At the close of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Dr. James McHenry, a Maryland delegate, followed Benjamin Franklin from Independence Hall. He recorded a question asked by a lady, directed at Dr. Franklin.

The lady asked, "Well Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?"

"A republic," replied Dr. Franklin, "if you can keep it."


"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand

Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Deciding on a Halloween Costume

As some of you may know, there is a mosque down the street from my house. As usual, it's going to be tough this year guessing what the kids are dressed up as when they come to the door asking for candy on Halloween night.

Sunday, October 28, 2012

That Special Moment

Should you hold out for more?

Crowder throws his cracker into the soup.

Thursday, October 25, 2012

Europe Sends Election Observers to the US - Texas Responds

The Democratic Party's bi-annual voter fraud (they just call them "elections" in Chicago) and the voter intimidation practiced in urban hell holes by members of the Black Panther Party spurred the Europeans to send election observers to the US in an attempt to help us have free and independent elections. 

Texas has a different take on it -- because it's unlikely that the Black Panthers would get much traction in the Lone Star State.

Texas authorities have threatened to arrest international election observers, prompting a furious response from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE).
“The threat of criminal sanctions against [international] observers is unacceptable,” Janez Lenarčič, the Director of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), said in a statement. “The United States, like all countries in the OSCE, has an obligation to invite ODIHR observers to observe its elections.”
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott further fueled the controversy on Tuesday when he sent a letter to the OSCE warning the organization that its representatives “are not authorized by Texas law to enter a polling place” and that it “may be a criminal offense for OSCE’s representatives to maintain a presence within 100 feet of a polling place’s entrance.”
Texas has the Rangers and without putting words in the mouths of Texans, my sense is that they feel as if they have no need of European help to insure that elections are free and fair.

(King Shabazz gets no traction at all in Texas - but they love him in Philadelphia)

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Barack Obama: Military Genius

President Barack Obama is a military genius. Simply ask him and he'll affirm my statement.

I am not going to fact-check Obama's ramblings during the third presidential debate because he embarrassed himself as the Commander-in-Chief and everyone who has ever served in uniform.

Obama claimed to a group inner city of youths back in the 2007-08 cycle that he once considered a career in the military. Politicians make those sorts of claims in an attempt to connect with voter groups. But, of course, what Obama was also saying to them standing there in civvies, is that he clearly rejected the idea of doing the kind of patriotic service that our troops choose. However he was a community activist, and he has equated that with military service in the twisted narcissistic world where he resides.

When President Obama was of military age, he was a woozy, Choom Gang member who smoked a bit more bamabalacha (marijuana) than is 'optimal' and did more than a few lines of cocaine (Sinclair). His Communist Party affiliations and personal friendship with convicted terrorist -  Weatherman, Bill Ayres (who ghost-wrote his autobiography) would have denied him any sort of security clearance. Which would have condemned him to a service of cleaning toilets and sweeping floors in common areas BUT not where sensitive information was discussed. 

However as elected president, he has access to every bit of classified information available. Riddle me that?
Obama stated flatly for the national television audience that sequestration would not happen as scheduled on Jan. 2. Within minutes, however, Obama political aide David Plouffe was scurrying around the Florida debate site telling reporters that what the  (Nobel Peace Prize laureate) Chicagoan really meant was sequestration "should not" happen. 
Obama also told the debate audience that the idea of debilitating mandated defense budget cuts was Congress' idea. However, Bob Woodward documented in his recent book, "The Price of Politics," that the toxic sequestration idea was actually delivered to Congress by Obama chief of staff Jack Lew in a meeting with Democrat Majority Leader, Sen. Harry Reid. (IBD)
Everyone knows that a trillion dollar cut will have an impact on military readiness. But if you're a super genius, you can spin it so that a trillion dollar cut isn't noticed at all. Isn't that right Mr. President?

Thursday, October 18, 2012

The Benghazi Timeline

I'm sure that this will be revisited in the upcoming presidential debate in Boca Raton, Florida. Many liberals including a disturbingly large group of people in the mainstream media don't think it's important because it was Barack Obama who misled the American people for two weeks about the root cause for the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

After consulting with half a dozen lawyers on how she can salvage her political career, Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton took the blame, saying, "The Buck Stopped with me!"

...and in a world of wonder where unicorns fly and rainbows arch over the White House, it might be true. But it's not.

President Barack Obama deliberately misled the American people because a cornerstone of his re-election platform rested on him (nearly single-handedly) wiping out Al Qaeda. You would think that terrorists would have had enough respect for a fellow Muslim to have waited until November 7 to attack. But they didn't.

Framing Future Presidential Debates

The mainstream media has such a vast bias toward the Democratic Party that moving forward, the Republican Party must demand balance in moderation. This can be accomplished by either a joint approval committee that picks an acceptable moderator or allowing the mainstream media a pick and then allowing Fox News (fair and balanced) a pick, and so forth. It's time for the Republicans to step up and call the mainstream media out for what it is -- an arm of the Democratic Party.

The mainstream media can fairly take credit for presidential debates becoming important in the election cycle as evidenced by the surge by Governor Mitt Romney after the first 2012 debate because they so demonized him that it was the public's first glimpse at him without their liberal filter being applied. I wonder if the mainstream media will ever be able to look at what they've become in an objective way? Their self-congratulatory delusions of grandeur are only eclipsed by Hollywood and then only slightly.

Following the first presidential debate of 2012, we heard a litany of excuses as to why President Obama performed so badly. The mainstream media offered the American People a number of options. Either it was the altitude in Denver, the evil closet conservative, Jim Lehrer or an important intelligence briefing that distracted his attention or a different Mitt Romney showed up than the one they expected.

That's it! It was Mitt Romney’s fault. A completely different Mitt Romney showed up and uh, said exactly what he has been saying all along in his campaign. The media, of course, immediately embraced that spin and tried to spew the propaganda but it was too late. 67 million Americans had witnessed the drubbing for themselves leaving the media impotent. And that is precisely why the President did so poorly. Insulated from reality and a compliant media, the president has never had to face tough questions or explain bad policy or take responsibility for his actions… until that debate. 
And on the issue of moderators:

PBS - Jim Lehrer more or less allowed the candidates a free forum to discuss their points of view and policy differences in the first debate. Since President Obama was thoroughly drubbed, ABC News' Martha Raddatz took on the role of liberal advocate for the only vice presidential debate. 
The 2012 vice presidential debate was sometimes a 2-on-1 fight, with Biden and moderator Martha Raddatz both interrupting Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan repeatedly. It was hard to top Biden’s obnoxious tone, though. The Washington Examiner said, “Biden interrupted 82 times during the entire debate.” To those watching on television, that seemed like a low number. 
Raddatz followed the Biden lead though – interrupting the debaters 50 times. She leaned heavily on Ryan, interrupting him 31 times, 12 more than the 19 times she cut off Biden. She also took a liberal tone onabortion and let Biden control the debate tone by never shutting up. (Fox News)
The liberal media praised Candy Crowley’s performance as a moderator in the second presidential debate. But her bias was patently obvious viewers. She interrupted President Obama 9 times. She interrupted Governor Romney 28 times. And at a key point in the debate on the issue of the Benghazi, Libya scandal, she incorrectly fact-checked Governor Romney to the pleasure of President Obama, who will have to endure a foreign policy debate moderated by Bob Schieffer on Monday. Once can hope that Schieffer will be more honest in his approach to moderating the debate - the jury is out. However, 2012 should be a turning point in the way future election cycles handle what has obviously become a critical part in campaigns.

It's only critical because of mainstream media bias - which is making a joke of journalism.

Saturday, October 13, 2012

Why is Hillary Clinton silent on Benghazi?

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that she intended to leave Team Obama after President Obama's first term irrespective of whether he was re-elected. she could work on her campaign for President in 2016
NOT SO FAST, Ms. Clinton.

Former CIA Director Michael Hayden and former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said, "We were disappointed to see Vice President Biden blame the intelligence community for the inconsistent and shifting response of the Obama administration to the terrorist attacks in Benghazi," they said in a written statement. "It is clear that any failure was not on the part of the intelligence community, but on the part of White House decision-makers who should have listened to, and acted on, available intelligence. Blaming those who put their lives on the line is not the kind of leadership this country needs." 

Will Secretary of State Clinton throw President Obama under the bus?

Fox News asks it this way:

She has been a trailblazer throughout her distinguished career, and earned a unique place in American history. She should come forward now and tell the American people what happened in Benghazi and why.

In Thursday night's debate, Vice President Biden claimed fault lies with the Intelligence Community and the State Department were to blame for the tragic events in Libya. Secretary Clinton knows better, and should speak out so those truly responsible be held to account. 
What a pity if one of the final public images we have of Secretary Clinton is a her clinging to an increasingly unbelievable narrative, while standing over the flag-draped coffins of American heroes who died for someone else’s mistakes. (Fox News)

Friday, October 12, 2012

The Big Bird Scenario

There aren't that many people who are still drinking the Obama Kool Aid, but the Hollywood crowd still seem to love him. Tom Hanks, George Clooney and the ever loving gaggle of cronies and parasites in the entertainment business don't seem to care much about the future of the economy.

The Economy has been good to Hollywood, which has an enduring love affair of former Vice President Al Gore and his post-government employment as the spokesman for the Global Warming movement. Is global warming a genuine problem? Maybe. Is global warming caused exclusively by man? Doubtful. (coal seam fires in China, some of which have been burning for hundreds of years, push out more greenhouse gas pollutants than the entire population, which burns coal for energy - for example.)

The "progressive movement" doesn't have much more to say beyond their tired refrains. Neither, it would seem, does their champion, Barack Obama, who promises more of the same if we re-elect him.

Tuesday, October 9, 2012

Give Obama a Second Chance?

Obama 2012?


Obama's re-election team made a determination early on that their guy could not run on his record, no way no how. So even though they had some distinct advantages; the power of incumbency, their press resources and the fundraising (both legal and overseas illegal), this election was going to be a squeaker. They weren't worried about their base. A few trumped up issues here or there, create a narrative like the "war on women" (with the help of the media of course) and that's done. Turnout was a bit concerning for some constituencies but when the time was right they could fire 'em up, distribute a little "walking around" money and you'll get them to the polls, no prob.

No, what they were worried about is the undecideds like the Wal Mart mom. The lower middle class female, not well educated and not particularly sophisticated. She is the classic emotional buyer. This voter makes up about 6% in swing States like Ohio and Florida and if you can win this demographic you've won the State. 

So to get this voter, and those like her, it became doubly important who the Republican nominee turned out to be. From Team Obama's perspective the nominee could not be allowed to connect emotionally with the voters, most especially the Wal Mart mom. Demonizing Newt Gingrich or Rich Santorium would be easy as pie, hell they had already done most of the work themselves. But Romney presented a problem. He's a squeaky clean Mormon, a family man with no moral skeletons in the closet, and he looks the part. Plus he's the ultimate pragmatist problem solver with a track record to prove it. 

How to defeat Mitt Romney?

From CREEP's perspective what's to be done? (Committee to Re-elect the President, not really but I felt compelled to throw that Nixon reference in, they're so much alike!) Well obviously being from Chicago the playbook says hit him as long and as hard as you can in as many different ways as you can. Drive his negatives as high as possible. Make him so radio-active voters won't even look at him, much less give him a chance. Kill Mitt!

Not a bad strategy and maybe necessary but a dangerous one indeed. If voters ever got a look at the real Mitt Romney then this multi-faceted concert of misdirection, demagoguery and outright lies could all come crashing down like a house of cards. But it was working. The media did their bit, the donors ponied up, the campaign hit him with the kitchen sink and it was working, actually working. And then it all went away in an instant. Obama failed to show up debate night.

So where are we now? 

The bottom is dropping out of the polls and Obama's argument has been reduced to calling Romney a liar (repeatedly over and over again), and there's nowhere to go from here. Guys like Andrew Sullivan are losing their minds (see today's Daily Beast) and there's been an 18 point swing among women. And it's all because they painted such a distorted negative image of Romney that when the real Romney is revealed the efforts of the Obama campaign just look like slander...and Obama is the liar now. Wal Mart moms hate liars.

The Chicago crew, steeped in Alinsky tactics is stooping to this sort of last ditch effort to destroy Romney's chances:

Context: In the recent debate, Governor Romney said,  “I’m gonna stop the subsidy to PBS. I’m gonna stop other things,” Romney told moderator Jim Lehrer, formerly an anchor on the PBS News Hour, when asked about deficit reduction. “I like PBS, I like Big Bird, I actually like you too.” Romney is committed to driving down the $16 trillion dollar deficit by using the "China Test". If the program is worth borrowing money from China to fund it, it stays. If not, it goes.

This is Obama's take on that:

Right out of the Alinsky playbook.

Tuesday, October 2, 2012

The Enlightened Progressive Left

Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it;
Those who fail to learn history correctly-- are simply doomed.

We can thank primarily the political left and its useful idiots for the persistent, unyielding, and willful celebration of--and ultimately mainstreaming of--malignant narcissism. We have entered the age of postmodern sociopathy and nihilism. Welcome to the ObamaNation. Where inconvenient truths are simply re-packaged by the mainstream media and the executive branch of government to reflect the new reality.

What does it matter if the lives and freedoms of so many individuals are sacrificed to the murderous oppressors of the world? If you "kick out the wealthy" then you have the wonderful socialist paradise such as Cuba; or the magnificent utopia that is North Korea with all their misery, poverty, oppression and leftist enlightenment! We will all watch with wonder and awe as France implements the ultimate redistributionist fantasy of a 75% tax on the "wealthy". Is there anyone who can possibly believe that this will solve France's financial problems? Believe me, the next phase will be the demands for a 100% tax on those evil rich people who cause all the worlds problems with their wealth. 

Under the "enlightened" and "progressive" left, wealth will be redistributed until there is nothing left to redistribute; at which point the human mind will be completely enslaved and even more scapegoats will be deivered to the altars of progressivism--but so what? As the eminent leftist and quintessential nihilist Joseph Stalin once remarked, "Death solves all problems - no man, no problem."

In every redistribution scheme there are those who are spared. (all pigs are equal but some are more equal than others.) They are the Party Faithful, the Party Elite, who need to be accorded special privileges. Nobody sees Barack Obama, David Axelrod, Rahm Emanuel or Joe Biden giving all they have to feed the poor. These redistributionists are not Ghandi.

These selfless sociopaths are people who couldn't care less about the individual human being. Individual human beings are expendable; even vast numbers of them--as long as they stand in the way of the implementation of the sociopath's great ideas and compassionate execution of those ideas. They are the fodder that can be used to build "great" societies, utopian fantasies and collectivist wet-dreams.
There was an error in this gadget


FEEDJIT Live Traffic Feed