Hush, child. Your bottle is warming

A quick response to the Messiah's pathetic mewling in the Rose Garden earlier today:

"By now, it’s well known that 90 percent of the American people support universal background checks"

Says who?  Please cite where you discovered such magical fairy-dusted numbers, sir.  If anywhere close to 90 percent had truly supported that legislation it would have passed in a slam-dunk.  It didn't, of course, which leads us to conclude that you in fact are the one stretching the truth here.

"We’re talking about convicted felons, people convicted of domestic violence, people with a severe mental illness"

Persons who are already prohibited from buying a firearm from anyone anywhere at any time.  So you're proposing to make it doubly or triply illegal? 

"But instead of supporting this compromise, the gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill. They claimed that it would create some sort of “big brother” gun registry, even though the bill did the opposite."

Universal background checks by definition would create a de facto gun registry that no doubt would be used to locate and attempt to confiscate firearms at some future date.  As to the ban on creating an official registry, it's true that one was in the legislation, but the one word "notwithstanding" in the bill basically negates the language and allows the Attorney General to do just that.

"There were no coherent arguments as to why we wouldn’t do this."

There were many, sir.  You just dismissed them as you do any viewpoints that differ from your collectivist worldview.

"But if action by Congress could have saved one person, one child"

So we take it you're in favor of any action that saves lives, up to and including waterboarding, then?

"I’ve heard folks say that having the families of victims lobby for this legislation was somehow misplaced. "A prop," somebody called them. “Emotional blackmail,” some outlet said. Are they serious?"

Yes indeed.  The same people you've been carting around on Air Force One, parading up in the Senate gallery and pimping out on sycophantic news programs?  This is a textbook definition of employing the transfer technique, and you should be ashamed of yourself for dancing in their children's blood to advance your political agenda.

"And I see this as just round one"

Bring it on.

You're too stupid to figure it out yourself

First Nanny Michelle Obama apparently isn't finished lecturing Americans about what to eat and even how to shop for their vittles: 

"Tips from the mother-of-two and healthy living fanatic include to 'steer clear of the cookie, snack and soda aisle'... 'And if you stay at the outer aisles you try to avoid going in and getting the processed, packaged foods.'" 

You don't say?   

The most disturbing part is that this "fanatic" would unilaterally ban burgers and fries if she all of a sudden had the power, simply because she personally disapproves of such fare.

Maybe you should work on the President before you presume to harangue the rest of us, ma'am.  He, true to his hypocritical nature, is definitely not paying attention to one word of your incessant nutritional nagging.

Amnesty is officially here

The morale of rank and file ICE agents has virtually flatlined, for good reason - apparently the officers no longer can arrest and deport deserving candidates, thanks to that agency's taking of President Obama's unlawful declaration of amnesty for certain classes of illegal aliens (an action he took merely one year after publicly admitting he didn't possess that authority.  Well, he seems to have invented some) and extending it to include virtually everyone, even those who obviously don't qualify under the already liberal definition of "Dreamers":

"[National ICE Council President Chris] Crane said a case involving a veteran ICE agent is a perfect illustration. The agent arrested an illegal who was not a “primary target.” The agent’s superior officers ordered the illegal released – even though he did not meet the criteria listed by the Dept. of Homeland Security.

The officer refused to follow orders and is now facing a three day suspension. The 35-year-old illegal immigrant with ten traffic violations was released."  (All emphases ours)

Why even have a deportation process if it takes being a serial killer to qualify as a "primary target"?

When that drag-on-society criminal eventually smashes his vehicle into another car and kills someone (which happens all too often), the responsibility for those deaths will fall squarely on the heads of those who supposedly watch out for our "security".

From the Department of Glaringly Obvious Headlines

"Federal Court finds Obama appointees interfered with New Black Panther prosecution"

For those who don't remember this quaint little scene on Election Day 2008:

That disgusting incident of voter intimidation wasn't deemed worthy of punishment, according to Obama's political hacks.  But the Republicans are the ones who "rule" based on the color of peoples' skin and thus try to deny them their vote.  Riiight.

Now, because of the findings of District Court Judge Reggie Walton, the long-suffering American taxpayer has to pay Judicial Watch's legal fees in the case.

And Eric "Neutral, leaning towards favorable" Holder somehow still keeps his job.

Let them eat cake

First Lady Michelle Obama, she of the lavish restaurant dinners and expensive foreign vacations for her and her extended family under the guise of "official business", at least one in which her children received the label of "senior staff" to avoid embarrassment over the trip's runaway costs, showed up at the Olympics sporting a $6,800 jacket while the rest of the country suffers under her husband's incompetent handling of the American economy.

And these two clueless spendthrifts are supposed to represent the "99%"? 

"Change" we can't afford

Barack Obama, the promise:

“That’s why today, I’m pledging to cut the deficit we inherited by half by the end of my first term in office.” - January 23, 2009

 Barack Obama, the result:

"By the end of the third quarter of fiscal 2012, the new debt accumulated in this fiscal year by the federal government had already exceeded $1 trillion, making this fiscal year the fifth straight in which the federal government has increased its debt by more than a trillion dollars, according to official debt numbers published by the U.S. Treasury."

Not only has the deficit not been cut by one single dime, under Obama's watch it has increased by close to 4 trillion dollars even as the rate of spending has been greatly accelerated.

Another empty campaign promise tossed right into the wastebasket once the country's attention is elsewhere.

Remember when former President George W. Bush was (rightly) being castigated for his profligate spending?  Well, where is the wall-to-wall coverage now?



EDIT:  In an unrelated note, we just noticed this is our 2000th post at the Muckraker.  We wish to extend a heartfelt thank you to the loyal readers who make this effort enjoyable and worthwhile.  You are all greatly appreciated.

Which is it?

Jonah Goldberg exposes the "transparent" hypocrisy of the President's blind followers:

"This is the great irony of Obama and his defenders. He is a progressive ideologue and a passionate believer in “social justice,” and that’s a large reason why his fans love him so. But if you ever say that he is what he is — if you take his words seriously — they ridicule you for believing he’s anything other than a pragmatist and a moderate."

The minions can't have it both ways, as much as they might want to.

Go read the whole article, it's well worth it.

From the Department of Glaringly Obvious Headlines

"Did he forget about the voters?  Obama says the words 'I' and 'me' a total of 117 times in ONE speech"

Narcissism isn't attractive.

First reactions

A few quick observations on the Supreme Court decision requiring people to purchase health care, as we attempt to analyze the entire ruling:

1.  Since according to Chief Justice John Roberts this is apparently a "tax" (even though the administration argued repeatedly and vociferously that it wasn't one), President Obama is now guilty of breaking yet another campaign promise, this one to "not raise one dime" the taxes of people making under $250,000:

"The high court's ruling leaves in place 21 tax increases in the health-care law costing more than $675 billion over the next 10 years, according to the House Ways and Means Committee. Of those, 12 tax hikes would affect families earning less than $250,000 per year, the panel said, including a “Cadillac tax” on high-cost insurance plans, a tax on insurance providers, and an excise tax on medical device manufacturers." 

But who's counting?

2.  Be careful of what you wish for, supporters of the President.  One day someone you may not agree with politically will be in the Oval Office, and then what will you do when he or she unilaterally decides to quit enforcing certain of the nation's laws with which they don't agree, and/or requires you to purchase something you don't wish to own or participate in an activity in which you have no interest?  We're sure you won't be so deliriously happy when the dictatorial shoe is on the other foot. 

3. Speaking of delirium, to DNC Executive Director Patrick Gaspard, as well as the liberal "friend" who texted us at 7:45 a.m. this morning to rub our faces in the decision: way to keep it classy, folks. Your maturity level astounds us.

4.  Donations are apparently absolutely pouring in to the RNC and the Romney campaign today.  Romney is certainly not our ideal or even preferred candidate, but our country's status as the freest nation on earth will simply not survive another Obama term.  This November is it.

5.  Yes, health care for all is a noble goal and we certainly don't wish anyone to suffer needlessly.  This way of going about it, though, goes against everything our country supposedly stands for and further erodes individual and state liberties in favor of an all-powerful central government, something the Founders were adamant should not be allowed to happen.  Again, the upcoming election will decide for good one way or another the direction of this country.

Back on the horse

After going through several personal challenges over the last couple of years, we finally feel ready and able to devote some time and energy to this site.  We apologize for taking so long to get our act together; it was unfortunately necessary to concentrate on our health and well-being instead of outside interests.  Please pardon our dust as we get back up to speed, and we hope to once again earn your readership and trust.  Onward, then.

Let's see, what sorts of events have occurred during our extended absence?  Surely things have changed and the maddening situations about which we previously wrote no longer occur, right?  Well, no, as a quick review of just today's news tells us:

1.  The House Government and Oversight Reform Committee has this afternoon voted to hold Attorney General Eric "Neutral, leaning towards favorable" Holder in contempt of that body for refusing to provide documents and emails pertaining to the "Fast and Furious" scandal, despite a last-minute (and surprise) assertion of executive privilege by President Obama (who as a Presidential candidate excoriated Bush 43 for doing the exact same thing).  

Both men have previously stated (in the case of Mr. Holder, under oath) that they knew absolutely nothing until quite late in the game about this amateurish and stumblebum "operation" (in the view of many a thinly-disguised PR stunt that, had it somehow succeeded, would have been used as a propaganda tool to push for more gun control for law-abiding Americans) that has cost the lives of at least two American law-enforcement officers, not to mention those of countless innocent Mexican citizens.  So, pray tell, exactly which of these highly sensitive communications between minions in the Executive Branch, concerning an operation about which this pair apparently hadn't a clue, need protection from Congressional oversight?  Desperate measures indeed.

By the way, as far as we can determine not one person to date has lost their job over this utter debacle.  It's good to be a Federal government employee.


2.  A former head prosecutor in the Baltimore (wildly anti-lawful gun city in wildly anti-lawful gun Maryland) State's Attorney's office, the person who decided whether or not to go after people for gun crimes (and, judging by the comments to the story, an absolute jerk who insisted on charging otherwise law-abiding people to the max for such "crimes" as stopping for lunch in the city while in the middle of transporting an unloaded, cased firearm in their vehicle from Pennsylvania to North Carolina), was himself arrested last Friday night after cops stopped him for a traffic violation and discovered he had a loaded pistol in his car's center console:

"Matthew Fraling, 49, who spent 23 years as a city prosecutor and oversaw prosecutions of gun offenders for his final two years, was pulled over on Friday night at about 11:45 p.m. in the 2500 block of Guilford Ave. after an officer in an unmarked vehicle began following him.

The officer, Det. Kenneth Ramberg, wrote in charging documents that Fraling was pulled over after he crossed the center line, and he initially told the officer he did not have any weapons on him or in the vehicle. Ramberg asked Fraling to step out of the vehicle and again asked if there were any guns, and Fraling said he had one in the vehicle's center console for which he did not have a permit to carry."

We have to agree with one of the wags who commented - Mr. Fraling has undoubtedly now switched his position and whole-heartedly supports the idea of lawful firearm carry in the backwards state of our birth.

(h/t to NJT)

Great company

The Communist Party USA has already announced that they are endorsing President Obama for reelection in 2012, despite their stated bitter disappointment in his not pushing harder in his first term for such promised goodies as single-payer government-controlled health care and "card-check" legislation designed to eliminate the secret ballot when workers are voting whether or not to unionize:

"Wrote [CPUSA Chairman Sam] Webb: 'Neither party is anti-capitalist, but they aren't identical either. Differences exist at the levels of policy and social composition. And despite the many frustrations of the past two years, the election of Barack Obama was historic and gave space to struggle for a people's agenda.'"

Chairman Mao himself couldn't have come up with more flowery propaganda.

The Commies are clearly salivating at the prospect of an Obama second term, one in which the president would no longer have to care about winning elections or pacifying moderate voters but instead would be free to fully advocate for advancing the Great Leap Forward agenda of such mentors of his as Saul Alinsky and Bill Ayers.

Remember the people who desperately need the current president to remain in office when contemplating your own ballot.

Here comes the slippery slope

"WASHINGTON – Health insurance plans must cover birth control as preventive care for women, with no copays, the Obama administration said Monday in a decision with far-reaching implications for health care as well as social mores.

The requirement is part of a broad expansion of coverage for women's preventive care under President Barack Obama's health care law. Also to be covered without copays are breast pumps for nursing mothers, an annual "well-woman" physical, screening for the virus that causes cervical cancer and for diabetes during pregnancy, counseling on domestic violence, and other services."

We will first stipulate that having some of these services made more available to women will most likely result in a net benefit for both them as well as society in general.

That's not the point.  

Lots of things would be of great use to people if the government were to force private companies to give them away for free - cars, computers, you name it.  That doesn't happen, of course, because the Constitution does not give the .gov that redistributive power.  Similarly, nowhere in that document is a provision giving the Feds the authority to force people to buy products (such as health coverage) they may not wish to own or the ability to tell those firms which of their wares they must give away instead of charge for, as we hope the Supreme Court will eventually point out.

We predict that this is just the first in a long series of coverage mandates, and that sly Washington bureaucrats will slowly and patiently deem more and more items to be vital and necessary over time until everything is eventually provided gratis.  And then we'll be Great Britain, where operations for such things as cataracts, hip replacements and tonsillitis are now deemed to be "non-urgent" and thus denied until the patient basically can no longer see, walk or swallow.

Of course, there really is no free ride, as the first article notes:

"Although the new women's preventive services will be free of any additional charge to patients, somebody will have to pay."

Dig deep, peasant.

A curious silence

Former New York Times reporter Janny Scott has written a biography of Barack Obama's mother in which Scott definitively proves that Dear Leader lied right through his teeth in the 2008 presidential campaign when he claimed that Ann Dunham had been denied health insurance reimbursement during her ultimately fatal battle with cancer.  Rather, Dunham had been fully covered and all treatment expenses were paid save for her deductibles and other uncovered costs.  The only apparent disagreement between Dunham and any insurance entity, according to Scott, was with a different company which refused to pay disability coverage for her living expenses because it considered her condition to be pre-existing. 

Those updated facts make for quite a bit different of a tale than what was presented by candidate and President Obama as the poster story of a horribly broken health-care system, which is probably why he didn't bother to mention them whilst ramming his Ponzi scheme through Congress.

Strangely enough, Ms. Scott has been declining to talk further with reporters about her work despite repeated requests for interviews.  Now, when was the last time anyone remembers a book author refusing free publicity, especially as the usual end result is more books being sold?  One naturally wonders if perhaps some of Scott's former colleagues at the Times convinced her to go back on the monolithic pro-Obama reservation before more damage could be done to their false idol.

Bush-league antics

The British government gave a fantastic dinner at Guildhall in London yesterday in honor of both the close relationship our two countries share as well as the dedication of a statue of President Ronald Reagan in honor of the 100th anniversary of his birth.  The event was well-attended by important luminaries of all political ideologies from both nations.

One person, however, was notably absent - U.S. Ambassador to London Louis B. Susman.  He was a complete no-show at the party in what many people are considering to be a deliberate snub of the festivities.  Why would people think this?

"Ambassador Susman is, of course, a long-standing Democrat fundraiser, nicknamed the vacuum cleaner for his skill at sucking donations out of the wealthy. And his efforts to fill Obama's campaign pockets was said by many to be his main qualification to come to London."

Nice to know we have such professional, competent people representing America's interests abroad.

Apparently honoring a former Republican president's birthday is beyond Mr. Susman's capabilities, to the harsh chagrin of even some Democrats who were present at the soiree: 

"'Our ambassador should be here,' said Lynn de Rothschild, the American entrepreneur who is married to Sir Evelyn de Rothschild and was one of Hillary Clinton's key fundraisers in 2008 as well as a supporter of several Republican presidential candidates. 'This was an historic dinner to mark Reagan's centenary and to celebrate him as the man who ended the Cold War. What could not be more important?'

'Why is our ambassador not here on Independence Day? No excuse. How is it that America is not represented in this room by our ambassador? It is appalling that no representative of our government is in this room. This has the feel of petty partisanship.'"

We agree with Mr Rothschild.  This was a true embarrassment and an outrageous slap in the face to a well-meaning gesture by the British government.  After all, July 4 is the day we declared independence from them in the first place.  They didn't have to celebrate any of this with us, yet they freely chose to host the festivities.  For our ambassador to blow it off with no explanation is the height of arrogance and rudeness.

Do your job, Mr. Susman.  You are supposed to represent the entire United States of America, not just the nakedly partisan politician who named you to your current position.  A personal apology from you would be very appropriate right about now.

Dying? Suffer

Great Britain's National Health Service, the utterly bankrupt and completely mismanaged government-mandated health care scheme that Dear Leader and many liberal Democrats in Congress wish us here in America to ultimately emulate, has as many as 100,000 terminally ill people on its rolls who aren't getting the palliative care they desperately need:

"Meanwhile, 97% of hospices do not receive all the funding they need for the NHS services they provide, and some patients are victims of "rationing" towards the end of the NHS financial year."

Translation - these people simply die in agony because there's no money left to give them proper pain control, nursing care and other necessary end-of-life services.

Hmm.  "Rationing".  Seems like that word has come up before, only to have Obamacare supporters pooh-pooh away as ludicrous the inevitable result of imposing a single-payer health system.  Try doing the same thing to these suffering Brits and see if they think the concept is so far-fetched.

We just can't wait for this kind of top-notch medical care to become the U.S. standard as well.  

From the Department of Glaringly Obvious Headlines

"Michelle Obama:  'I can't stop eating French fries.  But eat your vegetables.'"

Do as I say, not as I do.  Limousine liberalism in a nutshell.

A new Obamacare "glitch" rears its ugly head

"WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's health care law would let several million middle-class people get nearly free insurance meant for the poor, a twist government number crunchers say they discovered only after the complex bill was signed."

Another maddening detail that proves just how hastily and shoddily this unconstitutional law was constructed. Thank you so much, Nancy "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy" Pelosi.  Your scheme worked to perfection.  Except for that whole avoiding controversy thing, of course.

We wonder how many other nasty surprises like this one are lurking around just waiting to be discovered in that execrable piece of legislation (rammed down our throats by the Senate in the dark of night on Christmas Eve precisely because of the presence of such ill-conceived "twists").

That sure settles the issue

One of Dear Leader's core constituencies has once again been merrily thrown under the bus:

"At today's briefing, Jay Carney again clarifies that another aide was mistaken to claim that Obama did not sign a questionnaire supporting same-sex marriage.

Obama has been 'very clear that his position is evolving.'"  (emphasis ours)

Yeah, that kind of mealy-mouthed pap will go a long way towards pacifying the justifiably growing very angry gay community, which like so many other voting blocs has been waiting for close to three years for their turn to be "taken care of" by the man they helped put into the Oval Office after he made all of those flowery promises to them.

We hope they're not in some kind of hurry or anything, because it looks like Obama's "evolution" on the issue is proceeding at about the same pace as species evolution.

Health care "reform" is on the ropes

The chances of unconstitutional Obamacare remaining the law of the land aren't looking too good these days:

"Judges on a federal appeals court panel on Wednesday repeatedly raised questions about President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, expressing unease with the requirement that virtually all Americans carry health insurance or face penalties."

Dear Leader's choice to defend the case once again isn't helping matters any, either:

"Acting U.S. Solicitor Neal Katyal sought to ease their concerns by saying the legislative branch can only exercise its powers to regulate commerce if it will have a substantial effect on the economy and solve a national, not local, problem."

First of all, it's not "regulating" free commerce if you make people buy something they don't want to own.  That would be "forcing" government-mandated commerce.

Secondly, who would get to decide what constitutes a "national problem?  Congress, of course, the very same body that would then supposedly solve those dire issues by requiring that people purchase something.  Nope, no conflict of interest there. 

Thirdly, Mr. Katyal's overbroad argument could be stretched in any number of ways to justify forcing Americans to do any number of things they don't wish.  How about solving a "national problem" of an overabundance of orange juice, for example, by making people buy a certain quantity every month, thus avoiding a price plunge and keeping a multi-billion dollar industry in business?  Especially if, you know, some of the growers, producers and distributors are big donors to whatever party happened to be in control at the time. 

In the same vein, maybe Congress could require that every household buy one Government General Motors car every two years, which would make GM profitable and protect the taxpayers' current (forced) investment in the company. 

What about making people buy $500 or so worth of U.S. made electronic devices every year to stimulate the economy and help harden that industry against cheap foreign competition?  Such a mandate would certainly have a "substantial effect on the economy".

The possibilities for abusing this kind of unlimited and unchecked power are endless, which is precisely why the Founders expressly limited the authority of the Federal government in the first place.  The health care law needs to be overturned for lots of reasons, but protecting the citizens from a predatory Congress intent on arbitrarily picking their pockets "for your own good" by making them purchase whatever that body wishes to is the most critical one.

His master's voice

Another reason to never again purchase something made by Government General Motors:

"General Motors Co. CEO Dan Akerson wants the federal gas tax boosted as much as $1 a gallon to nudge consumers toward more fuel-efficient cars"

We're sure that naked endorsement of government-controlled social engineering will make prospective customers just fight to line up in front of Chevy dealerships from coast to coast.

This is exactly what happens when the government unconstitutionally gets its hooks into a private company - its putative head (who makes a reported 9 million dollars a year and gets a new company-provided vehicle every quarter.  Think Mr. Akerson has fretted at the pump lately?) ends up having to parrot the Obama Administration line in order to stay in their good graces.

The article also informs us just how much this little exercise in corporate favoritism is going to cost the peasants:

"At the current stock price, U.S. taxpayers would be out more than $12 billion on GM's bailout."

What happened to all those hearty assurances that the taxpayers were more than likely going to end up making money from this wretched deal?

"Asked if GM is considering buying back its stock, Akerson paused for eight seconds before declining to answer directly. 'But we have a lot of cash,' he added."

So get out from your deal with the devil already.  Unless, of course, that's exactly where you want to be.  We can't imagine the government would show up disgruntled at the stockholder meeting, after all.

"'We are in the midst of transforming an iconic American company so 20 and 30 years from now (taxpayers) will look at this company and they'll say, "Absolutely it was the right thing to do,"' Akerson said. 'And it shouldn't be measured on did it sell for $43 or $53 (a share) or did they lose a couple billion dollars?'" 

Unbelievable.  What's a few billion taxpayer dollars between friends if it ends up "transforming" a company that just couldn't manage to do so itself and thus deserved to fail, right, Mr. Akerson?