The Case For Nationalized Health Care

Climate (of Hypocrisy) Change

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.

Destroy

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...

Wake up, people.

Computer Malfunction

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.

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.

Oppose S.843

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...

Right-Wing Extremist

"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!

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

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?

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

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."

But they support the troops!

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.

Honor Student Kills 4 Cops, Guns Clearly To Blame

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...

Flying the Terrorist-Friendly Skies

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!

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.

On Irony, Complex Systems, and Gaussian Copula

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!!!

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?

Racist:


Not Racist:

Any questions?

This is News?!?!?

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

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.