Vast Left-Wing Hypocrisy

Go ahead...

2010-01-20T17:20:00.001-06:00

The Case For Nationalized Health Care

2009-08-31T10:15:00.002-05:00

I knew he looked familiar...

2009-08-18T14:20:00.000-05:00

Climate (of Hypocrisy) Change

2009-08-14T10:31:00.003-05:00

Queen Nancy: Profile in Buffoonery

That was then...

January 17, 2006: "So I think all of you who have spoken out for your courage, your point of view. All of it. Your advocacy is very American and very important."

...this is now:

August 10, 2009: "These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views — but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American."

From "Very" to "Un-" in three short years. Fascinating.

ObamaCare: A Well-Dressed, Un-American, Dissident View of Citizen Outrage

2009-08-12T11:10:00.006-05:00

According to the Leftoids, when 53% of the public elect a Democrat president, it's a mandate for HopeChange™ and a full-scale Socialist remodelling of our governing principles. However, when 53% (or more) oppose their universal health care scheme... well, they're just ignorant, dupes and/or un-American, Nazi-like tools of the insurance companies. When Leftoids use their resources to muster their drones and bus them cross-country to demonstrate one imagined greivance after another, it's praised as "community organizing;" when their political opponents do the same thing, it's derided as "astroturfing."

This is rich. The Leftoids -- who for 8 long years reminded us that dissent is patriotic while shouting their bumper-sticker platitudes about "Blood For Oil" and burning Bush in effigy with impunity while decrying the non-existent chilling effect of the Bushitler Junta on their First Amendment rights -- these same Leftoids now think that the angry so-called "mobs" showing up at town hall meetings to give their elected representatives what-for should be silent, because to protest our government is "un-American" and tantamount to Nazism. Americans are encouraged to report fellow citizens to the White House... yet we're the ones who are called Nazis?!?!? It's just fucking Orwellian, isn't it?

And then there's the Gutless Old Party: the RINOs think we should be quiet and civil and engage in reasoned debate with an opposition party that will merely take such as yet another sign of weakness before steamrolling over anyone who stands in their way. Through our distinguished representatives in the House and Senate we had plenty of "civil debate"; we've had it over the TARP bailouts, over the so-called "stimulus" pork slush fund, over the takeovers of the banking and automotive industries. "Civil debate" is working out pretty piss poorly, I'd say.

There may very well be a time and place for civil debate. But not now. As far as I'm concerned, calm, reasoned, civil debate is fine when it's over a fundamental role or function of government -- how best to appropriate defense funds, for example, or regulate interstate commerce. These are specific, enumerated duties that the government is charged with under the Constitution. People can have differing opinions on the ways and means, but these actual roles themselves are not in question; we know this because it's right there in the Constitution, in black and white. But having a civil debate with politicians over how best to implement a government health care takeover is like having a civil debate with a carjacker about how to best maintain your car after he steals it.

Let us be clear: Providing health care to citizens is not a legitimate function of the government -- at least not this government, not under this Constitution. So when half or more of the citizens are in effect told by the ruling class to shut the fuck up, get out of the way and accept yet another encroachment on their liberties by an omnipotent Socialist juggernaut, then shouting is the bare minimum of what must be done, and the shouting mustn't be limited merely to the Democrats, either -- both parties need to be scared of the citizens they (ostensibly) represent. That's the way the system was designed, not the other way around. If they're not scared for their lives, they should at least be scared for their cushy Ivory Tower lifestyle in DC.

Falling.

2009-08-06T07:13:00.003-05:00

Like space debris.The chin thrusts couldn't save Mussolini in the end, either.

Destroy

2009-07-11T11:16:00.005-05:00

Sotomayor backers urge reporters to probe New Haven firefighter
By Michael Doyle and David Lightman | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — Supporters of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor are quietly targeting the Connecticut firefighter who's at the center of Sotomayor's most controversial ruling.

On the eve of Sotomayor's Senate confirmation hearing, her advocates have been urging journalists to scrutinize what one called the "troubled and litigious work history" of firefighter Frank Ricci.

This is opposition research: a constant shadow on Capitol Hill.

"The whole business of getting Supreme Court nominees through the process has become bloodsport," said Gary Rose, a government and politics professor at Sacred Heart University in Fairfield, Conn.

On Friday, citing in an e-mail "Frank Ricci's troubled and litigious work history," the liberal advocacy group People for the American Way drew reporters' attention to Ricci's past. Other advocates for Sotomayor have discreetly urged journalists to pursue similar story lines.

My, how times have changed -- dissent is no longer patriotic, but the politics of personal destruction are once again acceptable to the Leftoids. Methinks this would make for some fine cinema...

Gangster Government

2009-07-06T10:09:00.001-05:00

(h/t: Witkowski)

Wake up, people.

2009-06-30T22:10:00.001-05:00

Computer Malfunction

2009-06-10T10:23:00.001-05:00

More anti-Islamic hate speech from far right-wing extremist Faux News:

Two passengers with names linked to Islamic terrorism were on board the Air France flight that crashed in the Atlantic Ocean, killing all 228 on board, it has emerged.

French secret servicemen established the connection while working through the list of those who boarded the doomed Airbus in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, on May 31.

Agents are now trying to establish dates of birth for the two dead passengers, and family connections.

There is a possibility that the name similarities are simply a "macabre coincidence," the source added, but the revelation is still being "taken very seriously."

Flight AF447 crashed in mid-Atlantic en route to Paris during a violent storm.

While it is certain that there were computer malfunctions, terrorism has not been ruled out.

I suppose if all all the flight control systems were destroyed by a bomb, along with the rest of the plane, that could be construed by some to be a "malfunction".

And besides, the only "terrorists" are us right-wing extremists in America who own guns and read the Constitution.

Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.

We are so fucked.

2009-06-09T08:54:00.004-05:00

Soooo.... How you liking yo' Change™ so far?

In a legal sleight of hand, the New York Federal Reserve -- under Geithner's supervision and in corroboration with then-Secretary Hank Paulson -- established the AIG trust, an ill-conceived and likely unconstitutional arrangement. According to Geithner's scheme, three handpicked government trustees represent taxpayer interests with indemnity from lawsuits and exemptions that allow them to take advantage of business opportunities for personal profit that would otherwise benefit AIG.

A sweetheart deal to be sure. And while it's easy to see how the trust was structured to protect the trustees -- and perhaps the Treasury, in whose interests they are legally compelled to act -- there is almost no protection for the taxpayers who fronted the cash that's keeping AIG afloat.

In fact, provisions of the AIG trust threaten U.S. taxpayers. By tying the trustees' fiduciary duty to the Treasury -- now run by Secretary Geithner -- the risk that short-term political interests will trump long-term financial soundness is intensified.

Moreover, where ordinary trustees are generally prohibited from exploiting investment opportunities that they learn about as a direct result of their responsibilities, the AIG trustees are free to secretly invest their own capital without disclosure.

Finally, Secretary Geithner has ensured the broadest possible indemnity protections for AIG trustees. Ostensibly, the trustees could initiate a clandestine investment plan to pad their own portfolios, appoint directors complicit in the fraudulent scheme, run AIG into the ground while making dollar-for-dollar counterparty payments and leave U.S. taxpayers holding a paper company with no market capitalization and drowning in debt -- all without any legal recourse.

In the end, the bailout of AIG has made U.S. taxpayers more vulnerable, not less. It has established a dangerous precedent for impulsive federal control of private corporations, siphoned off billions of taxpayer dollars and aggravated our economic pain rather than heal it.

Astoundingly, Secretary Geithner recently announced the possibility of structuring a similar bailout trust for Citigroup. If insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, I'm afraid the inmates are running the asylum over at the Department of Treasury.

Yet another reason our Creator endowed us with the unalienable right to keep and bear arms.

Purnelle Predicted HopeChange in 1983

2009-05-25T10:01:00.000-05:00

I've not read much Jerry Pournelle -- just a couple of his novels co-written with Larry Niven ("Lucifer's Hammer", "The Mote in God's Eye") and a great book on the Strategic Defense Initiative ("Mutual Assured Survival") that he wrote in the 80's. One might say he has a gift for foresight, but I'd say such a gift is hardly unique or supernatural -- anyone who reads and understands history (real history, not the garbage they teach in academia these days) could have predicted the mess we're in today without benefit of psychic abilities.

On his web site, Pournelle posts a piece originally written in 1983, but it could have been written yesterday to describe the present state of HopeyChangey affairs (h/t: Ace):

"Tyrants seldom come openly, their hands dripping with blood, their eyes blazing with hate. More often they come as friends of the people, tireless workers for the public good, heroes who will save the nation; who will cut the Gordian knot of parliamentary babble; who will carry out the people’s will.
"They come with promises. If we will disarm ourselves, they will provide professionals to protect us. If we give over our property they will assure us jobs. Crime will be abolished. Poverty will vanish. Together we will build a nation worthy of the future."

Any of this sound familiar?

Oppose S.843

2009-04-25T06:59:00.005-05:00

Another idiotic assassination attempt on the Second Amendment, another round of emails to my elected mis-representatives.

I recently moved to Texas from the pitiful little state of New Jersey. I did so for many reasons, one of which was to reclaim my Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. It seems, however, that my erstwhile Senator, Frank Lautenberg, has not given up on his quest to infringe upon my rights.

I'm sure Lautenberg's hatred of firearms stems from his younger days as a Tory during the American revolution; he should do well to remember how badly the whole gun control thing worked out in 1775. But I digress...

I write to urge you to OPPOSE S. 843 (To establish background check procedures for gun shows).

Thank you.

I'm sure my two Senators (Hutchison and Cornyn) will do the right thing.

Update I (4/25): More on this abomination.

Update II (4/25): Reply from Sen. Cornyn:

Thank you for contacting my offices. Your correspondence has been received, and we will respond to you as quickly as possible. A copy of your message is attached below for your records.

If you need immediate assistance regarding an urgent problem you are experiencing with the federal government, visit the "Help With Federal Agencies" section of the website for details on how to proceed so that your difficulties are brought to my attention as soon as possible.

If you are seeking information or services from my offices that are NOT related to my Legislative duties, please visit my "Services For Texans" section for more information.

Warmest Regards,
U.S. Senator John Cornyn

Update III (4/27): Reply from Sen. Hutchison:

Thank you for contacting me regarding gun control legislation and the protection of law-abiding citizens' right to own firearms. I welcome your thoughts and comments on this issue.

While we all support the strongest measures to ensure that guns do not end up in the wrong hands, I believe that one of the most powerful deterrents we have is the consistent, full enforcement of the numerous laws that already address many aspects of the problem. For instance, there are more than a dozen laws at the state and federal level that deal with the use, carrying, ownership, or trafficking of guns, and we must prosecute without qualification those who violate these laws.

Rather than usurping the rights of law-abiding citizens, I believe we should vigorously prosecute those who use guns to commit crimes. I have worked to enact federal anti-crime legislation that imposes tough minimum sentences on those convicted of using firearms to commit crimes, prevents early parole for violent criminals, and provides federal funds to build new prisons and fund local law enforcement. I will continue to support legislation that fights crime and upholds our Second Amendment rights.

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court upheld the individual right to keep and bear arms in District of Columbia v. Heller. I submitted an amicusbrief to the Court in support of affirming the District of Columbia's gun ban as unconstitutional, and was joined by 55 Senators, 250 House members, and the Vice President of the United States. This historic decision will affect gun laws throughout the country that try to unjustly undermine our rights under the Second Amendment.

I appreciate hearing from you, and I hope that you will not hesitate to keep in touch on any issue of concern to you.

Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison
United States Senator

Well, OK then...

Williams on Secession

2009-04-23T14:27:00.002-05:00

The great Walter Williams sums it up:

Perry is right when he says that there is no reason for Texas to secede. There are indeed intermediate actions short of secession that states can take. Thomas Jefferson said, "Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force." That suggests that one response to federal encroachment is for state governments to declare federal laws that have no constitutional authority null and void and refuse to enforce them.
While the U.S. Constitution does not provide a specific provision for nullification, the case for nullification is found in the nature of compacts and agreements. Our Constitution represents a compact between the states and the federal government. As with any compact, one party does not have a monopoly over its interpretation, nor can one party change it without the consent of the other. Additionally, no one has a moral obligation to obey unconstitutional laws. That's not to say there is not a compelling case for obedience of unconstitutional laws. That compelling case is the brute force of the federal government to coerce obedience, possibly going as far as using its military might to lay waste to a disobedient state and its peoples.

Finally, here's my secession question for you. Some Americans accept and have respect for the Tenth Amendment, which reads, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Other Americans, the majority I fear, say to hell with the Tenth Amendment limits on the federal government. Which is a more peaceful solution: one group of Americans seeking to impose their vision on others or simply parting company?

Emphasis mine.

(h/t: Reason)

Right-Wing Extremist

2009-04-23T13:56:00.003-05:00

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

Code Red!

2009-04-21T09:42:00.003-05:00

In light of the shocking revelations presented in the recent report on Right-Ring Extremism, Janet Napolitano has announced a restructuring of the Dept. of Homeland Security advisory system to better reflect the current threats to America:

Duck and cover.

Of Extremists, Secession, and Disavowal

2009-04-16T23:13:00.010-05:00

Democrats: Texas gov should disavow secession talk

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) - A group of Texas Democrats says Republican Gov. Rick Perry was reckless when he suggested at an anti-tax rally that fed-up Americans may one day want to secede from the United States. They said Thursday that he should disavow such talk. Democratic state Rep. Jim Dunnam of Waco says talk of secession is anti-American and that some people associate it with racial division and the Civil War. Perry's office did not immediately respond Thursday. Answering a question from The Associated Press at an anti-tax rally Wednesday, Perry said he doesn't think Texas should secede. But he said the federal government was thumbing its nose at the American people and added, "who knows what might come out of that."

Well, I think the Democrats should disavow socialism and reaffirm their commitment to states rights and limited federal powers. But they're not going to do that, are they?

If "some people" mistakenly associate our legitimate concerns about the Federal oligarchy overstepping its Constitutional limitations for "racial division," it only proves how out of touch and irrelevant they are.

What exactly did Perry say? The widely reported quote in question is hardly a rally cry for secession:

"We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we're a pretty independent lot to boot."

This is what has Leftoids outraged? Please.

As for this Dunnam character, I'll the opportunity to vote against him next time his name shows up on a ballot. I've already written to him urging his support of Texas House Bill 1803 (Relating to the carrying of concealed handguns on the campuses of institutions of higher education); a wrong vote on that issue and his seat is toast anyway.

Regarding secession: Do I believe the Tenth Amendment upholds a state's right to secede from the Union? Yes, 100%. Do I believe Texas is going to secede? No -- certainly not yet. Is Rich Perry pandering for votes? Probably. Are his remarks being blown out of both context and proportion by the Left? Yes... and most of those doing so are doing it for the single reason of making Perry and the state rights advocates look like loony separatists. They should study their history.

Our founders were loyal Brits, most of whom were initially opposed to colonial independence; they were dragged into the independence movement slowly by the increasing suppression of their rights as free men by an overpowering government who took them for granted and treated them as serfs. Independence was only a serious consideration after all other avenues of addressing their grievances were exhausted and ignored by the Crown and Parliament.

The fate of our Union lies -- today, tomorrow, and always -- squarely in the hands of the federal government. Good, hard-working Americans are finally taking notice of the way D.C. takes its citizens for granted and they are speaking out. Our government has forgotten who works for whom, and who should fear whom. The Tenth Amendment is clear: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." There is no language in the Constitution that specifically allows for secession; neither is there any language that prohibits it.

For the Left's part, their reactions to both Perry's statement and the Tea Party phenomenon are more concerning to me. With their silly Homeland Security and MIAC memos tucked firmly under their arms along with "Rules for Radicals" and "Das Kapital", they label as a "right-wing extremist" and a "terrorist threat" anyone who distrusts the government, who holds strong Tenth Amendment views, who owns guns or supports the Second Amendment, who wants lower taxation and responsible government spending -- basically, anyone who voted against Obama.

That's right, folks -- we're all Timothy McVeighs now. Funny, though... our "terrorists" get executed; theirs get pardons and tenure, and the unwavering support of the Left.

Speaking of "right-wing extremist terrorist threats" -- thank God this guy's off the streets... (h/t: Codrea):

Any questions about why people no longer trust our government?

Sovereignty

2009-04-14T16:34:00.003-05:00

“Texas has yet to learn submission to any oppression, come from what source it may.” - Sam Houston

Why Republicans Are The Minority Party (Part MCXVII)

2009-04-14T13:35:00.004-05:00

Witness Spencer Bachus (R-AL):

Bachus discussed a number of topics in his speech Thursday morning. He did not give the response some small city officials were hoping for when they asked if he would oppose all gun bans.

Instead, he said, it may be necessary to ban some assault weapons to keep hunting rifles and guns from being outlawed.

How would Spencer feel about giving up some of his First Amendment rights -- say, the freedom to exercise his religion -- in order to protect other First Amendment rights, like his right to open his mouth to release his flatulence about gun rights?

The Second Amendment is not about hunting. It is not about target shooting. If you believe that it is, you are not fit for elected office.

He said he is discouraging those who ask him whether they should arm themselves in preparation for economic or government trouble ahead. "I think peaceful, nonviolent protest is the way to go," he said.

Sure. And when citizens attend peaceful, nonviolent protests and are categorized by their government as extremists and homegrown terrorists, then what?

This DHS report warns of the terrorist threat from those who "are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely."

Wow... that sounds just like me! Now I'm a Homeland Security terrorist threat! See you at the re-education camp, folks. But I digress... back to Bachus:

He said he also believes it is a threat that the criminals will begin out-gunning the police officers. He said everyone should also be aware of the role weapons are playing in the recent multiple shooting tragedies around the country.

I'm concerned about criminals out-gunning the police, too. But I am far more concerned about criminals out-gunning me. I do not and will not rely on the police or any other government agency for protection of my rights, life or property. They are under no obligation to protect me; this is a fact. Why should I depend on them?

If others want their lives to hinge on a 9-1-1 operator or a police officer who might be 30 minutes away, that is their choice; I would oppose any and all legislation to prevent them from doing so. Just don't interfere with my right and my duty to protect myself and my family by telling me which and how many guns I may own.

Obama Wins Illegal, Immoral War Against the Pirate-African Community

2009-04-13T17:19:00.009-05:00

I just fucking knew it was all Bush's fault:

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., offered his praised of the military but also said that piracy had long been neglected by the Bush administration.
"I am elated by the safe rescue of Captain Richard Phillips and the crew of the Maersk Alabama and I thank and congratulate the Navy SEALS and others whose remarkable efforts resulted in a successful end to this troubling situation," Feingold said. "While the episode involving the crew of the Maersk Alabama had a happy ending, piracy off the coast of Somalia will assuredly continue since it is a symptom of the state collapse in Somalia, which presents a much greater and more dangerous problem. For years, Somalia's growing instability was neglected by the Bush administration and the international community. The new administration must not make the same mistake."

Feingold, as we all know, is a deceitful cocksucker. Anyone with a modicum of decency and honesty would understand that Bush "neglected" to do somethingthing about Somali piracy during his term because they never successfully took a US-flagged vessel until last week. Isn't it Feingold's despicable leftoid ilk that castigates its own country whenever it takes action "unilaterally?" Isn't it his party that condemns America when it tries to be (as you derisively call it) "the policeman of the world?" Oh, right -- that's only when it's a Republican CINC.

Fact #1: All the vessels that have previously been victims of high-seas piracy off the horn of Africa were under flags of other nations.

Fact #2: These nations did nothing to defend their ships and country except acquiesce to the demands of the thugs, pay out the ransoms as demanded, and further embolden the fucking pirates.

And this was Bush's problem how, exactly? Was the United States supposed to act on the behalf of Hong Kong? Of Panama? Of Denmark? Of the fucking Fwench? Are American soldiers and sailors now supposed to defend citizens of all the gutless countries of "the world community" who would rather pay ransom money to thugs than rescue their own people? Last I remember, the United Nations was in charge of "peacekeeping" in Somalia, not Bush. Oddly, I don't hear any mention of UN "neglect"...

Memo to Feingold: You're a dickless scumbag. What happened to the outrage against America that you and your so-called "world community" constantly spewed at Bush every time he did anything on behalf of America's allies? And now... this is all Bush's fault because he didn't launch what you and your miserable fucking ilk would surely have denounced as another "immoral, illegal, unilateral war against a nation that didn't attack us." You make me want to puke.

Sure, Bush does deserve some blame; after all, wasn't it Bush who denied his troops proper armor, then humiliated the US military by declaring defeat and pulling out of Somalia after they shot down a couple of Blackhawk helicopters and killed 18 American troops in Mogadishu?

Oh, wait... that wasn't Bush. Never mind.

Of course the lapdog media hacks are now hailing The Messiah-Hero for "his" success in his "first national security test". Wow, that was some test: four teenagers with AK-47s and a dinghy against a US Naval frigate, and the mightiest naval power in human history had to stand by for three days while Dear Leader "mulled" the situation and weighed "the intentions" of the pirates.

Make no mistake: the Navy snipers are the real heros. They performed brilliantly, as expected; it is their success, not Obama's. This rescue could have, and should have, been done exactly 5 minutes after the US Navy arrived on the scene, but not for the pussyfooting and hand-wringing in Washington. And for all this, the leftoids want to unroll the "Mission Accomplished" banner? Why not a fucking ticker-tape parade while we're at it?

Sorry, I'm not ready to proclaim Obama as the greatest military leader since Alexander the Great, not just yet -- let's talk after he orders air strikes on Iranian and North Korean nuclear reactors. Or is that too nuanced a "National Security Test" for the left? Instead, how about the next time a DC cop busts a drunk driver, Obama can be hailed for his successful handling of his "first Domestic Terrorism test."

The Free and The Unashamed

2009-04-08T21:34:00.003-05:00

I didn't write this... but I wish I had.

= A Declaration of Separation =

==== To The Governments & People of Earth: ====
We claim the right to exist, and we will defend it.

We do not seek to overthrow anything. We do not seek to control anything. We merely wish to be left alone.

All we ever wanted was to live in peace with our friends and neighbors. For a long, long time we bore insults to our liberty; we took blows, we did what we could to avoid injury and we worked through the system to get the offenses to stop. That has now changed.

We no longer see any benefit in working through the world’s systems. At some point, working within a system becomes cowardly and immoral; for us, that point has arrived. Regardless of the parties in power, their governments have continued to restrict, restrain and punish us. We hereby reject them all. We hereby withdraw from them all. We hold the ruling states of this world and all that appertains to them to be self-serving and opposed to humanity.

We now withdraw our obedience and reclaim the right to strike back when struck. We will not initiate force, but we do reserve the right to answer it. We did not choose this – it was forced upon us.

==== To The Governments of Earth: ====
You are building cages for all that is human. In the name of protection, you have intruded into all areas of human life, far exceeding the reach of any Caesar. You claim ultimate control of our property and our decisions, of our travels and even our identities. You claim ownership of humanity far beyond the dreams of any Emperor of any previous era.

Understand clearly: We reject your authority and we reject your legitimacy. We do not believe that you have any right to do the things you do. You have massive power, but no right to impose it upon us and no legitimacy. We have forsaken you. We are no longer your citizens or your subjects. Your systems are inherently anti-human, even if all their operators are not.

We are not merely angry young people. We are fathers and mothers; aunts, uncles and grandparents; we are business owners and trusted employees; we are mechanics and engineers and farmers. We are nurses and accountants and students and executives.

We are on every continent.

This is not a burst of outrage; this is a sober declaration that we no longer accept unearned suffering as our role in life.

For long decades we sat quietly, hoping that things would turn around. We took no actions; we suffered along with everyone else. But after having our limits pushed back again and again, we have given up on your systems. If our fellow inhabitants of this planet wish to accept your rule, they are free to do so. We will not try to stop them. We, however, will no longer accept your constraints upon us.

- From now on, when you hurt us, we will bite back. If you leave us alone we will leave you alone and you can continue to rule your subjects. We are happy to live quietly.

But if you come after us, there will be consequences. You caused this because of your fetish for control and power. The chief men and women among you are pathologically driven to control everyone and everything that moves upon this planet. You have made yourselves the judge of every human activity. No god-king of the ancient world ever had the power that your systems do.

You have created a world where only the neutered are safe and where only outlaws are free.

==== To The People of Earth: ====
We seek nothing from you. We do not want to rule you and we do not want to control you.

All we wish is to live on earth in peace. As always, we will be helpful neighbors and generous acquaintances. We will remain honest business partners and trustworthy employees. We will continue to be loving parents and respectful children.

We will not, however, be sacrificial animals. We reject the idea that others have a right to our lives and our property. We will not demand anything from you, and we will no longer acquiesce to any demands upon us. We have left that game. We reject all obligations to any person or organization beyond honesty, fair dealing and a respect for human life.

We will shortly explain what we believe, but we are not demanding that you agree with us. All we ask is that you do not try to stop us. Continue to play the game if you wish; we will not try to disrupt it. We have merely walked away from it.

We wish you peace.

==== To Those Who Will Condemn Us: ====
We will ignore you.

We welcome and seek the verdict of a just God, before whom we are willing to expose our innermost thoughts. Are you similarly willing?

We would stand openly before all mankind if it were not suicidal. Perhaps some day we will have to accept slaughter for our crime of independence, but not yet.

Your criticism and your malice are much deeper than mere disagreements of strategy or philosophy. You do not oppose our philosophy, you oppose our existence. Our presence in the world means that your precious ideals are false. Some of you would rather kill us than face the loss of your ideologies, just as those like you have either hated or killed every sufficiently independent human.

You present yourselves to the world as compassionate, tolerant and enlightened, but we know that your smooth words are costumes. Oh yes, we know you, servant of the state; don’t forget, we were raised with you. We played with you in the schoolyard, we sat next to you in the classroom. Some of us studied at the same elite universities. We watched as you had your first tastes of power. We were the boys and girls standing next to you.

Some of us were your first victims. We are not fooled by your carefully crafted public image.

==== What We Believe ====
#1: Many humans resent the responsibilities that are implied by consciousness. We accept those responsibilities and we embrace consciousness. Rather than letting things happen to us (avoiding consciousness), we accept consciousness and choose to act in our own interest. We do not seek the refuge of blaming others, neither do we take refuge in crowds. We are willing to act on our personal judgment, and we are willing to accept the consequences thereof.

#2: We believe in negative rights for all: That all humans should be free to do whatever they wish, as long as they do not intrude upon others; that no man has a right to the life, liberty or property of another; that we oppose aggression, fraud and coercion.

#3: We do not believe that our way of life, or any other, will make life perfect or trouble-free. We expect crime and disagreements and ugliness, and we are prepared to deal with them. We do not seek a strongman to step in and solve problems for us. We agree to see to them ourselves.

#4: We believe in free and unhindered commerce. So long as exchanges are voluntary and honest, no other party has a right to intervene – before, during or after.

#5: We believe that all individuals should keep their agreements.

#6: We believe that honestly obtained property is fully legitimate and absolute.

#7: We believe that some humans are evil and that they must be faced and dealt with. We accept the fact that this is a difficult area of life.

#8: We believe that humans can self-organize effectively. We expect them to cooperate. We reject impositions of hierarchy and organization.

#9: We believe that all humans are to be held as equals in all matters regarding justice.

#10: We believe that the more a man or woman cares about right and wrong, the more of a threat he or she is perceived to be by governments.

#11: We believe that there are only two true classes of human beings: Those who wish to exercise power upon others - either directly or through intermediaries - and those who have no such desires.

#12: Large organizations and centralization are inherently anti-human. They must rely upon rules rather than principles, treating humans within the organization as obedient tools.

==== Our Plans: ====
We are building our own society. We will supplement traditional tools with networking, cryptography, sound money, digital currency and anonymous messaging.

Our society will not be centrally controlled. It will rely solely on voluntary arrangements. We welcome others to join us. We are looking for people who are independent creators of value, people who act more than talk, and people who do the right thing because it is the right thing.

We will develop our own methods of dealing with injustice, built on the principles of negative rights, restitution, integrity and equal justice.

We do not forbid anyone from having one foot in each realm - ours and the old realm - although we demand that they do no damage to our realm. We are fully opposed to any use of our realm to facilitate crime in the old realm, such as the hiding of criminal proceeds.

We expect to be loudly condemned, libeled and slandered by the authorities of the old regime. We expect them to defend their power and their image of legitimacy with all means available to them. We expect that many gullible and servile people will believe these lies, at least at first.

We will consider traps laid for us to be criminal offenses.

Any who wish to join us are encouraged to distribute this declaration, to act in furtherance of our new society, to voluntarily excel in virtues and to communicate and cooperate with other members of the new society.

Free, unashamed men cannot be ruled.

We are The Free and The Unashamed.

What more to say? Except, of course, "Amen!"

To Protect and Serve

2009-04-08T15:22:00.003-05:00

A little sample what we have to look forward to in the new & improved Former United States of America...

"Freeze and drop your Constitutional rights!"

Why I Support Human Cloning.

2009-04-06T17:16:00.003-05:00

Can we get 535 copies of this guy for our Senate and House of (mis)Representatives?

But they support the troops!

2009-04-06T16:02:00.003-05:00

Not merely satisfied with plans to disarm American citizens, our new hopey-changey overlords (whose patriotism cannot be questioned, mind you) now plan to disarm the American military, too:

Gates to cut several major weapons programs
By ANNE GEARAN - The Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- Defense Secretary Robert Gates is proposing deep cuts to some big weapons programs such as the F-22 fighter jet as the Pentagon takes a hard look at how it spends money. Gates announced a broad range of cuts Monday to weapons spending, saying he plans to cut programs ranging from a new helicopter for the president to ending production of the $140 billion F-22 fighter jet.

Not enough change for you? But wait -- there's more!

Barack Obama's new offensive against nuclear weapons - Radical drive among series of measures to improve security

Barack Obama yesterday announced a radical drive aimed at ridding the world of nuclear weapons, as the focus of his European visit switched from financial to geopolitical security.

"In Prague, I will lay out an agenda to seek the goal of a world without nuclear weapons," Obama said yesterday after arriving in continental Europe for the first time as president. "The spread of nuclear weapons or the theft of nuclear material could lead to the extermination of any city on the planet," he warned, adding that suspected rogue nuclear states, such as North Korea or Iran, may only be persuaded to abandon their quests if the big nuclear powers set an example.

"We can't reduce the threat of a nuclear weapon going off unless those that possess the most nuclear weapons, the United States and Russia, take serious steps to reduce our stockpiles," Obama said. "So we want to pursue that vigorously in the years ahead."

A "radical drive" indeed! No better way to improve security than by eliminating the nuclear deterrent that has kept the free world free since 1945. I'm sure Iran and North Korea will follow suit soon after our unilateral disarmament is complete. I'm sure.

Perhaps Obama will lead the way towards a safer world by disbanding his Secret Service detail (after all, they carry guns, and guns cause violence) and fly coach from now on instead of using that relic of the Cold War, Air Force One, with all those unnecessary air defense gizmos.

"Write Your Congressman" -- Not Just a Cliché Anymore...

2009-03-31T14:10:00.004-05:00

I don't remember ever writing to any of my elected representatives before, but I feel compelled to do so now. Here is my first (of many?) letters to Chet Edwards (D-TX), who represents the 17th Congressional District of Texas in which I currently reside:

Dear Congressman Edwards,

It has been said that if one's elected representatives do not know you, then they can not, and do not, represent you. With this in mind, I write to you to introduce myself. I am a new resident of your district, having left New Jersey after 45 years to settle in central Texas with my family. I choose to live in Texas, in part, because I believe in freedom; I oppose punitive taxation; and I take the Second Amendment literally. The elected officials in New Jersey clearly do not share my beliefs, therefore I voted with a U-Haul truck last August and now happily reside in the great state of Texas.

I am a member of no political party; I view Republicans and Democrats with equal suspicion. I judge politicians by their votes and actions, not their promises and rhetoric. Being new to your district, I know little about you other than what I've read on your web site and by briefly searching the Congressional records on THOMAS.

I applaud your support for our veterans, for domestic oil drilling, and for border security, yet I'm disappointed by your votes on the so-called "stimulus" package and other spending bills. I am of the opinion that government must live within its financial means just as my family must. If our household budget runs into a deficit, we do not have the option of transferring wealth from others in order to cover our shortfall; that government does this through forced taxation is irresponsible and contrary to everything I believe in.

After perusing your web site I am happy to see that you share my beliefs with respect to American citizens' Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Therefore, I urge you to support the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009 (H.R. 197). The notion that I can cross a state border and instantly be transformed from a law-abiding citizen into a felon is pure insanity and antithetical to the Second Amendment which grants citizens of the United States of America gun ownership and possession rights, regardless of what state they happen to find themselves in. Any state law that infringes upon this right, I believe, is unconstitutional. While H.R. 197 is not a perfect solution to unconstitutional firearm laws, it is certainly a step in the right direction and must be enacted into law as soon as possible.

I also urge you to oppose all current and future anti-gun legislation, including the so-called "assault rifle" ban which targets firearms for their looks, not their function. Even though a blackened rifle with a folding stock might be too scary-looking for certain elected officials and bureaucrats, and even though the mere sight of such weapons might cause them to soil their panties, that is not reason enough to infringe on the Constitutional rights of honest, law-abiding citizens who keep and bear such arms for self-defense and sporting purposes. I do not own any rifles at this time, scary-looking or otherwise, but I reserve my right to own one or more in the future and resent a government that attempts to decide which firearms I may or may not own; that they would do so based on cosmetics makes it all the more insulting.

Thank you for taking the time to listen. I will be following your voting record closely during this 111th Congress and sincerely hope that you will earn my support in the next election.

I will post any and all future correspondence here.

Honor Student Kills 4 Cops, Guns Clearly To Blame

2009-03-23T11:16:00.010-05:00

Honor Student

More proof that gun control works:

Gunman kills 3 officers, wounds 4th in Oakland
(AP) Sun Mar 22, 10:03 am ET - OAKLAND, Calif.

A police officer was battling for his life and three more were dead after a parolee with an "extensive criminal history" opened fire at a routine traffic stop and hours later gunned down members of a SWAT team searching for him.

The gunman was also killed Saturday, capping a day of violence that the Oakland Police Department said was the worst in its history. Never before had three police officers died in the line of duty on the same day.

[...]
Police said Mixon wielded two different weapons. One gun was used at the first scene and an assault rifle was used at the apartment building where he was hiding.

Jordan said Mixon had an "extensive criminal history" and was wanted on a no-bail warrant.

"(Mixon) was on parole and he had a warrant out for his arrest for violating that parole. And he was on parole for assault with a deadly weapon," said Oakland police Deputy Chief Jeffery Israel.

Call for tougher gun control in California (if that's even possible) in 4...3...2... Oh, silly me. It didn't even take that long:

Officer killings renew gun control issue
[...] Oakland police say Lovelle Mixon used a handgun to shoot the motorcyle cops who pulled him over and an assault rifle at the apartment. They say they believe this is an example of why parolees should not be allowed to have guns.
Mixon was on parole and had a warrant out for his arrest for violating that parole. He was also on parole for assault with a deadly weapon according to Oakland Deputy Police Chief Jeffery Israel.
The gun control issue is a controversial one, with 65 House democrats saying just on Wednesday, that they would oppose any attempt by the Obama administration to ban any military-style weapons.

Yes, gun control is the answer. It is obvious that the laws in this country need to be changed to make it illegal for violent felons to keep and bear arms. That would have stopped this guy, for sure.

Oh, wait -- it's already illegal for violent felons to keep and bear arms!?!?!? The hell you say! Well then, we should change the laws to place more restrictions on honest, law-abiding gun owners; that would have stopped this guy, for sure.

Note also the requisite mention of "assault rifle" in both these articles. Wouldn't be complete without that! They've got to go, too. I mean, aside from the gazillions of murders they commit (all by themselves, no trigger-puller required), think about all the bed-wetting by limp-wristed Leftoids that can be avoided if we eliminate scary looking guns.

In a nutshell: A career criminal let out of jail to walk the streets (by whom, I wonder...) commits murder with guns that he is forbidden by Federal and State law to own. Murder is illegal, gun possession by a felon is illegal, there are countless laws on the books already that this asshole has broken. The State of California knew he was a violent felon, they had him incarcerated, but decided it was in the public interest to let him walk free amongst us humans. And when this honor student commits murder (despite laws saying he can't do that) with guns (despite laws saying he can't own them) the answer is to place further gun restrictions on me?!?!?

Makes perfect sense, I suppose, if you're a citizen of the Leftoid Bizarro World.

Bonus Question -- Find the "assault rifle":

Now, what's the difference between the two?

Answer: NOTHING. Except that one is scary looking and makes Leftoids wet their panties. Both shoot the same rounds, both accept the same magazines, both can be used for "assault." Yet, one is on the would-be gun grabbers' shit list, the other is not.

Well, not yet, anyway...

Springfield Armory To Be Obaminated?

2009-03-21T08:58:00.008-05:00

Don't like history? Just erase it!

The Springfield Armory National Historical Site in Massachusetts is a tribute to America's first and last national armory, the place where much of our national history was shaped (the above illustration is from Harper's Magazine in 1861 as the Armory tooled up for the Civil War).

Now it appears that the Armory itself has come under fire, this time from its National Park Service overseers.

Yesterday Jim Shepherd at the SHOOTING WIRE and I received information ostensibly from an insider whistle-blower that the Springfield Armory is quietly being disassembled. According to the information we received, the new director not only has no background in firearms — rather, from "textiles" — but sees no benefit in preserving "old guns."

Again, according to the information we received, the curator has been removed, the huge arms library has been closed and the new administrator is in the process of locking up the arms collections.

Via Michael Bane.

Why do guns need a museum, anyway? It's not like they were instrumental in the forging of our nation, right? Besides, guns kill people. Well... that, and preserve liberty.

Update: Been thinking about this all morning. The government funds all sorts of museums. Ellis Island and Alcatraz are both National Historic Sites under the purview of the National Park Service. The Holocaust Memorial, too, and the Holocaust, arguably, is no more about "American" history than is the Munich Beer Hall Putsch or the Blitzkrieg. (Also arguably, if the Jews had guns in 1930's Germany, maybe there would be no need for a Holocaust museum. But I digress...) Obama's so-called "stimulus" plan allocates $55,000,000.00 for a Mob museum?!?!? For Christ's sake...

Update 3/24: Or perhaps not. Via Outdoor Wire:

We've been receiving reports of moves afoot to make significant changes to the Springfield Armory National Historic Site. Those changes, sources told us, weren't to the betterment of the facility or the historically significant collection of thousands of unique and prototype arms either on display or in storage there.

Following a conversation with the top official there, I can report the rumors of the impending demise of the Springfield Armory collection appear to have been greatly exaggerated.

During my extended discussion with Michael Quijano-West, the Superintendent of the Springfield Armory National Historic Site yesterday, Quijano-West made it extremely clear changes were being made, but they were designed to make the armory collection and the accompanying historical archives more accessible, not to lock them away.

"We're not closing anything," he said, "in fact, we've expanded our operating hours to 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., seven days a week. That certainly wasn't the case before, hours were inconvenient for visitors. Today, there are only three days on our calendar when we won't be open: Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Years Day."

Additionally, Quijano-West says, there will be longer summer hours this year, and guided tours on the weekends. All designed, he says, to help build interest in the historical site he calls a "gem" of American history.

"Springfield Armory is a significant, inspirational and unique treasure," he says, "it's a shrine of our country. And a story we'd like to share with even more visitors."

So what of the closure reports?

"Not accurate," he explained, "we are upgrading the facilities, and that includes relocating some office spaces. Upgrades will create separate archive and collection research areas in new multi-purpose spaces. Those spaces will enable researchers and photographers to examine either the archives or firearms in our collection on an appointment basis. And the rooms will also give us the ability to create temporary exhibits there, too.

"The whole goal of the upgrades is to make everything easier to see and more accessible - including the document archive. The archive is as significant as the armory firearms many of the documents support, but it's not been as well organized as it could have been in the past."

While the modernization of a portion of the exhibits building has caused the relocation of some of the thousands of firearms in the collection, Quijano-West says the intention has nothing to do with limiting access and everything to do with preserving the armory.

"Making this historical treasure available and accessible to the public is my goal," he says, "whether they like guns or not - there is something here for everyone interested in history, from General Washington to the architectural and cultural landscape of the buildings. It is really a work of art."

Does "like guns or not" mean a de-emphasizing the fact it is, or was, an armory?

"No," he explained, "in fact much of the earlier emphasis here has been on the manufacturing process. I keep reminding everyone that the manufacturing developments were, indeed, revolutionary, but the place was an armory. You can't ignore the firearms."

"We're working to interest school children in the area more interested in the facility. One project we've created is a poster called a poem on muskets," Quijano-West explained.

"Henry Wadsworth Longfellow came here and saw the Springfield Armory and was so impressed with it he wrote and published a poem about it. We took a high-quality photograph of part of our exhibits and put that poem with it. We'll be distributing it to area schools, hoping we can get kids interested in firearms and the Springfield Armory."

There have been changes at the Springfield Armory National Historic Site, and there are more changes planned. Some changes will be obvious, and others will be dedicated to the preservation and security of the entire collection.

Others, I was told, will make bring the facility into compliance with National Park Service policies on security and safety. None, Quijano-West says, will make this national historic treasure less accessible.

As a sworn federal law enforcement officer, Quikano-West explains he's particularly aware of the idea of security of everyone visiting - and working- at the Springfield Armory, but he's also determined to see that everyone has easy access to the armory, the firearms collection, and the associated document archives.

The entire facility he says, makes the unique importance of firearms to the history of America apparent -including our history not yet written. Hiding them away, he says, would not accomplish that goal.

Agreed.

Well, OK then.

Lou Dobbs & Stephen Halbrook on Gun Ownership Rights

2009-03-18T11:30:00.002-05:00

(h/t Gun Rights Radio)

Flying the Terrorist-Friendly Skies

2009-03-18T09:47:00.003-05:00

From The Washington Times:

After the September 11 attacks, commercial airline pilots were allowed to carry guns if they completed a federal-safety program. No longer would unarmed pilots be defenseless as remorseless hijackers seized control of aircraft and rammed them into buildings.

Now President Obama is quietly ending the federal firearms program, risking public safety on airlines in the name of an anti-gun ideology.

The Obama administration this past week diverted some $2 million from the pilot training program to hire more supervisory staff, who will engage in field inspections of pilots.

It's not clear whether pilots who are currently permitted to keep and bear arms in the cockpit will be stripped of their weapons (though it wouldn't surprise me...) but it is clear that by cutting funding to the training program, our articulate and clean Teleprompter-Reader in Chief is going to prevent future pilots from arming themselves in order to maximize their ability to protect passengers.

(h/t: Ace, who poses an important question: "If you don't trust a pilot to carry a gun, what the fuck are you doing allowing him at the controls of a plane carrying 300 people?")

Fight the Real Enemy!

2009-03-16T12:19:00.008-05:00

First, a word from our sponsor:

"The spirit of the times may alter, will alter. Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless. A single zealot may commence persecutor, and better men be his victims. It can never be too often repeated that the time for fixing every essential right on a legal basis is while our rulers are honest and ourselves united. From the conclusion of [their] war [for independence, a nation begins] going down hill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves but in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of [that] war will remain on [them] long, will be made heavier and heavier, till [their] rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion." -- Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XVII, 1782. (*) ME 2:225

And now, the news.

Our government overlords have revealed their new plan to combat terrorism, and it's a simple one: Just redefine "terrorist" to describe anyone who doesn't subscribe to the Leftoid worldview.

People (that is, "White Males") who own firearms, support Libertarian candidates, own a "Don't Tread On Me" flag, watch videos about the Federal Reserve, read Tom Clancy novels, believe in the US Constitution, and/or mistrust our government -- according to some nondescript government agency called the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC), these people are the real enemies of America.

The MIAC report does not concentrate on Muslim terrorists, but rather on the so-called “militia movement” and conflates it with supporters of Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, the so-called patriot movement and other political activist organizations opposed to the North American Union and the New World Order.

I don't believe in the supremacy of the white race, or any other. Nor do I believe in a Vast Zionist Conspiracy. I don't particularly like Ron Paul or his supporters all that much -- I find him to be the Ross Perot du jour, someone who can to make perfect sense while still giving me the heebie-jeebies. I am not (as yet) even a member of the Libertarian Party, mostly because I don't believe in wasting my vote as a matter of principle just to "send a message." That said...

I DO consider myself to be a (small "l") libertarian and subscribe to just about every plank in the Libertarian Party platform.
I DO believe in the US Constitution; I believe that it means what it says, and that it should be taken literally.
I DO own firearms, which I keep and bear under the laws of the State of Texas and the United States of America.
I DO oppose restrictive gun laws, and believe that an unchecked government eventually will move to confiscate my firearms.
I DO oppose the notion of a one-world government and especially despise the United Nations, and find our government's cozying up to a collection of authoritarian thugs and and dictators to be sickening.
I DO oppose the increasing federalization of the states; the Tenth Amendment is another one of those things that means what it says.

In short, I DO NOT TRUST OUR GOVERNMENT. Apparently for good reason, because they don't seem to trust people like me, either.

According to the aforementioned nondescript government agency, this qualifies me as a right-wing extremist and a terrorist threat. So be it. At least I'm in good company: Thomas Jefferson fought to have the Bill of Rights ratified along with the Constitution for that very reason -- he believed that government could not be trusted with power over the citizenry. He seems to be the grandfather of the so-called "Militia Movement" as defined by MIAC.

Unfortunately, what Jefferson feared and foretold 230 years ago is coming to pass; our rights have been ever so slowly eroding since the end of the Civil War, which effectively settled the question of whether states can secede from the Union, the first drop of White-Out to hit our Constitution. It's happened slowly enough that people don't even notice because they're too transfixed by American Idol.

Will I wake up one day and find myself on a government watch list because I choose to exercise my God given right to keep and bear arms? Or have a bumper sticker endorsing the "wrong" candidate on my Jeep? Or go to the "wrong" church? Or say mean things about our articulate and clean President on my blog? When will it end? And how badly? Am I paranoid, or merely observant?

The MIAC website has a handy form for citizen-comrades to report ~~their neighbors~~ suspicious activities. Maybe they'll add a check box for "Has Ron Paul Bumper Sticker on his Lexus" after "Miscellaneous Suspicious Activity with a Terrorism Nexus." If this doesn't give you the creeps, nothing will.

Meanwhile, back in Obama-land: Let's close down Gitmo and let those poor Islamic so-called "terrorists" go. While we're at it, stop calling Islamic Fascists captured on the battlefield while trying to kill American soldiers "Enemy Combatants" -- why, it might offend them. And besides, referring to them as such might lend credence to the notion that America is, indeed, at war. Which, of course, we're not.

We are so fucked.

It's Deja Vu...

2009-03-14T08:22:00.004-05:00

...all over again. I went to bed one night in March of 2009, and woke up the next morning in 1979 to learn that ~~Nicaragua's~~ Venezuela's Marxist government has agreed to let the ~~Soviets~~ Russians base strategic bombers in their country, within striking distance of the US mainland, while ~~Jimmy Carter~~ B. Hussein Obama scrambles for his teleprompter to deliver yet another scathing attack on America's real enemy: Rush Limbaugh. Or is it Jim Kramer's turn today? I forget...

Gun Ownership: Because I Can.

2009-03-11T09:24:00.013-05:00

When in Texas, do as the Texans do.

Last weekend I exercised my Second Amendment right and purchased a Taurus 24/7 Pro DS 9mm at a gun show in Dallas. Despite being a longtime advocate of gun rights in America and an occasional member of the National Rifle Association, this is the first firearm I've owned. I had no intention of buying a gun that day, I was just looking around in order to educate myself, but my wife really wanted to buy one right away, so I let her pick out a handgun she felt comfortable with. She chose the Taurus over 9mm over similar S&W and Glock models; I would have preferred a sub-compact .45 as a carry weapon (I like the Glock 36, but the Taurus Millennium 145 is tempting...) but she thinks a 9mm might be easier for her to handle. Probably right. Taurus is a Brazilian company; I figure any nation that produced Ayrton Senna is perfectly capable of producing quality firearms.

So now I'm a gun owner. My leftoid pal up north is beside himself with the prospect of me turning into a gun nut. "Why do I need a gun," he asks? "Why does anyone need a gun? Their whole purpose is to kill people!!!" He attributes my desire to arm myself to "fear of boogeymen"; I attribute his anti-gun politics as "fear of gun owners". He thinks the Second Amendment is outdated and no longer applies; I consider the Second Amendment as a guarantor of our fundamental rights. And 'round and 'round we go -- no amount of reason or facts will change the mind of a fully indoctrinated leftoid, especially on the topic of guns. Ultimately, my decision to exercise my right to keep and bear arms is simple and needs no defense: Because I can. FYNQ.

As the current administration chomps at the bit to further government limitations on our Constitutional rights, including (but not limited to) the Second Amendment, I felt it was time to act. Anti-gun zealots in our government are either incapable of comprehending that pesky "shall not be infringed" language or (more likely) they simply don't care. Obama's record on gun rights is dismal; his Attorney General is on the record stating that he does not believe an individual's right to keep and bear arms is affirmed by the U.S. Constitution; and Congressional Democrats have already announced their intentions by introducing legislation to restore the so-called "assault weapons" ban -- which, as we have learned, bans pretty much any firearm they find to be scary looking and instantly turns thousands of law abiding citizens into criminals with the stroke of a pen. If the left's early actions on taxation and spending are any indication, I expect they'll rush new gun control legislation through Congress before they can be held accountable in the 2010 elections, by which time the laws will be on the books and, given the scrotumless, roll-over nature of elected Republicans, will have little chance of being overturned.

America is stocking up: Glock is reported to be unable to keep up with the demand for their handguns; premium ammunition is becoming scarce; political uncertainty looms ahead. Some may see this as paranoia; I merely see it as a matter of practicality. If guns and ammo are to be restricted or heavily taxed in the near future, it makes fiscal sense to buy early and buy often -- I did the same thing when the FCC outlawed full-coverage VHF/UHF receivers back in the 90's; I would do the same thing if I knew there was going to be a hike in the price of bottled water.

So with this in mind, I intend to purchase as many firearms and as much ammo as I can afford while I still can; I am not alone on this. I shall strive to become as proficient as possible with all types of firearms; I will take advantage of the liberty afforded me by the great state of Texas to become a licensed concealed weapon carrier; and I will urge others to do the same. History has proven -- repeatedly -- that a right not exercised soon becomes a right lost.

Of Parasites and Hosts.

2009-03-05T12:27:00.003-06:00

"Owners of capital will stimulate the working class to buy more and more of expensive goods, houses and technology, pushing them to take more and more expensive credits, until their debt becomes unbearable. The unpaid debt will lead to bankruptcy of banks, which will have to be nationalized, and the State will have to take the road which will eventually lead to communism."

Karl Marx, Das Kapital, 1867

(h/t: Konstantine)

On Irony, Complex Systems, and Gaussian Copula

2009-02-28T11:22:00.004-06:00

Coyote on the ineffectiveness of the computer modeling that the Global Warmunists rely upon in their never ending quest to run our lives:

Do you like irony? In the last couple of months, I have been discovering I like it less than I thought. But here is a bit of irony for you anyway. The first paragraph of Obama’s new budget read like this:
"This crisis is neither the result of a normal turn of the business cycle nor an accident of history, we arrived at this point as a result of an era of profound irresponsibility that engulfed both private and public institutions from some of our largest companies’ executive suites to the seats of power in Washington, D.C."
As people start to deconstruct last year’s financial crisis, most of them are coming to the conclusion that the #1 bit of “irresponsibility” was the blind investment of trillions of dollars based on solely on the output of correlation-based computer models, and continuing to do so even after cracks appeared in the models.

The irony? Obama’s budget includes nearly $700 billion in new taxes (via a cap-and-trade system) based solely on … correlation-based computer climate models that predict rapidly rising temperatures from CO2. Climate models in which a number of cracks have appeared, but which are being ignored.

Read the rest. While you're at it, also read his takedown on the favorite phrase used by the Global Warmunists to silence their opponents: "peer review."

The Revolution WILL Be Televised Today!!!

2009-02-24T13:02:00.003-06:00

This has been covered everywhere, but it's so fucking funny that I must add it here.

Stupid, know-it-all, self-indulgent little twats. All of them. "You may not come in here. This is a student free-space." Uh-huh.

This is what happens when inattentive and/or unfit parents let MTV raise their children, then send 'em off to ~~Radical Boot Camp~~ college so they can complete their ~~indoctrination~~ education and learn big, grown-up words like "consensus," "brutality," and "democratic process." Fuckwits.

The follow-up is just as hysterical. See also: Ace, HotAir.

It's sad when you realize that this asshole will probably be an elected official someday, just like all the spoiled malcontents of the 60's are today. But fuck it, I'll be dead by then...

Racist?

2009-02-20T03:50:00.005-06:00

Racist:

Not Racist:

Any questions?

The Swedish Model

2009-02-18T11:31:00.007-06:00

Wonderful.

Bank nationalisation gains ground with Republicans

Long regarded in the US as a folly of Europeans, nationalisation is gaining rapid acceptance among Washington opinion-formers – and not just with Alan Greenspan, former Federal Reserve chairman. Perhaps stranger still, many of those talking about nationalising banks are Republicans.

Lindsey Graham, the Republican senator for South Carolina, says that many of his colleagues, including John McCain, the defeated presidential candidate, agree with his view that nationalisation of some banks should be “on the table”.

Mr Graham says that people across the US accept his argument that it is untenable to keep throwing good money after bad into institutions such as Citigroup and Bank of America, which now have a lower net value than the amount of public funds they have received.

“You should not get caught up on a word [nationalisation],” he told the Financial Times in an interview. “I would argue that we cannot be ideologically a little bit pregnant. It doesn’t matter what you call it, but we can’t keep on funding these zombie banks [without gaining public control]. That’s what the Japanese did.”

Barack Obama, the president, who has tried to avoid panicking lawmakers and markets by entertaining the idea, has moved more towards what he calls the “Swedish model” – an approach backed strongly by Mr Graham. In the early 1990s Sweden nationalised its banking sector then auctioned banks having cleaned up balance sheets. “In limited circumstances the Swedish model makes sense for the US,” says Mr Graham.

Now, I'm all for Swedish models...

...but I fear this is the Swedish model that Obama and the "Me too!" Republicans are talking about:

This is News?!?!?

2009-02-17T15:31:00.008-06:00

Gillibrand removes guns from under bed

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) has moved the two rifles that she kept under the bed to protect her upstate New York home, her spokesman said Monday.

"Given that the location of the guns has been disclosed, they have been moved for security reasons," Gillibrand's spokesman Matt Canter said.

She relocated the guns over the weekend while upstate to endorse Democrat Scott Murphy in the March 31 election to replace her in the 20th District, he said.

He also said Gillibrand, mother of a 5-year-old and an infant, kept the ammunition separate from the empty guns, and then later called to add that the rifles were locked in a case while stored under the bed. She had refused to describe her gun safety measures.

Gun-control activists questioned the safety of placing guns under a bed where children can find them and burglars look first. The National Rifle Association said it is up to gun owners to safely store weapons.

Gillibrand disclosed she had guns under her bed in an interview with Newsday last Thursday. A Newsday story on the interview ran Monday, prompting reactions by advocates for gun rights and gun control.

Gov. David A. Paterson, Sen. Charles Schumer and Mayor Michael Bloomberg declined to comment through their aides.

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-Mineola), a gun-control activist threatening a primary challenge to Gillibrand over her pro-gun stance, said Friday said she does not criticize legally owned guns. McCarthy added, "I hope the guns didn't have bullets in them."

Rep. Pete King (R-Seaford), who has said he might run against Gillibrand, joked, "With Kirsten Gillibrand keeping two rifles under the bed and Chuck Schumer being so anti-gun, Schumer and Gillibrand have to be the Senate's oddest couple."

Gillibrand said she will make her first visit as U.S. senator to Long Island Friday. The trip's details haven't been released.

Gillibrand also has not replied to requests for a meeting by New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, said the group's executive director, Jackie Hilly.

As a result, Hilly said, the group will hold a rally on New York's City Hall steps Thursday to urge Gillibrand to work to pass three gun control bills. It will feature Lois Schaffer, a Great Neck woman whose daughter was shot and killed in her St. Louis home last December by teens with a stolen gun.

Long Islanders both criticized and defended Gillibrand.

"I am very upset about the whole thing," said Joyce Gorycki of Mineola, widow of a Long Island Rail Road official killed in the 1993 train shooting and co-chair of Long Island's New Yorkers Against Gun Violence. "I don't know why she needs two rifles."

But Tomasz Lorenc of Glen Cove, shopping at American Outdoor Sports in Farmingdale, said, "More power to her. There's nothing wrong with that. You have the right to bear arms."

Meanwhile, a search of the Lexis-Nexis database showed that Gillibrand has a Montana hunting license. But Canter said it's actually a fishing license.

Where to start?

"Gillibrand disclosed that she owns guns?"

Huh? Why is a simple statement that she exercises one of her Constitutional rights taken as a "disclosure," as if it's a conflict of interest or a sexually transmitted disease? The negative connotation of the word "disclosure" is telling of how northeastern elitists feel about gun ownership -- that it is something bad or dirty. Must we now "disclose" whether we engage in free speech or practice religion?

"I hope the guns didn't have bullets in them."

Fuckwit. That's where bullets are supposed to be. How else can you shoot scumbags who violate your property with ill intent?

"I don't know why she needs two rifles."

Excuse me? Whether someone chooses to keep and bear arms, and how many firearms one chooses to keep and bear, is no business of anyone other than the individual in question. If you don't understand, it's only because you're an illiterate who can't read the Bill of Rights and come away with a firm understanding of some very simple language. Gorycki's group, New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, has little to do with gun violence; they're against gun ownership. Is Gorycki concerned that New York's junior Senator might use the two unloaded rifles kept under lock and key for violent criminal activities? No, she's "upset" because a law abiding citizen owns guns. Period.

A Tale of Two Poster Chidren

2009-02-14T15:49:00.019-06:00

This is the story of two American citizens. Both had the opportunity to meet Barack Obama up close and personal. Both are now famous for what they asked him. Compare and contrast.

Meet Joe:

Joe is a plumber. He works hard and has dreams of someday owning his own business someday. He asked Obama why he shouldn't be allowed to keep more of his earnings, illiciting Obama's now famous response about how spreading the wealth around is a good thing. Within a couple of days, a video of Joe's meeting with Obama was distributed all over the internet. This embarrassed Obama and made Leftists angry.

Soon, late-night comedians were all over Joe the Plumber. Democrat government officials were releasing confidential personal records to the media. The media, in turn, was focusing on the questioner rather than the question he asked. "Who is Joe the Plumber?," they asked. "What is the truth about him?" Accusations abounded: he's a tax-cheat; he's not a "real" plumber; he's divorced; he's Charles Keating's son-in-law; he's not even registered to vote (apparently ACORN doesn't organize his community). Despite these things having nothing to do with Joe's question, or the answer which exposed Obama as a naked Socialist, Joe the Plumber became the election season's Public Enemy #1.

Why? Because Joe symbolizes greed and selfishness in the eyes of the American Left. He and others like him expect to reap the wealth that they create for themselves; they don't believe an individual's wealth should be "spread around" to those who did not create it.

Meet Henrietta:

Henrietta is a welfare recipient. She's been on the government dole since 1983, but she wants more. Henrietta dreams of government supplying a new house for her. So she asked Obama for one. Within a couple of days, a video of Henrietta's meeting with Obama was distributed all over the internet. This made Obama smile.

Soon, Henrietta had offers of a house to live in, her son had a job offer, and Henrietta the Welfare Recipient, who hasn't worked in over twenty years, was portrayed as a hero. She even has her own web site now! The media didn't as why she should be given free housing while millions of Americans who do work are struggling to make their rent and mortgage payments because government takes nearly half their earnings.

Why? Henrietta symbolizes victimization in the eyes of the American Left. She and others like her expect to reap the wealth of others; they don't understand why "the rich" should have all the houses while they have none. Free houses at taxpayers expense is one of the good things that happens when other peoples' wealth is "spread around."

No word on who will be paying Henrietta's utility bills, insurance, and other housing-related expenses. No details have been released regarding the job offer allegedly offered to her son. None of this matters -- all that matters is, people care. No one cares that Joe the Plumber gets punished for achievement; what's important is that Henrietta the Welfare Recipient be rewarded for failure.

After the initial media love fest, certain information did arise about the plight of Henrietta the Welfare Recipient -- not in the mainstream media, mind you, but in the blogosphere. Little factoids like this:

At President Obama's town hall meeting in Fort Myers on Tuesday, Henrietta Hughes stood up and told the President she has been homeless since 2003 and can't find a job. She also says she's reach a dead end with government assistance and none of the local charity agencies will help. However, a local organization is coming forward saying Hughes isn't being honest about how much help she's had in the past. The director of We Care Outreach Ministry, Tanya Johnson, says just last month she offered Henrietta Hughes permanent housing and a place to stay free for three months, but Hughes refused. "We would have allowed her to stay for the first 90 days, no income. You know free," said Tanya Johnson. We Care Outreach Ministry is a faith based organization in Fort Myers. Johnson says she also gave Henrietta and her son Corey, money, food and offered Corey job training courses, but it was refused. "We have extended a lot of her services to her," Johnson said. But Henrietta Hughes says these services weren't free and the apartment in East Fort Myers came with a price tag.

Yes, Henrietta -- housing typically comes with a price tag. It's sometimes called rent, at other times a mortgage. That's why people work, so they can afford to house themselves and their unemployed thirty-something year old "children."

It remains to be seen whether the media will dig through Henrietta the Welfare Reciepient's trash like they did Joe the Plumber's. Maybe they can help answer some of the obvious questions, like: Why did she turn down previous offers of affordable housing? How long does she expect to be allowed to live in someone else's house free of charge? Will she be required to pay income tax on all of the donations she is receiving?

And then there's the web site. It is registered to a "marketing strategist" in Florida:

Oddly enough, Ms. Hughes is also dubbed “the face of the economic crisis” on a new web site, just created, called henriettahughes.com. The site is registered to a Judah Fontz, whose LinkedIn profile describes him as an online marketing strategist at a company called VeraData. I wonder what his angle is . . .

[Via Patterico]

Who is exactly funding the HenriettaHughes.com web site, producing the content, and using this poor, unfortunate soul in such a way for political purposes? Is it Judah Fontz? Why? Who is he? Is Henrietta the Welfare Recipient just another "marketing strategy" for him? Or is someone else behind this? I'm sure MSNBC and CNN are all over this story with the same vigor they exhibited in the investigations of Joe the Plumber; we should have the answers in a day or two.

Sarcasm aside, I feel bad for Henrietta*; she may very well be deserving of help, and if nothing else this incident proves that there are plenty of private individuals and organizations who are willing to step up and give it to her. Whether government should be a source of help is debatable, but that's not the point. The story here is the marked difference in coverage between Joe Wurlzelbacher and Henrietta Hughes: One just wants to work and enjoy the fruits of his labor without government interference and punishment; for this, he is attacked, ridiculed, and mocked. The other wants free this and free that, and wants others to pay for it; and for this, she is lionized and turned into a political icon for the Fascist Progressive movement.

Maybe the "Fairness" Doctrine isn't such a bad idea after all...

* But not her son -- I have zero sympathy for oxygen thiefs. The idea that my tax dollars should in any way continue to enable him to live off the backs of the working in this country is beyond defense. He's young enough and healthy enough to get off his lazy fucking ass and roll burritos at Taco Bell if he can't find a better job. Period.

Stimulus Fascist Wealth Redistribution Bill Passes House

2009-02-13T14:52:00.005-06:00

Pam Meister on PJ Media writes:

Back when Barack Obama was running for president, he famously explained his socialist governing philosophy to a five-year-old:
"We’ve got to make sure that people who have more money help the people who have less money. If you had a whole pizza, and your friend had no pizza, would you give him a slice?"
He made a similar analogy later on in the campaign when responding to John McCain’s assertions that Obama is a socialist:
"By the end of the week, he’ll be accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten. I shared my peanut butter and jelly sandwich."
No one’s arguing about how nice it is to share pizza, toys, and PB&J sandwiches. And Americans as a whole are a generous people. Back in 2007, charitable giving in this nation exceeded $300 billion for the first time. The problem is when a third party — government bureaucracy — takes your pizza, toys, and sandwiches and decides how much you get to keep and how much goes to the people they decide are worthy of enjoying the things you bought and paid for with the money you earned.

That’s not sharing. That’s redistribution. It’s something that had its start with FDR’s New Deal, reemerged during LBJ’s Great Society, and now seems poised to catch up to the socialist states that the American left has long admired in Europe.

Emphasis mine.

Fascists, unfortunately, don't see government wealth distribution as a problem, but rather a duty. After a whopping 90 minutes of floor "debate" (i.e., reading of bumper sticker slogans) -- and this coming less than 12 hours after the text of the 1,000+ page bill was released in the middle of the night -- Congressional Fascists today did their duty and passed H.R. 1, after locking Republican representatives out of the deliberations, without the 48-hours of review promised by Politburo leadership, and before member of the House could have a chance to read the bill and figure out what, exactly, they were voting on.

The text of this bill was released while the citizens slept, passed by the House before we could have our day's second cup of coffee, will surely fly through the Senate before people get home from work tonight, and will be signed into law Monday before any any of this sinks in and public outrage can be registered -- this, despite Obama's promise not to sign any bill into law until "the American public [has] an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days."

By "American people," he must have meant Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid who, technically, are American people who have been commenting on the "stimulus" for well over five days.

During his floor speech, Aaron Schock (R-IL) quoted Lincoln: "What kills a skunk is the publicity it brings itself." Indeed, the surest way to avoid publicity and public scrutiny is to implement "Change" behind closed doors under the cover of darkness. The fact is, Obama-friendly lobbyists had more time to read the bill than did our elected representatives before casting their vote. If this doesn't clue you in to the way this government plans to operate in coming years, then nothing will.

Update 5:10PM: A video is worth a thousand words.

Open and Transparent

2009-02-12T18:48:00.008-06:00

Obamunist Party Ministry of Propaganda sez:

My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.

Government should be transparent. Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing. Information maintained by the Federal Government is a national asset. My Administration will take appropriate action, consistent with law and policy, to disclose information rapidly in forms that the public can readily find and use. Executive departments and agencies should harness new technologies to put information about their operations and decisions online and readily available to the public. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public feedback to identify information of greatest use to the public.

Deeds, not words, you douchebags. Apparently Congress is exempt from all this Hope-Changey transparency:

Chairman of Republican Study Committee Rep. Tom Price blasts congressional leaders for not making the stimulus bill negotiations open to the public.

The Washington Post has reported that negotiations between House and Senate Democrats have resulted in a stimulus bill with a price tag of “about $789.5 billion.” This agreement raised the ire of Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., and he went outside of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office to express it.

“My name’s Tom Price and I represent the Sixth District of Georgia and [am] the privileged chair of the Republican Study Committee,” Price said. “It’s now noon on Wednesday. I’m standing outside the office of the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. The door is closed. We just heard news break there’s been an agreement between the House and the Senate on the non-stimulus bill."

Negotiators were slated to meet later in the day. However, since news of a deal was leaked to the media, Price questioned if there were “shady deals” going on.

“It’s curious because Republicans were invited to a meeting they said at 3 o’clock this afternoon,” Price continued. “What this means is there are more shady deals going on behind closed doors -- without the public, without Republicans in attendance.”

Who said "bipartisan"????

Update 7:59PM: Lobbyists, however, are part of the "transparency"...

Congressional Offices Don't Have the Stimulus Bill, Lobbyists Do
February 12, 2009 04:14 PM ET
By Paul Bedard, Washington Whispers

We're receiving E-mails from Capitol Hill staffers expressing frustration that they can't get a copy of the stimulus bill agreed to last night at a price of $789 billion. What's more, staffers are complaining about who does have a copy: K Street lobbyists. E-mails one key Democratic staffer: "K Street has the bill, or chunks of it, already, and the congressional offices don't. So, the Hill is getting calls from the press (because it's leaking out) asking us to confirm or talk about what we know—but we can't do that because we haven't seen the bill. Anyway, peeps up here are sort of a combo of confused and like, 'Is this really happening?'" Reporters pressing for details, meanwhile, are getting different numbers from different offices, especially when seeking the details of specific programs.

Worse, there seem to be several different versions of what was agreed upon, with some officials circulating older versions of the package that seems to still be developing. Leadership aides said that it will work out later today and promised that lawmakers will get time to review the bill before Friday's vote.

Like, what... 15 minutes worth of time? The only thing transparent about this insanity is that some of us see right through the Democrat lies.

(h/t: Power Line)

Or To Put It Another Way...

2009-02-12T18:23:00.003-06:00

If there were a country called Stimutopia and its Gross Domestic Product equaled the total Stimulus Bill, it would have the 12th largest GDP in the world. That’s bigger than India or China. The interest alone would be the 27th-largest economy in the world. If we put Stimutopia in South America, the interest payments alone would be the second-largest economy on the continent. The entire bill would be a mere $141 billion smaller from taking the top spot from Brazil.

...

If you started right now and spent a million dollars every day until you had spent the principle amount of the Stimulus Bill ($825 billion) today, you would spend your last penny on June 19, 4395. Well, you wouldn’t. Your descendants 82 generations from now would finish the job you started.

The Sundries Shack (h/t: Two-Four)

Fuckers.

Indefensible

2009-02-12T10:00:00.008-06:00

Ya know, I was being sarcastic recently when I said, "If the first $9.7 trillion spending spree doesn't help, then what? Another $9.7 trillion? 'Cause you know, if the first "stimulus" heist doesn't spend America into prosperity, the only reason must be that you didn't spend enough."

But truth is the essence of proper sarcasm, as proven once again by primo asshat Jonathan Chait:

TRB: In Defense of Waste

Note to Republicans: The whole point of the stimulus is to spend money!

Republicans like to accuse Democrats of wasting taxpayer dollars and being condescending eggheads. But if President Obama's economic stimulus fails to prevent a depression--and I'm not saying it will--it will be because he didn't waste enough money, and didn't spend enough time being a condescending egghead.

Let's start with the egghead part. The stimulus bill is based on Keynesian theory, which I'll briefly explain in the condescending manner we liberals so enjoy using. When we're in a severe recession, good productive capacity goes to waste. Autoworkers sit home unemployed because nobody has money to buy cars, and cooks sit home unemployed because nobody has money to go out to dinner. The first thing for government to try is to reduce interest rates, to encourage businesses to borrow money to hire more workers and buy equipment. But, if interest rates hit bottom, then the government has to shock the system back to life by spending money directly. Say, Washington hires construction workers to build something, and those workers start buying cars and going to restaurants, and, after a while, the economy is running again.

So Obama decided to spend a lot of money. The Republicans' hoary opposition technique is to boil any legislation down to one or two silly-sounding expenditures that Joe Sixpack can understand--Midnight basketball! A bear DNA study! Obama anticipated this critique and tried to eliminate all waste from the bill. He kept earmarks out and focused the spending on public investments like energy efficiency and education. The logic went beyond just politics. If you're going to spend a lot of money, you might as well get something useful for it.

This manifest of naked hubris, published by the formerly third-rate New Republic (it's hovering somewhere around eighth-rate these days), is yet another focused snapshot of the Left's unconstrained vision that we discussed the other day -- specifically, the belief that an economy is best run by "the best and the wisest" rather than through systemic processes that have evolved over the centuries and have been proven to work best when government interference is kept to a minimum. The Left believes we're not brilliant (like them) so we can't possibly understand the nuanced details of how an economy ostensibly "ruined" by Bush's excessive spending can only be "fixed" by more excessive spending, or how throwing "stimulus" dollars at political cronies for porkbarrel projects is not "pork" or "waste." Therefore, we should just shut our pieholes and let the geniuses run the show. Pure elitist claptrap. I'm undecided as to what angers me more -- the fact that they actually believe they possess the unique wisdom to wonk they're way out of the economic downturn, or that they have the balls to admit that they think they're better and smarter than the rest of us.

Keynseian economics -- which Chait thinks we're all too stoopid to understand -- centers on the belief that an economy functions best when it is directly manipulated by government to produce desired results in the interest all people, and that those who do the tinkering are by necessity smarter than the majority of ignorant dolts in society (i.e., Liberals, a sentiment pretty much laid plain by Chait). Such a system can only be thought to work if one blinds oneself to historical evidence. History is persistent, however, and it has proven repeatedly that tax hikes and government spending during a recession always prolongs hard times and delays recovery; tax cuts always generate greater tax revenues; people always spend more when they are taxed less; and the economy always benefits when people spend their own money. Elitists refuse to recognize these historical factors while rationalizing their policies because they don't support their worldview.

The fact is, "the best and the wisest" were the ones who formulated the past economic policies which created the current mess. Regardless of who you blame -- Democrats, Republicans, Clinton, Bush, Frank, or Greenspan -- it all boils down to the same truth: tinkering with economic forces, most of which are beyond our control, never helps and usually makes things a lot worse. The best argument the Left seems capable of making is, "Our elitist geniuses are better than your elitist geniuses." What is lost in the debate between the elitists on both sides is, the citizens have zero confidence in any of them... and for good reason. They all like to proclaim to varying degrees that free markets have failed, even though they've never actually been allowed to flourish without government sticking their wrenches in the gears. And when the manipulation of market forces fail, their answer is always an argument for more of the same. Witness, for example, the result of government regulations which forced financial institutions lend to borrowers who everyone knew wouldn't be able to service their debt. The knee-jerk blame is placed on alleged "deregulation", and the knee-jerk solution is more regulation -- even though it was precisely government regulation that precipitated the whole sub-prime collapse in the first place!

Under the plan Chait argues for, "Joe Sixpack" works to earn money; a portion of this money is then confiscated by government in order to create more work for Joe, who then must labor to recover some of the money which he already earned but that was taken from him through confiscatory taxation! It's like buying your car stereo back from the thief who stole it.

Those of us in the Sixpack Community believe that if only we were allowed to keep the money we earned in the first place, we'd have already used it to stimulate the economy on our own terms through consumer spending -- spending which puts money into circulation in a much more efficient manner because there is no government overhead. Yes, the whole point of the stimulus is to spend money. The argument is, who gets to do the spending: us, or the government?

Chait's defense of government waste is, in fact, indefensible to anyone who has ever run a business or managed a family's finances. Government spending is and has always been inflationary and inefficient, and has never produced anything approaching the benefits to the individual that tax relief has consistently done. Both sides give lip service to the notion that putting money in people's pockets is the key to recovery. The difference is in the details: should this money be that which we've already earned and are allowed to keep and spend as we choose; or should it be money confiscated from the earners and distributed according to some grand plan designed by our intellectual overlords?

Denial

2009-02-11T13:00:00.004-06:00

Dafydd pontificates on the mass psychosis caused by Global Warmunism:

Climate Change Derangement Syndrome
A new malady has presented itself to the medical community. They haven't yet taken the obvious step of dubbing it "Climate Change Derangement Syndrome," but surely that's mere oversight.

By CCDS, I don't mean the increasing delusion that anthropogenic global climate change (AGCG) has been proven beyond all doubt and beyond all permitted debate, though that is an essential element of CCDS. Rather, I mean the increasing number of cases of anxiety, paranoia, and hysteria verging on psychosis in people who have become convinced that AGCC is going to destroy the world.

A must read.

The Deja Vu Deal

2009-02-10T10:22:00.005-06:00

America's highest-ranking Tax-Cheat speaks:

"We will have to adapt it as conditions change. We will have to try things we've never tried before. We will make mistakes. We will go through periods in which things get worse and progress is uneven or interrupted.

Translation: "We don't know what the fuck we're doing."

Welcome to the Deja Vu Deal, folks: In Liberal Fascism, Jonah Goldberg describes how the unconstrained social experimentation of the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression and left America with a permanent nanny state mentality, all due to this insane belief that "we have to DO something -- anything!," as opposed to making prudent decisions after careful consideration and cost-benefit analysis. Roosevelt said, "Take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another."

The only coherent policy Roosevelt subscribe to was "bold, persistent experimentation." Conservatives were cast by FDR and his allies as opponents of all change, selfish slaves to the status quo. But stasis is not the American conservative position. Rather, conservatives believe that change for change's sake is folly. What kind of change? At what cost? For the liberals and progressives, everything was expendable, from tradition to individualism to "outdated" conceptions of freedom. They were all tired dogmas to be burned on the altars of the new age.

The result? A longer depression that worsened throughout the decade of the New Deal: Unemployment in 1939 (17.2%) was higher than in 1931 (16.3%), and the national debt increased from $16 billion in 1931 to $40 billion in 1939. [Source: Folsom, New Deal or Raw Deal]

And lo, BHO is now channeling the spirit of FDR, because it worked out so well the first time.

“What you see in FDR that I hope my team can emulate is not always getting it right, but projecting a sense of confidence and a willingness to try things and experiment in order to get people working again.”

Yeah, that's great. If the first $9.7 trillion spending spree doesn't help, then what? Another $9.7 trillion? 'Cause you know, if the first "stimulus" heist doesn't spend America into prosperity, the only reason must be that you didn't spend enough.

Geithner's FDR-era predecessor, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., at least had the intellectual honesty to "admit frankly" the FDR administration's mistakes to Congress in 1939:

"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. ... We have never made good on our promises. ... I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. ... And an enormous debt to boot."

I don't, however, expect Geithner, Orbama, Pelosi, Reid, Snowe, Collins, Spector, or any other paragon of hubris involved in this "stimulus" debacle will ever, ever, hold themselves accountable in such a way.

Because, you know, it'll be Bush's fault.

Left-Wing Fascist Warns of "Right-Wing Fascists"

2009-02-09T21:43:00.006-06:00

I'm heartened to see that left-wing idiocy isn't limited to the former United States these days:

Ed Balls: minister fears rise of fascism amid economic gloom

Ed Balls, the Children's and Schools Secretary, said the downturn was likely to be the most serious for 100 years, and his comments appeared to raise the prospect of a return to the Far Right politics of the 1930s and the rise of Facism.

His warning, in a speech to activists at the weekend, came after a trade union baron warned that far right parties were trying to hijack the campaign for "British jobs for British workers".

The row over foreign workers has gathered momentum in recent weeks and Mr Balls seemed to suggest the recession could trigger a return to the Far Right politics that prospered in the Great Depression of the 1930s.

He told Labour's Yorkshire conference: "The economy is going to define our politics in this region and in Britain in the next year, the next five years, the next 10 and even the next 15 years.

"I think that this is a financial crisis more extreme and more serious than that of the 1930s and we all remember how the politics of that era were shaped by the economy."

Hmm... Methinks this retard might actually have a point, and not just the one on the top of his head. We're witnessing the "rise of fascism" in the USA right now -- nationalization of the banks; confiscation of firearms; redistribution of wealth; suppression of religion; indoctrination of children; intrusion by the state into every aspect of the private individual's life -- all neatly wrapped in a convenient economic downturn that can be used to solidify power. Sound familiar?

It's not the "far right" that's beating the drum for fascism; it's the leftist, progressive Democratic party. That's hardly surprising, as 1930's European fascism is the foundation of modern leftist/progressive politics. The similarities are eerie, right down to the smooth-talking, foreign-born "leader" who came to power in the midst of economic turmoil on a platform of "hope ünd change". Replace "the Jews" with "the Rich" and the rhetoric is pretty much the same, specifically aimed to fan the flames of class envy - they're the one's who are to blame for your troubles! And only the government can fix it, with your patriotic support. I don't think Hitler's stimulus package cost anywhere near $9.7 trillion, though.

Achtung, traitors!

Dear Santa Claus

2009-02-09T14:03:00.005-06:00

All I want for Christmas is my two front teeth. And an armored transport, a mobile command center, some military grade carbines, and a few unmanned aerial surveillance drones.

From the U.S. Conference of Mayors wish list of all the things mayors across the country want the federal government to fund in the name of “stimulus” comes my own selection of some of the dodgier requests from North Texas cities. It starts on page 293, and my short list here is just a taste of the absurdity.
Frisco wants $125,000 for an armored vehicle and $200,000 for a mobile command vehicle. You know, for all that gang tank warfare going on up in Frisco.

McKinney wants $5 million for SWAT toys and stuff.

North Richland Hills wants $51,000 for volunteer patrol volunteers. Let’s throw in $10 for a dictionary so they can look up the word “volunteer.”

Irving wants $5 million for biometric scanners, digital cameras, RFID scanners — nothing Big Brother there.

Grand Prairie wants $1.25 million for nicer landscaping around the public safety building.

And finally, Arlington is really gearing up for urban warfare. Arlington wants $1.6 million for SWAT toys including more equipment for those deadly but camera-friendly no-knock raids, $56,000 for military grade carbines, $625,000 for unmanned aerial surveillance drones, and $130,000 for “covert ops.”

Are you stimulated yet?

The first question that pops into my head is, when the revolution inevitably comes will these, uh, stimulae be used by or against the citizens of Texas and other free-minded states who finally get fed up and decide to fight for their Constitutional right to secede from the Union?

(h/t: Reason)

On "A Conflict of Visions"

2009-02-09T01:30:00.011-06:00

During times of political crisis, I find myself reaching for two books that inspire me and help put things into perspective.

The first is The Federalist Papers. This is possibly the most important of our founding documents as it gives a glimpse into the original intent of the US Constitution as envisioned by those who actually wrote the damn thing. Hamilton, Madison and Jay published the these 85 essays anonymously in order to garner support for ratification of the Constitution. I was introduced to this book as a college freshman taking an Intro to Politics elective (taught, of course, by a self-described radical). It was pretty much to only book assigned to the class that made any sense to me. I ultimately switched my major from music to political science in large part because of this book. Perhaps more on this at a later date...

My other go-to book is Thomas Sowell's classic, A Conflict of Visions. It distills all political debate down to two fundamental groups with -- those who have a 'constrained' view of human nature and society, and those with an 'unconstrained' view. It helps understand the dichotomatic worldviews held by conservatives and liberals, and why, as the author declares in the opening paragraph, "the same people line up on the opposite sides of different issues."

Those with a 'constrained' vision believe that human nature is limited, that we are inherently selfish and operate out of self interest without regard to the well-being of others, and the societal good is derived through the unintended consequences of our actions. This is the cornerstone of Adam Smith's economic philosophy as expounded in The Wealth of Nations, the founding document of free-market capitalism, and is at the root of libertarian-conservatism as it exists today. It holds that humans are flawed, that we are not naturally inclined to do anything other than what is in our self-interest, yet by doing so within the constraints of human nature we can (and do) benefit others by our actions.

The 'unconstrained' wordview is one in which man is inherently virtuous, that all of the unvirtuous things we do are a result of flaws in society, and that through actions that are designed to improve society we can approach perfection. Results and intentions are all that matter, and preferred outcomes can be accomplished by government policies with as long as they are enacted with good intentions. There is no limit to what we can achieve as long as our intentions are pure and we are willing to sacrifice our self-interests for the interests of all.

Sowell admits that no one really exists at either extreme; rather, people tend to occupy a place somewhere in between, possessing either a "more constrained" or "more unconstrianed" worldview. Yet A Conflict of Visions clearly illustrates the diametrically opposing worldviews held by conservatives and liberals, a brilliant analysis of the classic struggles between left and right, whether in the past, present or future. It puts our current "stimulus" debate into clear perspective.

This interview on YouTube was recorded just before the election. Sowell demonstrates how the two visions can be applied to present concerns over judicial activism, the Iraq war, the economy, the election, Sarah Palin, and academic "intellectuals". It's just under 40 minutes long, but well worth the time.

Amazon.com Widgets

I Heart Wal-Mart

2009-02-08T10:12:00.017-06:00

Found this gem via Power Line:

FLY ON THE WAL: UNDERCOVER AT WAL-MART, THE HEARTLAND SUPERSTORE THAT MAY SAVE THE ECONOMY

By CHARLES PLATT

Some people, usually community activists, loath Wal-Mart. Others, like the family of four struggling to make ends meet, are in love with the chain. I, meanwhile, am in awe of it.

With more than 7,000 facilities worldwide, coordinating more than 2 million employees in its fanatical mission to maintain an inventory from more than 60,000 American suppliers, it has become a system containing more components than the Space Shuttle - yet it runs as reliably as a Timex watch.

Sheltered by rabble rousers who forced Wal-Mart's CEO to admit it "wasn't worth the effort" to try to open in Queens or anywhere else in the city, New Yorkers may not fully realize the unique, irreplaceable status of the World's Largest Retailer in rural and suburban America. Merchandise from Wal-Mart has become as ubiquitous as the water supply. Yet still the company is rebuked and reviled by anyone claiming a social conscience, and is lambasted by legislators as if its bad behavior places it somewhere between investment bankers and the Taliban.

Considering this is a company that is helping families ride out the economic downturn, which is providing jobs and stimulus while Congress bickers, which had sales growth of 2% this last quarter while other companies struggled, you have to wonder why. At least, I wondered why. And in that spirit of curiosity, I applied for an entry-level position at my local Wal-Mart.

The rest of the story is very insightful.

I've had a love-hate relationship with Wal-Mart (and big-box stores in general) for years. The "hate" part stems from my own experience in entrepreneurship and small business. As an employee and later owner of a small business that specialized in shortwave radio equipment I lived the struggle of a small store against the giant Discount Electronic Whorehouses (as I labeled them) that undercut our prices without providing any specialized knowledge of the products they were selling. We'd often expend our time and expertise to educate a shopper only to have him tell us that he was going to buy the radio from the local Discount Electronics Whorehouse in order to save $10. (Seriously -- they'd actually tell us that, as if they thought it was perfectly OK to take advantage of our services for free, then give someone else their cash for the actual product.)

The "love" part of the relationship stems from convenience. As much as anyone else, I lamented the closing of the small local booksellers that I grew up patronizing -- but in the end, I came to realize they never had what I was looking for; Barnes & Noble did. Same thing with the local hardware stores suffering from the Home Depot invasion. Ditto the appliance stores, record stores, shoe stores, computer stores, and all the rest of the local shops that, seemingly overnight, just disappeared. Platt hits it on the head:

When I first ventured from New York City to the American heartland, I did my best to patronize quaint little places on Main Street and quickly discovered the penalties for doing so. At a small appliance store, I wasn't allowed to buy a microwave oven on display. I had to place an order and wait a couple of weeks for delivery. At a stationery store where I tried to buy a file cabinet, I found the same problem. Think back, if you are old enough to do so, and you may recall that this is how small-town retailing used to function in the 1960s.

As a customer, I don't see why I should protect a business from the harsh realities of commerce if it can't maintain a good inventory at a competitive price. And as an employee, I see no advantage in working at a small place where I am subject to the quixotic moods of a sole proprietor, and can never appeal to his superior, because there isn't one. [Emphasis mine]

My first Wal-Mart experience didn't come until later in life. Bergen County, NJ was a Wal-Mart Free zone, protected by pro-union politicians despite being littered with malls and other big chain retailers. So I was pretty insulated from the Wal-Mart phenomenon until I started living outside the union-dominated NYC-Metro area. Closter, NJ, where I gew up, has no Wal-Marts within a 10-mile radius; Sussex, NJ, has but one store. In my new hometown of Waco, TX, I find 3 local stores less than 10 miles away -- all three of them "Supercenters" which sell groceries (something I never saw up north). At Wal-Mart, the big problem is not finding what we need; it's fitting everything into one shopping cart. What used to take a trip all over creation to two or more stores back in the old days is now done in a single trip to Wal-Mart.

But surely this convenience must come at price, right?

Um... well... no. Not really. The prices are great -- we still marvel at how little we spend for two shopping carts of groceries compared to what we spent in NJ, or even at other supermarkets in TX. The people that work there are always friendly and helpful, the store are always clean, and there's always a Wal-Mart nearby, no matter where you are (except, apparently, in ~~worker's paradise~~ union strongholds up north).

For all of this, it's curious to find that Leftoids hate Wal-Mart. They moan and groan about health care, salaries, non-unionization... but the simple fact is, Liberals are elitist pricks who look down with disgust at the people who shop there as well as the people who work there. They think that the only people who shop and work at Wal-Mart are gun-and-religion-clinging rednecks, most of whom are fat, stupid, toothless and drive pickup trucks. It matters not that Wal-Mart creates jobs for almost 2 million unskilled workers who might otherwise be unemployed, on welfare, dependent on government...

Come to think of it, that's exactly why they hate Wal-Mart -- they don't give a shit about Wal-Mart muscling in on the turf of small businesses; they're angry because Wal-Mart is muscling in on the turf of government. Wal-Mart is a shining example of the private sector doing what leftists believe is the state's function: creating jobs, helping people feed their families, providing health benefits.

Never mind the consumers who enjoy good products at fair market prices. Never mind the sales tax revenues generated by Wal-Mart that go straight into the coffers of government to be squandered by politicians. Never mind the fact that all this job creation and economic pump-priming is done without a single "stimulus" dollar spent by government. (Maybe if the Obamunists really want to stimulate the economy they should buy $1T in Wal-Mart stock.) All Leftoids see at Wal-Mart (besides toothless, stupid rednecks) is a company that epitomizes free-market capitalism, one that proves their economic and social theories wrong. Wal-Mart drives them fucking insane.

Which is the biggest reason of all that I love Wal-Mart.

Update 2/11: Public Enemy #1 picked up on this story today.

A Cure For Insomnia

2009-02-07T22:17:00.003-06:00

Can't sleep? Just think about Obama and Michelle spooning in bed.

One woman wrote that when she couldn’t get to sleep at night, she “lay in bed and thought about the Obama girls in their rooms at the White House. I thought about Marian Robinson up on the third floor. And about Barack and Michelle, a couple who clearly have a ‘thing’ for each other, spooning together in bed. It helped me relax.”

Are your panties moist yet? But wait... there's more:

Many women — not too surprisingly — were dreaming about sex with the president. In these dreams, the women replaced Michelle with greater or lesser guilt or, in the case of a 62-year-old woman in North Florida, whose dream was reported to me by her daughter, found a fully above-board solution: “Michelle had divorced Barack because he had become ‘too much of a star.’ He then married my mother, who was oh so proud to be the first lady,” the daughter wrote me.

For the love of Christ... get help, people!

Update: The Great Stimulus Heist of 2009

2009-02-07T16:06:00.000-06:00

Malkin posts on the "compromise":

Here’s where things stand. The Senate will be in session today from about noon to 3:00pm Eastern. Members will speak, but there won’t be any roll call votes. Cloture will reportedly be filed on the Cave-In/”Compromise” amendment from Sens. Collins and Nelson. The cloture vote (to end debate) on the amendment is scheduled for Monday at 5:30pm Eastern. GOP minority leader Mitch McConnell’s office tells us that “if cloture is invoked on the amendment post cloture time will run until noon on Tuesday. At noon on Tuesday the bill will be subject to another 60 vote hurdle by either waiving a budget point of order or achieving 60 votes on final passage.”

They’re taking Sunday off.

Question: Who has seen the Collins/Nelson cave-in amendment? Where is it? When can we, the taxpayers, see it? SHOW US THE BILL.

Nah, we'd just pick it apart; that would be unpatriotic. We'll just find out that it's more of the same pork. So what? It's better that Congress vote it into law quickly, under cover of darkness. No need to let those of us who will ultimately foot the bill know what the hell we're in for until it's a done deal.

Guns, Roses, and The Wealth of Nations

2009-02-07T15:00:00.010-06:00

When Obama said, "These days everybody thinks they're economists," he wasn't kidding:

Reason reports: "More Signs of the Apocalypse: Duff McKagan Now a Financial Columnist for Playboy; Won't Shout Poppycock in a Crowded Bar".

In a blog post on the Seattle Weekly site, McKagen talks about going back to business school. I haven't read anything by him so I'll hold my judgment, but it sounds like he might have learned something:

I do find how money works rather fascinating. Adam Smith, the main person looked at to be the founder of capitalism, was a simple but brilliant economist who had particular ideas on how a free market would take care of itself. The theory of every little niche being filled in the marketplace seems too 'free' to actually work...but it has for the most part over the last 240 years.

Maybe he just reads P.J. O'Rourke...

Fair or Foul?

2009-02-06T10:14:00.013-06:00

The cultural revolution marches forward:

Senator: Talk Radio Hearings Could Be On The Way

WASHINGTON -- February 5, 2009: Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) told nationally syndicated talk host Bill Press this morning that the recent flips of liberal Talk stations in several markets were a "disservice to the public."

Stabenow said that, in the day of the Fairness Doctrine, "you had to have balance," and continued, "I think something that requires that in a market with owners that have multiple stations that they have got to have balance -- there has to be some community interest -- balance, you know, standard that says both sides have to be heard."

Stabenow told Press that the airwaves are "dominated by one view" that "overwhelms people's opinions -- and, unfortunately, incorrectly," and said that "right-wing conservative talk hosts" are "trying to make people angry and saying all kinds of things that aren't true and so on."

When Press asked if it is time to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, Stabenow responded, "I think it's absolutely time to pass a standard." To Press' inquiry as to whether she will push for hearings in the Seante "to bring these owners in and hold them accountable," Stabenow replied, "I have already had some discussions with colleagues, and, you know, I feel like that's going to happen. Yep."

First: Bill Press is a fucking hack. He needs the government to force broadcasters to air him, otherwise no one will listen to him.

Second: No one cares about Liberal talk radio. We've had government-funded left-wing broadcasting for decades; check the ratings for National Public Radio to get an idea how successful it is. If left-wing broadcasters can't compete in the free marketplace against Limbaugh and Hannity, even while propped up by our tax dollars, maybe that's a clue.

Liberals want their voices heard much in the same way a 4-year-old brat wants Mommy to know that he wants that candy bar at the supermarket, and the method employed by both children and liberals to get their voices heard are pretty much the same: The Tantrum. And much as parents who learn over time to block out the crying, whining and prostrations of the brat, the American public dismisses Liberal whining about talk radio because, deep down, it's just another childish tantrum best ignored by adults. Eventually (if we're lucky) the brat grows up to learn that he can't have everything he wants just because he has some misplaced notion of "fairness."

Liberals, however, do not grow up -- probably because as children they had stupid, unfit parents who bought them the goddamned candy bar just to shut them up. Now as full-grown childish adults, they continue to throw the same tantrums to get their way -- just replace "Mommy" with "government" -- and they always get their way because they now run the government. And they do it without adult supervision; think "Lord of the Flies" with direct access to your bank account.

The problem with Liberals is, when they do manage to force themselves into the broadcast booth, no one listens to them because they have nothing to say. One can only listen to "Bush Sucks!" for so long before spinning the dial -- especially now that Bush isn't, you know, like, the President anymore.

But never mind all that. Unless the minority party grows a pair, government-enforced "fairness" on the AM dial will be fait accompli. They'll probably call it part of the "stimulus" bill as it will certainly stimulate sales for satellite radio... and when AM stations start falling as listenership dwindles, it'll just be another industry for government to bail out. The tricky part will be blaming it all on Bush.

Predictably, I have some questions:

Who decides what is "fair"? Will the President appoint a Fairness Czar? Will there be a Department of Fairness? Will he, she or they have to go through Congressional confirmation?
If a station airs "An Inconvenient Truth", will it then be required to also show "The Great Global Warming Swindle" in the interest of fairness? Will Darwinism and Intelligent Design be given equal time on Nova? Somehow I don't think this is what Liberals mean when they talk about "fairness"...

Catastrophe Update

2009-02-06T08:37:00.005-06:00

Herr Krauthammer is on the money about the D.C. Doomsayers:

Catastrophe, mind you. So much for the president who in his inaugural address two weeks earlier declared "we have chosen hope over fear." Until, that is, you need fear to pass a bill.

[...] It's not just pages and pages of special-interest tax breaks, giveaways and protections, one of which would set off a ruinous Smoot-Hawley trade war. It's not just the waste, such as the $88.6 million for new construction for Milwaukee Public Schools, which, reports the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, have shrinking enrollment, 15 vacant schools and, quite logically, no plans for new construction.

It's the essential fraud of rushing through a bill in which the normal rules (committee hearings, finding revenue to pay for the programs) are suspended on the grounds that a national emergency requires an immediate job-creating stimulus -- and then throwing into it hundreds of billions that have nothing to do with stimulus, that Congress's own budget office says won't be spent until 2011 and beyond, and that are little more than the back-scratching, special-interest, lobby-driven parochialism that Obama came to Washington to abolish. He said. [Emphasis mine.]

Yep. "He said."

Obama said lots of things, and some of us even listened to what he had to say, which is why all of this "stimulus" scheme is anything but a shock to me -- he's doing exactly what he promised when he talked about "spreading the wealth around."

After Obama's miraculous 2008 presidential campaign, it was clear that at some point the magical mystery tour would have to end. The nation would rub its eyes and begin to emerge from its reverie. The hallucinatory Obama would give way to the mere mortal. The great ethical transformations promised would be seen as a fairy tale that all presidents tell -- and that this president told better than anyone.

I thought the awakening would take six months. It took two and a half weeks.

Rise and shine, sleepyheads!

News Shorts

2009-02-06T07:52:00.007-06:00

Army deserter deported from Canada, placed in Whatcom County Jail

Cliff Cornell fled the U.S. Army four years ago for British Columbia when his Georgia artillery unit was ordered to serve in the Iraq War.

On Wednesday, Feb. 4, Cornell was deported from Canada, arrested in the U.S. and booked into the Whatcom County jail.

Cornell, who is from Arkansas, is going to be released on his own recognizance and ordered to report to Fort Stewart in Georgia, said Gene Marx, a local peace activist and member of the Bellingham Veterans for Peace, Chapter 111.

Memo to peace faggot: if you don't want to fight in wars, don't join the fucking military. Nobody cares whether you think the Iraq war is "illegal and immoral"; you're just a snot-nosed twat who by ran away like a little girl when it dawned on you that soldiers really do fight in wars. The Army's not just there to provide assholes like you a free education.

Air Force One: Obama's new 'spiffy ride'

WILLIAMSBURG, Va. (AP) - Suffice to say, President Barack Obama likes his new ride.

"It's pretty nice," he told House Democrats Thursday in an after-dinner speech here. "Thank you for giving me a reason to use Air Force One."

The president spoke after a 31-minute maiden voyage on the specially outfitted 747 that will be his airborne home and office for the next four years.

Moments before taking off from Andrews Air Force Base, Obama visited the press cabin in the rear of the plane to show reporters his Air Force crew launch jacket, his name stitched on the breast.

"What do you think about this spiffy ride?" he asked reporters. "It's not bad."

It's ah'ight, yo. Just need some rims. And subwoofers.

Panetta Open to Tougher Methods in Some C.I.A. Interrogation

WASHINGTON — Leon E. Panetta, the White House pick to lead the Central Intelligence Agency, on Thursday left open the possibility that the agency could seek permission to use interrogation methods more aggressive than the limited menu that President Obama authorized under new rules issued last month.

Under insistent questioning from a Senate panel, Mr. Panetta said that in extreme cases, if interrogators were unable to extract critical information from a terrorism suspect, he would seek White House approval for the C.I.A. to use methods that would go beyond those permitted under the new rules.

Wait, you mean the whole "we don't torture" line was just grandstanding?!?!? NO!

Fla. doctor investigated in badly botched abortion

Eighteen and pregnant, Sycloria Williams went to an abortion clinic outside Miami and paid $1,200 for Dr. Pierre Jean-Jacque Renelique to terminate her 23-week pregnancy.

Three days later, she sat in a reclining chair, medicated to dilate her cervix and otherwise get her ready for the procedure. Only Renelique didn't arrive in time. According to Williams and the Florida Department of Health, she went into labor and delivered a live baby girl.

What Williams and the Health Department say happened next has shocked people on both sides of the abortion debate: One of the clinic's owners, who has no medical license, cut the infant's umbilical cord. Williams says the woman placed the baby in a plastic biohazard bag and threw it out.

Police recovered the decomposing remains in a cardboard box a week later after getting anonymous tips.

"I don't care what your politics are, what your morals are, this should not be happening in our community," said Tom Pennekamp, a Miami attorney representing Williams in her lawsuit against Renelique (ren-uh-LEEK') and the clinic owners.

We've already been taught that life does not begin at conception; now we learn life doesn't even begin at birth. Nice. Is it too late to abort Al Franken?

H.R. 1, Taxpayers 0

2009-02-05T19:50:00.012-06:00

House Resolution No. 1: "Making supplemental appropriations for job preservation and creation, infrastructure investment, energy efficiency and science, assistance to the unemployed, and State and local fiscal stabilization, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes."

Yeah, well... it's clearly the "other purposes" that people are finally starting to wake up to, which is why popular support for this farce is dropping faster than Monica Lewinski's face on Slick Willie's cock. This whole "Stimulus" ~~package~~ heist nonsense has me so angry I can't think straight enough to comment without expletives and wild hand gestures. Thankfully, we have the pure, undiluted wisdom and exemplary wordcraft of Velociman:

Let us gaze upon our immediate future: the stimulus package is not an $800 billion jolt meant to defibrillate the heart of the American economy; it is a greasy mafiosi-style payoff to the bequeathers' collective patrons, from community outreach organizers to eco-terrorists to pork barrel profiteers to failure-sodden speculators to public works defalcators. T'would be better in my estimation to give every man, woman, and child (and, yes, morphodite) in the country a check for $2500, and see how quickly the economy was stimulated. Even when a large percentage of the population frittered the money on extravagances like paying off credit card debt, or purchasing mail-order Ukranian brides, the economy would reply like one does after a sweet soft kiss in the ear.

It is a given that printing large bundles of cash by any government will only create massive debt and devalue the currency. We call this the Mugabe Rule. Even the window lickers get that. The truly risible part of the cornholing is the conveyance of this largesse into the hands of the fucking knaves responsible for our misfortune in the first place. There is a term for giving good money after bad: enabling. So, as the fast-buck artists of Wall Street failed and fucked their clientele, so shall we reward them. No issue of remorse or correcting the model. The only issue thus far is the half a million cap on executive salaries, and the wail of the banshee on this point is disgusting. The only thing more putrid than the greed of the boomer elitists is their lack of history. They act as if they are the first people in history to strike a Mephistophilian bargain, only to be impaled by the conditions. The Devil always exacts his due, you fucking twats. And as one devil to another you should consider it professional courtesy betwixt the damned.

Emphasis mine. This is what truly rankles mine ire -- giving money and power to government, a philosopher-gentleman once said, is like giving whiskey and car keys to a teenage boys... yet we do it time and time again. Government spends its way into economic ruin, so the obvious solution is to spend even more. So now we find ourselves pinning our "Hope" on having Congress fleece the citizens out of yet another $1,000,000,000,000, a sizable percentage of which to be parsed out to the special interests that put the current ruling party in power.

"The time for talk is over," our dauntless leader tells us.

Mr Obama says while his plan deserves scrutiny, the worsening economic situation demands a swift vote by the Senate.

That's right, make haste. Don't dawdle, don't even read the 600+ pages of legislation; just pass the damn thing already. Obama's sense of urgency isn't surprising since the more we talk, the more clear the scheme becomes. Thankfully, someone is reading the fine print; from NRO:

Then there are the usual welfare-expansion programs that sound nice but repeatedly fail cost-benefit analyses. The bill provides $380 million to set up a rainy-day fund for a nutrition program that serves low-income women and children, and $300 million for grants to combat violence against women. Laudable goals, perhaps, but where’s the economic stimulus? And the bill would double the amount spent on federal child-care subsidies. Brian Riedl, a budget expert with the Heritage Foundation, quips, “Maybe it’s to help future Obama cabinet secretaries, so that they don’t have to pay taxes on their nannies.”

Perhaps spending $6 billion on university building projects will put some unemployed construction workers to work, but how does a $15 billion expansion of the Pell Grant program meet the standard of “temporary, timely, and targeted”? Another provision would allocate an extra $1.2 billion to a “youth” summer-jobs program—and increase the age-eligibility limit from 21 to 24. Federal job-training programs—despite a long track record of failure—come in for $4 billion total in additional funding through the stimulus.

Of course, it wouldn’t be a liberal wish list if it didn’t include something for ACORN, and sure enough, there is $5.2 billion for community-development block grants and “neighborhood stabilization activities,” which ACORN is eligible to apply for. Finally, the bill allocates $650 million for activities related to the switch from analog to digital TV, including $90 million to educate “vulnerable populations” that they need to go out and get their converter boxes or lose their TV signals. Obviously, this is stimulative stuff: Any economist will tell you that you can’t get higher productivity and economic growth without access to reruns of Family Feud.

Summary:
$50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts
$380 million in the Senate bill for the Women, Infants and Children program
$300 million for grants to combat violence against women
$2 billion for federal child-care block grants
$6 billion for university building projects
$15 billion for boosting Pell Grant college scholarships
$4 billion for job-training programs, including $1.2 billion for “youths” up to the age of 24
$1 billion for community-development block grants
$4.2 billion for “neighborhood stabilization activities”
$650 million for digital-TV coupons; $90 million to educate “vulnerable populations”

Are you stimulated yet? It gets better; read the rest.

(And by the way... $200,000,000 for global warming research? Why? I thought the science was settled and the debate was over.)

Y'know what? In the sprirt of "bipartisianship" I say: Go ahead, pass the fucking bill. Just get it over with; this country is already headed down the road to ruination, why not move it into the fast lane?

Two short weeks in office. That's all it took for this to happen. During the campaign, whenever people tried to warn us they were called alarmists and red-baiters. And here we are. But cheer up, there are only 204 weeks to go until 2012. By then I'm sure the Republicans will find another mummified career politician to nominate.

Ashley Judd: "Save The Wolves; Kill The Moose And Caribou Instead"

2009-02-04T15:18:00.018-06:00

Earth's new preeminent wildlife expert (and part-time shitty actress) Ashley Judd is speaking out against Sarah Palin's diabolical plan to kill all the wolves:

Thanks, genius. Noel Sheppard astutely points out:

"What's astounding here is that nowhere in the ad is the viewer apprised of why the wolves are being hunted, or the history beyond this policy."

But is it really astounding? Since when are idiot CelebRetards held accountable for their words or actions?

Sheppard goes on to show how Palin isn't "casting aside science," but that the wolf reduction is part of the state's predator control program, it is being done at the request of Alaska state biologists, and the evil "bounty" that seems to so upset Ashley is being offered in order to meet the biologists' requirements:

The Palin administration is anteing up cash because the number of wolf kills this winter is behind schedule. State biologists wanted 382 to 664 wolves killed by the time the snow that helps with tracking disappears this spring. The predator-control season ends April 30.

As of Tuesday morning, 98 wolves had been killed by aerial gunners, hunters and trappers.

Read the whole thing.

Pop Quiz: Are Alaska state biologists guilty of "discarding science," or is Ashley Judd simply another fuckwit Hollywood leftist whose perky little B-cup titties are bigger than her brain?

Now a personal anecdote: One Sunday morning this past December I met a kid (OK, he's probably 20-something years old, so to me he's a kid...) named Jesse who my in-laws called out to their place to hunt coyotes on their property. Jesse is part of a university program (UT, A&M, I forget which) which hunts coyotes all over Texas. He bagged one coyote that Sunday, said it was his ~~108th~~ 208th kill of the year. I'm not sure how many other hunters are involved in the program, but I'll wager that if Jesse can kill over ~~100~~ 200 a year it all adds up to a veritable shitload of dead coyotes. I'm sure Ashley would find her delicate little panties in a wad over this, but the fact is coyotes are predators. They've killed countless animals at my in-laws place over the year including llamas, goats, geese, and cats. They're not much different than wolves, except perhaps less dangerous to humans. [Correction: Dad informs me Jesse's 2008 total was 208, not 108. Outrage from Ashley and the anti-Palin wingnuts remains the same: zero.]

As part of the program, Jesse sends in teeth, DNA swabs, and other stuff for analysis so state officials and (real, honest-to-God) scientists can track populations, movements, and other data which is used to manage and control the coyote overpopulation problem and protect other species that coyotes prey upon. Is this, too, what Ashley would call "casting aside science?"

Perhaps Ashley believes there isn't any overpopulation problem because, hell, there are no wolves in her "environment" -- i.e., her backyard in Malibu or wherever the fuck she ekes out her charmed, elitist existence these days. But some of us in the real world understand two things that probably never crossed Ashley's pea-sized mind.

First: Wildlife management is necessary, and hunting is how it works. It's not done to be mean to those poor coyotes and wolves; it's done for the good of the species. It's done all over the country, not just Alaska. Too many predators sooner or later results in a reduced food supply, which then results in starving predators and/or attacks on new food sources (like our pets and farm animals). Without wildlife management, bad things happen.

Second: We all know this is not about wolves, or hunting, or the environment. It's about Sarah Palin. Two weeks into Obama's presidency and the Left is already launching it's attack campaign for the 2012 election. If it really was about the wolves, then why now? Why not four years ago when the program started?

The program, now in its fourth year and operating in five areas of the state, is designed to increase moose and caribou numbers by reducing the number of predators.

In other words, if Ashley Judd gets her way, more moose and caribou will die!!! Is that what she wants? Why isn't anyone protesting Ashley Judds immoral War on Moose and Caribou?!?!?

Oy. These fucking Hollywood types make me want to puke.

Doomsday Is Nigh!!!

2009-02-04T11:04:00.011-06:00

Once again, the High Priests are warning of impending catastrophe, a certain end to all we know and love, the great Apocalypse foreshadowed by the prophets, and there's NO WAY TO STOP IT!!!!!

Except to raise taxes and spend a Gazillion dollars on big government.

Where have I heard this before?

Oh, yeah... some preacher at The Church or ~~Global Cooling~~... ~~Global Warming~~... ~~Global Cooling~~... Climate Change was just recently warning us that if we don't tax CO2 emitters (that is to say, every living, breathing thing that falls under the 'fauna' category) and turn over the cash to, well, The Church, then the oceans will boil (or freeze... I forget what they've decided this week), children and childish adults will cry, the planet will die, and all life as we know it will end. Uncaring Conservatives are too stoopid to admit that the debate is over and the science is settled; and besides, they all live in mountaintop mansions with air conditioning and won't be affected when the tides rise 100 ft. We're rushing ahead to environmental doomsday faster than Barney Frank to happy hour at The Ramrod. And the only way to stop it is to raise taxes and spend a Gazillion dollars on big government.

Now, we find ourselves on the brink of our new Catastrophe du Jour: Complete economic collapse. We're losing 500 million jobs each month -- quite a feat, in a country with only 300 million people. Soon, elitist Liberals won't be able to afford the fuel for their Gulfstreams; this in turn will reduce attendance at Sundance and Cannes, causing the economy to further spiral into the abyss. Uncaring Conservatives don't need money as long as they have their religion and guns to cling to, and their ears are deaf to the cries of the children whom they have no concern for once they're out of the womb. We're rushing ahead to economic doomsday faster than Ted Kennedy to a bridge. And the only way to stop it is to raise taxes and spend a Gazillion dollars on big government.

Save us, Obama!!!

Obama: Catastrophe coming if Congress doesn't act

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama said Wednesday the recession will turn into "a catastrophe" if the economic stimulus is not passed quickly, lobbying for the plan anew as its price tag climbed above $900 billion and drew more criticism.

The president rejected several criticisms of the plan: that tax cuts alone would solve the problem, or that longer-term goals such as energy independence and health care reform can wait until afterward. The White House released some of Obama's remarks ahead of a White House announcement on executive compensation limits.

[...]

Obama urged members of Congress "to act without delay" while also promising to make changes to the legislation.

"No plan is perfect, and we should work to make it stronger," he said. "Let's not make the perfect the enemy of the essential. Let's show people all over our country who are looking for leadership in this difficult time that we are equal to the task."

Obama has sought each day to ratchet up the pressure on lawmakers, bringing different supportive groups to the White House, scheduling a series of TV interviews, even traveling to a charter school to tout one portion of the bill.

"A failure to act, and act now, will turn crisis into a catastrophe and guarantee a longer recession, a less robust recovery, and a more uncertain future," he said in his prepared remarks. "That's why I feel such a sense of urgency about the Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Plan."

Remember, folks -- it's only the Conservatives that use fear as a tool to further their agendas.

Obama argued that recalcitrant lawmakers need to get behind his approach, saying the American people expressed their preference for his ideas when they chose him as president in November.

In other words, "I won."

Yes, you won, Savior. But you didn't win by telling voters beforehand that you were going to go on a $1,000,000,000,000+ spending spree during your first month in office. For those who get desensitized by all those zeros, here's a pretty picture to put it all into perspective:

(h/t Suitably Flip, via Libertarian.org)

Many others have pointed out that the Democrats have the votes to pass this on their own, they don't need "bipartisanship" to implement this scam. However, they will need bipartisanship when, in the near future, they find themselves in front of voters to explain this debacle. They need bipartisanship so they can deflect the blame to the Republicans when (if?) the American people wake up and realize they've been fleeced.

You'd think the GOP would see through all this... but no, they're going scurry aboard and sign onto this piece of garbage anyway. They'll knock maybe a few billion dollars from the bill and pass perhaps a $1.1T package instead of a $1.2T one, then delude themselves into believing they were victorious. The Loyal Opposition has morphed into the Loyal Lapdog, which is why I despise Republicans even more than the Democrats right now -- at least the Dems do what they promise.

Update 2/5: No letting up on the fear-mongering. Malkin covers our Savior-in-Chief's op-ed piece in ~~Pravda~~ The Washington Post.

Do The Math

2009-02-04T10:44:00.003-06:00

Let's see... the population of the USA is 306M, and 500M jobs a month are lost. That means everyone in this country loses his job every month... and some unlucky bastards lose more than one job every month.

Wow. America sucks.

Shrumming Down America

2009-02-03T14:29:00.005-06:00

Damn! Seems like all of the Clintonoid retreads are crawling out from under their rocks. This pearl of wisdom from Robert Shrumm:

Attack of the Zombie Republicans

So after all the bipartisan ambience generated by the White House, the stimulus package passed the House of Representatives without a single Republican vote. The President says he’ll win over some Republicans in the Senate, but Arizona Republican John Kyl claims GOP support there is already “eroding.”

They won’t admit it, but like the de facto leader of their party, Rush Limbaugh, Republicans want the President to “fail.” Their arguments—if one can dignify them as such—are by turns petty, dishonest or ignorant, ahistorical and ugly.

Listen up, folks. Methinks Shrumm is on to something, and no one could possibly know better -- after all, his ilk wrote the book when it comes to pettiness, dishonesty, ignorance, and... um, ahistorical-ness? And let's not even talk ugly.

The pettiest point was their complaint about the modest funding for birth control in the original version of the House stimulus bill. Heaven forbid—or at least Pat Robertson does—that the poor would have access to family planning. So at the President’s request, the provision was removed; the funding will come later in a different piece of legislation.

Yeah, well, I'm no Pat Robertson, especially when it comes to the baby-killing issue -- in fact, I'm all for any program which prevents Liberal assholes from breeding. But it takes a special kind of fuckwit to keep a straight face while explaining to me why birth control should be part of a stimulus bill. Will this bill require taxpayer-funded condoms to be "ribbed... for her pleasure"? Is that the kind of stimulus we're talking about? For Christ's sake...

At least their quick, cheap hit on contraception lacked the intellectual slovenliness of their other objections. Once and future presidential candidate Mitt Romney told the GOP House retreat that the size of the recovery package threatened to set off hyperinflation. Either he was intentionally deceptive or, like George W. Bush, he slept through economics classes at Harvard Business School.

Gee. How non-petty is that? You're sooooo fucking clever, Shrumm. My knee hurts from the slapping. As for the intellectual slovenliness of the Republican's (and my) objection, I ask this: if you're so in favor of public funding of contraception, why are you hiding the provision for it in a stimulus bill? Why not introduce legislation specifically for that program? Face it -- you're afraid the American public will oppose it, so you do what duplicitous DC cowards always do: you quielty slip it in some other legislation and hope no one notices. Well, someone noticed this time. Too fucking bad. If there was any public support for your free government rubbers program it would still be in the bill. But there's not, so you blame... the Republicans? Tell me about intellectual slovenliness sometime.

The danger now is not inflation, but a descent into deflation. An economy with a paralyzed private sector needs public spending to create demand, production, and jobs.

But spending won’t work, according to the conservative oppositionists. Look at the New Deal, they say, it failed! This Republican fiction assumes that in 1936 Americans suffered from mass delusion as they reelected FDR in a huge landslide. Apparently voters hadn’t noticed his conspicuous failure in office.

In fact, as I’ve pointed out before, from 1933 through 1937, unemployment declined year on year in what was then the largest period of uninterrupted growth in American history; the Dow-Jones Industrial average rose nearly 400 percent. The New Deal only faltered afterwards, in 1938, as the President prematurely moved toward a balanced budget with less stimulative spending—precisely the course the Romneys, Kyls and Republican ideologues now demand.

Forgive my ugly, ignorant ahistorical-ness, but if government spending results in economic strength, after eight long years of beltway Republicans spending our money like, well, like Democrats, by Shrumm's so-called logic this should already be the strongest economy in world history. Maybe I'm missing something; perhaps economic prosperity only occurs when we give billions of dollars worth of condoms to ACORN, or something like that.

And on and on it goes... until Shrumm gets to (what I assume is) his point:

In light of all this, I’m not in as bipartisan a mood these days as President Obama. But I think he really means it when he says he wants to be. He doesn’t lose his temper so I’ll bet he keeps trying. In the end, he’ll agree to some additional changes in the stimulus and it will pass the Senate too—with or without substantial Republican support. And if Obama’s extended hand is met by a Republican clenched fist, the President will only strengthen his hand with the American people—while Republicans further weaken theirs.

Let's talk about extended hands. Exactly how much hand-extending, bipartisanship and compromise occurred on his side of the aisle during the past 8 years?

Just 27 percent of Americans gave the GOP a favorable rating in December. That’s almost a Bush league low, but they can go down from there—and seem determined to do so.

How much lower? I dunno... how about 9% -- you know, the approval rating of the Democrat-controlled congress?

They even called a press conference to charge that the stimulus bill might aid illegal immigrants. Why pass up an opportunity for more of the Hispanic-bashing that cost them so dearly in the last campaign?

Alas, the mandatory charge of racism. That should make the Republicans cave in. Thankfully, I'm not a Republican.

Right now, Republicans are out of ideas, offering little more than resentment and right wing talking points. Maybe Frum can come up with a substantive agenda for them. Or maybe Republicans are just brain dead. In that case, the voters will surely put more of them out of their misery in 2010 and 2012.

Well, he's right about one thing: Republicans are out of ideas. At least good ideas. If the best they can do is offer up tired, washed-up, career beltway pimps like John McCain, they can look forward to spending the rest of their miserable lives in the minority.

And what, pray tell, is the Democrat party's advice to Republicans? Stop listening to Rush Limbaugh. God forbid they might pick up a few ideas.

Sayonara, Douchebag.

2009-02-03T14:03:00.003-06:00

And don't come back:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Tom Daschle withdrew his nomination on Tuesday to be President Barack Obama's Health and Human Services secretary, dealing potential blows to both speedy health care reform and Obama's hopes for a smoother start as president.

"Now we must move forward," Obama said in a written statement accepting "with sadness and regret" Daschle's surprise request to be removed from consideration. A day earlier, Obama had said he "absolutely" stood by Daschle in the face of problems over back taxes and potential conflicts of interest.

Indeed, let's move forward:

NBC News has learned that the president's choice for "chief performance officer" -- technically a deputy OMB director post -- could end up having to withdraw over a number of issues, including tax problems. The withdrawal of Nancy Killefer could happen as soon as today. So far the White House has no comment on the situation.

No, I wouldn't expect them to comment. But I have a comment -- actually a question: Are we now allowed to question their patriotism?

The Real Bush Legacy

2009-02-03T09:30:00.008-06:00

Occasionally I uncover a sound, reasoned evaluation of the Bush Presidency. I don't pretend that history's verdict of George W. Bush has yet been rendered, nor can it be during the lifetime of anyone reading this today, in 2009. I've always argued that if your grandparents were alive during the time of the subject in question, you can't call your opinions and commentary "history" because not enough time has passed for events to be put into historical perspective, without bias and subjectivity creeping into your evaluation. That doesn't stop some from trying to write the history books days or weeks after an event occurs -- or, oddly, even before the event. Witness the media mumbling about Obama's "historic" Presidency, before he was even inaugurated! Seems all Obama had to do to make history was get elected. But I digress... this is not about Obama (for a change).

How Bad Was Bush for the World, Really? is a 2-part piece on Bush by Nicholas Guariglia on Pajamas Media. I recommend it to all students of foreign policy, including those (like me) who are on the fence about Bush's legacy. Summary follows, but don't miss the entire thing (Parts One and Two):

President Bush had plenty of foreign policy failures and oversights. Mexico has become the Wild West incarnate; drug lords and militias rule the streets. Our border with the Mexicans remains porous. Overseas, the Russians shifted in the direction of autocracy on Bush’s watch. The North Koreans nuclearized their arsenal. The Iranian problem has been left unaddressed. Bush was at many times incompetent — and at all times inarticulate and incapable of explaining himself or his views. Yes, in retrospect, Senator McCain might have been the better candidate in 2000. All this and more is true.

But to claim Bush was a foreign policy disaster on some unprecedented level is simply untrue. It is an anti-academic accusation and entirely inaccurate, despite what feisty foreign op-eds, YouTube hate videos, late-night wisecracks, and nightclub one-liners would have you believe. President Bush, in fact, did much good internationally.

President Obama has said we must defend ourselves and not undermine our ideals at the same time — a critique of the Bush era, implying his predecessor thought otherwise. But this is a fundamental misunderstanding of everything President Bush’s foreign policy was. Not only could we simultaneously uphold our ideals and protect ourselves, Bush believed, but we must also promote those ideals in order to protect ourselves. This was, in effect, the Bush Doctrine: that “the survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.”

George Bush made the promotion of democratic principles the cornerstone of American foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East. While this has been our traditional role throughout history, we have at times strayed away from this democratic calling, especially in the Mideast. Bush changed that with an emphatic defense of Arab liberty. He also tackled HIV/AIDS and African poverty, Latin American narcotics, the Asian sex slave trade, and Islamist state sponsorship of terrorism unlike any leader we have ever had. Oh, and lest we forget, his administration prevented another 9/11 — a feather in the cap that was thought to be impossible on the morning of September 12, 2001.

Despite what you may feel about George W. Bush, this is not a record to scoff at.

No, not hardly. Especially not if your political ilk's Goliath of international affairs is Jimmy Carter.

I think on balance Bush got it right. He saw the big picture, even though he missed some of the details. I think his Christian faith (for which he has been so maligned by his enemies) clouded his judgment and led him to try to win a war without killing innocent people -- a noble effort, but against the grain of history. Never has an enemy been defeated without being defeated so decisively that the people -- not merely the combatants -- lose the will to fight. (Well, except for Fwance; the Fwench lose their will to fight and surrender without firing a shot in defense of their homeland. But that's another story...) As Japan and Germany learned in the previous century, it is better to be at peace with America than at war. There was a time for compassion, and we delivered it by airlift and boatload, but not until after our enemies' will to fight was as thoroughly crushed as their armies, navies and cities.

A war doesn't end until both sides agree that it has ended, and the surest way to make sure a war has really ended is to flatten the enemy so hard that they never again think to take up arms against America or their neighbors. When our politicians promise to "end the war" by bringing home the troops, it would be nice if they could at least get the same concession from the Jihadists who will undoubtedly use the time out to rearm and regroup. Ask Israel how well it works every time they unilaterally "end" their war with the Islamists.

The classic formula of winning wars by crushing the enemy worked well for every great war in history, up to and including World War II. Somehow after 1945, however, it was decided that ending a war was a more important objective than defeating an enemy. Perhaps some believe it's the same thing; it is not, just as peace is not the same thing as freedom. Following World War II, war as we knew it was replaced by a series of limp-wristed "peace keeping" missions that, in the end, always concluded with a "deal" that left a tyrant (if not several of them) in power to rule over an oppressed population. North Korea, Southeast Asia, Gulf War I -- these are just the big wars, the ones the United States led. We won't mention all those UN peacekeeping successes such as Darfur, Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia (pre-NATO), Srebrenica... all bustling democracies now. Not.

War aside, I think Guariglia makes a strong case that Bush did an above average job on foreign policy. If the Iraq war never happened, would the left be any less displeased with Bush? I doubt it; just as the history of Obama has already been written, I believe it was already decided by the pinhead "intellectuals" that the Bush presidency was an abject failure long before he took office. Coupled with an eight year media and pop-culture campaign to promulgate the idea that "Bush failed" among the ignorant and uninformed, without actually backing up such a statement with facts, it will be difficult to change many minds for at least two generations.

This all gets me thinking about the worn-out mantra of the left, about how Bush "squandered he world's good will after 9/11" and how "the international community" holds (or formerly held, for those 8 dark years) America in contempt for whatever imagined greivance. I especially find rich the assertions by leftoids that it's once again cool to tell Euroweenies that you're American.

My general rules of thumb are:

If you're embarrassed to tell others you're American when you travel abroad because of who we elect, you can go fuck yourself.
If you're not American, and you dislike my country because of who we elect, you can go fuck yourself.

I hope that's nuanced enough for Euroweenies and American leftoids to understand. If not, try the ever so eloquent Ms. Lucas for a more verbose explanation:

Don’t get me wrong, of course I’m glad that English people may be less likely to accuse me personally of prosecuting the Iraq war no matter how incredibly “enlightened” and “accurate” that accusation may or may not be, but what pisses me off is how grateful all these expats sound, how relieved they are they can finally stop pretending they’re Canadian. I’m not grateful; frankly I profoundly resent the implication that my own personal worth has anything whatsoever to do with who half the American voters chose.

I can’t help but imagine how this sort of thing would play were the tables turned. Such as if Venezuela finally got rid of that little pig monkey Chavez and suddenly all the Venezuelan papers had gushing, swooning articles about how Venezuelans living in America no longer have to be ashamed of themselves because NOW, Americans are treating them nice because their home country got a new leader. What the fuck? Does anyone out there know Venezuelans whom you hold personally responsible for Chavez? Do you treat those Venezuelans poorly because you don’t care for Hugo Chavez? If so, you’re an asshole. Just like all the Europeans mentioned in that article up there are assholes.

Frankly, when I was in Ireland and the UK in 2004, at the height of the Iraq war, I had no problem telling people where I was from. To be honest, the only people who brought it up were a few locals at a pub, and they were pretty damn supportive of the USA. They didn't ask me about the war; they asked me what it was like to be near Ground Zero on 9/11, and got a vivid description of the smell of burning steel and flesh that we in the NYC metro area were treated to for weeks after 9/11. Things got pretty fucking quiet for a while.

Frankly, I think the Euroweenies vilify and scowl at America for the same reason the American Left assaults Christianity: because they know that no harm will come to them. If the "European street" was a fraction as vocal about radical Islam, there would be bloody repercussions, so they limit their wrath and aim it West because, well, it's safe. That they do this while Europe is slowly rotting away from the inside with Islamist cancer, well... let's just wait and see who Europe calls in a decade or two when they need help again.

In the meantime, they won't have Bush to kick around anymore.

New Heretic Joins the Ranks of Evil Climate Traitors

2009-02-02T18:32:00.006-06:00

Infidel alert:

James Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic - Says Hansen "Embarrassed NASA"

Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA’s vocal man-made global warming fears soothsayer, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and declared that Hansen “embarrassed NASA” with his alarming climate claims and said Hansen was “was never muzzled.” Theon joins the rapidly growing ranks of international scientists abandoning the promotion of anthropogenic global warming fears.

“I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man-made,” Theon wrote to the Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009. “I was, in effect, Hansen's supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results. I did not have the authority to give him his annual performance evaluation,” Theon, the former Chief of the Climate Processes Research Program at NASA Headquarters and former Chief of the Atmospheric Dynamics & Radiation Branch explained.

“Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA's official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind's effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress,” Theon wrote.

This Theon character is merely the latest so-called scientist to blaspheme against the Church of ~~Global Warming~~ Climate Change. But he's not a celebrity or a politician, so he mustn't be taken seriously; one need only take a furtive glance at his resume to rightfully dismiss him as an uninformed stooge:

Education: B.S. Aero. Engr. (1953-57); Aerodynamicist, Douglas Aircraft Co. (1957-58); As USAF Reserve Officer (1958-60),B.S. Meteorology (1959); Served as Weather Officer 1959-60; M.S, Meteorology (1960-62); NASA Research Scientist, Goddard Space Flight Ctr. (1962-74); Head Meteorology Branch, GSFC (1974-76); Asst. Chief, Lab. for Atmos. Sciences, GSFC (1977-78); Program Scientist, NASA Global Weather Research Program, NASA Hq. (1978-82); Chief, Atmospheric Dynamics & Radiation Branch NASA Hq., (1982-91); Ph.D., Engr. Science & Mech.: course of study and dissertation in atmos. science (1983-85); Chief, Atmospheric Dynamics, Radiation, & Hydrology Branch, NASA Hq. (1991-93); Chief, Climate Processes Research Program, NASA Hq. (1993-94); Senior Scientist, Mission to Planet Earth Office, NASA Hq. (1994-95); Science Consultant, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (1995-99); Science Consultant Orbital Sciences Corp. (1996-97) and NASA Jet Propulsion Lab., (1997-99).

See? Nothing at all to suggest he's a real scientist. In addition, further investigation into Theon's private life has uncovered an embarrassing link to the oil industry that he failed to disclose at his Senate hearing: VLWH has learned that Theon drives an automobile, and has been observed filling it with gasoline, a petroleum byproduct. This clearly proves he can't be trusted.

(h/t: Power Line, Watts, EPW.)

Good News for Daschle and Geithner

2009-02-02T16:44:00.001-06:00

Quote of the Day

2009-02-02T15:47:00.002-06:00

“Make no mistake, tax cheaters cheat us all, and the IRS should enforce our laws to the letter. ” Sen. Tom Daschle, Congressional Record, May 7, 1998, p. S4507.

(h/t: NRO, via Cold Fury, Malkin, et al.)

Barry, you're doing a heck of a job.

2009-02-02T09:51:00.013-06:00

From Power Line:

Many on the web--but no one in the mainstream media--have commented on the fact that Obama has not even pretended to do anything about the massive ice storm that has disabled much of Kentucky and neighboring states. It took days for FEMA to swing into action. Why is that not a scandal? Days went by before Kentucky's governor called out the National Guard. Why did no one blame Obama for failing to call out the Guard sooner? Probably because he lacks the constitutional power to do so; but the Constitution hasn't changed since 2005.

Doesn't matter. Katrina -- and most likely this ice storm in Kentucky, too -- is Bush's fault. Don't believe me? Then you're a racist. 'Cause Obama's in charge now, and things are different. It says so right there on his White House web site:

President Obama will keep the broken promises made by President Bush to rebuild New Orleans and the Gulf Coast. He and Vice President Biden will take steps to ensure that the federal government will never again allow such catastrophic failures in emergency planning and response to occur.

President Obama swiftly responded to Hurricane Katrina. Citing the Bush Administration's "unconscionable ineptitude" in responding to Hurricane Katrina, then-Senator Obama introduced legislation requiring disaster planners to take into account the specific needs of low-income hurricane victims. Obama visited thousands of Hurricane survivors in the Houston Convention Center and later took three more trips to the region. He worked with members of the Congressional Black Caucus to introduce legislation to address the immediate income, employment, business, and housing needs of Gulf Coast communities.

President Barack Obama will partner with the people of the Gulf Coast to rebuild now, stronger than ever.

Didn't take long for us to marvel at the Clean-and-Articulate One's ~~unconscionable ineptitude~~ mad disaster response skillz. From Insurance Journal:

Local officials were growing angry with what they said was a lack of help from the state and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. In Grayson County, about 80 miles southwest of Louisville, Emergency Management Director Randell Smith said the 25 National Guardsmen who have responded have no chain saws to clear fallen trees.

"We've got people out in some areas we haven't even visited yet,'' Smith said. "We don't even know that they're alive.''

Smith said FEMA has been a no-show so far.

"I'm not saying we can't handle it; we'll handle it,'' Smith said. "But it would have made life a lot easier'' if FEMA had reached the county sooner, he said.

Yeah. Heck of a job, Savior. By the way.... Kentucky? They voted 58% for McCain, and they're 90% white. So fuck them! I mean, it's all about race, isn't it? When a natural disaster hits white Republican rednecks, well... I guess they can just cling to their guns and religion, and deal with it themselves. Don't bother Obama, he busy rebuilding Chocolate City.

HopeChange™, crackers!

Mo' better coverage of this by Anchoress.

Another 'Innocent Mistake'

2009-02-01T07:43:00.011-06:00

Didn't we bury this asshole already? Like, in 2004?

Report: Daschle Delayed Tax Revelation

Former South Dakota Senator Tom Daschle waited nearly a month after being nominated to be secretary of health and human services before informing President Obama that he had not paid years of back taxes, the Washington Post reports.

On Jan. 2, Daschle paid $140,000 in back taxes and interest to the U.S. Treasury and about two days later informed the White House and the Senate Finance Committee, the White House confirmed to the Post.

Obama's transition team discovered in December that $15,000 of the $276,000 in charitable contributions claimed by Daschle lacked proper documentation. But Daschle waited until after amended returns were filed before he mentioned the larger tax liability.

Daschle spokeswoman Jenny Backus said he had known since June 208 that his luxury car and driver provided by wealthy Democratic donor, longtime friend and business associate Leo Hindery might be taxable, but never expected the amount to be such a "jaw-dropping" sum and "thought it was being taken care of" by his accountant.

Hindery founded InterMedia Partners, a private equity firm, in 1988. Daschle was paid $1 million annually for his consulting services, the Senate Finance Committee said.

Daschle had an unreported consulting income of $88,333, in 2007.

Bloomberg reported that Backus said Daschle was "embarrassed and disappointed" by what had occurred.

"Senator Daschle is embarrassed and disappointed by these errors," Backus said. "He apologized for his part in these errors and expressed his deep regret that the committee had to devote time to them."

"Errors?" Daschle's "errors" makes Geithner's $34,000 "innocent mistake" look downright amateurish by comparison.

But we shouldnt be so hard on them. From a layman's perspective, I'd say they were just playing by the rules. You know, the ones that elitists have set for themselves, above and apart from the rules you and I must live by. A former Queen once said, "We don’t pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes." Certainly Daschle and Geithner are Big People, no? They deserve our respect, not simple-minded judgement. Elitists provide a valuable service to America -- after all, without them, who would tell us what to do and how to behave?

'Tis a shame, though... most of us are not Big People. Remember Joe the Plumber? He's classic Little People. After his personal government records were illegally leaked to the media by an Obamunist true-believer, he was "outed" as a tax cheat and skewered by the leftoids for failing to pay (are you sitting down?) a whopping total of $1,182.92 in back taxes -- that's eleven HUNDRED! With an "H"!!! -- an amount which I doubt would pay a single day's interest on Daschle's debt to the IRS.

We've learned a valuable lesson here: If you're going to cheat on your taxes, do it big. A $1,200 debt gets you vilified by leftoid hacks; $34,000 in tax evasion lets you run the Treasury; and $140,000 buys you the Health and Human Services Dept. Such a deal!

HopeChange™, fellow Little People.

BREAKING NEWS: Dissent No Longer Patriotic

2009-01-30T14:42:00.007-06:00

My, how times have Changed™.

While Conservatives endured eight years of venom and vitriol spewed at the erstwhile President Bush by Keith Olbermann, Bill Maher, Rosie O'Donnell, and the gaggle of leftoid hack Hollywood "entertainers" -- including, but hardly limited to, all sorts of idiotic charges that Bush was trying to stifle free speech (this, while incessantly whining about Bush for two full terms...) -- the New Bizarro-World Order is here, and with it our patriotic duty to blindly and unconditionally support our new clean-and-articulate Savior-President no matter how much his policies of HopeChange™ may turn our stomachs. Yes, the new era of "bipartisanship" is upon us, where we put aside our "petty grievances", shut our fucking pieholes, and do as we're told. This nuBipartisanship is defined as such: Republicans will abandon their core principles, bend over and take one up the ass because, as Dear Leader succinctly puts it, "I won."

Alas, a new standard has been foisted upon us; it is now ordained that any criticism of our new Savior-President is unacceptable, especially to those who for years have proudly proclaimed that "dissent is patriotic." Apparently, the first heretic to be burned at the stake will be Rush Limbaugh. Less than two weeks after his ~~inauguration~~ deification, our Savior-President and his disciples have called out Rush for committing heresy against The Church of Obamunism. Rush's crime: Hoping that Obama fails. In response, our Savior-President has issued a fatwah to Republicans instructing them to "stop listening to Rush" (as if they're going to finally start listening to him now...). As if on cue, the Disciples proffer a petition to "repudiate" the infidel, and the media salvos have have begun.

Well, boo-fucking-hoo. I don't recall Bush ever singling out any of of his vocal media critics by name, ostensibly to silence them. In the formerly rational world, this would have seemed... I don't know, unpresidential? Certainly sophomoric.

Among the acts of support we saw during the Bush years were the useful idiot Cindy Sheehan camped out on Bush's front lawn; movies depicting the assassination of Bush; calls for Bush's daughters to be sent to die in Iraq; and shoes thrown at Bush by some Bathist wingnut. All such displays of "courage" were met with applause from the moonbat left... but, more importantly, they were also met without recrimination by the alleged Fascist dictator. I suppose it's easy to be "courageous" when you know nothing will happen to you, sort of like poking a caged grizzly with a long stick. How brave. Try throwing shoes at your beloved Hugo or Fidel, see how that works out for you.

But back to Rush: He says he hopes Obama fails. So fucking what? So do I. Call me a cynic, but when shrill Leftoids voiced opposition to every initiative presented by Bush -- tax cuts, privatizing Social Security, judicial appointments, liberating millions of Muslims from Islamofascist oppression -- well, for some reason I doubt this opposition was really all in hope that Bush would succeed. Unless, of course, said shrill opposition was in fact merely support carefully couched in that famous Liberal nuance that, as a Conservative and a neo-Texan, I'm too stoopid and narrowminded to comprehend. I don't recall the nonpartisan Speaker-Overlord working to implement Bush's policies just because "he won," nor do I recall Bush instructing Democrats to stop listening to the Daily Kos and MoveON.org.

Would it be prudent, then, to expect Liberals all over America to now scrape those stupid "Dissent Is Patriotic" bumper stickers off their shitty Volvos and Priuses? Or did I miss the clause in the First Amendment that grants the right to free expression solely to moonbat Liberals? Maybe it's in the unabridged version of the Bill of Rights that only the high priests of the Church of Obama are allowed to read.

HopeChange™, you unpatriotic infidels.

Movin' On Up!

2009-01-21T19:43:00.001-06:00

First day on the job, and our Articulate and Clean President is already busy bringing about the "renewal" and "reconciliation" he spoke about just a day before in his inaugural address.

From the WhiteHouse.gov web site:

President Obama will keep the broken promises made by President Bush to rebuild New Orleans and the Gulf Coast. He and Vice President Biden will take steps to ensure that the federal government will never again allow such catastrophic failures in emergency planning and response to occur.

President Obama swiftly responded to Hurricane Katrina. Citing the Bush Administration's "unconscionable ineptitude" in responding to Hurricane Katrina, then-Senator Obama introduced legislation requiring disaster planners to take into account the specific needs of low-income hurricane victims. Obama visited thousands of Hurricane survivors in the Houston Convention Center and later took three more trips to the region. He worked with members of the Congressional Black Caucus to introduce legislation to address the immediate income, employment, business, and housing needs of Gulf Coast communities.

President Barack Obama will partner with the people of the Gulf Coast to rebuild now, stronger than ever.

Curiously, there is no mention of any "unconscionable ineptitude" on the part of the Mayor of Chocolate City, or any other of the myriad Democrats one would encounter if one bothered to climb the ladder of responsibility from the Local and State governments before ever reaching the Federal level.

Memo to all Obamunists: Fuck you. For all of Bush's faults, he left office with dignity and class. None of the "O" keys were missing from keyboards, I'll wager. No vandalism or anti-Obama graffiti either. I'm certain that the Bush staff left the White House in far better condition than they found it in January 2001. What a pleasant change from the way you dickless leftoids execute a Presidential transition.

And what in return? It didn't take but a day for you to show us what the next 4 years promise: cheap shots, rhetoric, and venom. So that's how it's going to be? Fine. You set the rules; I'll just play by them. Don't look to me for goodwill when it's clearly a one-way street. Others may pray that your boy president succeeds for the sake of the nation. Not me. I pray that he fails; that his failures are monumental; and that those who elected him (i.e., you) suffer most of all. You keep comparing this Socialist asshole to Lincoln; I'll keep hoping he shares Lincoln's fate. How's that for reconciliation?

But hey... I'm just an angry white racist. Velociman says it with much more eloquence and class than I could ever hope to muster.

Okay. I was giving the man his day, his year, his administration. A faint breeze of circumspection had been wafting across his bow for a couple of weeks. I was going to shut the fuck up and exhibit the class the left has been incapable of showing since 1968. No more.

Fuck him. That dandy, that piebald pimp. And his rat shack wife, who was strolling down Pennsylvania Avenue today incomprehensibly dressed like one of the terra cotta soldiers from the Imperial Tombs of China exhibit. Only with a fatter ass. And snappers that looked like they could chomp through a cocoanut. How often has Obama regretted those marital banns, one wonders?

HopeChange™, you low-rent fucking scumbags.

Ohh... Bamm... Ahhh!

2008-12-20T11:55:00.000-06:00

Must. Read.

Boo Fucking Hoo Du Jour

2008-12-16T14:33:00.000-06:00

Be still my bleeding heart:

"A whopping 582,000 direct and indirect jobs would be lost in Canada over the next five years if the ailing Big Three US auto makers shut down their Ontario operations, said a study Tuesday.

"If output is reduced by 50 percent, 296,000 jobs would be lost nationally, said the 11-page report prepared for the Ontario Manufacturing Council.

Gee, I wonder how much the Canadian government is kicking in towards the bailout. Oh, it says right here...:

"On Friday, the Canadian and Ontario governments reached a tentative deal for a 3.4-billion Canadian dollar (2.8 billion US) bailout of Chrysler, General Motors and Ford's operations in Ontario province."

Wow, $2.8 billion, out of what? $50 billion? In other words, the Canadians are basically going to contribute bus fare. Gee, thanks.

As always, I've got a better idea -- how about the so-called "Big Three" pick up and move their entire operations to Canada, along with the union bosses who want to continue living high on the hog while milking the US taxpayer to subsidize their lifestyles. Hell, the Canadians are good Socialists, they won't mind footing the bill for the good of the proletariat. Bon voyage, douchebags.

Guess The Party!

2008-12-09T11:00:00.000-06:00

Since it's politically acceptable that Obama purchased the White House, others apparently thought it only natural that his prior office be put up for sale:

Illinois Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich and his Chief of Staff, John Harris, were arrested today by FBI agents on federal corruption charges alleging that they and others are engaging in ongoing criminal activity: conspiring to obtain personal financial benefits for Blagojevich by leveraging his sole authority to appoint a United States Senator; threatening to withhold substantial state assistance to the Tribune Company in connection with the sale of Wrigley Field to induce the firing of Chicago Tribune editorial board members sharply critical of Blagojevich; and to obtain campaign contributions in exchange for official actions -- both historically and now in a push before a new state ethics law takes effect January 1, 2009.

Oddly (no, not really...), there's no mention in the CBS article of which political party the Hon. Governor Blagojevich belongs to. So I checked the Chicago Tribune's story, and whatcha' know? No mention there, either. Ditto Sun-Times. Surely the vaunted New York Times, the old gray lady, America's newspaper of record, all the news that's shit to print... surely The Times would tell me, right? No... I must therefore conclude that he is an Independent, like all criminal politicians who are not Republicans.

Ha ha! Just kidding -- he's a DEMOCRAT! Who woulda' thunk that tidbit of information would be neglected in the reporting by certain major newspapers?

Interestingly, I never had to do a Wikipedia search to find out that Ted Stevens was a Republican. Or Larry Craig. Or Vito Fossello. Or Duke Cunningham. Why, I didn't have to read past the second paragraph to find out their party affiliation. Curious, considering there is no media bias.

Thanks, Dumbasses

2008-11-18T17:41:00.000-06:00

I wish stupidity was painful.

Bail This.

2008-11-14T08:05:00.000-06:00

Gee, sounds like the auto union didn't funnel quite enough cash into a certain Senator's pocket:

WASHINGTON, Nov 13 (Reuters) - A senior Democratic senator raised doubts on Thursday that an attempt to bail out U.S. automakers had enough support to clear Congress this year.

As Republicans amplified their concerns about a bailout, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd raised the biggest red flag for fellow Democrats trying to craft a $25 billion rescue and pass it during a post-election session set to start next week.

"Right now, I don't think there are the votes," Dodd of Connecticut told reporters about prospects in the Senate. "I want to be careful of bringing up a proposition that might fail," he said.

Although Dodd said "we ought to do something" and personally backed using money from the ongoing $700 billion financial services rescue program to help Detroit, he was skeptical that enough Republicans would support a bailout.

Well, too fucking bad, isn't it? Great business plan, Detroit: Run your companies into the shitter, then act surprised that your companies are in the shiter. And then, run to ~~mommy and daddy~~ the government to fork over other peoples' money to subsidize your failures. I've got a better idea. Umm... No.

Fuck GM. Did the government bail out Packard? No. Studebaker? No. Auburn? No. Did we survive without them? Just fine, thank you. General Motors has been building shit for decades, so good riddance. Let GM sell off what little of their assets that are of any value (perhaps the Corvette division) to Toyota or BMW, then bulldoze the rest into Lake Michigan. At least the foreign companies can build quality cars in America, with American workers, and still turn a profit -- largely because they don't have to pay shakedown protection money to ~~organized crime~~ the UAW, but also because they know how to build cars:

In the 1970s a survey was taken of German and American auto executives. They were asked, "What do you do?" The Americans replied, "We sell cars." The Germans answered, "We build cars." It was a difference in corporate culture. The Japanese noticed. They decided to build cars, and they succeeded. Many Americans today, brought up on Pontiacs and Fords, won't own an American car, unless it's a car made in Ohio by a foreign company. What a stunning change.

American cars suck. I learn this lesson at great expense every 10 years or so when I decided to give Detroit another chance. They never fail to disappoint. I drive a Jeep Wrangler, purchased new in 2003, and the only reason I'm somewhat happy with it is that I bought it with low expectations; when it turned out to be mediocre I felt like I got a bargain. It's got 120,000 miles and is making all sorts of funny noises, but then again it made all sorts of funny noises the day I drove it off the lot. I'll drive it until it dies then bury it in a shallow grave. It will be the last American automobile I ever buy. Does Chrysler Corporation lament this loss of future business? Fuck no... Washington's got them covered, they'll be getting my money one way or another. Sickening.

Simplistic Notions

2008-11-13T14:25:00.000-06:00

Oh dear... now that they've taken control over all three branches of government they're not afraid to say it in plain terms that all but the most ignorant among us will understand:

Call me a simpleton, but yes... I DO believe in the "simplistic notion" that I'm entitled to keep the wealth I create and earn. And yes, I do have a seething antipathy towards those who have a more, um, "enlightened" and "nuanced" belief that they can help themselves to my shit.

It really is simple: It's NOT YOURS. It's MINE. So KEEP YOUR FUCKING HANDS OFF.

And you wonder why gun sales are skyrocketing?

Messiah Update

2008-11-11T09:14:00.000-06:00

A wrap-up of Week One A.O. (After Obama):

Yet another Obama-Lincoln comparison. I need to vomit. This part I find especially rich:

"To reach out to his critics, Lincoln even allowed a reporter from an opposition newspaper, a journalist named Henry Villard, to virtually move into his office in Springfield, Mo., to chronicle the transition."

Yes, I'm certain Obama will be opening the Oval Office to Fox News. There's plenty of precedent for that, he was always fair and open to media outlets that didn't support his candidacy.

Lincoln... LOL! While Republican talking heads were crying about Obama "already measuring the drapes in the Oval Office" a week before the election, I saw past it all and realized the truth: Obama's ~~supporters~~ sycophants were already measuring Mt. Rushmore. What? No room for The One? No problem, just take down Jefferson's mug - who needs him, he owned slaves, right? And while we're at it, why not a national holiday for The President who hasn't actually done anything yet? Yes We Can!

Then again, maybe the comparison isn't so crazy after all... Wasn't Lincoln's first act as President also to grant enemies of America captured illegally on the battelfield the same rights as US citizens in court, right down to government-issue ACLU attorneys. I think I remember that from history class.

So when I read shit like this...

"As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours, we are not enemies but friends," Obama said. "Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection."

...I have to wonder who the Obamunists think he's talking to - the Republicans, or the Jihadists? The latter, coincidentally, seem to believe that Obama is good for jihad.

"The leader of a jihadi group in Iraq argued Friday that the election of Barack Obama as president represented a victory for radical Islamic groups that had battled American forces since the invasion of Iraq."

I never thought I'd agree with terrorists, but whatcha' know? Only a week after The One is elected and I've already reached common ground with America's sworn enemies. He IS the peacemaker!!!

No. Just kidding. It really makes me ill. In fact it almost makes me nostalgic for Bill Clinton, who merely tried to "Change" the military by Presidential decree with his "don't ask, don't tell, don't drop your soap" policy on his first day on the job. Now we've got a President-elect who, if he listens to those "advisors" who pulled the strings to get him elected, may very well set captured enemy combatants free while the war is still going on... unless he first decrees the war to be over, then I guess they won't be enemies any more. Wow, in hindsight Clinton seems like a big, harmless ol' goofball, doesn't he?

Now, I don't mean to pick on our President-elect -- to do so would be racist, anyway. I'm sure terrorists are the last thing on his mind. After all, they haven't attacked America since September 11, 2001 when it became clear that Bush would be leaving office in 7 short years, and now that Bush is on the way out all the radical Islamists will throw down their arms and love America once again, much like the French. No, The One has some serious shit to deal with -- for starters, he must Rescue Human Civilization. Wow, I bet he didn't realize that was in the job description when he announced his candidacy. And what will he have to Rescue Human Civilization from? Why... the weather. More specifically the rapidly ~~cooling~~...~~warming~~...cooling global temperatures, the ~~rising~~...dropping sea levels, the ~~expanding~~...~~shrinking~~...expanding glaciers, and the bad, bad (white, Republican, rich) humans that are causing all of this ~~Global Warming~~...~~Global Cooling~~...Climate Change, as pointed out by ~~all of~~...~~the majority of~~...some of the United Nation's finest ~~scientific thinkers~~...politicians, a couple of whom are actual climatologists. So once Obama takes office, he must shift America's limited resources away from the so-called "War on Terror" and start fighting the real war -- The War on Weather.

After the planet is saved, The One can settle into the easy job of fixing our economy that was decimated by the Failed Economic Policies of the Bush Administration and John McCain, who refused to do anything about the impending subprime mortgage market collapse. I say the job is easy, because all you need to do is confiscate wealth from those who earn it and hand it over to those who didn't; history has proven that always works. And those middle-class tax cuts and other miracles that you were promised? Oh... heh. Just kidding. C'mon, can't you people take a joke? Besides, who needs unpatriotic tax cuts -- soon our economy will rebound to new heights and America will once again be taxed into the prosperity of the Carter years. Your dog will shit gold bullion and $100 bills (with Obama's face on them, no doubt) will grow on trees.

And just in time, too -- we've got another failing industry to ~~bail out~~ reward for their incompetence.

HopeChange™, you racists.

Why I Moved To Texas.

2008-11-06T01:00:00.001-06:00

Any questions?

VDH: The End Of Journailsm

2008-11-01T14:04:00.000-05:00

Memo to all the Obama sycophants and cheerleaders in the so-called "journalism" department of the brothel known as The American Media: The Jig Is Up (no pun intended).

"There have always been media biases and prejudices. Everyone knew that Walter Cronkite, from his gilded throne at CBS news, helped to alter the course of the Vietnam War, when, in the post-Tet depression, he prematurely declared the war unwinnible. Dan Rather's career imploded when he knowingly promulgated a forged document that impugned the service record of George W. Bush. We've known for a long time - from various polling, and records of political donations of journalists themselves, as well as surveys of public perceptions - that the vast majority of journalists identify themselves as Democratic, and liberal in particular.

Yet we have never quite seen anything like the current media infatuation with Barack Obama, and its collective desire not to raise key issues of concern to the American people.

...

The media has succeeded in shielding Barack Obama from journalistic scrutiny. It thereby irrevocably destroyed its own reputation and forfeited the trust that generations of others had so carefully acquired. And it will never again be trusted to offer candid and nonpartisan coverage of presidential candidates."

I disagree only in the details -- that is to say, journalism died a long time ago; what occurred this election was just one final putrid outgassing from the long-rotting carcass of Dead Journalism.

Let us rejoice, for now we now know it's all propaganda, as so many of us have been saying for so long. All the media did was provide the incontrovertible evidence, however unwittingly. We can now just ignore the media's charade of impartiality and choose which opinions to read without any pretense of impartiality.

BTW, I have to take a piss... where, exactly, is Journalism's grave?

Hope, Change, Justice

2008-10-31T10:39:00.000-05:00

A preview of Progressive Social Justice, coming soon to your neighborhood:

Crime:

2 accused of hanging Obama effigy on Ky. campus
A University of Kentucky student and another man were arrested Thursday, accused of hanging a life-sized likeness of Barack Obama from a tree on the campus..."This was a serious incident. It caused a lot of wounds to be opened from racial tension," said University of Kentucky acting police chief Joe Monroe.

Not-Crime:

Effigy of Sarah Palin hanging by a noose creates uproar in West Hollywood
A West Hollywood Halloween display showing a likeness of Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin hanging by a noose has caused a furor among some residents who reported it as a hate crime, authorities said Monday. But Los Angeles County sheriff's officials said the mannequin sporting a beehive hairdo, glasses and a red coat does not rise to the level of a hate crime because it was part of a Halloween display.

HopeChange™

Judgement Day Cometh

2008-10-29T19:55:00.000-05:00

My New Hero

2008-10-07T01:07:00.000-05:00

Ladies and gentlemen, the brilliant and erudite Mr. Pat Condell:

But wait... there's more!

Personal Responsibility Si, Bailout NO!

2008-09-30T22:08:00.000-05:00

Some guy (or gal) going by the handle "chredon" posted this bit of wisdom (and for once I don't say "wisdom" with derisive sarcasm; this is the real thing) in response to a Blame The Republicans screed by some shriveled up old cunt of a Democrat party hack named Marie Coco in which she called for the "conviction" of Bush, Cheney, the GOP... basically everyone but the corrupt Democrats who were up to their eyeballs in the Economic Crisis Du Jour:

It just goes to prove that no matter which side you are on, it's much easier to interpret the facts to fit your own preconceived notions of what's happened than to actually try to connect the dots and figure things out for yourself.

First, to those of you who constantly refer to the Sept 1999 NYT article about the Clinton administration pushing loans to people who normally wouldn't qualify: it might help if you read the full text of that article. You see, what Clinton proposed and Fannie implemented was a plan to INSURE (not make, but INSURE) loans made to people who were JUST UNDER the normal line of acceptability, in exchange for a one-percent increase in the FIXED INTEREST RATE on the loan for TWO YEARS. These are not the loans that are failing. The loans that are failing are the creation of banks: three, five, and seven-year balloons, two-year ARMs, no-doc loans that you don't even have to prove your employment to get, zero-interest loans. A whole raft of loans being made BY BANKS, not by Federal requirement. The definition of a sub-prime loan is one that Fannie and Freddie won't buy.

Why did banks create these risky loan types? Because changes slipped into a 1999 budget bill at the last second by Phil Gramm overturned Glass-Stegall and allowed investment houses to buy, sell, and trade mortgages like securities. This new market was totally unregulated. This led to the rise of Mortgage-backed Securities. Wall Street investment houses made tons of money buying and selling these. The would take out loans (sell commercial paper) to get the money they needed to buy them. Executives made huge bonuses on them. As a result, they were hungry to get more of them, and put pressure on banks to sell them more mortgages. This allowed banks to make riskier and riskier mortgages, since the bank never had anything at risk - they would just sell the mortgage to the investment houses. After 9/11, Allan Greenspan lowered interest rates, which made mortgages even cheaper to get into. With all these mortgages being made, the housing market got tight and prices began to rise quickly. That allowed individuals to buy homes as an investment, taking out a loan with a low introductory rate in the hopes of selling the property before the piper came to be paid.

Eventually, home prices rose to the point that no one else could get into this Ponzi scheme. And then the thing that everyone feared happened. Home prices started to re-adjust downward at the same time that ARM levels started to re-adjust upward. Suddenly, people could no longer afford their payments, couldn't unload the property for what they owed on it, and couldn't re-finance. So what did they do? They defaulted and gave the property to the banks.

Investment banks started to see a growing number of defaults. So they began to buy investment insurance from AIG and other lenders. AIG insured these Mortgage-backed securities fairly inexpensively, since mortgages had always been one of the safest investments in history. So rating agencies like Fair Isaac continued to give these investments Triple-A ratings, and AIG insured them accordingly.

And that's where we were six months ago. House prices started to fall. Home buyers started to default. Investment houses stopped buying mortgages. Investors stopped buying mortgage-backed securities. AIG stopped insuring the investments.

And then people looked around and noticed...

No one had any clear idea what these Mortgage-backed securities were worth.

AIG had insured 35 times more bad mortgages than their entire company was worth, and a large number of them were in default.

Investment banks had borrowed 50-70 times more money than they had assets to cover in order to by mortgages, and a large number of them were in default.

Banks were still holding many mortgages that the investment banks would not buy, and many of them were in default.

Freddie and Fannie had backed trillions of dollars of Triple-A rated loans, only to find they were nowhere near as solid as they had been led to believe.

All our nation's credit capital was tied up in mortgages that might not pay off.

So, everyone please note that NOWHERE IN THIS ENTIRE LITANY DID I MENTION GEORGE BUSH, BILL CLINTON, CHRIS DODD, BARNEY FRANK, JOHN McCAIN, or BARAK OBAMA.

Government did NOT cause this crisis. Reagan, Clinton, Phil Gramm, Allan Greenspan, and many, many others set up a climate wherein this crisis could happen. But it happened because investment bankers found a way to make huge sums of money buying and selling mortgages. And while many people, including both John McCain and Barak Obama, have spoken out in warning of this impending disaster, no one has done anything to avert it.

Who could have done something? It's a long list...

Ben Bernake could have raised interest rates and make mortgages less inviting as an investment.

Henry Paulson could have instituted or enforced checks and balances already on the books.

Congress could have changed the laws to regulate this behavior.

President Bush could have appointed regulators who believed in regulations, not hands-off free-market types, or taken a lot of other steps to head it off.

So while Wall Street created this mess, there were any number of government agents who could have stopped it, but did not. Some refused for ideological reasons. Some didn't have the power. Some didn't see the need. But they all failed in their duty to put the nation's best interests above their own or those of a narrow group of people.

And so here we are. And all the pointed fingers in the world won't plug the hole in this dike before it collapses and floods us. So could be concentrate on the SOLUTION please, and leave the BLAME to the historians?

Read the second-to-last paragraph again (and again, and again, until it sinks in) and answer me this: Do we really want the same government officials that allowed this mess to happen to be the ones to "solve" the problem? Sorry, my confidence level is zero.

...and thanks for all the fish.

2008-07-08T16:55:00.000-05:00

Iraq's national security adviser said Tuesday his country will not accept any security deal with the United States unless it contains specific dates for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces.

OK... how about tomorrow?

There's a reason true conservatives (the un-compassionate variety) have long decried the concept of nation building. I was not opposed to settling our long-overdue business with Iraq (the one nation on Earth, I might remind everyone, that was shooting at American planes prior to September 11, 2001). But if these chimps are so eager to brush away the hand that tries to help them off their asses and into the 21st Century, then they are not worth another drop of American blood. Let the UN take it from here - without US finance. Let's start rebuilding our country; I believe there's a wall that needs building on the southern border. Fuck Iraq.

Same goes for Germany, Japan, Korea and every other ungrateful shithole around the globe, all of which have for too long enjoyed the benefits of our military presence, enabling them to transfer the duty and responsibility of defending their own citizens and borders to American soldiers, while they stab us in the back every time we ask for even a fraction of the help we've provided to them in spades for the past century. Good riddance to them, too..

Bonus: A special Fuck You to our Euroweenie "allies". Thanks for all your help. When you find your Socialist Eutopia on the brink of sharia law, don't call The Ugly Americans. Try the UN instead, see if they can't pass a strongly-worderd resolution or something.

Shall NOT be infringed.

2008-03-19T10:07:00.000-05:00

Boldface mine:

Court Weighs Right to Guns, and Its Limits
LINDA GREENHOUSE | Published: March 19, 2008

WASHINGTON - A majority of the Supreme Court appeared ready on Tuesday to embrace, for the first time in the country's history, an interpretation of the Second Amendment that protects the right to own a gun for personal use.

That may be the easy part.

The harder question in the case challenging the District of Columbia's handgun ban is what kind of restrictions the government could constitutionally place, in the name of public safety, on the newly recognized right. The answer to that question, on which the outcome of the case will turn, was less clear.

Newly recognized right? "New" since, like, 1789? RTFC, asswits.

As to "what kind of restrictions the government could constitutionally place" on gun ownership, here is my proposed list of restrictions:

Don't shoot anyone who doesn't deserve to be shot.
Umm.... well, that about covers it.

Don't. Tread. On. Me.