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.
Showing posts with label propaganda. Show all posts
Showing posts with label propaganda. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
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)
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)
Thursday, June 23, 2011
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.
Do as I say, not as I do. Limousine liberalism in a nutshell.
Tuesday, June 07, 2011
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?
"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?
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Your tax dollars at work
Remember when we were informed by those in power that General Motors (as opposed to the thousands of other businesses in the same dire financial straits at the time) was "too big to fail", which is why those feckless martinets subsequently used our tax dollars (confiscated from us on pain of imprisonment) to acquire 33% of the company?
Well, here's the return on our forced "investment":
"In late 2010, General Motors agreed to sponsor a propaganda film celebrating the 90th anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The CCP made film titled (translated to English) 'The Birth of a Party' or 'The Great Achievement of Founding the Party' is set to premiere all over the Communist nation on June 15 reported China AutoWeb last September."
We currently drive two Chevrolets. They are for sure the last GM products we will ever own.
Well, here's the return on our forced "investment":
"In late 2010, General Motors agreed to sponsor a propaganda film celebrating the 90th anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The CCP made film titled (translated to English) 'The Birth of a Party' or 'The Great Achievement of Founding the Party' is set to premiere all over the Communist nation on June 15 reported China AutoWeb last September."
We currently drive two Chevrolets. They are for sure the last GM products we will ever own.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Someone has to say it
Ross Zimmerman, whose son Gabe was murdered in the recent Tucson tragedy, is now being heartlessly used as a poster boy by the execrable Michael Bloomberg's "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" campaign to lobby for "reasonable" gun control measures. Unfortunately for him (and them), though, Zimmerman has no earthly idea about what exactly he's supposed to be advocating for:
"'I'm not educated on the details of the gun laws,' he told HuffPost on Monday, 'but there are some things that are pretty obvious, like background checks.'" (emphasis ours)
We are truly saddened by and sympathetic to that father's unimaginable loss, but once a person attempts to milk a personal tragedy for political reasons he or she becomes fair game for criticism.
Perhaps Mr. Zimmerman should get some knowledge on the subject before he begins agitating for yet more useless laws that would not have stopped his son's murderer that day. Otherwise he becomes just another Rep. Carolyn "The Shoulder Thing That Goes Up" McCarthy (D-NY), a person similarly (and regrettably, of course) affected by gun violence who somehow feels that sad fact gives her a free license to not bother to "educate" herself about items and products about which she knows nothing except that they somehow "look" evil to her, which then becomes her sole reason for trying to deny ownership of them to law-abiding individuals:
As everyone with a smidgen of factual knowledge about the incident knows, the cowardly shooter Loughner before his horrific act was an individual who had neither a criminal record nor a mental-health diagnosis that would have disqualified him from any sort of background check, including the very one he passed when purchasing his firearm. How would subjecting law-abiding individuals to yet another unnecessary government intrusion (a double-background check?) into their lives have prevented the massacre? One simply cannot prevent every bad thing in the world from happening. That's the price of living in a free society.
"[Zimmerman] said he hoped the rally would help address the need to create programs in Tucson that help gun sellers identify mentally unstable individuals."
He (and by extension the shills who are cynically using him) apparently believes that gun-store owners now have to be licensed as interventional psychiatrists before being allowed to open their doors. Isn't the federal government, by the way, the very entity that, through its cumbersome HIPAA law, made such health records so very hard for anyone to access without a direct doctor-patient relationship or a signed waiver from the patient? Unintended consequences, indeed.
"'It was a diverse group of people who got shot ... so families are grieving in diverse ways,' [Zimmerman] said."
We're extremely sorry, but we simply fail to see what such meaningless PC pap has to do with the debate at hand.
"'I'm not educated on the details of the gun laws,' he told HuffPost on Monday, 'but there are some things that are pretty obvious, like background checks.'" (emphasis ours)
We are truly saddened by and sympathetic to that father's unimaginable loss, but once a person attempts to milk a personal tragedy for political reasons he or she becomes fair game for criticism.
Perhaps Mr. Zimmerman should get some knowledge on the subject before he begins agitating for yet more useless laws that would not have stopped his son's murderer that day. Otherwise he becomes just another Rep. Carolyn "The Shoulder Thing That Goes Up" McCarthy (D-NY), a person similarly (and regrettably, of course) affected by gun violence who somehow feels that sad fact gives her a free license to not bother to "educate" herself about items and products about which she knows nothing except that they somehow "look" evil to her, which then becomes her sole reason for trying to deny ownership of them to law-abiding individuals:
As everyone with a smidgen of factual knowledge about the incident knows, the cowardly shooter Loughner before his horrific act was an individual who had neither a criminal record nor a mental-health diagnosis that would have disqualified him from any sort of background check, including the very one he passed when purchasing his firearm. How would subjecting law-abiding individuals to yet another unnecessary government intrusion (a double-background check?) into their lives have prevented the massacre? One simply cannot prevent every bad thing in the world from happening. That's the price of living in a free society.
"[Zimmerman] said he hoped the rally would help address the need to create programs in Tucson that help gun sellers identify mentally unstable individuals."
He (and by extension the shills who are cynically using him) apparently believes that gun-store owners now have to be licensed as interventional psychiatrists before being allowed to open their doors. Isn't the federal government, by the way, the very entity that, through its cumbersome HIPAA law, made such health records so very hard for anyone to access without a direct doctor-patient relationship or a signed waiver from the patient? Unintended consequences, indeed.
"'It was a diverse group of people who got shot ... so families are grieving in diverse ways,' [Zimmerman] said."
We're extremely sorry, but we simply fail to see what such meaningless PC pap has to do with the debate at hand.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Trapped in the closet
"Staffers with Vice President Joe Biden confined an Orlando Sentinel reporter in a closet this week to keep him from mingling with high-powered guests gathered for a Democratic fundraiser."
Scott Powers was supposed to be the media pool reporter for the event, but he apparently ended up being the "closet reporter" instead.
Why have the press there at all if that's how you're going to treat them?
"Transparency". Don't listen to what the Obama administration says about promoting it, watch instead what they do to stifle it.
The reporter's cushy digs. (Pic via Drudge)
Scott Powers was supposed to be the media pool reporter for the event, but he apparently ended up being the "closet reporter" instead.
Why have the press there at all if that's how you're going to treat them?
"Transparency". Don't listen to what the Obama administration says about promoting it, watch instead what they do to stifle it.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Every law infraction is now "terrorism", at least to certain Feds
A North Carolina man named Bernard von Nothaus was convicted in federal court this past week on charges of coining and distributing his own silver dollars, which violates both the Constitution as well as the U.S. Code.
While his unlawful actions were indeed deserving of punishment, they most certainly did not represent "a unique form of domestic terrorism", as U.S. Attorney Anne M. Tompkins amusingly crowed in her triumphant press release announcing the verdict.
We look forward to seeing what other fairly minor crimes (such as possessing a single found bald eagle feather, maybe?) will be the next dastardly deeds to be breathlessly (and incorrectly) described as "terrorist acts" by such masters of hyperbole as Ms. Tompkins.
While his unlawful actions were indeed deserving of punishment, they most certainly did not represent "a unique form of domestic terrorism", as U.S. Attorney Anne M. Tompkins amusingly crowed in her triumphant press release announcing the verdict.
We look forward to seeing what other fairly minor crimes (such as possessing a single found bald eagle feather, maybe?) will be the next dastardly deeds to be breathlessly (and incorrectly) described as "terrorist acts" by such masters of hyperbole as Ms. Tompkins.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
We won't be silenced
We received our first anonymous death threat the other day, courtesy of a cowardly supporter of Dear Leader:
"I like our president. I used to like you for good commentary on firearms rights. You do understand firearms rights, but you understand nothing else. I hope that ALL conservatives get killed soon. I have tried to reason with you before, and you were even open to discussion once, but now you are a pure, utter, nasty, cruel liar for the wingnuts who want to destroy the Constitution and American freedom.
I live in MN. Stay in AZ. If I find that you have come back up here, watch out; I have firearms too, I know how to use them, and you will not see me coming."
This rant is par for the course for the sorts of leftist thugs and bullies who loudly professed a desire for "civility" and "reasoned discourse" in the wake of the Tucson tragedy, at least until one politely disagrees with their views as well as their idol's political agenda. Then, as we see here, the gloves come off and their true tendencies in favor of censorship and intimidation once again bubble to the surface.
(By the way, thanks for ironically helping to make one of the anti-gun lobby's main arguments for them, numbnuts.)
This troll actually isn't as anonymous as he thinks he is. An alert friend of ours who works in IT has traced the IP address of the commenter, and it appears that our would-be silencer is a Minnesota state government worker (no big surprise there). Our attempt to further ID the person is ongoing.
We decided to do the responsible and prudent thing and report this matter to the Scottsdale Police Department, although we didn't think that action would do much good. Sure enough, Officer Johnson of that agency informs us that Zippy's rantings don't rise to the level of a "direct threat" (although it certainly seems that way to us), happens to be just "Internet talk" and thus we are completely on our own unless further specific statements or actions are made.
We do disagree with Officer Johnson's conclusion and will soon be escalating our criminal complaint to a higher pay grade at SPD, but in the meantime we are perfectly capable of self-protection and refuse to be cowed by this cheap threat. This behavior in our experience is typical of most Obama supporters, as they are intellectually incapable of defending their hero's socialist policies and so must resort to these types of thuggish behaviors out of infantile frustration.
Bullies such as this Obamanoid clown are the reason we fight so hard for the right of everyone in America to be able to lawfully carry firearms for self-defense purposes.
"I like our president. I used to like you for good commentary on firearms rights. You do understand firearms rights, but you understand nothing else. I hope that ALL conservatives get killed soon. I have tried to reason with you before, and you were even open to discussion once, but now you are a pure, utter, nasty, cruel liar for the wingnuts who want to destroy the Constitution and American freedom.
I live in MN. Stay in AZ. If I find that you have come back up here, watch out; I have firearms too, I know how to use them, and you will not see me coming."
This rant is par for the course for the sorts of leftist thugs and bullies who loudly professed a desire for "civility" and "reasoned discourse" in the wake of the Tucson tragedy, at least until one politely disagrees with their views as well as their idol's political agenda. Then, as we see here, the gloves come off and their true tendencies in favor of censorship and intimidation once again bubble to the surface.
(By the way, thanks for ironically helping to make one of the anti-gun lobby's main arguments for them, numbnuts.)
This troll actually isn't as anonymous as he thinks he is. An alert friend of ours who works in IT has traced the IP address of the commenter, and it appears that our would-be silencer is a Minnesota state government worker (no big surprise there). Our attempt to further ID the person is ongoing.
We decided to do the responsible and prudent thing and report this matter to the Scottsdale Police Department, although we didn't think that action would do much good. Sure enough, Officer Johnson of that agency informs us that Zippy's rantings don't rise to the level of a "direct threat" (although it certainly seems that way to us), happens to be just "Internet talk" and thus we are completely on our own unless further specific statements or actions are made.
We do disagree with Officer Johnson's conclusion and will soon be escalating our criminal complaint to a higher pay grade at SPD, but in the meantime we are perfectly capable of self-protection and refuse to be cowed by this cheap threat. This behavior in our experience is typical of most Obama supporters, as they are intellectually incapable of defending their hero's socialist policies and so must resort to these types of thuggish behaviors out of infantile frustration.
Bullies such as this Obamanoid clown are the reason we fight so hard for the right of everyone in America to be able to lawfully carry firearms for self-defense purposes.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Crocodile tears
Minnesota Democratic Congressman Keith Ellison (also variously known by his earlier chosen aliases of Keith Hakim, Keith X. Ellison and Keith Ellison-Muhammad) apparently was a sad panda during Representative Peter King's House hearing yesterday on the disturbing recent increase in radical behavior among some Muslims:
"The congressman tried to hide his tears behind his papers and quickly left the room after his remarks."
Maybe it's us but we think Ellison's convenient photo-op weepfest was just a tad bit disingenuous, especially given his previous apparent self-identification as a Muslim-first individual, plus his promotion of the militant agenda of the Nation of Islam in published articles while in law school as well as being a spokesman for that group, plus his past vigorous defense of such various peace-seeking and bridge-building luminaries as Sharif Willis (convicted murderer and drug lord as well as Minneapolis Vice Lords gang leader), Kathleen Soliah (convicted Weather Underground terrorist) and Khalid Muhammad (virulent racist and anti-Semite NOI leader).
When one looks at his history in that light, it sure seems like Mr. Whoever-He-Is-Now had a significant hand in creating the very problem he now wants the government to overlook, mostly because some people consider it somehow racist to legitimately investigate how the more radical elements of Islam may have influenced such recent events as the attempted New York City car bombing, the Fort Hood massacre, the Saudi student nailed trying to build bombs in Texas and the murder of a soldier at a Little Rock, Arkansas recruiting station. If the Christian Coalition or B'nai B'rith were linked to a similar disturbing rise in violent activities we would want those groups investigated just as thoroughly.
We had the "pleasure" of observing Mr. Ellison in action back when he was a member of the Minnesota Legislature and can personally vouch for his being a rude, opportunistic jerk who isn't the least interested in a dialogue with anyone who disagrees with his narrow agenda.
Hey Keith - did you ever catch up with those years of back taxes and piles of unpaid traffic and parking tickets?
"The congressman tried to hide his tears behind his papers and quickly left the room after his remarks."
Maybe it's us but we think Ellison's convenient photo-op weepfest was just a tad bit disingenuous, especially given his previous apparent self-identification as a Muslim-first individual, plus his promotion of the militant agenda of the Nation of Islam in published articles while in law school as well as being a spokesman for that group, plus his past vigorous defense of such various peace-seeking and bridge-building luminaries as Sharif Willis (convicted murderer and drug lord as well as Minneapolis Vice Lords gang leader), Kathleen Soliah (convicted Weather Underground terrorist) and Khalid Muhammad (virulent racist and anti-Semite NOI leader).
When one looks at his history in that light, it sure seems like Mr. Whoever-He-Is-Now had a significant hand in creating the very problem he now wants the government to overlook, mostly because some people consider it somehow racist to legitimately investigate how the more radical elements of Islam may have influenced such recent events as the attempted New York City car bombing, the Fort Hood massacre, the Saudi student nailed trying to build bombs in Texas and the murder of a soldier at a Little Rock, Arkansas recruiting station. If the Christian Coalition or B'nai B'rith were linked to a similar disturbing rise in violent activities we would want those groups investigated just as thoroughly.
We had the "pleasure" of observing Mr. Ellison in action back when he was a member of the Minnesota Legislature and can personally vouch for his being a rude, opportunistic jerk who isn't the least interested in a dialogue with anyone who disagrees with his narrow agenda.
Hey Keith - did you ever catch up with those years of back taxes and piles of unpaid traffic and parking tickets?
Monday, March 07, 2011
Another campaign promise gets tossed into the circular file
"Obama to resume military commission trials for Guantanamo detainees"
The very "habeas corpus-suspending" trials that Dear Leader railed so stridently against when President Bush was in charge of national security, mind you:
Apparently these complete embarrassments to our world reputation are once again quite lawful, at least now that it's convenient for the Constitutional Professor to deem them so.
"But on Monday, Obama directed Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to 'issue an order rescinding his prior suspension on the swearing and referring of new charges in the military commissions.'"
You almost have to feel sorry for the man. The job is obviously far too difficult for him so he simply defaults to the policies of his hated predecessor, even though he was elected on a specific platform of ending them as soon as possible.
Another promise broken. How many does that make now?
The very "habeas corpus-suspending" trials that Dear Leader railed so stridently against when President Bush was in charge of national security, mind you:
Apparently these complete embarrassments to our world reputation are once again quite lawful, at least now that it's convenient for the Constitutional Professor to deem them so.
"But on Monday, Obama directed Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to 'issue an order rescinding his prior suspension on the swearing and referring of new charges in the military commissions.'"
You almost have to feel sorry for the man. The job is obviously far too difficult for him so he simply defaults to the policies of his hated predecessor, even though he was elected on a specific platform of ending them as soon as possible.
Another promise broken. How many does that make now?
Saturday, February 12, 2011
We don't care what you think
Someone named Oprah Winfrey has taken some time out from lecturing middle-aged soccer moms about the latest book they need to read or what healthy foods they should be eating (heh) to chastise the rest of us to "show [President Obama] some level of respect" because "I feel that everybody has a learning curve".
She apparently thinks the Presidency should be one of those "earn while you learn" kind of apprentice positions that are advertised in the local weekly paper.
We always knew the freshman junior senator from Illinois didn't have the most basic knowledge and experience to occupy the Oval Office, and now we know that at least one of his most fervent supporters didn't think so as well. This makes us wonder why she backed him in the first place, besides the obvious facts that they both are from Chicago and that their skin tones are quite similar.
It will be very interesting to observe if Ms. Winfrey will feel the same way about allowing people to grow into the highest office in America should someone such as, say, Sarah Palin run and win in 2012. Yeah, right.
Sorry, oh Guru to the Perimenopausal. Respect is earned by exhibiting good character and a high level of competence over a significant period of time, and it cannot simply be granted by ordering people to do so the same way you direct your audience to buy a certain product or service.
Now go back to mindlessly gushing about "Your Favorite Things" and the latest shopping trip with your BFF.
She apparently thinks the Presidency should be one of those "earn while you learn" kind of apprentice positions that are advertised in the local weekly paper.
We always knew the freshman junior senator from Illinois didn't have the most basic knowledge and experience to occupy the Oval Office, and now we know that at least one of his most fervent supporters didn't think so as well. This makes us wonder why she backed him in the first place, besides the obvious facts that they both are from Chicago and that their skin tones are quite similar.
It will be very interesting to observe if Ms. Winfrey will feel the same way about allowing people to grow into the highest office in America should someone such as, say, Sarah Palin run and win in 2012. Yeah, right.
Sorry, oh Guru to the Perimenopausal. Respect is earned by exhibiting good character and a high level of competence over a significant period of time, and it cannot simply be granted by ordering people to do so the same way you direct your audience to buy a certain product or service.
Now go back to mindlessly gushing about "Your Favorite Things" and the latest shopping trip with your BFF.
Sunday, February 06, 2011
Shut up and lip-synch
(With apologies to Laura Ingraham)
The halftime hired talent at the Super Bowl decided to get in a little politicking whilst halfheartedly performing their medley of semi-famous tunes:
“In America we need to get things straight / Obama, let’s get these kids educated / Create jobs so the country stays stimulated.”
Because Dear Leader's obviously done such a bang-up job so far of sticking his fingers in things he knows absolutely nothing about. Education and the economy, for instance.
The Black Eyed Peas have to get it through their pea-brains that national government officials educate no one and create nothing - ordinary Americans do. Next time how about singing about asking incompetent meddling politicians stay out of the way so that people can succeed or fail based on their own efforts and merit?
The halftime hired talent at the Super Bowl decided to get in a little politicking whilst halfheartedly performing their medley of semi-famous tunes:
“In America we need to get things straight / Obama, let’s get these kids educated / Create jobs so the country stays stimulated.”
Because Dear Leader's obviously done such a bang-up job so far of sticking his fingers in things he knows absolutely nothing about. Education and the economy, for instance.
The Black Eyed Peas have to get it through their pea-brains that national government officials educate no one and create nothing - ordinary Americans do. Next time how about singing about asking incompetent meddling politicians stay out of the way so that people can succeed or fail based on their own efforts and merit?
Wednesday, February 02, 2011
Your convenient usefulness is at an end, media idiots
The White House Correspondents Association has lodged a formal protest about being shut out of the very events they're supposed to be covering for the public:
"In a letter to Press Sec. Robert Gibbs, the WHCA Board complained about their lack of access to the President throughout the crisis in Egypt and outlined their request to open today’s treaty signing to the White House pool."
The President has once again blatantly ignored his vow of "transparency", this time to the enablers who couldn't find a single thing about him to criticize him during his ascension to the Oval Office. Oh, how the worm has turned.
Well, this is what naturally happens when the mainstream media finally finds their guts and quits being overt cheerleaders for such a narcissistic demagogue of a politician - the access and photo-ops dry up. Did they really expect something different to happen?
"In a letter to Press Sec. Robert Gibbs, the WHCA Board complained about their lack of access to the President throughout the crisis in Egypt and outlined their request to open today’s treaty signing to the White House pool."
The President has once again blatantly ignored his vow of "transparency", this time to the enablers who couldn't find a single thing about him to criticize him during his ascension to the Oval Office. Oh, how the worm has turned.
Well, this is what naturally happens when the mainstream media finally finds their guts and quits being overt cheerleaders for such a narcissistic demagogue of a politician - the access and photo-ops dry up. Did they really expect something different to happen?
Tuesday, February 01, 2011
The hubris of the arrogant and thick-headed who presume to rule us
Dear Leader's steamrolling-over-rights administration is apparently not going to let a little thing like a federal judge's ruling declaring Obamacare to be unconstitutional (and thus rendering the entire law null and void) prevent them from implementing their precious little Ponzi scheme:
"Noting that the judge did not order the government to stop implementing the law, a senior administration source said 'implementation will proceed at pace.'"
We'll see about that, Mr. President.
"Stephanie Cutter, Deputy Senior Advisor to the president, issued a blog statement pushing back at the judge’s ruling that Congress cannot force individuals to buy health insurance. She said the Constitution authorizes Congress to regulate commerce."
Once again, Ms. Cutter, we feel the need to patiently explain, in a way that even political hacks like yourself can understand, that there's an enormous difference between regulating commerce and the act of forcing someone into participating in that same transaction.
Obamacare is a dead law walking, thanks in part to Judge Vinson's well-reasoned and (to our untrained legal eyes) very difficult-to-overturn decision as well as Mitch McConnell's upcoming attempt this week to force a Senate vote on repeal. It's just a matter of time before the zombie-like remains are buried for good.
"Noting that the judge did not order the government to stop implementing the law, a senior administration source said 'implementation will proceed at pace.'"
We'll see about that, Mr. President.
"Stephanie Cutter, Deputy Senior Advisor to the president, issued a blog statement pushing back at the judge’s ruling that Congress cannot force individuals to buy health insurance. She said the Constitution authorizes Congress to regulate commerce."
Once again, Ms. Cutter, we feel the need to patiently explain, in a way that even political hacks like yourself can understand, that there's an enormous difference between regulating commerce and the act of forcing someone into participating in that same transaction.
Obamacare is a dead law walking, thanks in part to Judge Vinson's well-reasoned and (to our untrained legal eyes) very difficult-to-overturn decision as well as Mitch McConnell's upcoming attempt this week to force a Senate vote on repeal. It's just a matter of time before the zombie-like remains are buried for good.
Friday, January 28, 2011
That's all you can come up with?
"Virginia Democratic Rep. Jim Moran is blaming his party's losses last November in large part on voters who 'don't want to be governed by an African-American.'"
Moron Moran is rapidly approaching Bidenesque-levels of foot-in-mouth disease.
That statement is completely false, both here as well as everywhere else in the country save for a few blockheads leftover from the Dark Ages. We would be ecstatic if the White House were occupied by Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Herman Cain or any other of a large group of freedom-promoting, fiscally-conservative individuals who, by the way, coincidentally happen to be black. Our problem with the current president is solely his collectivist ideology, not his skin color. Moran might as well accuse us of not being approving of Obama because his ears are too big. That argument's just as silly.
"'In this case a lot of people in this country, it's my belief, don't want to be governed by an African-American, particularly one who is inclusive, who is liberal, who wants to spend money on everyone and who wants to reach out to include everyone in our society. And that's a basic philosophical clash,' Moran said." (Emphasis ours)
Well, Moran got the bold part of the quote correct in any event. We indeed don't want Dear Leader to "spend money on everyone", mostly because it isn't his cash that he's handing out like candy in the guise of "investments" to his core supporters such as labor unions in return for votes.
Shame on the Congressman for attempting to label peoples' genuine political differences with the Democratic Party and the Obama Administration as mere race-baiting. It does demonstrate, though, that liberals such as him have no intellectual arguments left and are thus forced to engage in such despicable behavior in a desperate attempt to salvage what's left of the tattered "Hope and Change" agenda.
That statement is completely false, both here as well as everywhere else in the country save for a few blockheads leftover from the Dark Ages. We would be ecstatic if the White House were occupied by Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Herman Cain or any other of a large group of freedom-promoting, fiscally-conservative individuals who, by the way, coincidentally happen to be black. Our problem with the current president is solely his collectivist ideology, not his skin color. Moran might as well accuse us of not being approving of Obama because his ears are too big. That argument's just as silly.
"'In this case a lot of people in this country, it's my belief, don't want to be governed by an African-American, particularly one who is inclusive, who is liberal, who wants to spend money on everyone and who wants to reach out to include everyone in our society. And that's a basic philosophical clash,' Moran said." (Emphasis ours)
Well, Moran got the bold part of the quote correct in any event. We indeed don't want Dear Leader to "spend money on everyone", mostly because it isn't his cash that he's handing out like candy in the guise of "investments" to his core supporters such as labor unions in return for votes.
Shame on the Congressman for attempting to label peoples' genuine political differences with the Democratic Party and the Obama Administration as mere race-baiting. It does demonstrate, though, that liberals such as him have no intellectual arguments left and are thus forced to engage in such despicable behavior in a desperate attempt to salvage what's left of the tattered "Hope and Change" agenda.
Way to go again, Joe
"I would not refer to him as a dictator."
Good ol' Vice President Joe Biden, doing what he does best by running off at the mouth once again, this time about Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who has autocratically ruled that country since 1981 by keeping the country in a permanent "State of Emergency" and not allowing a multiparty election until 2005, after being heavily pressured by the rest of the world to have one.
Mubarak is generally acknowledged to have fixed that election, and he definitely had the runner-up jailed for forgery after he dared to protest about the rampant vote-rigging (America complained about that, at least). The press there is regularly muzzled, corruption is widespread and it's rumored that Mubarak's son Gamal is being groomed to take over the presidency once Hosni kicks off. If that's not a dictatorship we'd shudder to see what a real one looks like.
Let's let Parade magazine, which regularly features Mubarak as one of the "World's Worst Dictators" (he's currently Number 20) , inform us about this man's regime from his previous mentions on that list:
"According to the U.S. State Department, Mubarak has the ability to transfer any criminal case from the civilian judicial system to a military court, and the use of torture by his officials is common. In recent months journalists have been jailed for 'insulting the president.'" (2007 ranking)
...
"The use of torture in Egypt has been widely documented. In response to international pressure, Mubarak allowed local elections in 2008, but in 80% of the contests, his party’s candidates ran unopposed. He made it so difficult to register or campaign that turnout was estimated at only 3%." (2010 ranking)
The Egyptian people have some very real reasons to be rioting in the streets. They want to be free. Biden, alas, can only offer up the following mush-mouthed pap in reaction:
"Biden urged non-violence from both protesters and the government and said: 'We’re encouraging the protesters to – as they assemble, do it peacefully. And we’re encouraging the government to act responsibly and – and to try to engage in a discussion as to what the legitimate claims being made are, if they are, and try to work them out.'"
Got that? If any of the peasants' grievances are legitimate. As Dan Murphy of the Monitor article opines,
"Egypt's protesters, if they're paying attention to Biden at all, will certainly be wondering which of their demands thus far have been illegitimate."
Word.
We don't care how much of a "good neighbor" in the Middle East Egypt has been for us. The U.S. should not prop up dictators as part of its foreign policy. Period.
Good ol' Vice President Joe Biden, doing what he does best by running off at the mouth once again, this time about Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who has autocratically ruled that country since 1981 by keeping the country in a permanent "State of Emergency" and not allowing a multiparty election until 2005, after being heavily pressured by the rest of the world to have one.
Mubarak is generally acknowledged to have fixed that election, and he definitely had the runner-up jailed for forgery after he dared to protest about the rampant vote-rigging (America complained about that, at least). The press there is regularly muzzled, corruption is widespread and it's rumored that Mubarak's son Gamal is being groomed to take over the presidency once Hosni kicks off. If that's not a dictatorship we'd shudder to see what a real one looks like.
Let's let Parade magazine, which regularly features Mubarak as one of the "World's Worst Dictators" (he's currently Number 20) , inform us about this man's regime from his previous mentions on that list:
"According to the U.S. State Department, Mubarak has the ability to transfer any criminal case from the civilian judicial system to a military court, and the use of torture by his officials is common. In recent months journalists have been jailed for 'insulting the president.'" (2007 ranking)
...
"The use of torture in Egypt has been widely documented. In response to international pressure, Mubarak allowed local elections in 2008, but in 80% of the contests, his party’s candidates ran unopposed. He made it so difficult to register or campaign that turnout was estimated at only 3%." (2010 ranking)
The Egyptian people have some very real reasons to be rioting in the streets. They want to be free. Biden, alas, can only offer up the following mush-mouthed pap in reaction:
"Biden urged non-violence from both protesters and the government and said: 'We’re encouraging the protesters to – as they assemble, do it peacefully. And we’re encouraging the government to act responsibly and – and to try to engage in a discussion as to what the legitimate claims being made are, if they are, and try to work them out.'"
Got that? If any of the peasants' grievances are legitimate. As Dan Murphy of the Monitor article opines,
"Egypt's protesters, if they're paying attention to Biden at all, will certainly be wondering which of their demands thus far have been illegitimate."
Word.
We don't care how much of a "good neighbor" in the Middle East Egypt has been for us. The U.S. should not prop up dictators as part of its foreign policy. Period.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
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.
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.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
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.
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.
Sunday, January 09, 2011
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.
"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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
