Sunday, February 28, 2010

Hillary Clinton Needs Your Money!

Would things have been any different today if Hillary had taken the nomination, and the presidency, in 2008?

Exhibit A:

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton appeared before Congress to rail against the size of the federal deficit and urge that overall spending be cut

In the next breath, she defended her request for an increase of $4.9 billion, nearly 10 percent, in her budget, and plans for a glitzy new embassy in London.

So instead of cutting her budget, or even holding the line year-to-year while the nation is locked into a crippling recession, she needs a raise. Of $5 billion. Because it's absolutely necessary. For her. To maintain her kowtowing obsequiousness to the world's tyrants.

Well, where do we cut $5 billion in order to meet Hillary's needs while still trying to maintain a deficit of only $1.5 trillion of so? Well, I am sure we can cut the $5 billion out of some other federal departments...what? They all need their funding too? And they're lining up to ask for budget increases, to help offset the cost of all of their expanded jurisdictions over the American people?

Wow, what a pickle! Where's the additional money going to come from to pay for all of these increases? What's that, Hillary "deficit hawk" Clinton? Not from you? Maybe from the EPA, or the Department of Transportation
($70 billion/yr!) , or from some czar's Can't be done?

Well, don't ask me...I'm too busy burying my money in mason jars, in scattered secret locales around New Jersey...

Saturday, February 27, 2010

Another Kennedy Rises To Save Us From Ourselves!

With the death of Teddy, and the pending retirement of Patrick, one would have believed that the Kennedy Dynasty had finally outlives it's usefulness, and expired (not before time).

But lo! While we thought Patrick was The Last Scion, it turns out there yet another heir to the throne, one who is currently considering a run for office in Massachusetts:

Joseph P. Kennedy III, one of the twin sons of former Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy II, may run this fall if Democratic Rep. William Delahunt decides against seeking re-election in his South Shore and Cape Cod district.

Kennedy, 29, "has been considering it but he hasn't made a decision," said the Democrat, who demanded anonymity to speak about private conversations with the father and son.

The younger Kennedy did not immediately respond to a request for comment. He is a graduate of Stanford University and Harvard Law School who works as a prosecutor in Barnstable County, near his family's Cape Cod compound.
[photo here]

So Joe III, with all of the life experience that 29 years in an rich kid's bubble brings you, thinks by virtue of his name he can commandeer a seat in a district where Scott Brown whomped Martha Coakley by a surprisingly large margin. In a year where backlash against the establishment may be at an historic high, Little Joe thinks he can win by...invoking the name synonymous with the establishment.

Great. Go for it, kid. If you're not smart enough to realize you'll be waling into a buzz saw in November, then you're certainly not smart enough to represent anybody as their Congressman. Better for all that you be rid of that notion sooner rather than later...

You Say You Want a Revolution?

Well you know
We all want to change the world...

We all do. The problem is which direction that change is going to take. And it appears as if President Obama's highly-touted bi-partisan health care summit clearly illustrated one thing: How profoundly divergent the two sides are in terms of political philosophy. The national discussion since has become less about meeting in the middle and more about taking sides and packing your (rhetorical?) powder. Good job as always, Baracky....

Don't believe me? A few thoughts today from 'round the web...Daniel Putkowski, posting at
When Fall The Coliseum, splits the nation into two "revolutionary" camps:

The Royalists march behind the banner of government as if their mortal souls depend upon the institution, and in a way, their souls are invested completely in the government. They require the government to issue policies and procedures with increasing complexity to manage everything from daycare to what kind of cooking oil can be used at fast food restaurants. Without the government doing these things, the country will collapse, or so they say....

.... Rebels are suspicious of granting authority to anyone, especially the government, which they view as already too powerful. They don’t require someone to tell them that not wearing a seatbelt is dangerous or that bacon fat clogs arteries. They make their choices, take their chances, and accept the consequences...If central authority was better, why do those who live under it try to avoid its mandates?

You ask me for a contribution
Well you know
We're doing what we can

Charles Hurt in the
New York Daily News, also warns of the powder keg that is being ignited by the return of the Crown to America; his concern is with who is actually confiscating the wealth of the productive:

Supposedly with enormous humility and gratitude, the government takes from us a portion of the money we pour so much of our lives into earning.

It is a piece of our very freedom that they take from us. It is, in fact, a piece of who we are.

Under the threat of the gun and jail time, we cannot refuse.

In return, the government vows to defend our borders, maintain the supreme rule of law and provide some of the most basic services.

If they fail to keep their end of the bargain? Well, it is how revolutions are born.

So it has been nothing short of staggering to watch House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democrats in Congress risk everything to protect Rangel and keep him at the helm of the all-powerful tax law-writing House Ways and Means Committee -- that most sacred intersection between us and our government.


You say you'll change the constitution
Well you know
We all want to change your head

Andy McCarthy over at
The Corner says it's too late, we are already under the rule of The Crown, and we're f*cked:

....the next six weeks, like the next ten months, are going to be worse than we think. We're wired to think that everyone plays by the ususal rules of politics — i.e., if the tide starts to change, the side against whom it has turned modifies its positions in order to stay viable in the next election. But what will happen here will be the opposite. You have a party with the numbers to do anything it puts its mind to, led by movement Leftitsts who see their window of opportunity is closing. We seem to expect them to moderate because that's what everybody in their position does. But they won't. They will put their heads down and go for as much transformation as they can get, figuring that once they get it, it will never be rolled back.

Can I finish singing my Beatles song now?

You tell me it's the institution
Well you know
You better free your mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow

The Left, the Royalists, the Pelosists - they're in charge, they blame the institution, they carry their pictures of Chairman Mao, and they are using all of their power, for as long as they have it,to take as much away from us as they can and vest it in the hands of the New Crown, the federal government. Whether they hold the seats of power or not, the Crown - the rule of the federal bureaucracy - will survive them.

Unless, of course, there is some type of a revolution. Seems like Obama really lit the fire under one last Thursday, with his final damn the torpedoes and screw all your logical arguments, we are going full-bore to socialize your health-care, and we'll let the dust settle in November summation of his summit.

Me? I'm a rebel, but you guessed that already...

"Let them call me rebel and welcome, I feel no concern from it; but I should suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul."
~Thomas Paine

Friday, February 26, 2010

Obama's "Debt Panel" To Be Controlled By Unions

As part of today's meme that "talking about governing is preferable to actual governing", we bring up Barack Obama's bipartisan "debt" (death?) panel, which is supposed to come up with "suggestions" on where we should cut spending (or on whom we should increase taxes) in order to decrease the national debt. Now, you might say this is the president's responsibility, or that the administration - along with Congress - can simply cut the deficit themselves, as they control the checkbook, but then you would be missing the whole point of the "talking about it is better than doing something about it" theme...

And really, isn't this just another exercise in theatrics; in that by accepting and implementing the panel's proposals (TAX HIKES!), Obama can claim they came not from him, but were established as sound policy by an elite bi-partisan panel ! Hmmm...maybe he should re-title it the "Cover My Ass Commission"?

Anyway - so who is Obama appointing to this panel? Greg Pollowitz gives us
a peek behind the curtain:

President Barack Obama’s four appointments to the bipartisan debt panel he established last week include the head of manufacturing giant Honeywell and a former top-ranking Federal Reserve official. Obama on Friday named David Cote, chief executive officer at Honeywell International, and former Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Alice Rivlin to the panel. He also appointed Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, and Ann Fudge, the former chief executive officer of Young & Rubicam Brands.
(. . . What a joke. — Greg P.)

Rivlin is a holdover from the Lyndon Johnson administration (change!), Fudge is a washed-up advertising executive (but may help Obama sell this steaming pile of sh*t), and Stern....well, Stern spent $60 million to get Obama elected, and I guess he's entitled to something. But I don't know if that "something" is having a say over how much of my earning are confiscated by the federal government in order to be redistributed to his union thugs. And I tend to think many folks, of various political stripes, would agree...

I'm not sure how well the image of a union boss determining who gets taxed and who gets paid will play well for Barack Obama. But based on the unprecedented tone-deafness this man has applied to what little governing he has done, nothing would surprise me

This Is Why He Likes "Summits"...

....because it's so much easier to talk about something than actually, you something:

A new Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll is out. As is to be expected at this juncture, Obama’s approval is languishing at 47 percent....but the most eye-opening number is on the question of whether Obama is better at campaigning or governing. An astounding 62 percent of voters say “campaigning,” while only 38 percent pick “governing.” Independents pick “campaigning” by an even wider margin (67 to 11 percent — yes, 11 percent). Even Democrats say he is a better campaigner — by a narrower 38 to 32 percent margin.

Looks like everyone - even registered Democrats - are starting to realize we picked a loser. The problem is, the small group of folks who still thinks he's the shizznit are either Congressman or Senators. Putting us in a situation where the blind are leading the naked through an unrelenting blizzard...

Incidentally, who will be the biggest loser from the 2008 election debacle? Not the Democrats, they will once again rise from the dead; politicians have the same nine lives as your average feline. But the implosion of Obama will be blamed on a mainstream media who assured us there was nothing to worry about - he was plenty experienced, he was brilliant, he was a uniter, he was the change we all had been waiting for.

This, the American people won't forget. The media, by pushing a deeply flawed candidate (and human being) on the American people on the basis of their own ideological prejudices, abandoned their core principles as well as their only reason for existence: to inform the American people, and to protect them from people such as Barack Obama.

When the media writes the Democrat's obituary this November, they should save some space for their own...


ATTEMPTS by Newsweek CEO Tom Ascheim and Editor-in-Chief Jon Meacham to reshape the magazine into a lower-circulation weekly with a more Economist-like feel do not seem to be paying off.

Tucked in the fourth-quarter earnings report from parent Washington Post Company were numbers that suggest the magazine lost $28.1 million in 2009, the first year of the process..

Thursday, February 25, 2010

Health Care Summit: Not TOO Much Media Bias

Note the spin:

Obama rebuffs McCain attack at summit: 'The election is over.'

An attack? Really? Note the choice of words from Yahoo's "news" blog:

Taking his turn to speak at this morning's historic bipartisan summit on health care reform, Sen. John McCain launched into a spirited attack on President Obama and the Democrats in Congress. He cited "unsavory" deals made by Democratic leadership in the Senate, argued that Obama had broken his promise to have previous health care negotiations live on C-Span and called on President Obama to "start over."

So during a "historic bi-partisan summit", McCain "launched an attack on the president". No judgement here, just straight-ahead reporting, right?

Seems as if McCain made some valid points (was the "Cornhusker Compromise",the" Louisiana Purchase", and the union-members-only tax cuts "savory"? I guess Obama believes they are...). But like most spoiled brats,
Obama doesn't take well to criticism.

Let's look once more at Obama's nasty reply to McCain's statement:

"The election is over"

And with a sneer, he leaves the rest of the sentence in his heart unsaid but clear as if spoken:
"And I won".

James Taranto thinks the president is going to take his ball and go home. I fervently hope so...

Health Care Summit: The Democrats Are Offering...

... a lot of anecdotes about Baby Jesus, Steyn Hoyer's answering machine, and the teeth of the dead. Obama is at his least persuasive; he keeps ruling GOP arguments out of bounds for one reason or another - don't hold up a copy of the bill, don't cite Washington because people are angry at Washington right now, don't ask for equal time, don't focus on where we disagree, don't remind me of what I said as candidate.

Petty tyrants, versus the people who make up the land of the free and the home of the brave. Obama and his pathetic socialist ilk are way out of their league...

From The Summit: Obama Unmasked!

So how's the bipartisanship working out at Obama's heralded health care reform summit?

Obama to John McCain: "The election is over"
Obama, referring to Rep. Eric Cantor bringing the 2,700 page bill to the meeting: "A prop"

And his responses to other complaints about the bill by Republicans? “illegitimate”, a “distraction”, a “talking point” (because Obama says so, of course).

Pete Wehner over at Contentions clears it up for us:

I’m not sure I’ve ever seen him more agitated and condescending. He is, in fact, imperious. One can tell he is used to being coddled for much of his life. He’s used to being referred to as the “Black Jesus” by his aides. He’s used to being told he’s God’s gift to humanity. He’s been told those things and he’s internalized them. And so when he’s challenged — especially when he’s challenged in a forceful and respectful way — he gets upset. He becomes preachy and scolding. And he becomes dismissive.

I am quite surprised by how poorly Obama is coming across. I thought this summit would be essentially worthless. In fact, it is serving quite a useful purpose. It is unmasking Barack Obama. And what we’re seeing isn’t a very pretty sight.

Like a spoiled brat who cannot understand what the word "no" means....No wonder he tunes out the polls, the tea parties, the town halls. He has to get his way! Because he wants it (in this case, socialized medicine), and he always gets what he wants! So there, you lousy, mean, stupid, ugly, rotten Americans! Whoops, I mean...Republicans!

From The Summit: Obama's Bipartisanship!

From Miss Malkin's live blogging of the health care summit:

11:47am Eastern. McConnell notes that Dems have had 52 minutes. GOP has had 24. Obama snips: “There was an imbalance in the opening statements because I am the president.” In other words: I WON.

You know, I think in short order Barack Obama will, in fact, create a pretty strong bi-partisan consensus across the United States of America.

Just about everyone is going to hate him.

Before The Summit, A Quick Look At The Scoreboard

As the Democrats break the health-care huddle for the last time and head to the line of scrimmage for what most everyone believes will be the final play of the game, let's take a look at the score, and field position as well:

ObamaCare: Support/Oppose

Rasmussen: 41/56
Newsweek: 40/49
Public Policy Polling: 39/50
Pew: 38/50
Quinnipiac: 35/54
Ipsos/McClatchy: 37/51
NBC/WSJ: 31/46
CNN: 38/58
NPR: 39/55

Time for a desperation play, and the home team is counting on the strong arm of their quarterback - well, everyone said he had a strong arm, but we really never saw him use it much, and now that we think about it...hmmm.... - to win the game with a Hail-Mary touchdown pass.

Maybe in a fairy tale. But not today.

Unless, of course, the home team uses its advantage to change the rules, maybe cheat a little bit, you know, to properly...reconcile the score?

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Would Frank Lautenberg Be Alive Under ObamaCare?

Save Jersey asks the pertinent questions, as our 86 year old Senator gets some expensive treatment at Mt. Sinai:

Lautenberg is enjoying access to some of the best doctors and most advanced procedures in the medical world. Such wonderful treatment is made possible by his taxpayer-funded Cadillac health care plan.

Ah, the "Cadillac Plan" - you know, the one Obama intends to tax out of existence. And when we don't have them, just our own version of the "National Health"?'s cheaper to give painkillers to a cancer patient around Frank Lautenberg's age than petition the appropriate federal agency to pay for real medical treatment.

The elderly are always the first to suffer when government no longer allows citizens to purchase the care they could otherwise afford....

From the point of view of politicians with a limited budget, is it worth spending a lot on, say, a patient with late-stage cancer where the odds of remission are long? Or should they spend to improve quality, not length, of life? Or pay for a hip or knee replacement for seniors, when palliative care might cost less? And who decides?

In Britain, the NHS decides, and under its QALYs metric it generally won't pay more than $22,000 for treatments to extend a life six months. "Money for the NHS isn't limitless," as one NHS official recently put it in response to American criticism, "so we need to make sure the money we have goes on things which offer more than the care we'll have to forgo to pay for them."

And how long will Senator Lautenberg live? As I've said before, an 86 year old going through chemo is going to suffer, a lot, and will - at the very least - be missing a lot of Senate votes, if he can even move at all.

Will he make six months? A year? Maybe. And how much are we going to be on the hook for? That's a horrible question to ask, but like much of Obama's policies, his national health care takeover leads a lot of folk to look around them and see who is getting what, exactly, with their money. If we all have the right to private insurance, then it's a question I have no right to ask. But under government medicine, where I will be paying much more for much less, it is a question any citizen is entitled, if not obligated, to ask.

(to put this another way - why was the mortgage bailout unpopular with the very folks - homeowners - it was supposed to help? Because people saw their neighbors, with BMWs and swimming pools, getting taxpayer assistance to pay for their underwater homes while honest folk who played it straight got screwed. That is the result of redistribution - you watch everything your neighbor gets, and you wonders how much of it came out of your paycheck. Obama's policies inject an ugliness into American society that never existed before.)

Save Jersey asks Senator Lautenberg to:

...reflect on his near death experience, return to Capitol Hill, and immediately disavow his support for the ObamaCare bill. Every American deserves the same level of care available to Frank Lautenberg. How any politician could vote otherwise is simply unconscionable.

Sorry, S-J. Lautenberg can very easily vote for ObamaCare because of, not in spite of, his personal medical crisis. For no matter what the setup, Frank will always receive better medical care than you or I. So why not socialize medicine? Lautenberg then gets to ration our health care, will no concern that his will ever be affected. Win-win for the Senator.

Why? Because he will be, as long as he lives, a Senator, an Elite, a Person of More Importance than You or I, and will always - always - bump us out of line in order to get his own needs attended to first. That, too, is guaranteed when the government controls health care.

All the more reason, of course, why they shouldn't...

New Jersey Sheriff Threatens Professor in Classroom

Yeah, electing Chris Christie was a good step, but we've got a long way to go before we eliminate the grassroot tyranny that infects New Jersey like a weed, from crooked inspectors to paid-off politicos to...sheriffs who feel the First Amendment does not apply in New Jersey if you're talking about them:

Some students at Mercer County Community College, in central New Jersey, watched the political become personal recently when the local sheriff entered a classroom to confront a professor who had mentioned him in an unfavorable light.

The incident occurred on February 1, as Michael Glass, an assistant professor of political science, was lecturing students in a course on state and local politics about New Jersey's budget gap...

Sheriff Larkin came up in the class as an example of public employees who engaged in "double dipping," by collecting a pension at the same time he received a salary. When a student remarked that he would not know how to spend the more than $200,000 Mr. Larkin was earning annually through salary and pension payments, Mr. Glass allegedly said Mr. Larkin needed much of the money to cover alimony and child support.

A student who is employed at the county clerk's office promptly sent the sheriff a text message about the comment, and Mr. Larkin soon came to the classroom himself and summoned Mr. Glass out into the hallway for a few minutes. Mr. Glass then returned to the room, introduced the sheriff, and apologized for making disparaging remarks about him.

The student newspaper quoted Mr. Glass as saying...he had felt intimidated.

Exactly what the Sheriff intended. He's a big man with a gun, with union seniority, political pull, and a $200,000 salary. Therefore, the First Amendment of the Constitution is subject to his whims, and if someone speaks poorly (albeit truthfully) of him, he has every right to show up, with his gun and his badge, and force an apology under the full force of what constitutes the law in New Jersey.

Such small tyrants are bred in liberal societies all the time. Some call them bureaucrats, some call them czars, others call them Congressman. But since they are appointed by a governing philosophy that says the people do not know any better and must be herded by their betters, be they in government or uniform, it is no surprise that they are omnipresent in every "blue state", as well as in every left-wing governed country across the world.

Let's hope the change in philosophy at the top can help keep petty thugs like Sheriff Larkin in check. Of course, if Larkin had a sense of decency and shame, he would resign, having broken his professional oath and some of the very basic principles of democratic society. But Sheriff Scumbag is making too much money as a double-dipping, taxpayer-draining leach on New Jersey society, and I am sure that his personal enrichment is the only value he holds dear.

What do you say, Sheriff?

A spokesman for the sheriff's office declined to comment on Monday.


Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Canadian Premier Rebukes Canadian Health Care...

...well, not literally, but whey Danny Williams, Premier of Newfoundland, was asked why he traveled to the States to get heart valve surgery, he replied:

"This is my heart, it's my health, it's my choice."

With these words, Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams defended his decision to hop the border and go under the knife for heart surgery in Florida....

That's great. Mr. Williams, I agree with you 100%.

But here's my problem: You have a choice because you can afford to fly thousands of miles to get a certain type of surgery done. The Canadian people, unless they are wealthy (or government officials) are denied that choice due to the rationing, arbitrary funding, and research limitations that are necessary in any socialized medical system. Like yours.

If you believe every Canadian has the right to the same health care choices you have, then work to tear down your system and start anew.

And if you think in ten years you might need to continue to make your own choices about your own heart, then maybe you ought to send a note to Barack Obama explaining just how badly we need to keep our capitalistic health care system - you know, just in case some Canadian premiers need some top-notch medical procedures....

In the meantime, I think we've found a new slogan: "My Health. My Choice."

Delahunt Denies Springing Mass-Murderer Amy Bishop

Via JammieWearingFool, we get a very weak defense by Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-MA) of his involvement some twenty-odd years ago in Amy Bishop's first murder:

U.S. Rep. William Delahunt, the former district attorney whose office investigated the fatal 1986 shooting of Seth Bishop by his sister Amy, said Monday he does not feel his office “bears any responsibility” for Bishop being freed without charges.

In a telephone interview with the Patriot Ledger, the Quincy Democrat said State Police Trooper Brian Howe correctly concluded that Amy Bishop shot and killed her 18-year-old brother, Seth, by accident. But Delahunt said he has “very serious concerns” that Braintree police never alerted Howe or his prosecutors that, after the shooting, Amy Bishop fled with a loaded shotgun and allegedly tried to steal a getaway car from two men at gunpoint. He also raised concerns that Howe and the district attorney’s office were not told that Bishop was arrested after a brief armed standoff with police.

"We never had that information,” said Delahunt, who was Norfolk County district attorney at the time....

This is the Obama "throw everyone else under the bus and get behind the wheel and drive, baby drive!" type of defense that is falling out of favor with the public faster than today's health-care plan.

Former Braintree Police Chief John Polio is 87 years old and doesn't seem to give a f*ck about the politics of policing anymore (ah, the luxury of age), and kicks it right back in Delahunt's face:

I don’t find the State Police recent findings nor Congressman Delahunt’s statement made this day to be credible—only political. It should be noted that, in all other investigations that the Braintree Police Department turned over to the Norfolk County District Attorney’s office, we provided them copies of all of our department’s reports and all physical evidence. Why would this case be any different?

Seem like Polio, even 20 years ago, had Delahunt's number:

He called Delahunt, the district attorney at the time, “a politician ... a hanger-on,” saying, “If he has a political future, it’s a sad commentary on our society.”

And look where our society is. Polio is a prophet, and Delahunt is an accessory to murder. And like the most cold-blooded of his ilk, he feels as if he "bears no responsibility" for the carnage Bishop has churned since he let her off the hook all those years ago. With liberals, it's all about intentions, and the result is inconsequential, as long as their motives were pure (remember that when you health-care is on the line).

And besides - it's everyone else's fault, not Bill's. Interesting defense. Sounds almost...familiar, somehow. Let's see how well it plays with the voters this November - that is, if the Congressman even has the guts to run....

Monday, February 22, 2010

What happened to the "renewed focus on jobs"?

I mean, isn't that what the Obama administration and the Democrats have been promising us for a month now? "We understand the anger", say Baracky and Silly Joe Biden. "It's about the economy"....

Well, that's somewhat true, as in people are certainly concerned when they see one political party putting a freakin' blowtorch to said economy in the name of "not wasting a crisis". But since the Chris Christie election, the Virginia Massacre, and the Scott Brown Shocker, what have we gotten from the Democrats?

-a $1 trillion dollar plan (if we're lucky) for a government takeover of the health care system, one that relies on tax hikes and service cuts to keep the bill down. Of course, if you project the costs over 20 years, well..that's a number that the Democrats don't seem willing to share. Do they think they'll all be dead in 20 years? Politically, yes, but corporeally?

-the creation of a "climate change office", overseen by the Commerce Department, whose primary goal is to turn America into a "command-and-control" economy by making every aspect of every business vulnerable to government regulation. What have they done so far? Well, Obama's hand-picked boss, Thomas Karl, has been accused of suppressing data - and there is more and more of it - that seems to prove that "climate change" doesn't exist. Well, we can't have that - without the crisis of "global warming", how will the Democrats seize the private sector?

-Well, they did come up with a bipartisan jobs bill. Oh, wait, scratch that - Reid has already kibosh'ed it. Too many tax cuts, don't you know...

-don't worry though, this will help investment and savings:

BusinessWeek reports that the Treasury and Labor departments are asking for public comment on “the conversion of 401(k) savings and Individual Retirement Accounts into annuities or other steady payment streams.

Guess they've figured out how to pay for health care reform: By seizing and nationalizing your 401K. No wonder there's such a rush on gold...

But what about jobs? Oh, Captain Ahab will get to that - after he slays the white whales of health care and "climate change". But at least he'll have plenty of your money to help him get it right....

Is the health-care reform horrorshow just getting started?

We thought it was dead when Scott Brown came on the scene. But living under an Obama presidency is like living in a "B" horror flick - every time you breathe a sigh of relief and thing the killer is dead, he rises up from his filthy grave in one last attempt to extract more blood.

And so does Barack Obama. Refusing to admit his signature proposal is finished, he keeps reviving it, and like Dr. Frankenstein, simply creates a more horrific monster:

President Obama is making a fresh attempt to rescue his health care overhaul by proposing a measure that would allow the government to deny or roll back egregious insurance premium increases that infuriate consumers.

White House official, speaking on condition of anonymity because details have not yet been officially released, said the insurance rate proposal would give the federal Health and Human Services Department -- in conjunction with state authorities -- the power to deny substantial premium increases, limit them, or demand rebates for consumers.

Yeah, because government price-controls have worked so well in the command-and-control economies that used them...gee, wasn't everyone bragging about the amazing health care provided by the USSR, Communist Poland, East Germany, and Romania? What a bunch of rubes must reside in these nations, to give up the command and control economy for such old-fashioned ideals such as "freedom"...

Drudge is also reporting - without links at this time - that Obama plan 'raises the percent of income assessment that individuals pay if they choose not to become insured'... and that PRESIDENT'S 'HEALTHCARE' PROPOSAL SUMMARY USES WORD 'TAX' 35 TIMES...and to expect an 'Increase in Fees on Brand Name Pharmaceuticals'...while he will Broaden 'Tax Base for High-Income Taxpayers'...

Does Barack Obama really think that Americans are so stupid as to fall for this ploy, to be forced to give up their right to individually manage their own health care decisions in exchange for a few populist bones? Or does he simply not care what Americans think at all at this point, so blinded is our President Ahab to anything except the white whale of government-controlled health care?

Well, I'm willing to bet his proposal, and upcoming summit, will unite Americans in a way they have not been in some time. Just not in the way Barack Obama and the Democrats are thinking...

Sunday, February 21, 2010

Britian's Labour Party Delivers The Ultimate Campaign Promise

Obama said with his election, the waters would retreat and the earth would heal. A bit far-fetched (and that's me being polite), but at least it has some historical precedent in both the Old and New Testaments. Maybe he is the Second Coming, and not the Anti Christ, some reasoned as they pulled the levers back on that fateful day in November of 2008...

But the British liberals, literally studying Obama's playbook, have
taken him one further:

The Labour party is taking a page from U.S. President Barack Obama's campaign book by contacting voters directly and encouraging word of mouth campaigning by members, its election coordinator said.

Revealing a new election slogan, "A future fair for all" -- due to be officially unveiled by Prime Minister Gordon Brown on Saturday -- Alexander said it had been chosen to counter what he called the Conservative's "empty" offer of change.

Here's the problem with that slogan: Life is unfair.

It always has been, and always will be. And nothing can ever change that, including the "best intentions" of liberal social engineering.

You can do your best to level the playing field, but even that's hard to do without creating new unfairness. Give certain folks a hand up, and you're simultaneously giving other, equally deserving folks a slap down.

Thomas Sowell:

If there is ever a contest to pick which word has done the most damage to people's thinking, and to actions to carry out that thinking, my nomination would be the word "fair."

Creating a difference that would not exist otherwise is discrimination, and something can be done about that. But in recent times, virtually any disparity in outcomes is almost automatically blamed on discrimination, despite the incredible range of other reasons for disparities between individuals and groups.

Nature's discrimination completely dwarfs man's discrimination. Geography alone makes equal chances virtually impossible...

Sowell follows with a great example:

Just the fact that the lay of the land is different in different parts of Europe meant that it was easier for the Roman legions to invade Western Europe. This meant that Western Europeans had the advantages of the most advanced civilization in Europe at that time. Moreover, because Roman letters were used in Western Europe, the languages of that region had written versions centuries before the Slavic languages of Eastern Europe did.

The difference between literacy and illiteracy is a huge difference, and it remained huge for centuries. Was it the Slavs' fault that the Romans did not want to climb over so many mountains to get to them?

But Gordon Brown and the British Labour party feel they can ignore 2,000 years worth of historical lessons to the contrary and promise absolute fairness under their administration. Fair, of course, as determined by bureaucrats taking into account things such as the color of your skin, your religion, where you were born, and so on. You know - things of substance...

If Labour studied more than just Obama's campaign, they can see that by being unable - actually, unwilling - to fulfill the very things he promised, he has gone in less than a year from a deity to a fool, a knight to a knave, from hope to despair. And he is facing a rout unlike any seen since General Custer made his Last Stand...

But that is fair, at least to me. Who can say it isn't? And if so, can they change reality to suit their perceptions? And if they can't, should they promise to do so anyway?

Labour is about to turn defeat into disaster... just like their brethren on this side of the pond...

Black Republican Takes on Charlie Rangel

In Arkansas, we have Princella Smith attempting to be the first black Republican elected to Congress from the 1st District. In New York, we're seeing something even bolder; as a black Republican takes on the Throne itself, by challenging Crooked Charlie Rangel in New York's 15th Congressional District.

The Rev. Michel Faulkner explains in today's New York Post -
Why I'm challenging Charlie Rangel:

The system in Washington, DC, is broken at a time of enormous challenges and we need real-life solutions. Solutions that are based on the community’s input and welfare, not a federal government takeover...

My opponent is 40-year incumbent, Charles Rangel. Unfortunately Mr. Rangel has come to epitomize what is wrong with Washington today. His gross underpayment of federal income taxes while chairing the House Ways and Means Committee shows the hypocrisy of our Congress. Furthermore, his occupation of four rent-stabilized apartments (while so many in our community are in desperate need of affordable housing), demonstrates his disconnect from our needs and struggles. It could not be clearer that the people of this city deserve a new direction and need new leadership.

My priorities are this: We need to bring government spending under control. Those who control the purse-strings in DC have irresponsibly spent our nation into near bankruptcy and mortgaged our futures.

...we must recognize that nearly 80% of all jobs in America today are created by small businesses, and for that reason we need to reduce the red-tape and tax burden on these critical economic engines. I also intend to promote programs that use microfinance initiatives to support a path to economic self-reliance, to expand economic opportunities for individuals and to foster community economic development.

...I support the expansion of Charter Schools, which generally have outperformed public schools and stimulate a level of parental involvement unseen in the traditional public school environment.

Turning to our nation’s healthcare, I will promote and support achievable, community-based, preventive health and wellness initiatives; and, I will oppose the myopic view that a government takeover is the only form healthcare reform can take.

Godspeed, Reverend. The challenge in selling a conservative manifesto to the urbanites of Harlem is daunting, especially when their corrupt Congressman has done everything he could - with other folk's money - to make sure his constituents stay bought. But other people's money is running out, local businesses are closing, public schools are failing, and jobs are nonexistent. How many more times can Crooked Charlie deliver a "jobs training program" (named after himself, of course), but fail to deliver any

If there was ever a time for the folks of CD-15 to shrug off the liberal policies that have kept them in a cycle of poverty for generations, it is now. And there is likely no better messenger than Rev. Faulkner, a pastor and spiritual leader who is well-known in the community.

May he be a modern-day Moses, emancipating his people from the bigotry of low expectations, the worship of "victim status", and the ideological slavery to liberalism - a plantation of despair from which black Americans must escape if they are ever to be truly free...

Saturday, February 20, 2010

Barack Obama: Busted for Lying About ACORN

What did people call Bill Clinton back in the 90's? A "congenital liar"? Guess you can apply that label to Barack Obama, or maybe nay Democrat in public office these days.

Hee's Obama, on his campaign website Fight The Smears, denying ties to crooked left-wing activist group ACORN:

Fact: Barack was never an ACORN community organizer.
• Fact: ACORN never hired Obama as a trainer, organizer, or any type of employee.
• Fact: ACORN was not part of Project Vote, the successful voter registration drive Barack ran in 1992

Fact: Here's a video of Obama
saying the exact opposite:

When I ran project vote, the voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it. Once I was elected there wasn’t a campaign that ACORN worked on down in Springfield that I wasn’t right there with you. Since I have been in the United States Senate I’ve been always a partner with ACORN as well. I’ve been fighting with ACORN, along side ACORN, on issues you care about my entire career.”

...and we're stuck with this two-faced, duplicitous, lying creep for the duration...

But hey - you can trust that, in the next election cycle, with a Republican running against Barack Obama, that the media will suddenly re-discover its passion for investigative journalism...

Shoot - it's already begun...

If The Democrats Have Lost The Young Black Vote...

...what else is left, besides Truthers, conspiracy theorists, union thugs, and the academic establishment?

Black, 26-year-old, Republican Princella Smith to run for Congress in Arkansas’s 1st District

Princella Smith, 26, will announce on Saturday that she is running for Congress in Arkansas’s 1st District. Some would say she is too young. Others might point to other potential hurdles: She’s running in eastern Arkansas, a district that hasn’t elected a Republican since 1872 in a Southern state that has never elected a black person to a congressional or state-wide office.

“I think I’m the person to do this,” Smith said. “I’m going to tell people to come on board with me, listen to these ideas, and that we can get people excited again about the Republican Party.”

Smith is not your typical (for 2010) tea-party activist turned candidate. She's been involved in politics since high school, and has worked for RNC head Michael Steele, Newt Gingrich, Louisiana Republican Rep. Anh “Joseph” Cao, among others.

Not sure if she has a shot, but the fact that black youth are willing to get off of the Democratic plantation of dependency, racism, and socialism and are willing to take the brunt of the charges of "Uncle Tom-ism" to stand up for new-found political beliefs is a wonderful thing.

And what can the Democrats -who have, at some point, charged every critic of Barack Obama with racism - do about it?
Glenn Reynolds:

Given the Democrats’ stated concern for diversity, I guess they won’t run anyone against her if she wins the primary.

Don't count on it, Glenn. The Democrats will hang her by a tree by torchlight while blaming the right-wing nuts. And the media will dutifully report it thusly...

Friday, February 19, 2010

Frank Lautenberg Diagnosed With Cancer

We were concerned earlier this week that this might be the case:

“After several days of hospitalization and testing, Senator Lautenberg’s doctors have diagnosed that he has a B-Cell Lymphoma of the stomach,” his office said in a statement. “This is a curable tumor, and will require treatment over the next few months.”

In a statement distributed by Mr. Lautenberg’s office, Dr. Holland said: “We expect a full and complete recovery for Senator Lautenberg. The Senator will be treated with chemotherapy administered approximately every three weeks. We anticipate that he will receive between six and eight treatments, and in between treatments, the senator is expected to be back at work in the Senate.”

That's good. As we say so often here, wishing for your opponents death, or cheering the guy who flies planes into IRS buildings, is out of bounds, and not just because it's in poor taste. Liberalism needs to be defeated in the public forum, in the battleground of ideas, for it to be effectively killed off as a political philosophy. Otherwise it returns, with ten heads instead of three, and quicker than you might have ever imagined.

That being said, Lautenberg's illness does pose a bit of a further governance problem for the Democrats:

But the prospect even of intermittent absences by Mr. Lautenberg creates an even bigger obstacle for Senate Democrats, who continue to struggle against Republican opposition to carry out their legislative agenda. Senate Republicans now control 41 seats, enough to effectively filibuster most legislation if their caucus remains unified. Overcoming filibusters requires the approval of 60 senators to cut off debate.

And now the Democrats may have one less. No doubt Lautenberg is overall in better shape than your average 86 year-old, what with his access to Senate health care and all. But chemo is brutal, and even intermittent treatments like the doctors seem to be prescribing can suck the life energy out of a younger and more hale individual than Lautenberg (if you've seen someone go thru it, no further need be said). How often will he be able to carry out his duties, and will the Democrats be able to get two Republicans to flip to end filibusters? Even further, will it hamper their scheme to jam health-care reform down America's throat via reconciliation? Even getting 51 votes may be tougher than originally thought...

We wish Senator Lautenberg a speedy recovery. And yet we doubt we will see any resignation, regardless of the Senator's condition, as he is extremely wedded to his position and power to let anything short of death tear it from him (see Kennedy, Ted). So Jersey will be less represented in the Senate, which may or may not be a good thing, as Lautenberg's voting patterns have become strikingly less representative of his state over the last two years. And Bob Menendez (D-La Raza)? He'll be lucky if he isn't recalled....

Should the unfortunate inevitable strike down Frank Lautenberg, expect to see Governor Chris Christie quickly name State Senator Joe Kyrillos to be the interim replacement. The campaign manager who oversaw the Christie win is a common-touch Republican in the mold of the governor, somewhat known in New Jersey (and that's the best you can hope for as a Republican in this state), and much beloved by his middle-class constituents. With Christie's popularity soaring, no one, save for the liberal pundocracy, will revolt against a Republican Senatorial pick.

We'll update this story as it unfolds...

Washington Post Ties Austin Bomber to Tea Party

Well, as I expected yesterday, this didn't take long. Jonathan Capehart at the Washington Post ties the Austin mad bomber to the "mad tea partiers" with the type of logic and scholarship only acceptable in elementary school, and in elite liberal circles:

Joseph Stack was angry at the Internal Revenue Service, and he took his rage out on it by slamming his single-engine plane into the Echelon Building in Austin, Texas. We now know this thanks to the rather clear (as rants go) suicide note Stack left behind. There's no information yet on whether he was involved in any anti-government groups or whether he was a lone wolf. But after reading his 34-paragraph screed, I am struck by how his alienation is similar to that we're hearing from the extreme elements of the Tea Party movement.

Capehart goes on to highlight complaints by Stack about the GM takeover (yeah, and the only ones upset about that are "tea party extremists", apparently), his desire to "make a difference", and...well, that's about it, apparently.

What did Capehart leave out? Well, let's see...Stack's Bush-bashing, anger at bankers and brokers, the lack of health care reform, and, of course, this little ditty:

Sound like anyone who would be protesting at a tea party?


Maybe more like the type of person - and there are plenty of them - who blames all of their problems on phantoms such as "big business, big oil, big insurance", and then demands that the government solve it all for them?

In other words - Mr. Stack sounds like an Obama voter to me. And I'll bet Mr. Capeheart knows it, too. Thus his pre-emptive attempt to put a spin on this ugly event, and his lame excuses for his lack of scholarship (the FBI took Stark's site down, so he could only grab a handful of paragraphs, Capehart claims, all easily spun to indict the Tea Party. Try Google, you flippin' idiot. No wonder the media is held in such low regard).

Is Stack an extremist? Hell yeah. So is Capehart; what else can you call someone who distorts the news in order to create a lynch mob against honest citizens?

But who's extremist fringe is Stack and Capehart on? Oooh, I'd better not say it....!

UPDATE: From the comments, most of which take Capehart to task:

Nice try. The guy hated --

business (GM and others)-- leftist
healthcare industry -- leftist
corporate profits -- leftist
the Catholic Church -- leftist
the rich -- leftist
the American public -- leftist
company management -- leftist
the airlines -- leftist
wealthy bankers -- leftist
GW Bush and his cronies -- leftist

He was a flying Amy Bishop. The guy could have been an Obama Administration official with the views he expressed.

Thursday, February 18, 2010

IRS Attacked in Austin?

Deliberate, without a doubt:

A small plane that crashed into an office building in Austin, Texas, Thursday morning was an intentional act, an NTSB official told Fox News.
An NTSB spokesman, however, told that "we can't confirm any of that."
Authorities said they have identified the pilot as Joseph Andrew Stack, a 53-year-old software engineer who lived in Texas.
The small single-engine plane crashed into a seven-story office building in Austin around 10 a.m. local time Thursday....

An Internal Revenue Service office is located inside the building...

What else was Mr. Stack up to this morning?

Early reports from multiple sources indicate that the pilot may have started a fire at his house before crashing his plane into the Echelon building in Austin.
A source within the federal government has confirmed to FOX 7's Rudy Koski that the pilot who crashed his plane into the building also set fire to his house Thursday morning

Joseph Stack is a software engineer that lived in North Austin. He has a wife and teenage daughter. According to FOX News, the teenage-daughter of the Stack told authorities that her father had set fire to the house and took off in a plane.

Stack wrote a blog his frustrating with the federal government. Included in his blog were the following statements: "I know I’m hardly the first one to decide I have had all I can stand. It has always been a myth that people have stopped dying for their freedom in this country, and it isn’t limited... I know there have been countless before me and there are sure to be as many after. But I also know that by not adding my body to the count, I insure nothing will change."

"I saw it written once that the definition of insanity is repeating the same process over and over and expecting the outcome to suddenly be different. I am finally ready to stop this insanity. Well, Mr. Big Brother IRS man, let’s try something different; take my pound of flesh and sleep well."

If you’re reading this, you’re no doubt asking yourself, “Why did this have to happen?”

Joe Stack (1956-2010)

Some thoughts:

-how long until this act is tied to the Republicans, and the "tea-partiers" (can you imagine how hard the MSM is working, as we speak, to make the connection)? I say fifteen minutes..
...despite the fact this happened in Austin, which prides itself on being an "island of blue" in the heart of will they account for the rage in their own city? Denial, like many in New York did after 9/11, and even more fanatical blame on the right?
...finally, although the rage is justified, the action is not. This is a constitutional republic, we made our choice of government, now we have to live with it. We can moderate it come November, and that's about it. We are about to learn painful lessons that hopefully will stick with us for generations; taking a flaming shortcut into an IRS building won;t change that.

And besides, as someone who dodged the wreckage on 9/11, pictures like this from the scene in Austin turn my stomach and give me PTSD flashbacks:

Thomas Friedman: Average American's Intelligence Is That Of An 11 Year-Old

Yeah, they all sound like elitists when they preach about global warming, but Friedman is the worst. Infuriated that the government's attempts to create a command-and-control economy via the fictional threat of climate change are failing, he demands a report be written to explain to us heathens how wrong we are. Using all types of comprimised data, of course, and using words small enough for the average American to understand:

Although there remains a mountain of research from multiple institutions about the reality of climate change, the public has grown uneasy. What’s real? In my view, the climate-science community should convene its top experts — from places like NASA, America’s national laboratories, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford, the California Institute of Technology and the U.K. Met Office Hadley Centre — and produce a simple 50-page report. They could call it “What We Know,” summarizing everything we already know about climate change in language that a sixth grader could understand, with unimpeachable peer-reviewed footnotes.

That's because Friedman thinks that anyone who actually studies the faulty data, reads foreign newspapers to get a sense of the scope of the climate scam (including the peer-review scandal), and who actually believes that science is an ongoing process are idiots. The truly enlightened know that once some person with a PHD before their name gives credence to one of their fantasy sequences, it thus becomes an unimpeachable fact. C'mon, everyone in his echo chamber knows that!

Well, for those of us with a 6th grader intelligence who can't read fancy articles in the New York Times and think Friedman sounds a bit holier-than-thou, well, check out Friedman's less-than-energy efficient house :

(larger photo here)

Nice. Funny, I don't see any hybrids parked out front. Nice swimming pool, though. Huge. Must use a ton of electricity to keep that thing heated. After all, I'm not seeing any solar panels anywhere, unless you got a windmilll in the woods or something. And hey - are those cabanas next to your pool? Guess this way nobody has to walk to your house to use one of your 19 bathrooms...

One question though, Mr. Friedman...if saving the environment is really that important, why don't you, you know...downsize a bit? I understand the maids and servants need quarters, but unless you have a dozen kids and three wives, did you really need to clear out so much forest to build yourself an energy-sucking palatial estate?

Questions only a 6th-grader would ask, I suppose..the truly enlightened know the intellectual elite must live in conditions far above ours, in order to make sure we live in conditions far below ours...all for our own good, of course...

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Leave it to the Democrats: Banning ALL Cell Phone Use While Driving?

The government is like wild water, always seeking to fill every crack and crevice...lead even a slice of life untouched by government mandate, and a bureaucrat will find it, and try to fill the space with regulation.

In this case, it is lifetime bureaucrat Ray LaHood, Obama's secretary of transportation. It's not good enough that many states are now banning hand-held cellphone use while driving, lord no. LaHood wants to ban all cellphone use while driving, despite evidence that cellphone usage does not have a statistically significant causation of automobile accidents:

Nationwide, car crashes have fallen dramatically while the use of cell phones has jumped dramatically (from 195 billion minutes in June 2000 to 1.1 trillion in June 2008). Last month the Highway Loss Data Institute issued a report comparing collision rates for states before and after they passed bans on drivers using handheld cell phones. The bans showed no effect on the number, frequency, or severity of collisions.

“The surprising data,” Lahood wrote, “encourages people to wrongly conclude that talking on cell phones while driving is not dangerous! Nothing could be further from the truth. Just ask Jennifer Smith....” Smith, of course, is another grieving mother. He went on to equate cell phone driving with drunk driving. “If anything, the study suggests we need even tougher protections.”

How so? LaHood had an explanation for why the state bans had not reduced collisions. In states that banned handheld cell phone use, he said, drivers probably began using hands-free cell phones. And “research tells us hands-free is just as dangerous as handheld.”

Thus the call to action escalates, and the needed prohibitions grow more comprehensive. A ban on handheld cell phone use will be insufficient if we are to cure the epidemic. Only a total ban on drivers’ use of cell phones, handheld and hands-free, will bring progress.

And bring more power to LaHood, who will have the ability to withhold funding (he does get $70 billion annually; I guess that might inflate even Ghandi's sense of self-importance) from states who do not comply with his edicts.

And the rest of us are treated like children, with Big Government sitting in the cars next to us, making sure are seat belts are fastened, checking that we haven't had any Penne a la Vodka for dinner, and that we don't kill time on the long drive home by talking to friends and family, even with both hands on the wheel and two eyes on the road.

With the removal of all risk comes the removal of all freedom. Lahood and Obama know this, and act on it. We should too...

Sitting Down To Dinner, and Finding Yourself On The Menu

I guess these guys thought they were going to be part of the process, and not processed...from the hardcore greenies at Grist ("A beacon in the smog"):

Three major U.S. companies said Tuesday they were leaving a coalition pushing for action on climate change, dealing a potential fresh blow to landmark legislation to cut carbon emissions.
The companies—oil groups ConocoPhillips and BP America and equipment maker Caterpillar Inc.—said they backed efforts for a green economy but felt that proposed laws were unfair to them.

The firms said they would not renew membership in the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), a coalition of business leaders whom President Barack Obama’s Democratic party often cites to bulwark its case on climate change.

The bills “have disadvantaged the transportation sector and its consumers, left domestic refineries unfairly penalized versus international competition, and ignored the critical role that natural gas can play in reducing greenhouse gas emissions,” said Jim Mulva, ConocoPhilips chair and CEO. “We believe greater attention and resources need to be dedicated to reversing these missed opportunities, and our actions today are part of that effort,” he said in a statement.

Who would have thought that even the the big, greedy, selfish oil companies could be as easily duped by Obama's parlor tricks as a common big-city liberal rube? Well, at least these guys were smart enough to jump out of the pot before they got cooked; or perhaps they saw that climate change legislation was going nowhere, and there was no need to sacrifice an ounce of profits on the alter of "global warming". Either way, they made the right decision, and at least they won't be used by the Democrats as proof that climate change exists and even "Big Oil" is willing to bow to it.

Interesting to see who stayed on:

Companies that remain in USCAP include oil giant Shell, conglomerates General Electric and Honeywell, and Detroit’s Big Three automakers—Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors.

Those are not Detroit's Big Three, those are the federal government's Big Three, owned lock, stock and barrel, from the union foreman to the candy machines in the break room. Credibility: Zero. And GE? Who can blame them for being there? A company with a myriad of government contracts (can we say nukes?), they were instrumental in writing and passing legislation that will force all Americans to switch to more expensive, "energy efficient" fluorescent light bulbs in two years. At a huge profit to GE, of course, but I am sure their position on this panel is strictly to for the benefit of the people...right?

Trust the companies that bailed on this economic death panel. Doubt the ones who are staying on; they are either too stupid to read the menu, or they're in it strictly to score their share of the booty from the looting that is about to be unleashed...

Amy Bishop: Liberal Nutjob ?

[updated, and bumped]

Why do I have a feeling that if Amy Bishop (who killed her brother in '86, and tried to kill a Harvard professor in 1993 before slaughtering the faculty at the U of Alabama) was a Tea Party member, or had appeared once at say, a Sarah Palin event, similar facts as the one quoted below would not appear buried in the 15th paragraph of a 17 paragraph story:

A family source said Bishop, a mother of four children - the youngest a third-grade boy - was a far-left political extremist who was “obsessed” with President Obama to the point of being off-putting.

More likely, were the poles reversed, we would have seen a lede like this:

Unhinged, Harvard-educated, Liberal professor Amy Bishop went on a tragic killing spree on the campus of the University of Alabama yesterday...

....the campus where Doc Bishop brought a gun and killed 3 people was a "gun free zone." Which means only that law-abiding citizens are not able to legally carry concealed handguns with which to protect themselves and others when a non-law-abiding insane person ignores the "No Guns" signs and opens fire.

And there is this, from a student:

...she is a socialist but she only talks about it after class.

Well, that takes her off the hook. And what about this piece of weirdness, which again would be in paragraph one if Mrs. Bishop wasn't one of the High Priestesses of Academia:

Bishop and her husband reportedly met in a Dungeons and Dragons club when they were at Northeastern...

And the connections to Massachusetts Congressman Bill Delahunt (D - Murders and Various Felons), who apparently forced an early "case closed & turn her loose" on the local PD back in 1986 when Bishop killed her own brother? Hard to find anywhere in the MSM, whereas if the connection was with a killer with conservative views who was previously turned loose by a Republican, can only imagine the media field day...

Reminds me a bit of the coverage of the murderous Major Hassan - after his killing spree at Fort Hood, one could barely find a mention anywhere that he was a practicing Muslim, no less the full-bore jihadi that he was...

The question is: How many more left-wing nuts like Amy Bishop are out there? And how do we protect ourselves from gun-totin' liberals, who shoot innocent folks up when they don't get their way?

Evidently, the media will not shine any light here, lest some ugly truths unveil themselves. Will Janet "Big Sister" Napolitano, in the name of Homeland Security, put out a report investigating and identifying these potential terrorists, the way she did early in her tenure with conservatives? Will op-ed columnists hold the Democratic party responsible, the way they hold the Republicans responsible every time a sparrow falls from a tree? And what is Barack Obama's role and responsibility here; after all, she was obsessed with him - did he provide an emotional trigger via his "stirring" rhetoric?

All questions that deserve answers, but will not receive any. In the meantime, view any liberal with caution and suspicion, and assume them to be armed and dangerous...

UPDATE: More thoughts, which I deem to be relevent, as we always here how mcuh we should trust Obama and his cadres, as they are "Havard educated":

The new stories say the woman professor was "Harvard-trained." On the surface you'd think that would mean she was highly qualified, and an unlikely candidate to fail the tenure process at the University of Alabama...I also wonder if she wasn't passed through Harvard according to the gender version of affirmative action. Maybe she wasn't that good, and the tenure decision was quite correct....

Back in December out in Seattle there was a rash of murders of police officers. The culprit, when finally apprehended, turned out to be a fellow who had been passed out of the University of Washington under the usual academic "victims studies" programs that inflame grievances but impart little knowledge. Wonder if we will find out something similar in this case, or whether, as was the case in the Seattle shooter, the media even bother to ask.

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Frank Lautenberg - OK, for now...

As per the AP:

Long-serving U.S. Sen. Frank Lautenberg fell at his home and was taken by ambulance to a hospital as a precaution, an aide said.
The 86-year-old Democrat, the first New Jersey senator to be elected to five terms, was conscious when he was taken from his Cliffside Park home Monday night, spokesman Caley Gray said.

Lautenberg was doing well at the hospital but was to stay there overnight for routine observation, Gray said.
"The senator is in great spirits and joking with the doctors," said Gray, who didn't know if the senator had fallen inside or outside the apartment or whether he had suffered any injuries.

Well, this blog wishes no physical ill will towards any politician; they must be defeated in the arena of ideas, so that they do not rise again as some three-headed beast. But Lautenberg is 86 years old, and if he is at the point where falls are requiring hospital visits, one cannot image that he will make it to the end of his Senate term in 2014.

That being said, Lautenberg is a hardcore liberal who craves the power of the Senate, and is not likely to let go. It would take a series of these types of accidents -and likely a strong rope - for Lautenberg to consider letting go over power before his 90th birthday.

One believes that the Democrats must be praying for him. Yet another open seat, in a state that is turning redder and redder - both in political orientation and with rage against the middle-class destroying policies of Barack Obama - is the last thing the Democrats need.

But here's wishing you well, Senator. Hope to see you as nothing more than a quaint ideological anachronism by late 2010...