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.

"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.

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.

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)

From the Department of Glaringly Obvious Headlines

"'Limousine Liberals' Report Shows Government Limo Fleet Swelling"

The number of peasant-funded luxury cars is now 412, up from 238 during George W. Bush's presidency.  What a curious development from Dear Leader's administration, which is always so quick to tout its putative "fiscal responsibility" at every opportunity. 

It all adds up, you know, Mr. President.  But then again, what's a few hundred extra Cadillac DTS's (the apparent vehicle of choice) when the country is already trillions of dollars in debt?

Our government does indeed require a limited number of such cars to shuttle around elected officials with security needs (the president, VP, Secretary of State, etc.) as well as a few VIP's from other countries here on official business.  That being said, there's absolutely no way we need that many of them.

Misplaced priorities

The Arizona Republic newspaper has a front-page story today detailing the tragic fact that 21 children drowned in Maricopa County in 2010, and that eight children have already perished in a similar manner so far this year.  That is a truly sad state of affairs, to be sure.

To put things in perspective, however, the CDC reports that in 2007 (the latest year for which data is available) three children ages 0-17 were killed in the entire state of Arizona as a result of unintentional firearm-related accidents.

So which is more dangerous again?

The question bears asking - why aren't clueless Brady Campaign front groups such as Moms Against Guns and GunFreeKids marching in the streets advocating the banning of swimming pools and bathtubs?  Their plaintive "it's for the children" argument would then at least make a tad more sense.

The rest of the story?

At least one apparently longtime credible source is alleging to NewsFlavor that it was in fact CIA head Leon Panetta and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who gave the go-ahead for the raid on Osama Bin Laden, specifically overriding Dear Leader and his incompetent political minion Valerie Jarrett: 

"Please get this out ASAP. Want specific people to know we know.

RE Osama Bin Laden. Significant push to take him out months ago. Senior WH staff resisted. This was cause of much strain between HC and Obama/Jarrett. HC and LP were in constant communication over matter – both attempted to convince administration to act. Administration feared failure and resulting negative impact on president. Intel disgusted over politics over national security. Staff resigned/left. Check timeline to corroborate."

...

"IMPORTANT SPECIFIC: When 48 hour go order issued, CoC was told, not requested. Administration scrambled to abort. That order was overruled. This order did not originate from CoC. Repeat – this order did not originate from CoC. He complied, but did not originate."

A very thorough and plausible-sounding followup interview of the same source is here.

(We note with wry amusement that the accompanying picture of the war room clearly shows that the president had to cut short his weekly golf outing in order to go play Commander-in-Chief.  That must have irritated him to no end.)

This is a very interesting scenario if proven true, and sadly one which makes much more sense given the known personalities and political tendencies of both Clinton and Obama. We had been wondering where the president had suddenly found the guts to make such a quick and pointed military decision when we are so accustomed to seeing him do precisely the opposite over and over by waffling and wavering over every issue, especially those involving national security.  This kind of aggressive operation seems much more like Hillary than anyone else in that administration, and if that's indeed the case she deserves the resulting kudos and praise, not Dear Leader.

Now we just need an inquisitive mainstream media reporter to follow up on this story.  There's got to be at least one of them out there.

From the Department of Glaringly Obvious Headlines

"Wal-Mart brings back gun sales"

The re-normalization of lawful firearm ownership and carry in America continues.

We are by no means fans of the company, but on this issue we applaud their decision to again provide their customers with the goods they wish to purchase.

Fortunately for people such as Sarah Brady and Paul Helmke, who still claim with a straight face that they are making progress towards their ultimate goal of disarming the American peasant, the retail emporium also stocks vast quantities of Tums and milk of magnesia.

From the Department of Glaringly Obvious Headlines

"Chris Wallace to Obama on Libya:  Stop saying 'unacceptable' if you're not going to do anything about it"

Looks like another member of the major media is becoming unafraid to point out that the emperor has no clothes.

"According to Wallace – without action, it paints the president in an unflattering light.

'It makes you look impotent,' Wallace said."

Ouch. 

"Host Don Imus wondered if Obama’s reaction to Libya was 'measured' or, as some Fox News personalities have suggested, wimpy. Wallace explained it was measured, leaning toward wimpy"

Ladies and gentlemen, we have apparently just sat down for a screening of "The Carter Administration II - Return of the Wimp".

Off topic but interesting, at least to me

"Playboy Mansion visitors come down with mystery illness"

An as-yet-undiscovered venereal disease, we'd venture to guess.

We're just kidding - the cause of the partygoers' distress is speculated to be Pontiac fever, a (fortunately) less-severe form of Legionnaire's Disease.

Better divert a little of your many Playmates' generous allowances into getting those AC ducts and hot tubs cleaned out, Hef.

Nobody asked whether we were happy about it

"Why Obama's Silence on Gun Control Pleases No One"

Actually, his acute muteness on the issue pleases us to no end.

Dear Leader is pretty much a toe-the-liberal-line gun-grabber, at least based on his legislative record (scant though it is) and previous public statements on the issue.  He's just too chicken to actually come out and say so now that he's President, since it might cost him some votes from the "bitter clingers", who ironically haven't been fooled one bit.

President Obama's already in so much re-election trouble he might as well simply lay all of his ideological cards on the table.  At least by doing that he won't lose what remains of the core supporters who are rapidly abandoning him over his many other broken promises to them on such topics as gay rights, closing Guantanamo, stopping the practice of rendition, and so on.

It was only a matter of time

"White House to Push Gun Control"

We're surprised it took Dear Leader this long to announce his plan to cynically exploit the Tucson shooting to attempt to further restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens.  The time lag must be because ol' Rahm ("You never want a serious crisis to go to waste") Emanuel is no longer haunting the West Wing looking for political enemies to mail dead fish to in a infantile manner, as is his wont.

Check out the following duplicity:

"Tuesday night after the speech, Obama adviser David Plouffe said to NBC News that the president would not let the moment after the Arizona shootings pass without pushing for some change in the law, to prevent another similar incident. 'It’s a very important issue, and one I know there’s going to be debate about on the Hill.'"  (all emphases ours)

Then, in the very next paragraph:

"The White House said that to avoid being accused of capitalizing on the Arizona shootings for political gain, Obama will address the gun issue in a separate speech, likely early next month."

Newspeak at its finest.  Orwell would be either proud or horrified about his prediction coming to pass, we can't tell which. 

It's still considered "capitalizing" on a tragedy, Mr. President, if you leak to the press your intention to engage in that very "capitalizing" in the very near future, but that you're holding off for a couple of weeks so that the stupid peasants will hopefully forget and move on to who else has been kicked off American Idol.

We can't imagine that Obama's dwindling supporters in Congress will be particularly eager to engage in another political suicide charge at his behest, especially now that they are still reeling from the aftereffects of passing his massively unpopular health care Ponzi scheme, but we suppose anything's possible. 

Of one thing we have no doubt - attempting to push more ineffective gun-control legislation on law-abiding Americans will do more to enrage, organize and motivate the majority of them to redouble their efforts to ensure the president's defeat in 2012 than just about anything else, so go ahead and carry on, sir.

From the Department of Glaringly Obvious Headlines

"FACT CHECK:  Obama and his imbalanced ledger"

The Associated Press miraculously grows a pair and adds up the proposed "investments" (the new code word for endless and fruitless stimulus spending) versus spending cuts in Dear Leader's State of the Union address. 

Wonder of all wonders, the AP's analysis concludes that "The ledger did not appear to be adding up" and "Obama offered far more examples of where he would spend than where he would cut, and some of the areas he identified for savings are not certain to yield much if anything".

It's all still a con game by this master showman, but he's quickly running out of shells under which to hide the pea.  We're especially interested in seeing if he attempts to reverse his staggering record of broken promises to Americans and keep (for once) the newest in his exhaustive list, the one to veto any legislation which contains earmarks.  It's a pretty bold vow, so don't anyone hold their breaths.

This new-found desire by the major media to properly vet Obama's flowery, but ultimately empty, prose. is mildly encouraging.  It will be interesting to see if this trend continues or if it's just a one-time sop to "balance" by the overwhelmingly liberal press. 

One thing seems to be for darn sure - the bloom is definitely off Obama's rose, and the president is now just another crafty politician whose words are fair game for criticism by mere mortals.

A fictional war

An unfortunate recent uptick of police officers being injured or killed on the job has occurred in the last few days, and now some in law enforcement who should definitely know better are apparently attempting to further their own political agendas by cynically using these incidents (as well as the recent Tucson shooting) to try and convince the public that there's some kind of coordinated attack on police officers happening:

"A spate of shooting attacks on law enforcement officers has authorities concerned about a war on cops."

These disingenuous advocates are attempting to make this argument even though the two highest profile incidents marking this very tragic toll involved cops trying to serve high-risk arrest warrants on known dangerous felony suspects.  Not exactly the "random hunting of people who wear a badge" scenario that's being put forth as fact:

'"It's not a fluke,' said Richard Roberts, spokesman for the International Union of Police Associations", describing the fluke.

"'The bad guys are not afraid of cops,' Roberts said. 'They’re rarely rational. You get that combination, when you ID yourself as a cop, it does not scare them away; it makes it more dangerous for you.'"

Based on the above statement, it appears that Roberts believes that rational, law-abiding people by default are supposed to be afraid of cops, and the fact that the bad guys aren't humbled by their arrival is what makes them so dangerous.  Incorrect.  We are perfectly rational and law-abiding, yet we don't fear cops.  Are we somehow a threat to them?  Of course not.

Violent criminals are contemptuous of all laws and mores, including those against assault, rape and murder.  That's what makes them so dangerous to everyone, not just police officers.  The rate of crimes committed against cops, although admittedly much too high, is insignificant when compared against the rate of crimes committed against other law-abiding citizens.  Why, then, should the police rate some kind of special treatment just because of a random spike in tragedies suffered by them?

Mr. Roberts is a former Maryland police officer, which to us obviously explains his "us against them" mindset, his insistence on having the general public fear cops instead of respecting them and his probable upcoming argument about the necessity of further curbs on the lawful owning and carrying of firearms by the law-abiding public.

One commenter to the article provided a compelling example of this very kind of straw-man argument being similarly used in the past to justify unilaterally taking away freedoms from those who weren't in any way responsible for the incidents that precipitated those opportunistic actions.  We felt it important enough to reprint here:

"When Hitler, upset at being forced to accept a position in a coalition government, decided that he needed to do something drastic to get the control he wanted, the Communists conveniently burned the Reichstag. Within a week, all freedoms were subject to government control and Hitler was now "Der Fuhrer". As a certain White House adviser observed, it's a crime to waste a good crisis.

Jump ahead 77 years and a US Representative gets shot by a guy so crazy that he spent the two hours before the shooting taking pics of himself posing with his gun while wearing nothing but a red G-string, and the first thing the government and media do is try to restrict the 1st Amendment, citing "political rhetoric" as the cause of the shooting. When that backfired, they predictably turned on the 2nd Amendment, as tho' the gun caused the crime. So, naturally, we should expect expanded media coverage of any gun related crime and isolated shootings suddenly become a concerted "war on the police". What can I say? We don't have a Reichstag to burn, so that's what will have to do, I suppose."

Well stated.

From the Department of Glaringly Obvious Headlines

"Welfare Tab for Children of Illegal Immigrants Estimated At $600M in L.A. County" [Alone]

According to L.A. County Supervisor Michael Antonovich.

That figure does not include education costs, by the way, which would make the actual number even higher by another couple hundred million dollars or so.

This situation is one of the major reasons why California is utterly insolvent and is currently teetering on the unheard-of-by-a-state precipice of seeking bankruptcy protection.

The issue simply has to be promptly resolved on both the state and federal levels if any progress at all is to be made in reducing the massive debts that are being unfairly heaped upon the average citizen or legal resident.

A very keen observation

Rob Doar points out that the media's gotten some facts completely wrong (no doubt a first for them) and that accused Tucson shooter Jared Loughner did not legally purchase his pistol.  In fact, Loughner became a felon the second he lied on his firearm purchase form about not being a user of unlawful drugs, the very thing that had disqualified him from military service when he admitted that use to recruiters.

Criminals and the mentally ill don't obey laws.  Passing wheelbarrows full of more and more legislation won't make a bit of difference to them, but will only serve to further hinder the freedoms of law-abiding people.

Can't get much clearer than that.



UPDATE:  Oleg Volk, photographer extraordinaire, weighs in with much the same sentiment:

"Why bans on weapons cannot stop psychopaths.
During the Clinton ban of 1994-2004, magazines holding over 10 rounds became quite expensive. A jump from $15 to $120 wasn't unusual. Imagine a ban so sweeping that every gun, magazine and cartridge costs 20 times more than before. Who would be able to afford that?

The law-abiding people will not, as they also have to pay for food, shelter and other normal expenses. The criminals can, with difficulty, as they can treat arming up as a business expense -- and won't need quite as much weaponry to dominate the disarmed public. The deranged, murderous psychopaths will be able to afford the arms and ammo easily -- precisely because they are deranged. A person who expects to murder dozens and to die in the process or be imprisoned thereafter or -- more than likely has not even given a thought to the outcome at all -- doesn't worry about the credit card bill that will come due after the massacre. The mass murder episode is literally the last thing they plan to do in life and cost is no object.

A psycho murderer can devote all his resources -- and all his credit -- to the task of arming up. The price of ammunition is not a concern for such people. If the guns aren't merely expensive but also illegal -- again, in for a penny, in for a pound. A person who intends to murder is hardly worried about liability for statutory transgressions. His law-abiding victims on the other hand are very concerned about breaking the law and so remain unarmed and vulnerable...more vulnerable than if they could arm themselves for self-protection."


Oleg's one of the best visual artists we've ever seen , and his work is the living embodiment of "a picture is worth a thousand words".  Visit his website to view all manner of awesome photos.

Off topic but interesting, at least to me

"Polygamist Pummeled by Wives for Planning Fifth Marriage"

This is one reason why we have always considered the optimum number of wives to be either one or none.

Quit reflexively blaming people with whom you don't agree for events they had nothing to do with

Fantasy writer Larry Correia (full disclosure: we are Facebook friends with him and often correspond back and forth, especially on firearm-related topics) pretty much says it all when it comes to the shameless hypocrisy of the opportunists (Jane Fonda, for one execrable example, but lots of people in the liberal-dominated major media are currently piling on as well) who immediately tried to politicize yesterday's tragic shooting in Tucson by attempting to blame such diverse uninvolved people as Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and Tea Party activists for somehow mysteriously influencing the alleged shooter, a person described as a disturbed leftist druggie by one of his high-school friends, a self-labeled liberal herself:

"It is time to help out my racist/hick/red-state/hate-monger readership again. Some of you have been confused by the media coverage of yesterday’s tragic shooting. As a “wise Latino” who understands the media, let me help you:

A left-wing, Communist Manifesto reading, schizophrenic, nut-bar, dirt bag that posts obviously deranged YouTube videos about mind control, who has no association with the Tea Party, shoots a congresswoman = SARAH PALIN IS EVIL

Yes, that can be confusing. I know. Bear with me. Remember the last time we went over this kind of thing:

A Muslim in the US Army, after preaching Jihad and corresponding with Al Queda in Yemen, goes on a shooting rampage while screaming “Allah Akbar” = NOT TERRORISM

Clear?"

Please go read Correia's entire post.  It's an absolute masterpiece, and we can't think of a single thing to add to it.

From the Department of Glaringly Obvious Headlines

"White House defends Obama's Senate vote against Raising Debt Ceiling But Warns of Catastrophe if GOP Doesn't Raise Debt Ceiling"

CNSNews wryly chronicles that Dear Leader had a very different take on such a dumb financial strategy when he was a minor backbencher Senator a few years ago, which of course was before his administration and his Democrat minions who ran the last Congress saddled the country with more debt (3.22 trillion dollars) in the last two years than all of the other Presidents and Congresses combined: 

'"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure,' Obama said on March 16, 2006. 'Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit.'"

So it was not OK then, but perfectly fine now, to burden future generations in such a manner?  Do as I say, not as I do, huh?

Heck of a "leadership" style there, sir.  What wealth of experience prepared you to do such a bang-up job of being Chief Executive again?  Oh, that's right, nothing.

And that utter lack of preparedness sure is showing these days, to our nation's ultimate detriment.

From the Department of Glaringly Obvious Headlines

"Greece plans border fence to keep out illegal immigrants"

Mostly people of Middle Eastern origin trying to enter E.U. nations via Greece's border with Turkey.

Does this necessary step (we've been to Greece and seen firsthand the illegal immigration problem that exists in that country, mainly in Athens) mean Europeans are now going to label themselves "racists" for taking the necessary steps to protect their sovereign borders?