynical as Hell?
Senator Patrick Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee was trying to influence the SCOTUS decision on ObamaCare the other day. Remember, this is the Chairman of the Committee that is charged to give advise and consent to the President's nominees for the federal bench, the so called Article III judges. He has been joined in this opinion that the SCOTUS should rule that the ObamaCare mandate is Constitutional by no less a learned law professor than our own President and the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid (otherwise known as the decision maker on which way to vote for our very own Jon Tester).
As Leahy said:
But, won't the court be perceived as partisan if they don't do what the Democrats want? I am always amazed that only the conservatives are partisan. The Left is worse, with my favorite example being their ruling in Bush v. Gore, where by 7-2 they found the recount methods to violate due process and equal protection, but two who said it was a violation flipped to try and let Florida keep counting the flawed ballots.
I am sure though, that Roberts is smart enough, in fact I think he is smarter than Scalia, that he could find a way to mildly rebuke the Democrats for their unseemly behavior. My thinking is that he could point out that the Senate Finance Chairman said he never read the whole bill, so by ruling it unconstitutional, it would give them another try at it.
The real audience in all of this though is not the court, but the Left base. When ObamaCare goes down in flames, Leahy, Reid and Obama are prepping the battlefield for the outrage that is going to be artificially generated. They will stoke that anger for the sole purpose of getting the base out to vote. The trouble with this tactic is that the base was always going to vote for Obama anyway, and the outrage, venting, and yes, the inevitable violence of the Left's temper tantrum are just going to further alienate the middle.
The problem for the Left is that they live in a sheltered cocoon, immune from any dissident thoughts or voices. Leahy thinks that this will help. I think that ship has already left and he is still standing on the dock.
As Leahy said:
I trust that he will be a chief justice for all of us and that he has a strong institutional sense of the proper role of the judicial branch," said Leahy. "The conservative activism of recent years has not been good for the court. Given the ideological challenge to the Affordable Care Act and the extensive, supportive precedent, it would be extraordinary for the Supreme Court not to defer to Congress in this matter that so clearly affects interstate commerceIn a way, I am appalled that a lawyer would try to use ex parte influence on a court to influence its decision. That is just one of those basic "Thou Shall Nots" of being a lawyer. But in another way, it's kind of hilarious. Let's see now, Justices of the Supreme Court are appointed for life and can only be removed by impeachment. Is going against Sen. Leahy impeachable? No, in fact going the way that idiot wants would be though. To ignore the Constitution because the SCOTUS should defer to the popular will as expressed by Congress is easily refutable by the opinion polls which show the Act to be very much disliked.
But, won't the court be perceived as partisan if they don't do what the Democrats want? I am always amazed that only the conservatives are partisan. The Left is worse, with my favorite example being their ruling in Bush v. Gore, where by 7-2 they found the recount methods to violate due process and equal protection, but two who said it was a violation flipped to try and let Florida keep counting the flawed ballots.
I am sure though, that Roberts is smart enough, in fact I think he is smarter than Scalia, that he could find a way to mildly rebuke the Democrats for their unseemly behavior. My thinking is that he could point out that the Senate Finance Chairman said he never read the whole bill, so by ruling it unconstitutional, it would give them another try at it.
The real audience in all of this though is not the court, but the Left base. When ObamaCare goes down in flames, Leahy, Reid and Obama are prepping the battlefield for the outrage that is going to be artificially generated. They will stoke that anger for the sole purpose of getting the base out to vote. The trouble with this tactic is that the base was always going to vote for Obama anyway, and the outrage, venting, and yes, the inevitable violence of the Left's temper tantrum are just going to further alienate the middle.
The problem for the Left is that they live in a sheltered cocoon, immune from any dissident thoughts or voices. Leahy thinks that this will help. I think that ship has already left and he is still standing on the dock.
Monday, May 21, 2012
Message Failure
I have been thinking about a list of Lefties I admire. Sure, it would be a pretty short list, but among them would have to be Newark Mayor Corey Booker. On Meet the Press, he plainly stated that the attacks by Obama using Bain Capital as a the vehicle are unfair and nauseating. The DNC and David Axelrod quickly brought him to heel forcing him to make a YourTube video that contradicted his earlier statement. But the cats out of the bag and he is not alone.
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Another Massive Obama Fail
For the second year in a row, Obama's budget received zero votes in the Senate. Coupled with the 414-0 vote against his budget in the House of Representatives, you can say that he is a unifier. You can't say that he is serious about his budgets when not even Dingy Harry Reid or Jon Tester will vote for it. (Of course, I was just pointing out that Jon is just another vote for Reid).
Why on earth does anyone say that the Democrats are serious about budgeting? Another lie.
Why on earth does anyone say that the Democrats are serious about budgeting? Another lie.
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Massive Obama Fail
I had predicted before that Obama was in trouble for reelection. I just didn't think that it would get to be this bad. Just look at what has been going on the last few weeks and see if you can't smell the desperate flop sweat that is coming from Chicago. As an example, remember when Obama was playing the class envy card about removing deductions for corporate jets? Well, he seems to have gotten over that problem now. In fact, one of his aides is promising $1 Billion in subsidies for corporate jets. Remember how "fat cat bankers were all the reasons for the collapse of the economic system? Heck, the administration was even deciding how much pay the CEOs should get. The administration is willing to put aside their seriously expressed outrage so long as the bankers are willing to subsidize his campaign.
Remember the big evolution in his thinking about gay marriage? First, he was for it before he was against it, but now, with lost of money being withheld by the Gay Community, Obama has had a change of heart and is once again in favor of gay marriage. Just in time for the George Clooney fund raiser.
Are you noticing a pattern here?
Add to the list everyone of his '08 campaign promises. Gitmo, tribunals, Afghanistan was the "correct war" no red state, no blue state, just the United States, and oh so many others.
Obama is either a sociopath or an inveterate liar who cannot tell the truth. The only conviction that I believe he holds dear is that he has to maintain power. And everyone of his supporters will take their turn at being demonized and disrespected so long as he can keep on filling his campaign coffers.
Suckers!
UPDATE: When you have lost Noam Chomsky, who is left?
Remember the big evolution in his thinking about gay marriage? First, he was for it before he was against it, but now, with lost of money being withheld by the Gay Community, Obama has had a change of heart and is once again in favor of gay marriage. Just in time for the George Clooney fund raiser.
Are you noticing a pattern here?
Add to the list everyone of his '08 campaign promises. Gitmo, tribunals, Afghanistan was the "correct war" no red state, no blue state, just the United States, and oh so many others.
Obama is either a sociopath or an inveterate liar who cannot tell the truth. The only conviction that I believe he holds dear is that he has to maintain power. And everyone of his supporters will take their turn at being demonized and disrespected so long as he can keep on filling his campaign coffers.
Suckers!
UPDATE: When you have lost Noam Chomsky, who is left?
Friday, May 11, 2012
Manufactured Outrage
The Democrats and the MSM have been having a hard time trying to convince us all that we need to be so outraged at those wascally Republicans. Why, did you know that Romney once had a dog that he put in a kennel on the car roof? The shamelessness of it all. Then the other side pointed out that at least he didn't eat the dog. This caused that line of attack to fall flat.
Recently, we have learned that Romney led a gang of prep school thugs who may, or may not have given a kid an impromptu haircut. Five thousand words on this deeply interesting subject, and yet, so little about Obama, even now that we have learned. The fact that the WaPo's story started running into refutation almost from the minute it hit the online posting has served to further reduce any pretense they might have had to being something other than just another shill for the Democrats.
Let's face it, the Left has lost their credibility. Their influence is gone because everyone know that they are no longer honest brokers. It's a shame that they did this to themselves, but tautologically speaking, they did this to themselves. "Nice soul you got there son, pity if you sold it too cheap." And cheap it is.
But the highlight of futility has to be the new program to properly teach Democrats how to play the race card. Sure, you thought that they would have that down pat now, since they fail at basic logic, reasoning or facts. But no, they are doubling down on it because it has always worked so well in the past. Don't believe me? Here is an example:
A pure statement of fact is suddenly racist because of the color of the skin of the President? Kind of reminds me of that old "You can't win, you can't lose, you can't tie, you can't even leave the game."
But I think the Democrats are not realizing how ineffective that they are seeming when that is the best argument that they have.
Not that that will stop them from trying.
Recently, we have learned that Romney led a gang of prep school thugs who may, or may not have given a kid an impromptu haircut. Five thousand words on this deeply interesting subject, and yet, so little about Obama, even now that we have learned. The fact that the WaPo's story started running into refutation almost from the minute it hit the online posting has served to further reduce any pretense they might have had to being something other than just another shill for the Democrats.
Let's face it, the Left has lost their credibility. Their influence is gone because everyone know that they are no longer honest brokers. It's a shame that they did this to themselves, but tautologically speaking, they did this to themselves. "Nice soul you got there son, pity if you sold it too cheap." And cheap it is.
But the highlight of futility has to be the new program to properly teach Democrats how to play the race card. Sure, you thought that they would have that down pat now, since they fail at basic logic, reasoning or facts. But no, they are doubling down on it because it has always worked so well in the past. Don't believe me? Here is an example:
As samples of race-coded rhetoric, Wiley reminded the Democrats of statements by Republican presidential candidates Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich. Of Gingrich's famous comment about President Obama, her distributed remarks note, "Calling a Black man 'the food stamp president' is not a race-neutral statement, even if Newt Gingrich did not intend racism."Do you notice that it's only racist to call a black man the "Food Stamp President?" Oh, man, we have come so far in our progress to equality haven't we?
But the threshold for what constitutes racially charged messaging is not always so high. One of Santorum's cited comments was: "Give them more food stamps, give them more Medicaid is the administration's approach, rather than creating jobs." She also cited this comment from House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., about raising taxes to fund government programs: "I've never believed that you go raise taxes on those that are paying in, taking from them, so that you just hand out and give them to someone else."
A pure statement of fact is suddenly racist because of the color of the skin of the President? Kind of reminds me of that old "You can't win, you can't lose, you can't tie, you can't even leave the game."
But I think the Democrats are not realizing how ineffective that they are seeming when that is the best argument that they have.
Not that that will stop them from trying.
Wednesday, May 09, 2012
The Spineless Obama
After years of evolving his position on gay marriage, (read holding his finger to the wind) President Obama has made the decision that he is personally in favor of gay marriage. While much may be made of this daring pronouncement, let's go back to the words that he used. He is personally in favor of it. Not that he is going to push it as part of the Administration's policies, but just that now, you can be gay and get married in his opinion.
As long as your state doesn't ban it of course. Then, he would be opposed. Wouldn't want to offend those who are opposed to gay marriage, and wouldn't want to offend some of his biggest contributors.
What, oh what is a person to do?
How about have a spine and the courage of your convictions?
Not that that is ever going to happen.
As long as your state doesn't ban it of course. Then, he would be opposed. Wouldn't want to offend those who are opposed to gay marriage, and wouldn't want to offend some of his biggest contributors.
What, oh what is a person to do?
How about have a spine and the courage of your convictions?
Not that that is ever going to happen.
Monday, May 07, 2012
How Romney Should Deal with Ron Paul
Paul picked up a bunch of delegates to the Republican convention over the weekend. What's that you say, I thought Romney had it sewn up? Well he does, but the Paulies are still out there and a force to be reckoned with.
My solution - Promise to appoint Ron Paul to be chairman of the Federal Reserve.
Of course the consternation to financial markets will be damaging, but it sure would be a lot of fun.
My solution - Promise to appoint Ron Paul to be chairman of the Federal Reserve.
Of course the consternation to financial markets will be damaging, but it sure would be a lot of fun.
It's Midnight in America
Reagan's re-election campaign kicked off in 1984 used the phrase "It's Morning in America" proclaiming that the country is "prouder, stronger and better" than it was four years ago. Enter Obama, who really can't say the same thing. Sure, the spin has been there is a great improvement from the horrible Bush years. Why remember when it was a crisis to have unemployment at 6%? Now, we are supposed to be thrilled that enough people have stopped looking for work that the unemployment rate dropped to 8.1%.
Obama is now arguing that we need to imagine an America four years from now that will be better than it is. I agree with him, so long as he is defeated in November.
Obama is now arguing that we need to imagine an America four years from now that will be better than it is. I agree with him, so long as he is defeated in November.
Friday, May 04, 2012
Thursday, May 03, 2012
Montana on the Front Lines of the War on Terror.
In spite of "spiking the football" Al Qaeda continues to put out their online magazine. In the latest issue, they urge their followers to set firebombs off in our forests. From the article:
Smokey the Bear - The last best line of defense.
The magazines have also lost some of the snark and American colloquialisms favored by the U.S.-raised Samir Khan, who memorably titled one of his articles urging Western Muslims to wage lone wolf attacks "Make a Bomb in the Kitchen of Your Mom." But issue nine carries equally lethal advice, with "It Is of Your Freedom to Ignite a Firebomb," which gives detailed instructions on how to ignite an "ember bomb" in a U.S. forest, recommending Montana because of the rapid population growth in wooded areas.
"In America, there are more houses built in the [countryside] than in the cities," says the writer, who uses the pseudonym The AQ Chef. "It is difficult to choose a better place [than] in the valleys of Montana."
Issue eight has an eight-page article on how to construct remote-controlled explosives, with a laundry list of parts and ingredients and photos showing proper assembly.
Smokey the Bear - The last best line of defense.
Wednesday, May 02, 2012
Another Fine Example Pt. II
I know that I am weak, but having just noticed Pogie's reply to the first Fine Example, I had to go take a look at his site one more time, and lo and behold, he has another fine piece of fuzzy headed thinking. It's especially amusing since he is taking Fred Van Valkenburg to task, and if you remember, Fred is a leading Democrat who used to be a state senator. Are the Demos turning to cannibalism?
But the real point of the post is to address the many misstatements that Pogie and like him, the rest of the Left seem so willing to accept at face value. From the article:
Apparently, believing the feds are overreaching is now considered to be subversive and not worthy of the efforts of good people (so stop complaining about the TSA molesting 4 year old girls, or blowing all your tax money on lavish trips to Vegas). But the other interesting thing is the highlighted portion. Apparently, Pogie has bought into the politically correct version that no woman ever makes a false rape claim. Therefore, all accusations are proof sufficient for a conviction. (Why the heck are we even having a trial? She said it happened).
So, the Feds have decided, and Pogie agrees that all the women in Missoula are having their civil rights violated by failing to prosecute obviously weak cases. Not, "hey, do you mind if we can sit down and talk about this" but a full blown civil rights investigation. Must have run out of real cases to investigate I guess.
Nonetheless, in this election year, and what with the ongoing "War on Women" now being furthered by that right wing fanatic Van Valkenburg, (and the casualties have been enormous, you can't walk around the UM campus without stepping on women who were victimized, or about to be anyhow) the Feds are not going to let this opportunity to show that they care get away. Interestingly, they could have turned to the FBI for statistics that showed rape as the second most often (after arson) proved false accusation at 41%. Now, when I say proved, I don't mean that the defendant was just acquitted, but that the victim herself recanted. Unfortunately, the women's caucus has found that statistic to be hurtful, so they had it changed.
As someone who defends people wrongly accused it is not at all improbable that when it comes down to a "he said/she said" or, whether or not consent was given, juries don't go for just an accusation. Throw in a victim who has been out drinking while her kids are at home, and then takes awhile to report the crime, and there is even less there for the jury to like. That is why prosecutors hate prosecuting rape cases where the two involved knew each other, alcohol was involved and it is strictly a question of whether or not the victim actually said no at any time prior to the next day. Those types of cases are pursued, but they really hate them since it detracts from their high percentages of convictions.
But just for fun, every time someone brings up the current meme of "Women wouldn't lie about such a horrible thing" remember something about the Duke lacrosse team. And remember that Van Valkenburg is not Nifong.
Thank God.
But the real point of the post is to address the many misstatements that Pogie and like him, the rest of the Left seem so willing to accept at face value. From the article:
Rather than welcoming the additional resources and opportunity to improve Missoula’s legal response to a culture that has enabled rape, County Attorney Fred Van Valkenburg decided to attack the Department of Justice, in a rant that would not have been out of place during the 2011 Montana Legislature:(links omitted highlight added)
Fred Van Valkenburg denounced that action as an overreach by “the heavy hand of the federal government,” and insisted that his office has done nothing wrong.
That last line would be entirely correct, if only the word “wrong” were removed. The response to the series of sexual assaults in Missoula has been entirely inadequate and even damaging to women, as perpetrators have been allowed to flee the jurisdiction, charges have not been filed, and women have been told that their claims could very well be false.
Apparently, believing the feds are overreaching is now considered to be subversive and not worthy of the efforts of good people (so stop complaining about the TSA molesting 4 year old girls, or blowing all your tax money on lavish trips to Vegas). But the other interesting thing is the highlighted portion. Apparently, Pogie has bought into the politically correct version that no woman ever makes a false rape claim. Therefore, all accusations are proof sufficient for a conviction. (Why the heck are we even having a trial? She said it happened).
So, the Feds have decided, and Pogie agrees that all the women in Missoula are having their civil rights violated by failing to prosecute obviously weak cases. Not, "hey, do you mind if we can sit down and talk about this" but a full blown civil rights investigation. Must have run out of real cases to investigate I guess.
Nonetheless, in this election year, and what with the ongoing "War on Women" now being furthered by that right wing fanatic Van Valkenburg, (and the casualties have been enormous, you can't walk around the UM campus without stepping on women who were victimized, or about to be anyhow) the Feds are not going to let this opportunity to show that they care get away. Interestingly, they could have turned to the FBI for statistics that showed rape as the second most often (after arson) proved false accusation at 41%. Now, when I say proved, I don't mean that the defendant was just acquitted, but that the victim herself recanted. Unfortunately, the women's caucus has found that statistic to be hurtful, so they had it changed.
As someone who defends people wrongly accused it is not at all improbable that when it comes down to a "he said/she said" or, whether or not consent was given, juries don't go for just an accusation. Throw in a victim who has been out drinking while her kids are at home, and then takes awhile to report the crime, and there is even less there for the jury to like. That is why prosecutors hate prosecuting rape cases where the two involved knew each other, alcohol was involved and it is strictly a question of whether or not the victim actually said no at any time prior to the next day. Those types of cases are pursued, but they really hate them since it detracts from their high percentages of convictions.
But just for fun, every time someone brings up the current meme of "Women wouldn't lie about such a horrible thing" remember something about the Duke lacrosse team. And remember that Van Valkenburg is not Nifong.
Thank God.
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Obama got Osama, 1 Year On
The Obama administration is making such a big deal about Obama ordering the killing of Osama bin Laden as part of their re-election campaign. Just between us, I am getting tired of it because Obama keeps acting like he led the raid and double tapped the target himself. Why don't we all agree that we are glad that Obama ordered the raid and that the SEALS were able to pull it off so effectively.
But let's also think about the "courage" of Obama to order the raid. Yes, things could have gone wrong and we could have had a replay of Desert One to finalize the comparison with Jimmy Carter. But if he hadn't ordered it, what do you think public opinion would have been when it was found out that he passed? That's right, Obama had no choice. He didn't fast rope into the compound, nor did he kick the door down or anything else. Instead, he was a voyeur as the real decision makers made their way.
Don't get me wrong, I am glad that the animal is dead. But what is the long term effect of the death of Osama? Outside of being used as campaign fodder, is Al Quaeda gone? Nope. Is the War on Terror really over as some administration idiot supposedly has pronounced? Nope. The fight will go on without the benefit of a figurehead. Kind of reminds me of the Democrat Party after November.
But let's also think about the "courage" of Obama to order the raid. Yes, things could have gone wrong and we could have had a replay of Desert One to finalize the comparison with Jimmy Carter. But if he hadn't ordered it, what do you think public opinion would have been when it was found out that he passed? That's right, Obama had no choice. He didn't fast rope into the compound, nor did he kick the door down or anything else. Instead, he was a voyeur as the real decision makers made their way.
Don't get me wrong, I am glad that the animal is dead. But what is the long term effect of the death of Osama? Outside of being used as campaign fodder, is Al Quaeda gone? Nope. Is the War on Terror really over as some administration idiot supposedly has pronounced? Nope. The fight will go on without the benefit of a figurehead. Kind of reminds me of the Democrat Party after November.
Saturday, April 28, 2012
Schweitzer on Letterman
So our good governor goes on the Late Show with David Letterman, and since I usually don't bother watching Letterman anymore, I decided to record it to watch it later. Overall, the Gov did a great job of looking like a hick. Unbelievable that this man was supposedly being considered at one time for a Cabinet post.
Watch and decide for yourself.
Watch and decide for yourself.
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Obama's New Campaign Theme
Thought it up all by himself, he did, and it's "We Can't Wait!" I think it's great as far as it goes, but they forgot the rest of the line: "Until this Bozo is gone!"
Monday, April 23, 2012
Another Fine Example
Apropos my earlier posting about the Left not being morally consistent, we have Pogie of Intelligent Discontent who is following up on the meme of the "Republican War on Women" with his latest posting. It seems that Pogie is outraged that the Republican gubernatorial candidates want to eliminate gender discrimination in insurance, especially health insurance. In Pogie's mind, the Eeevill insurance companies want to base the rates on actual use instead of treating each of us just exactly the same, and he is upset that anyone would actually consider such a thing.
Of course without looking, I could just about guarantee that Pogie has complained about the costs of health insurance, so his complaint just further verifies my posting about the immoral reasoning that is used by the Left. How about instead of this being a war on women, we recognize if for what it really is: Using men to subsidize women's health insurance. Women as a population, tend to use health care more than men, ergo greater costs are incurred for the benefit of the fairer sex. Rather than have them pay their share, we have made discrimination based on reality illegal. Now, one of the problems is that because of the higher health care costs, men can and do make a rational assessment and decide that it is not in their financial interests to buy insurance, thereby removing their support. This results in higher insurance coverages to pay for the population using the service, which then incurs more men to decide not to participate, repeating the cycle.
If the costs were based on actuarial data, we would charge each according to their risk so that healthy lifestyles are rewarded and risky behavior is required to subsidize the risk to the less healthy. This could mean that women's insurance premiums would go up, but there would now be a larger pool of men who demand less services that could more equitably spread the risk to all. Of course, Pogie also forgets that the problem with gender neutrality is that women subsidize men when it comes to drivers insurance.
So, the question presented has to be - is Pogie just another puppet of the Democrat-media conglomeration ruthlessly seeking power, or is he just dumb?
Of course without looking, I could just about guarantee that Pogie has complained about the costs of health insurance, so his complaint just further verifies my posting about the immoral reasoning that is used by the Left. How about instead of this being a war on women, we recognize if for what it really is: Using men to subsidize women's health insurance. Women as a population, tend to use health care more than men, ergo greater costs are incurred for the benefit of the fairer sex. Rather than have them pay their share, we have made discrimination based on reality illegal. Now, one of the problems is that because of the higher health care costs, men can and do make a rational assessment and decide that it is not in their financial interests to buy insurance, thereby removing their support. This results in higher insurance coverages to pay for the population using the service, which then incurs more men to decide not to participate, repeating the cycle.
If the costs were based on actuarial data, we would charge each according to their risk so that healthy lifestyles are rewarded and risky behavior is required to subsidize the risk to the less healthy. This could mean that women's insurance premiums would go up, but there would now be a larger pool of men who demand less services that could more equitably spread the risk to all. Of course, Pogie also forgets that the problem with gender neutrality is that women subsidize men when it comes to drivers insurance.
So, the question presented has to be - is Pogie just another puppet of the Democrat-media conglomeration ruthlessly seeking power, or is he just dumb?
The Love of Power
Victor David Hanson has an excellent piece out that says what I have been thinking for quite awhile. I have foolishly given the Left the benefit of the doubt that they actually believe their arguments, no matter how wrong or misguided they might be. This puts everyone who is not an avid Democrat at a distinct disadvantage. For instance as noted in the article, where are all the anti-war Cindy Sheehans, etc. that pummeled Bush and the "neoocons"? Is everything just milk and honey now, or is it just that their guy is in control so it's okay?
The bottom line is that there may be a few on the Left who actually have deeply felt moral convictions and are consistent. I can admire them for that.
If I could find them.
The bottom line is that there may be a few on the Left who actually have deeply felt moral convictions and are consistent. I can admire them for that.
If I could find them.
Friday, April 20, 2012
The Problem with Unmedicated Mental Illness
Is visibly demonstrated by Nancy Pelosi:
No, really, she said this. As well as:
There is more, and if you need an April Fools joke that is available every damn day of the year, go read the rest of the article.
President Barack Obama "has been so respectful of the Republicans in Congress.
No, really, she said this. As well as:
"He has given them every opportunity for the executive and the legislative branch to work together, to have a solution that has bi-partisan support. He’s been criticized by some for taking the time that it takes to find out that they’re never going to give him a break, which is a compromise.”
There is more, and if you need an April Fools joke that is available every damn day of the year, go read the rest of the article.
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
More Drudge Juxtaposition Fun
From the looks of it, the Secret Service is looking to talk to Nugent about how to really party.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Presidential Predictions
According to my wife (the Good Democrat) and others of her ilk, Obama is going to take his re-election in a walk. They base this primarily on how poorly "Malleable Mitt" has been doing in head to head match ups in the polls. But in the spirit of not counting chickens too early, I think that Obama doesn't stand a chance at being continued in office.
Sure, it is counterfactual to all of the current conventional wisdom, but here is why I think Obama is in trouble. First - All of the press so far this season has been on the food fight among the Republican nominees. Assuming that the MSM is relishing this low level WWE contest and reporting on every false step, accusation or other peccadillo, they have managed to drive down Romney's favorables to more than half. But what happens when Romney secures the nomination?
At that time there will be the inevitable one on one that campaigns are meant to be about. And Obama cannot run on his record. Yes, yes, I know that the Democrats are still going to be using the mantra "It's Bush's fault" but that is tiresome to those not drinking the Kool-Aid. And the Kool-Aid drinkers are already firmly in Obama's column.
The economy was worse than they thought? Well then why in the heck were they messing with it if they didn't understand the severity of the problem? Do we want to return to the failed policies of the Bush Administration? Let's see, 4% unemployment, lower SSI and SSDI claims because even the disabled could find a job. Deficits? Sure Bush spent a Trillion dollars on the wars, but that is small change compared to what Obama has done every year. Wealth being accumulated by the 1% at the expense of the 99? So yesterday, and the Occupy Movement is but a parody of the Tea Party in spite of their best efforts by the MSM. Improved comity and race relations? Our post racial President lives and dies by white guilt and the need to energize his base. War on Women? That has been underway since Obama managed to destroy the economy with his failed Keynesian policies. In every aspect of his 2008 campaign, Obama lied to us. Closing Gitmo, doing away with military tribunals, stopping drone warfare, all of which were Bush policies carried out even further by the man who promised to end them all.
How about the future? Unfortunately, Chairman Putin pf Russia and the Premier of China have a better idea of what Obama's future policies are than the American people do. More of the same, or make it even worse than now is the question the rest of we Americans are facing.
Just as Obama won as much by not being Bush, Romney is going to win by not being Obama.
Sure, it is counterfactual to all of the current conventional wisdom, but here is why I think Obama is in trouble. First - All of the press so far this season has been on the food fight among the Republican nominees. Assuming that the MSM is relishing this low level WWE contest and reporting on every false step, accusation or other peccadillo, they have managed to drive down Romney's favorables to more than half. But what happens when Romney secures the nomination?
At that time there will be the inevitable one on one that campaigns are meant to be about. And Obama cannot run on his record. Yes, yes, I know that the Democrats are still going to be using the mantra "It's Bush's fault" but that is tiresome to those not drinking the Kool-Aid. And the Kool-Aid drinkers are already firmly in Obama's column.
The economy was worse than they thought? Well then why in the heck were they messing with it if they didn't understand the severity of the problem? Do we want to return to the failed policies of the Bush Administration? Let's see, 4% unemployment, lower SSI and SSDI claims because even the disabled could find a job. Deficits? Sure Bush spent a Trillion dollars on the wars, but that is small change compared to what Obama has done every year. Wealth being accumulated by the 1% at the expense of the 99? So yesterday, and the Occupy Movement is but a parody of the Tea Party in spite of their best efforts by the MSM. Improved comity and race relations? Our post racial President lives and dies by white guilt and the need to energize his base. War on Women? That has been underway since Obama managed to destroy the economy with his failed Keynesian policies. In every aspect of his 2008 campaign, Obama lied to us. Closing Gitmo, doing away with military tribunals, stopping drone warfare, all of which were Bush policies carried out even further by the man who promised to end them all.
How about the future? Unfortunately, Chairman Putin pf Russia and the Premier of China have a better idea of what Obama's future policies are than the American people do. More of the same, or make it even worse than now is the question the rest of we Americans are facing.
Just as Obama won as much by not being Bush, Romney is going to win by not being Obama.
Thursday, April 05, 2012
Here is Racism
The Left loves throwing out false accusations of racism as a tactic to stifle debate. It's starting to fail as a tactic because it has been so overdone. But if you want a real example of just plain old racism, check this out.
Shameful, and it will be ignored by our usual cadre of race baiters and race hustlers like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. But that is par for the course when it comes to the complaints of the Left.
Ward 8 D.C. Councilman Marion Barry is on the hot seat again.
Celebrating his victory in the Democratic primary on Tuesday night, Barry spoke up about the prominence of businesses owned by Asians in the District.
“We got to do something about these Asians coming in and opening up businesses and dirty shops,” Barry said in remarks first reported by WRC-TV. “They ought to go. I’m going to say that right now. But we need African-American businesspeople to be able to take their places, too.
Shameful, and it will be ignored by our usual cadre of race baiters and race hustlers like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. But that is par for the course when it comes to the complaints of the Left.
Tuesday, April 03, 2012
An Old Adage
Never get in a fight with a pig. The pig loves it, and you just get dirty. Such is the Obama fight that he just picked with the Supreme Court over their review of Obamacare. Well, some people can't wait, and the 5th Circuit just ordered the Justice Department to explain to them why Marbury v. Madison is no longer in effect. From the article:
So much for the Constitutional professor. Boy, and people said Bush was dumb.
Overturning a law of course would not be unprecedented — since the Supreme Court since 1803 has asserted the power to strike down laws it interprets as unconstitutional. The three-judge appellate court appears to be asking the administration to admit that basic premise — despite the president’s remarks that implied the contrary. The panel ordered the Justice Department to submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive Branch believes courts have such power, the lawyer said.
The panel is hearing a separate challenge to the health care law by physician-owned hospitals. The issue arose when a lawyer for the Justice Department began arguing before the judges. Appeals Court Judge Jerry Smith immediately interrupted, asking if DOJ agreed that the judiciary could strike down an unconstitutional law.
The DOJ lawyer, Dana Lydia Kaersvang, answered yes — and mentioned Marbury v. Madison, the landmark case that firmly established the principle of judicial review more than 200 years ago, according to the lawyer in the courtroom.
Smith then became “very stern,” the source said, telling the lawyers arguing the case it was not clear to “many of us” whether the president believes such a right exists. The other two judges on the panel, Emilio Garza and Leslie Southwick–both Republican appointees–remained silent, the source said.
So much for the Constitutional professor. Boy, and people said Bush was dumb.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Obama the Unifier
Whatever the campaign rhetoric, Obama has brought together Republicans and Democrats to speak as one!
Of course, they said No!
0-414 means that he should get a clue.
Of course, they said No!
0-414 means that he should get a clue.
Friday, March 02, 2012
Max Answers!
Well, sort of. I sent our senior senator an email complaining about the fact that Tricare costs are only going up for the uniformed members, but the unionized civilian DoD workers were being exempted from the cost increases because they support Obama.
Here is Max's answer:
Here is Max's answer:
Dear Steve:
Thank you for contacting me about the 2013 budget and military health care. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.
The brave members of our military have served our nation courageously. They have done everything we have asked of them and more. An estimated 9.3 million Americans rely on TRICARE for their health care needs. Active service members, military retirees, and their families deserve the best health care available, and I will continue to fight for our troops as they have fought for us.
I have long fought to increase military pay, and I have opposed cuts to military retirement and health benefits. I opposed budget proposals in 2007, 2008, and 2009 that would have hiked TRICARE enrollment fees and co-pays. I also supported provisions in each of these proposals to give our troops a pay raise. I was proud to accept the "Award of Merit" from the Military Coalition for fighting to preserve quality health care and benefits for service members and veterans. The Military Coalition represents 35 different military and veterans organizations, including the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the Air Force Association.
I have also supported legislation each year since 2003 to either reverse cuts in TRICARE physician reimbursement or to increase payments to doctors. TRICARE physician payments are governed by a complex formula called the sustainable growth rate (SGR). According to the Military Officers Association of America (MOAA), the declining participation of providers due to low reimbursements is one of the most serious health care problems facing Medicare-eligible and military beneficiaries. During my work in the Senate this year, I reached across the aisle to reverse a scheduled 27.4 percent reduction in TRICARE reimbursements to doctors. This reduction would have severely threatened access to health care for Montana's military families. While SGR initially produced positive updates for TRICARE beneficiaries, Congress has had to step in and act to reverse cuts caused by the SGR formula.
The U.S. military has the best, most professional, and most patriotic service members and veterans in the world, and Montana boasts one of the strongest commitments to military service in the nation. I will continue to support and recognize our troops and veterans. I have a tremendous amount of gratitude for their service.
Thanks again for getting in touch. Please contact me in the future with any additional comments or concerns. Also, please visit my website at http://baucus.senate.gov for more information on current issues and to find out what I'm doing both here in Washington and at home to help Montana.
Sincerely,
Notice how he fails to address the purpose of my complaint, but instead spits out pablum that he expects me to embrace. I am so sick and tired of all these damned phonies. They need to be replaced. All of them.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Union Benefits
I am not opposed to paying more for all that I get, but what I don't want to be is a sucker, and Obama and the Democrats seem to believe that those of us who served our country faithfully for twenty years or more are suckers. The latest proposal calls for the military to cut funding for TriCare which is the system of insurance used by both active duty and retired military as part of the promised benefit of free medical care. While I could agree to means testing as a way to ease the financial burden, I am stark raving pissed off that Obama wants to raise my rates, but not the unionized civilian who was never shot at.
It's obvious that the reason he is doing this is to curry favor with his constituency (unions) at the expense of those who do not care for him (active duty and retired military). Just like the Chrysler bailout that passed over the bond holders in favor of the unions, in spite of the law, Obama seeks to reward his friends and punish his enemies.
I wrote about this to Sen. Baucus and still haven't heard back from him on it, but let me tell you, if this thing goes through, there won't be one Democrat left in office for the next ten years. Once again, betrayed by our supposed Commander in Chief.
It's obvious that the reason he is doing this is to curry favor with his constituency (unions) at the expense of those who do not care for him (active duty and retired military). Just like the Chrysler bailout that passed over the bond holders in favor of the unions, in spite of the law, Obama seeks to reward his friends and punish his enemies.
I wrote about this to Sen. Baucus and still haven't heard back from him on it, but let me tell you, if this thing goes through, there won't be one Democrat left in office for the next ten years. Once again, betrayed by our supposed Commander in Chief.
Friday, February 17, 2012
Anybody But Santorum
Oh, the perils of the times we live in. We have Mitt Romney, a Big Government activist trying to lie to us about his conservative bona fides. This forces the rest of us to pick the "Not-Romney" and it seems that by the process of elimination we are left with Rick Santorum. Oh my God!!! Santorum has been described as a Mike Huckabee without the humor. You might remember Huckabee as the man who wanted to rewrite the Constitution to be more in line with the Bible. Santorum is a man who says that he actively dislikes libertarianism because it allows too much freedom for individuals to do what they want instead of what he wants. I cannot support anyone who seeks such control over other people's lives, and will not support him if he gets the nomination.
But in reading the above link, it referenced an interview that Ronald Reagan gave to Reason Magazine in 1975. You should read it for the breathtaking insight from 37 years ago that is still so appropriate today.
Anyway, in the battle for who is the true conservative, neither Mitt nor Rick are anywhere close. But I am beginning to think that I would rather have the malleable Mitt over the restrictive Rick.
But in reading the above link, it referenced an interview that Ronald Reagan gave to Reason Magazine in 1975. You should read it for the breathtaking insight from 37 years ago that is still so appropriate today.
Anyway, in the battle for who is the true conservative, neither Mitt nor Rick are anywhere close. But I am beginning to think that I would rather have the malleable Mitt over the restrictive Rick.
Friday, February 03, 2012
The Gospel According to St. Barak
St. Barak (p.b.u.h), Slayer of the lesser Satan Osama bin Laden with his own bare hands, Halter of the Rise of the Oceans, Healer of the Planet and Defender of the Faith in Big Government, was sorely vexed. For he had looked into the future and realized that the Rubes were not coming round to him after all of his Good Works. After all, had He not used his Stimulus and takeover of the car companies to properly reward His acolytes in the Democrat Party? Did He not orchestrate the passage of the Blessed ObamaCare for the benefit of AARP? Did He not reward the money changers in the Temple of Goldman Sachs with his Dodd-Frank bill? And after all of these Good Works, still, His poll numbers were in the tank.
"This is all the fault of the Greater Satan -those republicans" announced St. Barak. They have stood in the way of My Will to perform Great Deeds and render a permanent Democrat Majority Ruling Party as it is Written. So, St. Barak consulted with his Twin Brother, Jesus Christ (in the form of the blessed David Axelrod) and asked, "What more do these peasants want from Me?" And Jesus Axelrod did reply "Lord, they are Bitter Clingers who clutch their guns and Bibles and ignore Your Blessed Will." "You must therefore coopt their religion against them in order to fool, er, I mean show them the One True Way." "You must tell them that their beloved Jesus Christ (even though this is heresy in the religion of St. Barak) would have demanded higher tax rates, for while they should render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God, that which is God's. there is no Caesar any longer, and there is no God but You."
And St. Barak looked down on Axelrod and said "It is true, My will can be foisted off on the rubes because they are simple and ignorant and believe in silly Sky Gods." "I shall announce that Jesus did not have the advantages of the Blessed Script of the Holy Tax Code, and that is why he did not call for higher taxes." But if he had our Blessed Script, he would have realized that it is God's Will that Solyndra and other Green Energy programs are the best way to funnel money to My backers, as it is their right and due." Further, sayeth St. Barak "And I shall declare as demons, all those who oppose me, whether they are the Greater Satans of republicans or Satans own spawn the Tea Partiers," "It shall be heresy to oppose the Holy Democrat Party from henceforth, punishable by excommunication and the seizure of their wealth for the good of the Party, er, I mean the People." "Further sayeth St. Barak, "That treating the poor is not to be allowed to individuals, but shall only be done through the offices of the Blessed Federal Government, to whom all owe both fealty and their wealth, except for the Holy Democrat Party Believers, who shall be exempt from the wealth confiscation." And St. Barak saw all that He had done, and He said that it was Good.
And the angels of Heaven opened up with some Al Green to celebrate the Immaculation of St. Barak.
"This is all the fault of the Greater Satan -those republicans" announced St. Barak. They have stood in the way of My Will to perform Great Deeds and render a permanent Democrat Majority Ruling Party as it is Written. So, St. Barak consulted with his Twin Brother, Jesus Christ (in the form of the blessed David Axelrod) and asked, "What more do these peasants want from Me?" And Jesus Axelrod did reply "Lord, they are Bitter Clingers who clutch their guns and Bibles and ignore Your Blessed Will." "You must therefore coopt their religion against them in order to fool, er, I mean show them the One True Way." "You must tell them that their beloved Jesus Christ (even though this is heresy in the religion of St. Barak) would have demanded higher tax rates, for while they should render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God, that which is God's. there is no Caesar any longer, and there is no God but You."
And St. Barak looked down on Axelrod and said "It is true, My will can be foisted off on the rubes because they are simple and ignorant and believe in silly Sky Gods." "I shall announce that Jesus did not have the advantages of the Blessed Script of the Holy Tax Code, and that is why he did not call for higher taxes." But if he had our Blessed Script, he would have realized that it is God's Will that Solyndra and other Green Energy programs are the best way to funnel money to My backers, as it is their right and due." Further, sayeth St. Barak "And I shall declare as demons, all those who oppose me, whether they are the Greater Satans of republicans or Satans own spawn the Tea Partiers," "It shall be heresy to oppose the Holy Democrat Party from henceforth, punishable by excommunication and the seizure of their wealth for the good of the Party, er, I mean the People." "Further sayeth St. Barak, "That treating the poor is not to be allowed to individuals, but shall only be done through the offices of the Blessed Federal Government, to whom all owe both fealty and their wealth, except for the Holy Democrat Party Believers, who shall be exempt from the wealth confiscation." And St. Barak saw all that He had done, and He said that it was Good.
And the angels of Heaven opened up with some Al Green to celebrate the Immaculation of St. Barak.
Thursday, February 02, 2012
Why D.C. Should Never Be Granted Statehood
Beside the whole Constitutional thing about you can't create a state out of another state (and the District is carved our of Maryland)there is another good reason that D.C. should never be given statehood. Take a look at the top states for Obama's approval where his is at 50% or more:
Thanks to Don Surber
81.1% approval? Are you kidding me? Even his own home state of Illinois only has him at 50.4% approval. I have always suspected that there must be hallucinogens in the water there. This seems to be proof.
Thanks to Don Surber
81.1% approval? Are you kidding me? Even his own home state of Illinois only has him at 50.4% approval. I have always suspected that there must be hallucinogens in the water there. This seems to be proof.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)