Tuesday, December 6, 2011


It seems President Obama is now attempting to channel Theodore Roosevelt.  Sure, why not?  It's amazing how many former presidents he (or the ever-fawning media) has tried to model himself after - it started with the comparisons to FDR and JFK, but continued with quite laughable attempts to connect him to Reagan and even Harry Truman.  Now, I have to say, there is a bit of a similarity on that last one, but not the bogus "Do Nothing Congress" angle he's been working for all he's worth.  No, the real similarity is that both are responsible for dropping huge bombs that crippled nations - Japan, in Truman's case, and the American economy via Porkulus, over regulation and Obamacare in Obama's.  Unfortunately for President Obama, the rising consensus is that, performance-wise, he is a far closer match to Carter than any of the giants with whom he has attempted parity.

Tuesday, November 29, 2011


(sung to Jimmy Buffet's Margaritaville)

Nibblin' on soy cake
Man, I am so baked
All of those hippies covered with paint
Bangin' my drum kit
I bet you hate it
The smell might make you want to faint


Wasted today again in my Obamaville
Lookin' for my last baggie of pot
Some people say that it's just Wall Street to blame
All I know is it's not government's fault

I don't know the reason
Private property seizing
Nothin' to show but some lice and some fleas
But I got of easy
I'm not that sleazy
So at least I don't have STD's


Wasted today again in my Obamaville
Lookin' for my last baggie of pot
Some people say that it's just Wall Street to blame
Now I think
It might be government's fault

Government fat cats
Gettin' their kickbacks
I'll wash yours if you wash mine
How can this not be
Laundering money
Robbin' the taxpayers blind


Wasted today again in my Obamaville
Lookin' for my last baggie of pot
Some people say that it's just Wall Street to blame
Now I know it's crony government's fault
Some people say that it's just Wall Street to blame
But I know it's crony government's fault

Cross Posted at Sisterhood of the Mommy Patriots

Wednesday, October 19, 2011


I'm going to keep this short and sweet because I am absolutely sick and tired of this demagogic crap.

VP Joe Biden once again claimed that people who oppose President Obama's so-terrible-even-the-democratic-majority-senate-won't-pass-it American Jobs Act apparently don't mind if people are raped or murdered because of the lack of cops on the beat due to budget cuts.  (Doesn't that mean he's criticizing his own party?)

Wednesday, October 5, 2011


Crony Capitalism in five easy steps!

Step One:  Warren Buffet, after a conversation with President Obama, loaned Bank of America $5 billion, even though BofA was protesting loudly that they were sound and didn't need a bailout. 

Step Two:  Bank of America makes headlines by deciding to pass on the costs of the Frank-n-Dodd regulations to their account holders (as opponents of the law forecast last summer) in the form of a $5 per month fee for use of debit cards (not including ATM withdrawals).  Rest assured the other banks will be following suit - after BofA takes the heat for them, of course.

Thursday, August 18, 2011


Well, there is now officially a new standard on crazy, and it was set by a highly respected, prize-winning progressive.  Nobel laureate (in economics) and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman came out with quite a suggestion this week on CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS" dealing with the economy and what might help us climb out of the economic death spiral we find ourselves in.  It was quite an eye opener, to say the least.  But first, a little background.

Monday, August 8, 2011


Call me old fashioned, but in times of national crisis I, like many Americans, take comfort from hearing words of wisdom from my president.  When the world seems to be on fire or collapsing around our ears, when tragic events unfold, we have always had the calming influence of our appointed leader to guide us through the dark times.

Until now.

Friday, July 29, 2011


I was going to post this as an update to my last post on Operation Fast and Furious but decided it was so important that it needed it's own post.

In testimony this week, Bill Newell, the Special Agent in Charge of the Phoenix office stated to investigators that he had sent an email to a longtime friend in the White House that included information on Operation Fast and Furious.  Eh, no big deal, right?  A low-level exchange of information between friends that never went beyond their circle of two.

Monday, July 11, 2011


Rep. Darryl Issa (R-CA) has been relentlessly attempting to unravel the Gordian Knot that is Operation Fast and Furious (aka Gunwalker) since he took over the chairmanship of the House Oversight Committee.  This absolute clusterfark of an operation is utterly irredeemable.  At best, it is an egregious example of how badly an operation can be mismanaged.  At worst, it is a high level endeavor that allowed high powered weaponry to get in the hands of drug cartels, possibly for the sole purpose of spiking violence in order to implement stricter federal gun control laws in this country.

It is certainly a remarkable coincidence that the guns President Obama spoke of regulating back in  2009 - AK-47 type assault rifles and Barrett .50 BMG sniper rifles - are at the heart of the violent crisis on the border and are the very guns involved in Gunwalker (Pajamas Media has a great back story on this theory).  In fact, this operation is such a catastrophe that the Mexican government is demanding answers.  Having lost somewhere in the neighborhood of 150 agents to those weapons over the past eighteen months, you can't really blame them.

Initial attempts at keeping the blame limited to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) only have failed miserably.  As more sun shines down on this ugly piece of business, more agencies are shown to have their fingers in the pie.  It's a veritable vegetable soup - ATF, DEA, FBI, DHS and DoJ.  Can you spell "C-O-L-L-U-S-I-O-N"?

The premise of the operation was simple: track weapons dealers and the path of the guns they bought over the border and into the hands of the Mexican drug cartels.  These sorts of stings are done frequently by law enforcement officers around the country.  Because these guns were going to be tracked across the southern border the operation was put into the hands of the ATF, with oversight by the Department of Justice.  Sounds pretty straightforward, doesn't it? 

Yeah, not so much. 

First off, the "dealers" they were tracking turned out to be FBI informants already.  Ooopsie.  Which means the main premise for the operation was moot from the get-go.  But fear not, they still poured two years, $10 million and countless man hours into the endeavor.  Oh, and the life of one border patrol agent and several thousand Mexican citizens, not that they count in the grand scheme.  Ah, the gentle efficiencies of the government juggernaut....

Second, for some reason no one has been able to explain, ATF was told to cease surveillance of the approximately 1,765 guns once they left the hands of the dealers.   They were not to follow them on their trip across the border to their final destination, they were not to gather intel on the final buyer and they were not to work with the Mexican government on the sting.  The official line is that the ATF (aka "The Scapegoat") "lost track of" the weapons.  In reality, there are memos and sworn testimony that show that the ATF was instructed to cease surveillance of the weapons.  ATF Director Kenneth Melson (aka "The Patsy") isn't exactly willing to take the fall, as his secret testimony shows.

By the way, did I mention this wonderful $10 million program was funded by the stimulus bill (just for that extra dollop of outrage).  Unfortunately this operation might possibly end up being one of the biggest job creators in that boondoggle of a bill.  Just think of all the additional police, border agents, forensics personnel, nurses, doctors, paramedics, undertakers, coffin makers and gravestone carvers who saw a big jump in demand as a direct result of Fast and Furious.

Now that the scandal is starting to gain traction in the press and the investigation is gaining speed in Congress, the stench of cover-up has become strong:

The question now, as Mr. Hume so succinctly put it, was who knew what, and when?  How high does this go?  At this point, it looks like Attorney General Eric Holder's fingerprints are all over this - not just for his role in Gunwalker, but also his not so subtle attempts at obstructing the investigation.  Primarily, though, Holder denied long-time knowledge of the program when he gave sworn testimony to the House Oversight and Government Reform committee back in May, but it seems there may have been some perjury "misspeaking" going on (via CNS News):

At the May 3 Judiciary Committee hearing, Issa asked Holder: “When did you first know about the program officially, I believe, called Fast and Furious? To the best of your knowledge, what date?”

Holder responded: “I’m not sure of the exact date, but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks.”

Is that your final answer, Mr. Holder (via Big Government)? 

 (...) the problem with Holder’s feigned ignorance is that he gave a speech in Cuernavaca, Mexico, on April 2, 2009, in which he boasted about Operation “Gunrunner” and told Mexican authorities of everything he was doing to insure its success.

Holder told the audience:

Last week, our administration launched a major new effort to break the backs of the cartels. My department is committing 100 new ATF personnel to the Southwest border in the next 100 days to supplement our ongoing Project Gunrunner, DEA is adding 16 new positions on the border, as well as mobile enforcement teams, and the FBI is creating a new intelligence group focusing on kidnapping and extortion.

Please note the inclusion of DEA, FBI and DHS in that 2009 speech, by Holders own admittance.  Make no mistake, this thing is huge, and it's not going anywhere.  If the mainstream press has a shred of investigative instincts left to them, they will start working this story.  Hume's comments are right, this does have the air of a Watergate.  But bigger.   

So far it looks like We the People might  be needing some pretty top-level positions filled in the coming months.  DoJ for sure.  Holder's goose is cooked, and it's only a matter of time until he is either pressured by President Obama or has a 'moment of clarity' and resigns.  How high up in DHS - all the way to Napolitano?  What about the FBI?  Higher?  As the above referenced Pajamas Media piece so aptly put it:

At the same time in 2009 that federal law enforcement agencies (the ATF, the DOJ, and presumably Janet Napolitano’s Department of Homeland Security) were creating the operation that led to the executive branch being the largest gun smuggler in the Southwest, the president’s team was crafting the rhetoric to sell the crisis they were creating.

On television, in various news outlets, and even in a joint appearance with Mexican President Felipe Calderon, Obama pushed the 90 percent lie, implying that 90% of the guns recovered in Mexican cartel violence came from U.S. gun shops.

At the same time they were damning gun dealers in public, the administration was secretly forcing them to provide weapons to the cartels, by the armful and without oversight. More than one gun industry insider suggests that the administration extorted cooperation and silence from these gun shops. As the ATF has the power to summarily shut dealers down for the most minor of offenses, that is very, very possible.

Does it go all the way to the top?  Only time and a lot more investigation will tell.  You can be sure there will have to be some pretty concrete evidence to even think of directly implicating the President in this thing (please note Owens' use of "team" when describing who fashioned Obama's rhetoric), so don't plan on DVRing an Obama "I am not a crook" moment any time soon.   But there is a lesson here already, and we're no where near the end of this journey.  The lesson here is that these are the policies we get when the policy makers follow the teachings of Cloward/Piven and Saul Alinsky.  This is a textbook illustration of a worst-case scenario result to an "ends justify the means" method of policy decisions, right down to the innocent blood on the hands of the decision makers.

Keep your eye on this story, folks.  By the time Issa is done with his investigation, the administration may never be the same.

UPDATE: And so it begins.

Sunday, June 5, 2011


Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid recently said (via the L.A. Times):

"There's no need to have a Democratic budget in my opinion," Reid said in an interview Thursday. "It would be foolish for us to do a budget at this stage."

Let me repeat that last bit: "It would be foolish for us to do a budget at this stage". Really? The Senate has not passed a budget in over 750 days - more than two years.  Isn't that a bit foolish, Sen. Reid?  Passing a budget is essential for the economic health of this country.  Not doing so would mean a repeat of the squabbling over bi-weekly continuing resolutions from earlier in the year, something we can ill afford to do again.

What Reid is willing to do is finally bring the House-passed 2012 Ryan budget proposal up for a vote, where it was voted down 57-40.  Why, all of a sudden, was he ready to bring the bill to the floor after letting it languish for more than a month?  He was striking while the political iron was hot, of course.  The NY-26 special election republican loss is being spun as a referendum against Rep. Paul Ryan's budget, particularly his take on Medicare reform.  Reid's only motive is to get republicans on record as voting for the budget so it can be used against them in the wider mediscare campaign democrats are going to embark on in the coming months in a desperate effort to keep their majority.  It's all about politicking, not the well-being of the nation.

Reid also brought President Obama's original budget proposal introduced back in February to the floor for a vote shortly after the vote on the Ryan plan, where it was defeated 97-0.  In fact, the Senate voted down not two but four budget proposals that day, without offering up even the merest hint of a plan of their own.  And try as they might to paint Rep. Ryan's proposal as "radical", it still fared a heck of a lot better than Obama's.  You'll be shocked - shocked - to learn there is zero media coverage of the complete repudiation of Obama's fiscal plans for 2012 - only the failure on party lines of the extremely extreme, radically radical Ryan proposal. 

Now that Senate democrats have put the kybosh on those budget proposals, one would expect them to introduce one of their own.  That's normally how things work.  It's really the heart of the negotiating process.  Obama's own fiscal commission cautioned against exactly what is going on right now in the preamble to their report:

"Don’t shoot down an idea without offering a better idea in its place."

So what does Reid offer in place of the budgets he just voted down?  Nothing.  Squat.  Zippo.  Nada.  Zilch.  Well, aside from the usual demagoguing, of course.  Demagoguery is rather like jello for left-wingers - there's always room for some.  Unfortunately, it makes it seem like the welfare of this country and it's people is not at the top of the list of priorities for this administration.  The agenda must be implemented, no matter how much pain it inflicts (or how vehemently it is rejected).

It's tempting to make the case for incompetence as an excuse for this bizarre budgetary inaction in the face of a potential double-dip recession.  The thing is, who's going to buy that almost an entire administration is incompetent?  It then begs the question: Does incompetency on such a grand scale deserve to be in power?

President Obama's own fiscal commission co-chair, Erskine Bowles, has called the coming fiscal collapse:

“the most predictable economic crisis in history.”

And yet, even now, this administration refuses to make any serious proposals, or even tap the brakes on the runaway spending.  Obama's 2012 budget proposal, introduced well after the fiscal commission gave it's recommendations to bring down spending and fast, actually increased spending by $200 billion over the most recent budget democrats passed - for FY 2010.  Yup, his own commission strongly recommended immediate, deep spending cuts - including entitlement spending - and Obama's response was to increase spending in his budget proposal.  Incompetence or willful negligence?

Steny Hoyer is on the record saying we are not broke and Harry Reid is lamenting the possible loss of funding for such vital necessities as cowboy poetry at the hands of those mean-spirited old republican meanie-heads.  President Obama is jetting around the globe shaking hands, kissing babies and ignoring such petty details as debt ceilings and budgets in favor of promising aid we can't afford.  In fact - and this is a longstanding issue that predates Obama but which has only increased under his administration - it turns out that there is quite a circle jerk going on with foreign aid.  We give financial aid to wealthy nations and then ask to borrow back ten times as much.  Talk about insanity!  Wall Street is faltering (if a 279 point one-day drop  and the longest slump since 2004 can be called something as mild as 'faltering'), house prices continue to tumble, inflation has caused Memorial Day celebrations to cost an estimated 29% more this year than last, gas is still over $3.60 per gallon, unemployment is back up to 9.1%, manufacturing is down, consumer confidence is dropping and experts are starting to talk about a double-dip recession again - even liberal ones

Demagoguing the issue will only be tolerated for so long; certainly not all the way up to the election .  Even some liberal talking heads are starting to remark on the lack of a fiscal plan from the left.  It's time for Harry Reid and President Obama to get serious and put up a plan for getting us out of this mess instead of just attacking others.  What sounds like great politicking inside the beltway looks like a complete disregard for the economy and the people suffering under it outside the beltway.

It's time for a democratic plan that can be compared to the republican's offerings.  Negotiation requires that both parties bring something to the table.  What is going on now is nothing more than fiddling while Rome burns.  It is said that Nero allowed Rome to burn so that he could rebuild it to his specifications.  Sound familiar?

Wednesday, May 18, 2011


Two hundred and four new Obamacare waivers were issued by the Obama Administration last month, for a grand total of more than thirteen hundred waivers.  Of those 204, thirty-eight - nearly twenty percent - went to Nancy Pelosi's home district, namely to high-end establishments like TRU Spa - the "best day spa in San Francisco" -  posh restaurants boasting $50+ entrees, luxury hotels and nightclubs.  These latest waiver recipients join quite a long list of previous waiver winners, a majority of which seem to be comprised predominantly of labor unions and democrat supporters (but I repeat myself). 

This is bad optics on two levels.  First, it once again illustrates how deeply the corruption and cronyism goes in this administration.  Considering we are entering what is sure to be a contentious election cycle, exempting businesses in her district make it look like Pelosi is doing favors in return for local support.  Whether that assertion is true or not is moot - perception is reality, and this looks really bad.  You can rest assured, though, that conservatives will be watching those businesses during the election cycle to see what level of financial support they offer her campaign.  There will also most likely be increased scrutiny (and lots of google mapping) of waiver winners to find other potentially advantageous groupings elsewhere.

Second, it illustrates what a mess the healthcare legislation really is - it was supposed to bring down costs and provide access to coverage for everyone but instead costs have continued to rise and people who currently have insurance now find it threatened.  Even staunch supporters are looking for an escape hatch.

Pelosi's response is that criticism of the waivers is "pathetic" (please note the usual Alinskyesque derision):

"It is pathetic that there are those who would be cheering for Americans to lose their minimum health coverage or see their premiums increase for political purposes. These waivers are reviewed and granted solely by the Administration in an open and transparent process so workers currently enrolled in 'mini-med' policies like those in San Francisco and across the country will not be punished and lose the minimum coverage they already have. These waivers will be eliminated in 2014 when Americans will have an opportunity to shop for affordable coverage on the health exchanges and will no longer be at the mercy of insurance companies placing coverage limits on policies.

The complaints coming from this crowd that supports ending Medicare is just another example of putting politics first."

What is really pathetic is her spin on this issue.  It almost sounds like she is slamming her own legislation - "It is pathetic that there are those who would be cheering for Americans to lose their minimum health coverage or see their premiums increase for political purposes."  That line could also be used to describe the jubilation with which she celebrated the passage of that horrible bill.  Her attempt to make her critics look bad in reality only makes her signature piece of legislation look like what it is - an over-reaching, unsustainable jumble of crippling regulations that is so bad that it requires exemption.  Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) said the waivers constitute:

..."tacit admission that the health care law is fundamentally flawed."
"Despite the president's promise, it appears that just because you like your health care plan does not mean that the administration will allow you to keep it," Upton said.

And to think this 'historically bad legislation' is the thing in which this administration is most proud.  Now that's pathetic.

Many of the groups that received waivers were some of the biggest, most vocal supporters of the legislation - particularly the labor unions.  The fact that they are now getting waivers is no surprise, however.  After all, they already got one heck of a concession before the bill was ever even passed.  This was after a failed attempt to exempt them from the law altogether.  But fear not, union cronies - this administration is adept at making end runs around things they find inconvenient.  Since they couldn't exempt them directly in the legislation, they will simply hand out waivers instead.  That waivers are now being given at this level begs the question, who really is yoked to this harness?  So far, it seems only those opposed to the law are being forced to comply - almost like a punishment. 

The waivers are for only one year! supporters will cry.  But congress just loooooves to extend things, like debt ceilings, the Patriot Act, and Pelosi's personal favorite, continuing resolutions - CRs must be her favorite, since she seemed to prefer them to passing an actual budget last year.  This desire to continue things ad infinitum is evident in their deep and abiding affection for tenure (or is perhaps an explanation for it).  The waivers are only available in yearly increments until 2014, but, if past experience is any indication, that date, too, will be extended.

What is becoming more and more evident is that under the Obama/Pelosi/Reid triumvirate, there are two laws of the land - one for the average Joe, and another for the administration and their supporters. 

Tuesday, May 3, 2011


Well, it's now been two days since Osama bin Laden was sent off to meet his 72 virgins, which, of course, means the politicization is really racheting up.  Democrats are, naturally, trying to give the credit to President Obama.  Republicans are reminding them that without the interrogation policies set up under President Bush, none of this would have happened.  Quite a tug of war, and each side has a point.

The Washington bubble is a remarkable thing, isn't it?  You'd almost think Obama fast-roped himself out of the chopper and double-tapped Osama personally - after GWB ushered him personally into the compound. 

No, the real heroes responsible for this awesome get are the nameless, faceless men and women of our intelligence and military forces.  Bush gave the order to collect and disseminate intelligence, and Obama gave the order to go into Abbottabad.  But everything else that has happened over the course of the past 4-6 years, particularly what happened in that compound, was due entirely to career intelligence and military personnel.  Period.

This isn't a victory for Obama or the democrats, and it isn't a victory for Bush and republicans.  It's a victory for the American people.  It was our sons and daughters, our sisters and brothers, husbands and wives, who put together the information, geared up and went in to do what needed to be done. 

It's all well and good that our Commanders-in-Chief gave some orders, but words aren't what got it done.  Deeds are, and those deeds were done by Navy SEALs and CIA intelligence officers.

To those fine men and women, I offer my deepest, most heartfelt thanks and gratitude.  Without their tireless, non-partisan efforts over a period of several years, we wouldn't be out in the streets shouting our relief to the heavens.  Aside from a few college students in front of the White House Sunday night who were chanting "Four more years", the majority of Americans were chanting "U-S-A!" because it was a victory for all of us.  This jockeying for credit in DC is an embarrassment.  True heroes decline to take credit for the deeds they've done, or at the very least attempt to spread the accolades around. 

But then, why in the world would I expect heroic behavior from the denizens of DC?  Silly me.

Monday, May 2, 2011


Osama bin Laden is dead.  God bless America and our fantastic fighting men and women!  According to reports, a Navy SEAL team got him (GO NAVY!!), one of his sons, and Osama's youngest wife who, in the tradition of cowardly terrorists everywhere, was used as a human shield.   

Interestingly, bin Laden was found at a massive fortress deep in Pakistan.  Apparently, he was in a million dollar complex complete with 18 foot tall, barbed-wire topped walls in Abbottabad, Pakistan.  If the Pakistani government didn't know he was there, I'll eat my hat, since Abbottabad is an affluent suburb about 35 miles outside of Pakistan's capitol of Islamabad.  On top of that, the compound was a few hundred yards from a Pakistani military training center.  Go figure.  Some of the questions we will be demanding answers to in the coming days will certainly include a few on who in the Pakistani government knew what and when. 

There were parties going on last night in front of the White House, in Times Square, and at the campuses of both West Point and Annapolis.  One would imagine the Annapolis celebration will be going on for quite a while - the Navy certainly has a prize scalp to bolster morale and they will surely be revelling in it.

Reports are still conflicting, but what seems to be coming clear is that this victory is going to bring up some hard truths that some on the left might not like.  Most importantly, much of the intelligence that got us this victory started out, four years ago, as information received from Gitmo detainees at the hands of interrogators.  It will be interesting to see how that narrative develops in the coming weeks.  Hopefully those practices will be seen as the necessary evil that they are now that they have been instrumental in bringing Public Enemy #1 to justice. 

This victory has many fathers - most notably the CIA and SEAL Team Six, who developed the intel and kept their eyes on the prize.  The lion's share of credit goes to them, along with the thanks of a grateful nation.  Credit should also be given to both the Obama administration for making the call to go into Pakistan (quite a risky call, to be sure - kudos, Mr. President) and the Bush administration for extracting the initial information four years ago that put us on the path to Abbottabad in the first place.

The joyous crowds filling the streets of NYC and Washington DC last night were just the beginning.  As people wake up to the news today, there are sure to be many more celebrations across the country.  This event has come at a time when we desperately needed unity.  The divisiveness of the political scene and the economic fears gripping the nation will be put aside, at least for today, so that we can celebrate this major victory and remember that we're all in it together.  This surge of pride in America is a welcome thing, and something that hopefully will not fade away any time soon.

In five months, we will be observing the 10th anniversary of September 11th.  While the observances will be solemn, they will have a new undercurrent this year.  We the people have gotten a certain measure of closure with the death of bin Laden.  Will it take away the pain inflicted on 9/11?  No, but it sure does go far towards banishing that helpless feeling many Americans have felt for the past nine years.  Perhaps now the real healing can begin.

This isn't the end of this conflict by any means, but this is a watershed moment for sure.  There will be much to discuss in the coming weeks as more information comes out.  There will surely be controversy over bin Laden's burial at sea - a necessary thing, in my opinion, which will keep his tomb from becoming a pilgrimage site for future jihadis - and the role Pakistani officials may have played in keeping his whereabouts secret, but for now, let's just savor the flavor of sweet, sweet victory.  Democrats, independents and republicans will put aside their differences today and celebrate this great triumph against an evil man.

God bless America!

UPDATE:  HotAir has a great roundup of last night's celebrations.

UPDATE II:  Initial reports had a police station near the OBL compound; turns out it is the Pakistani version of West Point instead.  I've changed it in the post.

UPDATE III:  Questions already arising from the burial at sea, as expected.  Imams are claiming it wasn't a sufficient burial, others are saying the body should have been brought back here.  Why?  To display it like a trophy - perhaps mount his head on a spike atop the ever-growing Freedom Tower?  Burial at sea ensures no shrine to the martyr's tomb.  As it is, one will most likely crop up in Abbottabad.  They should release the pictures, though, for sure - gore and all.  The wound can be blurred to make it more palatable.    DNA tests might prove there's a 99.9% chance it's him, but I, for one, want to see him with my own eyes.  And from the spontaneous outbursts of joyful patriotism breaking out all over the country, I don't think I'm alone.

Friday, April 22, 2011


Gas prices here in Central Florida have jumped up to nearly $4 per gallon in recent weeks.  In our nation's capital, prices are just shy of $5 per gallon - the highest in the nation.  At least the people who got us to this point are the ones feeling the pinch first.  Small comfort, I know - especially since many Capitol Hill denizens probably have their gas tabs picked up by the public.  The increase in prices has been sharp and is not likely to reverse anytime soon.  Our intrepid president, in light of his people's suffering, has called for a task force to research why gas prices have spiked so much and root out fraud in the marketplace.  Now, I'm no energy wonk, but I think I can shed some light on the subject, since our Demagoguer-in-Chief seems so baffled.  We'll call it the Ripley Commission on Oil Demagoguery.

First up are the eeeevil speculators.  Yes, these nameless, faceless demons of the free market really do have a stake in the rising price of gas, but it's not as large as the administration is trying to make out.  Their decisions, contrary to Obama's vague accusations of rampant, willful fraud and abuse, are based in part on actions this administration is taking as well as events elsewhere in the world.  In a nutshell, they are forecasting that the demand for and price of oil will increase in the near future.  They base these forecasts on conditions in oil producing areas such as wars or unrest, world oil supply and levels of resource development among other factors.  The biggest trouble with speculators is that they are only required to put down less than ten percent of the value of the contract, which keeps their risk at an unacceptably low level which in turn encourages them to take more risks.  That needs to change, without doubt.  Implimenting regulations that would increase the down payment to fifty percent would cut down on the number of speculators, resulting in a decrease in demand for oil futures with the eventual result being a more stable market.

But speculators aren't the only problem - if they were, gas prices would not have gone down at all after the big jump the press was so hysterical about in the summer of 2008.  Instead, it dropped from over $4 per gallon to $1.85 the day President Obama was sworn into office.  Did the eeevil Big Oil CEO's suddenly develop a heart upon Obama's inauguration?  No, more likely the speculators figured the anti-war candidate would end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, settling the region and thus oil prices.  Gee, that didn't pan out as expected, did it?

Another factor in the increase is the Saudi's decision to decrease supply by 800,000 barrels, citing an oversupplied market.  While it is true that demand has dropped recently due to high prices, a decrease in supply is only going to jack the prices up even higher.  Members of OPEC are quite aware of this and are manipulating the price for two reasons - increased revenue and a chance to put the screws to Americans.  Everybody loves a twofer!

A real driver in the price spike is the unrest in the Middle East.  The problem isn't just the war non-war "kinetic military action" in Libya, although that is a major issue - for Europe.  The ongoing situation in Egypt - the controllers of the Suez Canal - is also cause for concern and contributes to the rise in oil prices.  The canal is the bottleneck through which much of the Middle Eastern oil flows.  Disruptions and unrest around the canal threaten that flow, thus increasing prices.

It's wrong to think that foreign influences are the only reason prices are skyrocketing, no matter how much the administration points the finger elsewhere.  Our domestic policy over the past year has contributed greatly, and underestimating that impact is akin to willful blindness.  In the wake of the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, the Obama Administration handcuffed domestic production.  His damaging (and unlawful) drilling moratorium has done almost as much to increase prices as the unrest in the Middle East.  If he were to start allowing drilling again in the Gulf - and better yet, open up ANWR - prices would, if not drop, at least stablize, due to speculators seeing a new source of oil being tapped.  And yes, even though it might take a few years to access the oil (although not nearly as long as democrats would have you believe, especially considering how many rigs are sitting idle in the Gulf as we speak), the fact that it is actively being sought would be enough for the speculators to speculate a drop in price in the future.

The fact is, Obama is allowing gas prices to skyrocket to force us into "green" alternatives.  He's admitted before that he is willing to allow prices to "necessarily skyrocket" to get his green agenda implimented - why change now?  The problem with this strategy is that there are no alternatives that are ready for mass consumption.  His snarky comeback about buying a hybrid if you can't afford gas prices was tone deaf and obnoxious.  It's been proven he's not good at math, but even my eleven year old knows that if you can't afford $4 per gallon gas, you sure as hell can't afford to run out and buy a $25,000 Prius.  Not to mention the gentleman he so patronizingly made an example of has ten kids, and I'm pretty sure they won't fit into a Prius. 

When gas prices rose under President Bush, he was demonized in the press who blamed him, claiming it was cronyism at work.  Now we hear barely a peep about presidential culpability, even though the price increases are due, in large part, to Obama's hostile policies towards drilling.  Nope, no bias there!  Move along, move along....That he is creating yet another useless task force to try to figure out why prices are so high is just another transparent attempt to paint himself blameless.

It is becoming more and more obvious that his quest for "change" will continue, no matter how damaging it is to the country and her people.  It is hard to believe that a President of the United States is willfully crippling this country in order to shape it into the quasi-socialist, pseudo-European state he so deeply desires.  The complicit media, ever eager to suck up to their faux messiah, are happy to carry his water and mislead the public.

How desperate are the American people?  Well, Obama's so bad that he makes Donald Trump look like a viable candidate.  Not even Bush managed that.  Obama's redistributionist agenda has been resoundingly rejected, and the people are looking for a leader who will return us to our free market roots and drill, baby, drill.   Even if that leader is an outspoken entrepreneur who has comically bad hair and an ego the size of Manhattan. 

In conclusion, the Ripley Commission on Oil Demagoguery finds that, while events in the Middle East certainly play a part, as do speculators, the Obama Administration shoulders just as much blame.  One might even argue they should shoulder a little more because of their willingness to allow the American people to suffer when a few policy changes could relieve the pressure. The only fraud that needs rooting out is Obama from the White House.  The sad fact is, as long as he is in the White House and Ken Salazar is running the Interior Department, the American people can expect to continue paying through the nose for gas.  The silver lining, though, is that the resulting double dip recession will most likely be the catalyst for their ouster.  God willing.  In the meantime, we can safely speculate that staycations, inflation and higher prices on goods are in our future. 

Tuesday, February 22, 2011


Let's face it - the real reason the DNC and Obama's OfA are freaking out over and attempting to organize and expand the Wisconsin budget protests isn't just because of the fact that if Gov. Walker has his way he will end collective bargaining.   There is a much deeper issue at stake, and it's something that isn't getting much play in the media, because it's not a sympathetic position ("It's for the kids!"™).  Walker's budget will also force unions to collect their own dues and, most importantly of all, have an annual membership vote.  That is the union buster, right there.  If Walker's plan goes through, union membership in the public sector will sink like a stone. 

This is, after all, a forced unionization state - if you work for the state of Wisconsin, you are a union member.  Period.  The dues are automatically garnished from your wages by the state; you have no choice.  The thing Walker is attempting to allow, which the unions and the DNC are desperate to stop, is employee choice over whether they want to be in the union or not.  According to this poll, there's a good chance that a healthy majority will choose "not".  Especially when those dues no longer magically disappear from their paychecks, sight unseen, and they have to cut a check themselves every month.  People tend to stop and think, to assess something more closely, when they are the ones writing the check for it - especially in a recession.

The most dangerous development in Madison is the annual membership vote. On a personal note, years ago I started working at a large corporation.  While I was going through the orientation process I was heavily pressured to join the union.  I did, as did most new hires.  But as I went through my first year, I realized that, being in a right to work state, union and non-union members had the same contracts - with the exception that non-union didn't have the pressure of a threat to strike every time the contract was up for renewal.  And I mean every time.  And so, like a large majority of my fellow employees, on my one year anniversary I dropped out of the union.  Wisconsin state employees don't have this luxury, but Walker wants to change all that.  It's not so much that he is trying to bust the unions as make the conditions possible for them to bust themselves.

Make no mistake, though - the DNC and OfA aren't coming to the rescue because this is an "assault on unions"; they are charging into the fray because it's an assault on the their campaign contributions.

The potential drop in membership in turn robs some of the DNC's biggest contributors of their forced dues, which they so generously donate to their pet politicians.  President Obama himself owes a huge debt to unions, and no doubt was counting on their support come 2012.  So the reason why the DNC and OfA have thrust themselves into a state issue is certainly no mystery.  The only thing under debate, really, is the appropriateness of their actions.

This isn't about "the little people", this isn't really even about collective bargaining.  It's about keeping forced membership, which will allow the government/union circle jerk to continue unchecked.  It's just amazing how hysterical some people become over corporate cronyism, and yet shout "power to the people" when it comes to union cronyism.  The problem is, public union cronyism is even more dangerous, because while a corporation greases palms and buys politicians to help create or prevent legislation/regulation that might enable their companies to have an edge in the marketplace (which might have the happy result of job creation/economic growth), unions grease the palms and buy the politicians with whom they negotiate their salaries and benefits.  It's like having union bosses on both sides of the table, only the "corporation" they are nailing to the wall is the American taxpayer (who is, at least according to Paul Krugman, the new mortal enemy of democracy). 

So don't be fooled by the DNC and unions (but I repeat myself) lamenting "worker's rights".  In the end, all they care about is the bottom line.  Ultimately the bottom line Walker is offering could be potentially crippling for them in the upcoming election cycle.  And that's all that really matters - the next election cycle.

Let's hope the gravy train has left the station by then.

Sunday, February 6, 2011


Today is the 100th birthday of Ronald Wilson Reagan. He was a man who loved his country deeply and unabashedly. He was optimistic, witty, and sharp as a tack. He was a consummate diplomat who was able to negotiate the treacherous waters of the Cold War with skill and aplomb. He believed that the country, when it's free markets are left unfettered, could overcome just about anything.

His dislike of big government was legendary. My favorite saying of his was what he described as the nine scariest words in the english language - "I'm from the government and I'm here to help". Here are some more words of wisdom from the Gipper.

On government:

Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it

Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty.

Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.

Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.

Man is not free unless government is limited.

How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.

No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!

The problem is not that people are taxed too little, the problem is that government spends too much.

On politics:

Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the democrats believe every day is April 15.

I've never been able to understand why a Republican contributor is a 'fat cat' and a Democratic contributor of the same amount of money is a 'public-spirited philanthropist'.

It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first.

On his age:

Thomas Jefferson once said, 'We should never judge a president by his age, only by his works.' And ever since he told me that, I stopped worrying.

"I will not make age an issue in this campaign. I'm not going to exploit for political purposes my opponents youth and inexperience."

On social issues:

We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.

We should measure welfare's success by how many people leave welfare, not by how many are added.

On freedom:

We will always remember. We will always be proud. We will always be prepared, so we will always be free.

There are no constraints on the human mind, no walls around the human spirit, no barriers to our progress except those we ourselves erect.

Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have.

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.

On politics and religion:

If we ever forget that we are One Nation Under God, then we will be a nation gone under.

I have wondered at times what the Ten Commandments would have looked like if Moses had run them through the US Congress.

If the federal government had been around when the Creator was putting His hand to this state, Indiana wouldn't be here. It'd still be waiting for an environmental impact statement.

Ronald Reagan ushered in a twenty year period of prosperity.  His increased militarization during the Cold War helped bring down the Soviet Union, whose command economy simply could not keep up.  His unapologetic love of country inspired an entire generation - even ultra-liberal Bruce Springsteen wasn't ashamed to say he was born in the USA. 

The media's incessant attempts since the midterm election rout to make President Obama into the reincarnation of the Gipper are laughable, at best.  No doubt Reagan himself would have a few choice words of his own for the comparison.  It's impossible to say what he would think of the current administration, but here are two speeches that might shed some light on the subject:

On the economy, from Feb. 5, 1981

On the dangers of socialized medicine, from a radio address in 1961:

Like many great leaders, his words still inspire.  Celebrating his centennial has reminded the country of his wisdom and leadership at a time when both seem to be in scarce supply.  Happy birthday, Gipper.  Hope you're enjoying your mansion in heaven!

Tuesday, February 1, 2011


A Florida federal district judge found Obamacare's individual mandate to be unconstitutional, and argued that since the mandate was an integral part of the legislation, the entire bill should be declared void:

"While the individual mandate was clearly 'necessary and essential' to the act as drafted, it is not 'necessary and essential' to health care reform in general," he continued. "Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void."

The best part, though, is that Judge Vinson used then-candidate Obama's own words against his signature legislation (via the Washington Times):

“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that, ‘If a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of his 78-page ruling Monday.

As the kids say, 'aw, snap!'.

The feds have sworn to appeal the ruling (no doubt that isn't the only swearing going on), and so it is on to the 11th Circuit.  There have been requests to skip the appeals and take it directly to the Supreme Court, but the Dept. of Justice refuses to fast track the process.  Why skip to the final authority when we can spend millions of taxpayer and state dollars dragging this thing through the appeals process?   

A DoJ mouthpiece stated that:

"We are analyzing this opinion to determine what steps, if any -- including seeking a stay -- are necessary while the appeal is pending to continue our progress toward ensuring that Americans do not lose out on the important protections this law provides, that the millions of children and adults who depend on Medicaid programs receive the care the law requires, and that the millions of seniors on Medicare receive the benefits they need," she added.

Well imagine that.  Repealing Obamacare will somehow stop SCHIP, Medicaid and Medicare from serving the people who need it.  How did that happen?  Or could it be that it's yet another straw man argument from the left in a desperate ploy to gin up support?  You know, scare all those old and poor people and parents into thinking they will lose SCHIP or Medicare/aid if Obamacare is repealed.   Well, it's time to call BS on this ridiculous line of thinking right now.  If this nightmare of a bill is struck down, those programs will continue on as usual - which still isn't good in the case of Medicare, but isn't as bad as with Obamacare.  Actually, repeal will save having $177 billion stripped from the Medicare Advantage program alone, which would have effectively done away with the popular program's perks.

Let's also address the spin about Obamacare "saving" over $200 billion in it's first decade, while we're at it. What a load of bunk.   Now technically speaking, it's true, because the law will be taxing us to death $800+ billion over the next 10 years, while the actual cost of Obamacare for those first 10 years will be about $600 billion - thus $200 billion in "savings".  Unfortunately, those $800+ billion in taxes will only be covering 6 years of the decade.  So how much will we be "saving" in the next decade and beyond?  Or will we only be offering 6 years of coverage per decade of taxation from here on out?

This law is a terrible thing for our country.  The few things that are good about it - no more preexisting conditions, for instance (which is easily regulated, no 'comprehensive overhaul' required) - are far outweighed by the things that are bad about it, like, well, $800 billion of new taxes, for starters, as well as the fact that the bill will now be forcing people to buy a good or service (not to mention it is so convoluted and byzantine that it will take years - and lots of lawsuits, no doubt - to figure out).  It would be far easier to repeal and replace than "fix" Obamacare.

What seems to have been lost in the debate is the fact that we are forgetting how we were originally sold the need for health care "reform".  Let's not forget that the original argument for comprehensive reform was because there were so many people uninsured namely because they couldn't afford it.  Well, all that has happened is that those same people still can't afford insurance, but now they face fines and penalties if they don't comply - enforced by the dreaded IRS, no less.  Not to mention the increase in rates since Obamacare passed means even more people can't afford insurance now.  Way to legislate, 111th Congress! 

Above and beyond all that, how good can the bill possibly be if over 700 companies, unions and even states have received waivers protecting them from it?  Many of those companies and unions were big supporters of the law while it was being shoved down our throats working it's way through Congress.  Now that they have to live under it and are seeing the real numbers involved, suddenly it's waiver city.  It's no surprise the unions got waivers - there was talk back during the making of this mess of a law to waive them from certain responsibilities.    Since they couldn't do it by the front door, they just snuck around the back. 

This decision was big, for a few reasons.  First, not only does Judge Vinson say that the mandate is unconstitutional, he also says the necessary removal of that unconstitutional clause makes the entire bill collapse, and as such, the entire bill should be struck down.  Second, his 78 page decision will be closely scrutinized by future appeals courts as well as the Supreme Court.   It is well reasoned and very thorough, and will present quite an obstacle for the DoJ in future appeals.  Third, this gives those in opposition to the law a second wind and affirmation that their argument is sound.  Oh, and the professional left is trying to say that the score is 2-2, which apparently in their world means it's some sort of judicial draw.  Unfortunately for them, the two findings in their favor are from lower courts, which means this finding, as well as the one preceeding it, both overrule the two earlier findings.  It's not about how many decisions go your way, it is the standing of the court that counts. 
Ultimately it is up to the Supreme Court.  Unfortunately, that could be years away.  In the meantime, this is a strong victory for supporters of repeal, and a big blow to the DoJ's case.  Good job, Bill McCollum, Pam Bondi, et al!

Wednesday, January 26, 2011


Last night's State of the Union address was much like other SOTU's.  Bland, long on length and short on substance.  Don't get me wrong, this SOTU is not unique in it's  - they're all like that.  It's the nature of the beast.  However, this speech did stand out for a few reasons, but they were mostly distortions and half-truths creative modifications of the parameters of certain situations.

So, was I the only one who burst out laughing when President Obama said he would veto any bill with earmarks in it that comes across his desk?  Puh-leeze.  We've heard that one before, haven't we?  Not even Harry Reid is buying into it -  he actually put it into perspective quite nicely, via ABC News (emphasis mine):

“Without any question,” Reid replied. “I understand it’s great for an applause line, but it’s really not solving anything to do with the deficit. It’s only for show.”

“So you’re saying that earmarks will be back?” said Karl.

“Of course they’ll be back,” said Reid.

Every suggestion for improving the national situation involved a government based 'solution', usually in the form of spending.  Or, as President Obama prefers, "investment".  I'd like to see a poll on how many people buy the "investment" line, as opposed to those who know it is just progressive-ese for more spending.  You would think that he would have learned by now that throwing money at a problem doesn't make it go away.  Not even $5 trillion.

Did anyone else have a deja vu moment when he talked about an infrastructure spending bill?  Um, didn't we do that already?  That turned out well.  I seem to recall it wasn't really popular, either.  I had to stifle a laugh when he mentioned all the construction jobs created by the Porkulus bill.   Perhaps his staff are filtering the news for him.  Whatever the case may be, it was a ludicrous statement.

At least this year he admitted that America is a great country.  That's new.  Too bad he saved it for the very end, when everyone had already tuned out.  Maybe next year he'll put it at the beginning of the address, where it's usually mentioned.  He was more upbeat this year, which was nice, and not chastising members of one of the other two branches of government was certainly appreciated.   The speech was delivered well, as usual, although the breathy emphasis on certain words was a new and, after a while, annoying addition to his speaking style.  And yes, the smoked salmon joke was funny, I have to admit.  Just a thought, though - when proposing a government answer for every problem, perhaps it's better not to remind anyone how byzantine, redundant and/or ineffective government can be, no matter how funny the reference.  His tone was, for the most part, upbeat and warm (perhaps an attempt to cozy up to an electorate that has cooled towards him), but there was a serious lack of direction in the text.  Unfortunately, the only path he really mapped out for us was a one way trip to the investment-driven poorhouse.

It would have been nice if he had mentioned the disaster of epic proportions that hit our country in 2010 - the Gulf oil spill.  Not a word was mentioned about it, which is remarkable.  But, then again, it hasn't warranted mention anywhere since shortly after they capped the well.  How's the cleanup going?  Any word on where that 22 mile long plume went?  I guess one of the largest natural disasters our nation has ever seen doesn't deserve mention in the State of the Union speech.  And why should it?  After all, it's not like it's a problem anymore - he got the damn hole plugged, didn't he?  No need to remind the public of the fumbling, ham-handed, ineffective way it was handled, now is there?

All in all, this attempt at centrism and triangulation was tepid.  He and his speech writers were in uncharted territory, and it showed.  In the grand scheme of things, this isn't the worst SOTU - but it sure as heck wasn't the best, either.

Oh, and I hope "Winning the Future" isn't the new Obama 2012 campaign slogan, because someone else has already claimed it.

Thursday, January 20, 2011


The House voted to repeal Obamacare today, 245-189.  It comes as no surprise, just as it won't be surprising when Harry Reid pretends HR2 doesn't exist and refuses to bring it up for a vote. 

This was the first full debate on the House floor since the Tuscon shootings.  The new Era of Civility™  has started off with quite a bang (am I allowed to say that anymore?).  Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN)  got the civility theater going today with his comparison of his Republican peers with Nazi propagandist extraordinaire, Joseph Goebbles. 

What class.  What style.  What civility(?).

Maybe I just don't understand the meaning of the term "civility".  After all, I'm conservative, so I must be mentally deficient, right (just ask Janeane Garofalo)?  Well, according to Merriam-Webster, civility is:

a polite act or expression

Now, maybe I'm crazy, but comparing more than half of your colleagues to a vicious,  soulless slaughterer of innocents on a massive scale seems a bit, well, uncivil, does it not?

When questioned about his...unique take on civility, his answer was quite a feat of verbal gymnastics (via HotAir):

“I don’t think I was comparing the Republicans to Goebbels. I was saying that lies are lies and Goebbels was the great perpetrator of lies and that’s a danger, and if you look at Goebbels you can see the lie that he told about Jews which he constantly did, became considered fact in Germany that the Jews were evil, and people got involved and didn’t stand up.”…

“I think civility is not lying, and if you can’t come up and say that somebody is lying when they’re lying, then the lie becomes the truth. That’s not uncivil to say somebody lied,” he said.

So apparently, his definition of civility is "not lying".  Which dictionary did that definition come from, Rep. Cohen? 

Beyond that, what he has done is set up a sort of 'incivility word problem'.  If lies = lies + Goebbels = lies then lies = Republicans means Republicans = Goebbels.  Deductive reasoning, anyone? 

CNN, (former home of a political talkshow called Crossfire) in their desperation to set the 'tone' (and hopefully boost ratings), have become whimpering pc apologists.  The national attempt to have this 'conversation on violent rhetoric' has made it very clear to almost everyone (even the women on The View) that not using martial phraseology is nearly impossible, even in everyday, non-vitriolic, non-hate speech.  Sherri Shepard went so far as to throw her hands up in disgust and say, "I give up" after several attempts to describe how the crosshairs rhetoric was 'under fire'.

These phrases are commonly used because they are apt analogies.  Not being able to use common phrases like 'battleground', 'targeted', 'under fire', or even Joy Behar's comedic reference to 'killed it' should open up a whole new dialogue, the stifling of free speech. 

Ultimately though, we also need to have a dialogue on mental illness.  The biggest failure in this whole situation was that Loughner was obviously disturbed, the police and college were involved, and yet he never received any psychiatric help.  It seems Arizona's 5150 laws are pretty robust, though, considering how little Eric Fuller did to warrant a 72 hour psychiatric hold and evaluation (although the "ear necklace" thing was pretty creepy).  Perhaps if Loughner had undergone the same thing, 6 people wouldn't be dead today.  The ball was dropped here.  This kid was so crazy that people got a malevolent vibe just sitting near him.  Not just his teachers, but his fellow classmates feared for their lives to the point where they had planned out an exit strategy if he pulled a gun in class.   He built a shrine to a human skull in his backyard, for heaven's sake, and ranted about mind control through grammar online.  And yet, to date, there is no evidence that he had any sort of psychiatric evaluation whatsoever. 

Jared Loughner was crazy.  Period.  Rep. Giffords was unable to answer one nonsensical question from him back in 2007, and she was targeted.  In the ironic twist of the century, the non-conservative lunatic gunman tried to kill her not because of violent right-wing rhetoric, but, technically, for no rhetoric at all

Stifling speech to make a political point is unacceptable.  Yet again, the neo-pravda media, in their eternal conservative witch hunt, have attempted to 'frame' a debate that has nothing at all to do with the tragedy they are exploiting.  Here's a little hint guys - your job is to report the news, not opine on what you think might have motivated the killer.  And if you absolutely must, well, that's what editorials are for. 

As for people like Cohen, who demand civility from one side of their mouth while spewing vitriol out the other, you are a huge part of the problem.  This practice isn't about 'furthering debate', it's all about shutting down debate.  And that's NOT what this country is all about.  You may not be happy about what the opposition is doing, but repealing an unpopular bill is in no way equitable with the Final Solution.  Above and beyond that, if you insist, Rep. Cohen, on going down that path, that is your right as a citizen of this country.  However, you then forfeit your right to criticize anyone else who does so, or risk losing credibility permanently. 

Monday, January 10, 2011