Tuesday, November 27

"A" is not "A"

Having a hard time understanding the gummint's policy on terrorism? What you need, citizen, is some clarification:

“We’re not fighting terrorists, we’re fighting people who engage in terrorism.”

That pearl of wisdom was uttered by King Barry at a Nov. 23, 2004 book-signing.

See, the people who engage in terrorism are NOT terrorists. Because "terrorists," by definition, are...are...are... Well, see, for that definition ya need to consult the crack intelligence group that wrote the talking points for Susan Rice.

This goofy socialist asshole--that would be Obama--could call a cantaloupe an orange and the media would solemnly report that all prior definitions were wrong, that henceforth all citizens are to call cantaloupes oranges.

“We’re not fighting terrorists, we’re fighting people who engage in terrorism.”

Wow, that explains SO much!

Say goodbye to InTrade

Remember when conservatives warned that the federal government was grabbing way too much power, and they'd increasingly use it in ways you wouldn't like?

Well if you liked the on-line prediction site In-Trade, too bad: Seems the gummint's "Commodity Futures Trading Commission" has unilaterally decided that the process of betting on the outcome of future events is actually "trading in commodities futures."

Since In-Trade doesn't have a gummint license to do that, the CFTC has threatened to fine 'em--a business-ending $140,000 per "violation."

Sweet, huh.

Oh, they did apply for a license.  Guess what?  CFTC turned 'em down.

Interestingly, when an established, licensed U.S. commodity exchange applied for permission to do what Intrade does, the CFTC turned them down, too.

See how the game works to control behavior?  Some gummint bureaucrat decides "You gotta have a license to do X, and if you don't, we'll fine you out of existence."  Then the agency refuses to give you a license.

But hey, don't worry, citizen:  If you don't like the law, work to change it.

Oh, wait:  The CFTC, like all federal agencies, runs on internal regulations that it makes up as it goes.  Congress merely charges federal agencies with "regulating" X, and leaves the details to each agency.

Of course that actually doesn't matter because congress has been rendered powerless by Obama's use of executive orders or simple "policy letters" to agencies directing them to do things a certain way.  Like the way he unilaterally granted 30 million illegal aliens the right to stay in the United States forever, and also gave 'em green cards.

Why bother with trying to push a law change through congress when it's so much easier and quicker to simply issue a decree, eh?  Just like Chavez.

Monday, November 26

Want to adopt? Gotta promise not to teach the kids dangerous ideas!

Many have noted that social problems in Britain are usually experienced here 20 years later.  Accordingly, consider the case of a town council in the U.K. that removed children from a foster-parenting couple on the grounds that the couple were racists.  The council was able to deduce this because the couple supported the "wrong" political party (UK Independence Party).

Or the case last year of a couple who were told they could not adopt because they refused to agree to instruct their children that a gay lifestyle was acceptable.  The couple took their case to the British High Court and lost. The British paper Guardian reports “the judges said they were not ruling against beliefs but against the discriminatory effects of those beliefs and that one set of beliefs could not take precedence in a pluralist society.

Not ruling against beliefs, see.  Just ruling that one set of beliefs can't be advanced as better than another!

Thus in the U.K. one will no longer be legally allowed to teach one's children that ownership of private property is better than communism; that religion can form a good basis for a moral code; that private-sector jobs are vital to a healthy economy. 

I'm still grappling with the court's implication that you could teach your kids about all manner of beliefs as long as you didn't mention that certain beliefs and ideas had better outcomes than others. Typical socialist bullshit.

A commenter noted that the use of family "services" to punish politically-incorrect thoughts is gaining momentum in the U.S. too:
Barry Cooper is a former DEA agent turned drug activist who frequently and publicly expresses a distrust of federal authority. One of his children was taken from him by child protective services because according to them he was teaching the child to “fear authority.”  (No doubt a bunch of armed men dragging the child away from his parents in the middle of the night went a long way towards correcting that belief.)  It took the family months in court to get the child back. 
But don't worry, citizen:  This vill not happen to you, ass long ass you support right political party, da?  For those who fully support Dear Leader, no problemss vaht-zo-effer.

How long before the courts or some government agency rules that owning a gun is prima facie evidence of unfitness to adopt?

Sunday, November 25

Detroit bankrupt but politicians still refuse to acknowledge reality

Predicting the future--at least in terms of major trends--isn't that hard. Reason is that Big Numbers have considerable inertia and are hard to deflect.

So...would you like to see the future of the formerly-great United States?

Consider Detroit: That city is bankrupt in all but formal declaration. Trying to avert disaster, the state of Michigan sold bonds on the city's behalf, with the provision that the city could immediately tap $30 million in cash, on one condition: The city had to hire a specific law firm--large, respected, competent, not a brother-in-law deal--to guide it thru compliance with a fiscal reform plan created by the state's treasury department.

Can you guess what happened? Of course you can: The city council voted NOT to hire the firm. By an 8-to-1 vote.

According to the CS Monitor council members nixed hiring the firm "because it presented a conflict of interest, as the firm was hired by the state to write the agreement that the city is now tasked to follow." Some members said they "deserved more time to seek other bids."

Yeppers. The city council of Detroit bankrupted the city, looted everything in sight, but now they whine that they *deserve* more time to...loot some more, apparently.

And why not? Have any of you ever heard of a corrupt or merely incompetent pol being punished in even the slightest way for any level of corruption or incompetence? No? Well then why pick on the Detroit city council? It's simply raaacist!

"Reality? Never heard of it!"

"We deserve more time! Because...because...raaaacism!" And now, having mismanaged the city into financial disaster, the council is absolutely f*ckin' *indignant* that the state government would have the gall to attach a modest condition to giving the city $30 million guaranteed by state taxpayers.

Surely you see how this will play out: The state government of Michigan will get a letter from some low-level GS-14 in the Obama administration, warning them that the EPA (or another of a score of alphabet regulatory agencies) is reviewing their compliance with Regulation XYZ, and that a finding of Noncompliance will result in the state losing $100 million in federal (i.e. taxpayer-supplied) funds.

The state will call feds asking for details, clarification--at which point some low-level as*hole will casually mention that the scheduled review might go much better if the state would just fork over the $30 mill to Detroit without insisting on so much nitpicky oversight. State will do the simple math and realize that standing on principle is a losing proposition.

Following pic shows spectators at the city council meeting, encouraging them to vote against hiring the law firm.

Friday, November 23

White House refuses to release pic of Situation Room during Benghazi

Whenever something having anything to do with national security happens, the White House quickly rushes out pics of president Faaabulous in the "Situation Room" surrounded by layers of advisors.

But when a major U.S. news organization asked the White House for pics of the crowd in the Situation Room during the fatal attacks in Benghazi, suddedly...nada.

 Fox News reports a complete stonewall from the WH press office. They requested the images almost three weeks ago, and have been shuffled around the bureaubabble maze ever since. And they're beginning to think...you know, just maybe, there aren't any such pics. Because--heresy! Racism!--the god-king wasn't there, and didn't bother convening the advisory group. Too busy, prolly.

Oh, wait...did I say "Fox News" was stonewalled? My mistake...it was actually CBS. So all you wacko liberals who think Fox is the Antichrist...wait, you don't think Christ is anything special so the term "antichrist" probably isn't one you use either.

Iran: "Israel's acceptance of ceasefire is a defeat for them!"

It's amazing how often chickenshit terrorist organizations like Hamas and Iran make press-release statements like "Day is night!" with a straight face.  Equally amazing is that virtually every "news" organization in the world publishes these statements with an equally straight face.

Tehran, Nov. 22 - The secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council said Israel's acceptance of a ceasefire in Gaza shows that the Jewish state has grown "increasingly weak." 
     Saeed Jalili said "accepting defeat after eight days means that the Zionist regime is becoming increasingly weak."  Mr Jalili also congratulated the Palestinians on the ceasefire as that "means that counter-resistance is getting stronger." 
Yeah, dude, you bet.  After Hamas fired a thousand rockets into southern Israel, the Israelis finally decided enough was enough, and started killing top Hamas leaders left, right and center.  They then agreed to a cease-fire.  And according to the secretary of Iran's top bullshit center this is "accepting defeat"??

Wow, I want some of what he's smoking.

Thursday, November 22

Liberal beliefs??

Liberals seem to believe some odd things:
  --that you can knock down the walls that protect society and nothing bad will come in;
  --that money can be printed in any desired amount without debasing its value;
  --that chronic trillion-dollar deficits aren't harmful in any way (at least as long as a Democrat is president);
  --that morality and law can be openly ridiculed with no effect; crime won't increase, because the prospect of going to prison has no deterrent effect on criminals;
  --that encouraging unmarried parenting has no harmful effects;
  --that only stupid people join the armed forces;
  --that it's racist to require a photo ID to vote, but not to require one to board a plane;
  --that no matter how many burdensome regulations various levels of government impose on businesses, entrepreneurs will still start the same number of new businesses and hire the same number of people as always--probably because they're just compelled by their genetic makeup or something;
  --that government can simply issue an executive order to compel businesses to move factories and jobs overseas back to the U.S.;
  --that using executive orders to change fundamental parts of U.S. law (like giving amnesty and green cards to illegal aliens) is perfectly fine; there's no need to involve congress in controversial stuff like that.

An unusual view of how the U.S. has changed

A poster on another site writes: 
Some years ago I acquired a collection of Scientific American magazines from the mid-50s through the mid-60s. The ads are fascinating--most for engineering firms, machine shops, and electronic and chemical companies.
     Some companies were large, but many more were small local businesses across the country that actually designed and built things. They proudly touted their products and skills, and brimmed with optimism that they were improving the human condition through science and technology.
     Most of those companies seem to be gone now. It was a different world then, and a different America.
One sees the same thing in virtually all technical journals of that age.  If you want to see how much America has changed in a few decades, browse through some tech journals at your local university library.  It's a sobering experience.

Wednesday, November 21

Illinois Dems: Giving illegals licenses will make the roads safer!"

I can't decide if idiotic reporting is due to dumb reporters or agenda-pushing editors.
CHICAGO -- Illinois could become the third state in the U.S. to grant driver's licenses to illegal immigrants - a move top officials from both parties are pushing as a way to make roads safer...
Story claims giving illegals driver's licences is gonna make roads safer ??  How's that supposed to happen, exactly?  Ya think that'll suddenly make 'em stop driving drunk (a disproportionately large factor in accidents involving illegals)?
Supporters say Illinois has about 250,000 illegal immigrant motorists who can't get a driver's license.... Allowing illegal immigrants to obtain a license would mean more of those drivers would have to pass road and written driving tests and vision tests, supporters say.
Ah, I see!  By giving 'em licenses it'll make 'em have to pass a driving test, be able to read road signs and so on, right?  Um...wait:  Does that mean the ones who don't pass will stop driving?  No?  Yeah, didn't think so.
Also, uninsured, unlicensed immigrant drivers are responsible for $64 million in insurance claims each year - costs that are picked up by people with insurance.
"By passing this legislation, this is going to incredibly benefit all of us," said [Illinois state senate president, Democrat John] Cullerton.
And by "us" Democrat pol Cullerton means Dems will get 100 percent of the illegal vote when Barky Obozo gives them the right to vote--by executive order.

Cullerton, you're either an idiot or a lying Democrat (redundancy alert):  Please do explain to us how giving licenses to bad drivers will miraculously cut their accident rate.  And do go into all the mathematical details, so we can see where our stupid erroneous thinking is demolished by your elite math skillz.

Wait, I think I just heard some dumb liberal say it's absolutely absurd--just complete right-wingnut conspiracy theory--to allege that the law-respecting King Barack would do so crazy a thing as give illegals the right to vote by executive order.  Just more wacky right-wing conspiracy talk, right?

Um...do any of you libs remember that less than a year ago King Barky unilaterally changed U.S. immigration policy to give all illegals under the age of 30 amnesty from deportation, letting them stay in the U.S. indefinitely--and get green cards--without bothering with the icky difficulty of getting a law passed to do that?

You DO remember that, right?  Cuz it was, like, one of your party's major goals and super achievements, so how could you forget?  That's right, you didn't forget--you just want to claim he'd never do such a thing when it's convenient for you to claim conservatives are spouting conspiracy talk about your GodKing.

Executive orders--replacing that old, obsolete Constitution.  So much faster and neater than trying to pass laws.  And way better--at least as long as a Democrat is preezy.

Claiming that giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants will make the roads safer is like claiming that giving concealed-carry licenses to criminals will reduce crime.

I used to believe that people who spouted crap like this were simply naive or stupid.  But I'm beginning to think they're actually canny and clever.  After all, promising to continue giving a trillion bucks worth of borrowed money to the Takers, and promising citizenship to illegals, won the last election.  And promises to win all future ones.

Great job, Democrats!  You've thought this all through so well!

May your children grow up and realize what a great country you destroyed.

Saturday, November 17

Hostess files for bankruptcy; MSM spins it to help Dems

You probably heard about the Hostess Baking company closing--going out of business.

Of course the reason the MSM published the story was because of the obvious great 'hook' about it being "The end of the Twinkie."  Otherwise the story of one more in the long list of businesses folding under the fabulous economy of Obozo and the Democrats--those wonderful, pro-business stalwarts of the free market!--would be of no interest to the libs.

Ooops!  Mainstream-Media Action Alert!:  Un-do Hostess closing story!  Can't let the sheeple hear anything negative about the Glorious Leader's economy (ably assisted by people like Harry Reid and Nancy "Have to pass the bill to see what's in it" Pelosi)!

Oooh, what to do, what to do??  Solution !!:  Re-write the story as "a bunch of vulture capitalists--just like Bain Capital, run by that eeevil Mittt Rommmney--*voluntarily chose* to close a going company and throw 18,000 hard-working, family-supporting workers out on the street for no reason whatsoever!

See how much better that reads?

The MSM gets a two-fer:  A slam on eeebil capitalists, and a "Democrats are there to help poor workin' folk when da eeebil capitalists throw 'em out on da street."

You probably think I'm kidding--that this is just wacko conspiracy stuff.  In that case, click on the link above.  It goes not to Fox News but to the left-leaning Politico site.  Study the pic of AFL-CIO chief Richard Trumka and tell me your guess as to his psychological outlook.

So does Politico treat Trumka's prepared statement with the contempt it so richly deserves?

If you've been on this planet more than 30 years you know that answer.  Here's the 3rd graf:
“What’s happening with Hostess Brands is a microcosm of what’s wrong with America, as Bain-style Wall Street vultures make themselves rich by making America poor,” Trumka said in a public statement. “Crony capitalism and consistently poor management drove Hostess into the ground, but its workers are paying the price.”
In case that was too subtle to hammer home the evils of "crony capitalism" (but not Obama crony capitalism, of course!), Politico took another swing:
Trumka’s comparing Hostess to Bain comes after an election in which former GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney was criticized for co-founding Bain Capital.

The union leader took the workers’ the side, saying Hostess’ leaders and policies were “wrecking America.”
Did you see what they did there?  The "...comes after an election in which..." has absolutely nothing to do with the Hostess story.  Nothing.  But the leftist staff at Politico seizes an opportunity to link the Republican candidate to Bain Capital--which is important because the folks who invested in Hostess were...you know, a bunch of capitalists, like Romney.  See the connection?

This is the Democrat party today.  Either they truly believe what they write--which suggests cluelessness--or they're deliberately trying to mislead.

Left's message to America:  Investors shouldn't want to make a profit, but should invest their money simply to give people jobs.  Oh, and good jobs paying well above minimum-wage.

Yeh, dat's da ticket.  I'd say "Let us know how well that works for ya," but of course it *does* work.  For awhile, at least. 

Just like it did for the former Soviet Union.

Wednesday, November 14

Deficit way, WAY down under King Barry

Great news, citizen! During the fiscal year that just ended, the deficit for the year was $1.1 Trillion. But under the wonderful leadership of Barack and the Democrats, the forecast deficit for the *current* FY is gonna be way, way down--a mere One Trillion Dollars!

Isn't that wonderful?? We're saved, SAVED I tell ya!

Meanwhile, under His glorious leadership the oceans continue to recede and the unicorns continue to shit skittles for all his devoted followers.

Petraeus, part 2

The Petraeus thing is taking shape. Let's review:

When the general was serving in Afg, virtually everyone on his base had to have known about his affair with Ms. Broadwell.  As I noted in my last post, on an unaccompanied base there are almost no secrets, and particularly for commanders.

If everyone knew, then Obama's minions also knew of the affair, before Obama appointed the general to head the CIA.

Appointing a compromised person to head your nation's counterintel agency is begging to have that agency neutralized by blackmail of its chief by a foreign power, so it normally wouldn't make sense to do that.  But if you want to own a man's loyalty, let him know you know his secret and appoint him anyway.  He knows that the tiniest failure to do your bidding will destroy his career and reputation.

It now seems that the most likely explanation regarding Petraeus is that the Obama administration instructed the general to give them cover about the events surrounding the deaths of the American ambassador and three other Americans in Benghazi--specifically, to falsely claim that the CIA "knew" that the attack arose from a spontaneous demonstration triggered by the anti-Mohammed video, when in fact the CIA had no such information.

The general was willing to lie for Obama because Obama (and/or Obama's deputies/handlers) told him his affair with Broadwell would be revealed unless he provided cover for Obama about Benghazi.

Now consider: With Petraeus having carried out his orders, why would the news of the affair be released *then*?  One would think that would simply enable the general--who would now seem to have nothing more to lose--to tell congress the truth, thus damaging the man who ordered his firing.  So it doesn't seem to make sense.

Unless...the adminstration has more dirt on the general that they've threatened to release if he comes clean.

But why fire him and risk him having a come-to-Jesus moment?  Ah, grasshopper, it is part of a well-tested plan of destroying the credibility of a man who has information that can hurt you.  And it's worked, as most of the public is focused on what lousy judgment the general had, and poor self-control, and such huge hypocrisy, and such poor regard for his wife and kids, and on and on...  Leaking the affair will neutralize anything the guy says against Obama.

Caligula's Rome had nothing on the bunch in the White House. A typical comment: "The Petraeus thing is just a sideshow--ultimately he's just an old general who followed his dick after all those years supposedly of discipline. He threw away his career over a piece of tail."

The proof of this theory will be if Petraeus--having been fired and his career ended--still refuses to testify before congress.  Or makes a nominal move to testify and congressional Democrats block any revealing questions.

Shall we hide and watch?

Sunday, November 11

Petraeus resignation: something's wrong--and not just Petraeus

As you may know, Obama's hand-picked director of the CIA--former 4-star general David Petraeus--resigned.  And the timing is...the equivalent of an atomic bomb: he resigned the day after the election. 

If you think that's just a coincidence you're too naive to be voting.

So let's see what the Washington Post has to say about this.  Of course we're not doing this because we expect to read the truth there, but just the opposite:  The Post will give the Obama administration/Democratic party cover story, which will show us where to look to find the contradictory evidence that could possibly, eventually, lead to the real story.

Let me fine-tune that a bit: The Washington Post is one of the most reliably pro-Democrat newspapers in the country, right up there with the NY Times and LA Times.  I can't recall the last time any of those propaganda rags printed a word harmful to liberal causes or the Dem party, and I don't expect them to start doing that in this lifetime.

Now a hint:  If you've had any exposure to journalism you learned the "five W's":  Who, what, where, why and when.  When reporters on what looks to be a *really* major story start leaving out a detailed timeline, there's a reason.  And it ain't because the paper was running out of either ink or space.

So, here we go...

According to the story, Petraeus resigned because he'd been having an affair with a woman named Paula Broadwell.  Ms. Broadwell had gone to Afghanistan to write about Petraeus and the two hit it off.  Not exactly unheard of.  Broadwell did in fact write a book about the general, titled All In.

Then later, according to the Post, Paula sent threatening e-mails to another woman close to the general.  The recipient went to the authorities, who started investigating and learned of the affair.  Again, this is expected.

We're now in the ninth 'graf of the Post's story, which has yet to mention a single date.
...details emerged Saturday [November 10th, four days after the election] indicating that the Petraeus allegations became a secret election-night drama for the Obama administration. That evening the Justice Department informed the director of national intelligence, James R. Clapper Jr., that their investigation had unearthed compromising information about the CIA director, according to a senior U.S. intelligence official.
Clapper then spoke with Petraeus and urged him to resign, notifying the White House the next day. That sequence has become a source of controversy, raising questions among some members of Congress about why key intelligence committees were not notified earlier and why the FBI waited before informing the administration about a probe that had stumbled onto embarrassing details about the CIA chief.

What the Post fails to mention is that Petraeus was sworn in as director of the CIA on September 6th of last year (2011, for those reading some years from now).  Before that he'd been commander of all U.S. forces in Afghanistan from July 4, 2010 until July 18, 2011.

Here's the problem:  Having served a year-long tour in a remote, unaccompanied location I'm confident that more than a few people knew about the general's affair.  There are so few western women around that everyone notices one.

Next:  When either a married top general or agency chief has a clandestine affair, he becomes a potential target for blackmail by foreign countries.  This is Background Check 101 stuff.

When Obama appointed Petraeus, it's almost certain that the general's affair was known to Obama's minions.  Does anyone believe they wouldn't tell Obama the man he was about to appoint was dangerously compromised?  Of course not.  Which raises the main question: 

Why would Obama appoint as head the CIA a man he knew was compromised, could be blackmailed by a foreign power, and was therefore a huge political liability?

Answer:  You can absolutely count on him to do as he's instructed.

The Post again:
Director Clapper learned of the situation from the FBI on Tuesday evening around 5 p.m.,” a senior U.S. intelligence official said. “In subsequent conversations with Director Petraeus, Director Clapper advised Director Petraeus to resign.
Let's see now:  The FBI has been investigating the affair for months, and yet the Director of National Intelligence claims he just learned about it at 5 pm on election day??

Say, that's some great intel operation ya got there, Sparky.

I'm calling bullshit on this whole thing.  Somebody--agency or otherwise--knew about the affair over a year ago.  Which means Obama's handlers knew.  Yet Obama--with full knowledge of what he was doing--appointed a seriously compromised person--one whose judgement was totally lacking--to head the nation's main foreign intelligence service.

It was done deliberately.  And there's a reason.

Friday, November 9

More rape of taxpayers by liberals

You may have heard that virtually all cities and states are almost insolvent--and particularly California and its cities.  But officials in San Francisco seem to think they have enough extra money to fund what they say is a vital service to residents:  Free sex-change operations.

The taxpayer-funded operations were approved by the city's Health Commission. Backers say it will help ease the mental anguish of people who feel they are trapped in bodies of the wrong gender, but critics wonder why the taxpayers should foot the bill.

The idea of making taxpayers pay for sex-change operations came up in talks between public health officials and transgender rights advocates who wanted the operations covered under San Francisco's universal health care program. Transgender advocates hailed the vote.

“All Americans, in consultation with their doctors, should be able to receive the medical care they need to live healthy lives,” said Kristina Wertz, program director for the San Francisco-based Transgender Law Center. “We applaud San Francisco’s decision to allow transgender people the ability to receive the medical care they need to be healthy.”
So now the looters are forcing taxpayers to pay for their sex change operations, eh?  Is anyone surprised?  If Sandra Fluke could appear before a congressional committee and demand that the public pay for her birth-control pills, did anyone think any other demand would be considered off-limits or otherwise ridiculous?

Of course not.

In some states taxpayers pay for cell phones for folks on welfare, so why not anything else you'd like?  After all, it's only fair.  And you DO support fairness, don't you??

Does anyone detect the faintest pattern here?

If you're a democrat, probably not.

Honestly, I won't be a bit surprised if within another two years the poor are demanding free cars, and poor sexually-confused San Franciscans are demanding to be flown to Europe at taxpayer expense to "receive the sexual therapy they need to be healthy."  After all, the precedent has been set.

Wednesday, November 7

Lessons from the recent election

What I learned from the recent election:

1. Thuggery, shameless lying and unconstitutional acts win elections.  Specifically, Democrat congresswhores passing laws to give more gummint "freebies" to potential voters virtually guarantees the beneficiaries will vote Democrat, regardless of the unconstitutionality or fiscal insanity of those programs.

2. Except for the personal satisfaction, there's no point in working hard and playing by the rules, because a government bureaucrat or judge can take away whatever you've made or earned, on a wide variety of pretexts, with impunity.

3. There's no point in trying to work to be self-supporting because the financial bleeding (huge, endless government deficits) will continue, since the number of people demanding and receiving "freebies" is greater than the number of people paying taxes into the system.

4. A majority of Americans seem to think the government is--and should be--the source of all jobs.  This idea has become so deeply engrained as to have become an article of faith.  Thus as pols pander to that belief, they'll pass programs that will indeed create more government jobs, leading to further financial disaster.

5. Low-information voters believe any slick propaganda.  So the game plan for Democrat pols is to not be shy about lying.  Thus Obama can say "The attack in Benghazi was caused by a video--produced by an American--that insulted the prophet of Islam," and then later say "I said from the beginning that the attack on our consulate in Benghazi was a terrorist act," and almost no one in the Dinosaur Media says a word to correct this blatant lie.  Voters will believe him because a) they're not aware of any information to the contrary; and b) they have no desire to learn anything negative about Dear Leader.  Their main interest is "Where's my check?"

6. The Constitution is no longer the "supreme law of the land."  Specifically, that document charges the president with seeing to it that the laws of the U.S. "be faithfully executed" (Article 2 section 3).  Among many, many other examples, the Democrats controlling congress violated U.S. law by failing to produce a budget for three years in a row, and Obama did nothing--not even a word of admonishment--to prod his party to obey the law.  Another example: gun-running into Mexico.  Another: violation of the War Powers Act in Libya.  Failure to prosecute egregious violations of election laws by the Black Panthers in Philadelphia.  The list is a long one.

7.  There are lots of nominal Americans who seem plainly crazy.  (And I realize they think the same thing about conservatives.)

Tuesday, November 6

Hypocrisy? Dems never heard of it

"Who wants a president who will knowingly, repeatedly tell you something he knows is not true?"

Don't we all agree with that?  Sure.

So who would be the least-likely person to say this?

One who consistently, repeatedly lied to the nation.  Including under oath.

That would be...Bill Clinton.  Who actually spoke the quote at the top, at a campaign rally for Obama yesterday.


Monday, November 5

Will the U.S. survive?

Well it's finally here.  By tonight we'll probably know whether this country has a fighting chance at survival or not.

Unfortunately, it won't really be over.  There will be charges of vote fraud--not the little mis-direction plays touted by the Washington Post et al, but massive, organized fraud--like substituting carefully stuffed ballot boxes for real ones, or conveniently losing real boxes or machine tallies from areas known to trend heavily Republican.

Four years ago we saw paid voter registration "volunteers" registering Mickey Mouse, Adolf Hitler and the Dallas Cowboys--who mysteriously seemed to live in Las Vegas.  No one was tried.  And of course NPR and Nancy Pelosi asure us that there's no voting fraud in this country."

Yeah, right.

Sunday, November 4

"The future is cumulative."

Click on this link and read--regardless of your politics. 

"The future is cumulative."

Helluva powerful principle, that.  Distills human experience--the history of mankind, really--into just four words.  Allow me to explain.

When someone subverts the Constitution or violates "serious" laws, and good people politely do nothing, a bit of the wing structure that keeps our society aloft is shot away.

Do that enough times and the aircraft will fall out of the sky--quite without regard to how much people wail about how awful and unfair this result may be.

Thus when the Democrat-run government of three years ago came up with "Cash for Clunkers"--a clearly unconstitutional power grab--and the Supreme Court didn't slap it down, the precedent was established for the *next* unconstitutional act.

Thus when Obama violated the War Powers Act by ordering USAF airplanes to bomb Libya, without seeking congressional approval, the precedent was set for the *next* act.

Thus when Democrats who then controlled both branches of congress failed to submit a budget--in violation of a law passed years ago by an earlier congress--and Obama--who the Constitution charges with ensuring that the laws of the nation are enforced--did nothing to prod them to either follow the law or rescind it--the precedent was...I think you see the pattern.

America used to be a nation of laws.  Even the Left's favorite bogeyman George W. Bush sought (and received) congressional approval (as required by the War Powers Act) before invading Iraq.  But under the thoroughly corrupt leadership of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Buraq Obama, both government and Democrat groups violate the law with impunity.

And a bit more of our vital structure is chewed away.