Rand Paul & Young Guns Shine On Senate Floor

I was transfixed by Rand Paul filibuster yesterday, watching/listening from two o'clock until almost 11pm.

I found Paul's passion for the constitution to be almost thrilling; his questions about the nature of the drone program troubling, and his desire to protect all of the American people from a potentially dangerous future to be a noble cause, even if his attempt, as he alluded to at the outset, was an exercise in tilting at windmills.

But isn't that part of the definition of courage, daring to go into battle and risk all even when you know victory is already out of reach?







I see what Texas saw when they elected Ted Cruz.  His love of his home state shone through when he read of the Alamo, and his respect for the institution to which he was elected was made clear as he effusively (almost tearfully, I thought) thanked Paul for giving him his first opportunity to speak on the Senate floor.





Marco Rubio is certainly an impressive figure as well, although I will admit to a certain amount of skepticism on my part as his appearance on the Senate floor.  No doubt he will be running for president in 2016 against Rand Paul, and he wasn't about to let his suture rival bask in the love of the core without making sure some of that spotlight was shining on him as well.  Still, his presence and command will make him a formidable voice for conservative causes for years to come.




I liked Mike Lee too. Dude looks like a linebacker, but spoke with the clear and direct language that propelled him to victory in Utah over incumbent senator Bob Bennett and the GOP-endorsed Tim Bridgewater.  Another member of the class of 2010, Pat Toomey, spoke at some length to give Rand Paul a breather.

You know what would have been nice, though?  To see Orrin Hatch show up.  Or John McCain.  Or any of the old guard of the Republican Senate caucus.  Just to show some freakin' support for the effort the young guns were making to preserve our constitutional democracy....

And they wonder why so many of the Paul-Cruz-Lee ilk are rising up in their home states and challenging them in the primaries...

[ UPDATE: Sens. Lindsey Graham, Tom Coburn, John McCain, Kelly Ayotte, Pat Toomey, Bob Corker, Ron Johnson, Saxby Chambliss, John Hoeven, Dan Coats, Richard Burr and Mike Johanns were out to dinner last night with Barack Obama. Figures.]

What I saw last night - and  what any Americans who were watching saw - was that the Republican party has a young, deep, principled group of Senators, and that their message - unfiltered by the sneer of the liberal media - is coherent, logical, and just.

God bless you, Rand Paul, for taking a stand, and leading through courage.  You showed us that there may be hope for the party - and the people - after all....


Props must be given to Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, for being the only member of his party with the guts to join Ron Paul on a non-partisan issue.  Had Wyden made this speech when Bush was in charge, the Left would be clamoring for a presidential run:

Did The New Yorker Draw a Masturbating Pope Benedict XVI On Their Cover?

Seems innocent enough - Pope Benedict, retired, enjoying an Italian newspaper in a beachfront hammock:

But take a closer look at that right hand, the tilt of the head, and that unsightly bulge:

Am I reading too much (like the proverbial conservative, small-minded small-town preacher) into a gentle, respectful cartoon?

No.  This is an intentional, disgusting, disgraceful attack on the pope and Catholicism, as well as the values of all Americans who descend from the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Which was the intent, of course.  All done with deniability, and brought to you by the ever-tolerant, open-minded liberals currently giggling like nasty schoolkids over at The New Yorker...

Scumbags.  May they rot in hell.


(Hat tip: Anorak)

Michelle Obama At The Oscars: The Final Word

13 Million People Are Into The Bible! Who Would Have Thunk It?

Not even the History Channel, apparently, based on their press release following the strong opening of their miniseries on...The Bible.

Says Nancy Dubuc, President, Entertainment and Media, A+E Networks, “The success of THE BIBLE has catapulted HISTORY into one of the most powerful brands across media landscape and we could not be more thrilled and more proud. We are the #1 cable entertainment telecast of the year to date! Leading into the premiere we had the best day ever on History.com, and THE BIBLE trended #1 on Twitter. Clearly there is a nationwide groundswell that was waiting for this moment.


Clearly.

And in related news, tens of millions of Americans were spotted going to a place known locally as "church" on Sunday; this, following a day where millions of Jews were alleged to have entered buildings known as "synagogues"...

Poll: 41% of Dems think president should have power to kill suspected American terrorist on American soil

AllahPundit is shocked, shocked over at Hot Air, but he needn't be.  The fault lies in the question asked by the pollster:

Ask a Democrat any question that begins with "Do you think the president of the United States, on his own, should be able to authorize...", and you will get a yes answer.  No need to even finish the question, the remainder of the sentence is irrelevant - as long as Barack is president.

You want to get a gauge of the true feelings of the Left?  Restate the questions as "Do you think a Republican  president of the United States, on his own..."

Bet those numbers would flip-flop a bit...

The Three Laws Of Journalism

Circa 2008.  With all due respect to Issac Asimov:

1) A journalist may not injure Barack Obama or, through inaction, allow Barack Obama to come to harm.

2) A journalist must obey the orders given to it by Barack Obama, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

3) A journalist must protect his or her own existence, as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

I was going to ask what the difference was between a journalist and a robot, but we already know it:  The latter, as an emotionless, fearless, benign and logical being, has more morality in its smallest circuit than can be found anywhere within the current membership of our mainstream media....

Remember When Steve Kroft Used To Be A Fastball Pitcher?

Poor Steve Kroft, who befouled the 60 Minutes brand (even further) when he had Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on for a post-election interview, only to offer up "questions" that could be considered softballs at best, and marshmallows at worst.

Roundly mocked and ridiculed for his weak-kneed performance, one should remember that this is not the Steve Kroft many of us have seen in the past.  'Twas a time when the intrepid reporter used to stare down his adversary, and throw inside heat reminiscent of a young Pedro Martinez.  Why, just look at some of the hard stuff he threw at President George W. Bush, back in the day:

Most Americans at this point in time don't believe in this war in Iraq. They want you to get us out of there.

But wasn't it your administration that created the instability in Iraq?

It's much more unstable now, Mr. President.

You mention mistakes having been made in your speech. What mistakes are you talking about?

Fair to say there are not enough American troops on the ground to provide security for Iraq?

Do you think you owe the Iraqi people an apology for not doing a better job?

Final question: How can you escalate the war when so many people in this country seem to be against it.


Poor Steve has just lost his stuff. What other excuse could there be, based on his past performances, for refusing to ask the gruesome twosome of Hillary & Baracky just what the f*ck happened in a little place called Benghazi?

It can't be... political, can it?  No, never, nyet, nein.  For a reporter not to ask tough questions of a political figure embroiled in scandal and crises, due to his affinity with a particular party affiliation, would be like a pitcher throwing a hanging breaking ball to an opposing player because they were pals off the field.  Or even worse, because...he really wanted that opposing player to win, for selfish reasons of his own.

It would be unprofessionalism beyond the pale.

So we'll give Steve Kroft the benefit of the doubt, and just say he's a fastball pitcher who lost his stuff, and tried to hang around the game too long, and paid for it with his reputation.

Let us not mock him, but offer our pity instead....

Newark Star-Ledger Spreads Wide For Bob Menendez

As More Monmouth Musings puts it:

After hiding out in the bowels of the Capitol and the hills of Afghanistan for most of February, Senator Bob Menendez came out to New Jersey’s press yesterday with school kids as prop.


But - in classic Obama-style - Menendez (D-La Raza) put the muzzle on his lapdogs:

Staff aides for Menendez urged reporters to stay on topic during the call, and to contact them later with any questions, like those about his relationship with the Florida eye doctor, Salomon Melgen — a friend and major campaign contributor whose offices were raided by the FBI in January.

With the ground rules in place, inquiries about round-trip flights to the Dominican Republic on Melgen’s private jet, and Menendez reimbursing the doctor $58,500 for two of them two years later, were not front and center.

Neither were disclosures that the senator came to the aid of Melgen before federal agencies, or accusations that the doctor provided Menendez with prostitutes, some underage, at his vacation home in the Dominican Republic


In which Menendez is right:

Asked whether the senator’s packed schedule was intended to rehabilitate his image at home after a month of harsh news coverage, Menendez bristled and said his appearance with the children was part of "Read Across America Day," which he has participated in for almost 20 years.

"And secondly," he said, "I don’t think I need any rehabilitating."


Not with a see-no-evil, hear-no-evil, speak-no-evil New Jersey media, who would rather lie to the people of New Jersey and obscure the horrific doings of Bob Menendez than risk the chance that New Jersey residents might replace him with a (gasp) Republican senator.

Thomas Jefferson:

There is only one force in the nation that can be depended upon to keep the government pure and the governors honest, and that is the people themselves.
They alone, if well informed, are capable of preventing the corruption of power, and of restoring the nation to its rightful course if it should go astray.


So what can one accomplish with an uniformed citizenry? The New Jersey media knows...

And why do I pick on the Newark Star-Ledger in my post title? For the opening of their pre-censored article on Menendez's staged appearance:

Of all the adjectives used to describe Sen. Robert Menendez — wonkish, intense, diligent — the words soft and cuddly have rarely found their way into the discussion.


Actually, there are a lot of other words that find their way into discussions of Bob Menedez ("corrupt" being the most common). They just never seem to make it into Star-Ledger, though....

Well, we knew Barack Obama was not the Pope...

...but I liked this clarification anyway.  From Micheal Goodwin in the New York Post:

Millions of people around the world watched two global powerhouses conduct their most important business in public last week. One did it with dignity and respect. The other was the government of the United States....

It was the difference between something done right, with pride, and the undignified, embarrassing way our government does things these days.

When did it become standard procedure for American leaders to behave like contestants in a freak show? When did it become acceptable for a president to distort truth and scare the nation for the sake of a hollow political victory?


In 2008, of course.  When a Democrat became president, and all the rules of decorum (and law) were rendered moot....

"Why not", he mused thoughtfully to himself.  "I'm just as qualified to be pope as I was to be president".  He snickered out loud.  "And talk about dictatorial powers...!"

Sequester Saturday: Will Obama Now Claim Ownership?

The Day Dawned a Little Brighter Today…

…because last night, President Obama signed an order directing federal agencies to implement the sequester cuts.


Reading that headline/lede over at Powerline, I had a Newtonian moment of enlightment. Or perhaps what they would have called in the old days a flash of prophecy.

The "sequester" is now underway. A few national parks will close early, the government will be a little less diligent than usual in enforcing the law, the military will have to furlough some of its civilian workforce.

And for the 99%, life will go on as usual. And in fact, the economy may even get a little bit better, as some sectors finally see the nation begin its necessary crawl-back to fiscal sanity, and act upon it, via investment and hiring.

And Barack Obama, fresh off of warning the nation that “every time that we get a piece of economic news” in the coming months, that “economic news could have been better” if not for Republicans’ failure to act, will have to find a new tactic.

And he will.

Obama will campaign (because that's all he ever does) as the first president in history to sign legislation forcing cutbacks in the budget, and will take credit for any "green economic shoots" that result.  He will pound his chest and brag about his "balanced approach" - raising taxes in January, cutting spending in March - and demand that the nation elect more Democrats in 2014 so there will be less resistance to his agenda of prosperity.

And the media will dutifully forget every bit of distance Obama desperately tried to put between himself and the sequester, and report what was once the truth, then a lie, as the truth again: That the sequester was in fact Obama's idea.  The last four weeks - in which the president denied any knowledge of the sequester, demonized Republicans for "inventing it", and painted apocalyptic pictures of what would happen upon its enactment - will be whitewashed out of existence by an entire army of Winston Smiths, working for our modern-day Ministry of Truth.


And the American people will buy it, and wipe the Republicans out in 2014.

Bet on it.

Obama blames Republicans for every bad thing that will ever happen over the next four years...

Well, that should save him a lot of press conferences, I suppose.  Obama sums it up, and gives the media four years of talking points:

At a White House press conference this morning, President Obama laid the blame for the sequester and its effects solely on Republicans. He warned that “every time that we get a piece of economic news” in the coming months, that “economic news could have been better” if not for Republicans’ failure to act. “None of this is necessary,” he continued. “It’s happening because of a choice that Republicans in Congress have made. They have allowed these cuts to happen” in order to prevent tax increases.


Video is here.

Bob Woodward called Obama's actions "madness".    I concur, as I wondered even before Woodward if, regarding the sequester,  Is Barack Obama That Crazy Guy On The Street Corner, Wearing A Sign Claiming The World Will End At Midnight?

You tell me.  From the same press conference:

"I know that this has been some of the conventional wisdom that's been floating around Washington," Obama told reporters after meeting with congressional leaders. "Even though most people agree that I'm being reasonable, that most people agree that I am presenting a fair deal -- the fact that [Republicans] don't take it means that I should somehow do a Jedi mind meld with these folks and convince them to do what's right," he said.

"I'm not a dictator," he said.


Everyone agrees with Barack Obama, claims....Barack Obama.  Except for those nasty Republicans in Congress.

And the other 49% of America?  Apparently, they don't even exist.  Dear Leader must have gotten 100% of the vote, and we missed it.

And if that's not bad enough, the president then goes on to bemoan the fact that he's neither Luke Skywalker or Benito Mussolini.

It's not funny anymore.  Or even sad.

It's starting to get plain scary...

Latinos Support Chris Christie. CPAC Does Not...

How do Republicans get the Hispanic vote?  If you ask CPAC, it's by shunning their highest-profile blue-state governor, who's getting traditional Democratic constituencies to switch sides:

Republican Gov. Chris Christie has picked up the endorsement of a major Latino group that backed Democratic incumbent Jon Corzine in the last election.

Martin Perez, of the Latino Leadership Alliance, yesterday said the organization is supporting Christie because of his commitment to public schools, small businesses and immigration reform.

“Governor Christie has shown he is the type of leader who can transform this state,” said Perez, whose group represents more than 500 churches as well as Latino police, firefighter and civic organizations.

Christie said the endorsement highlights positions that Latinos and Republicans share and should serve as a model for the GOP nationally to reach out to the growing voting bloc, which supported Democratic President Obama by more than 70 percent in November.


Christie is right, of course, but not far right enough. So CPAC is refusing to invite him to this month's mega-conference, leaving him outside in the cold , along with GOProud, another group who dares to differ on dogma.

Way to open that tent in an increasingly diverse society, jerkoffs.

Look - I think Christie is the best governor the state of New Jersey is gonna get. As a presidential candidate, he's no better than fourth on my list (Rubio/Ryan/Paul, in case you were curious, and in no particular order).  But for God's sake - he's a Republican governor in a deep-blue state with a 74% approval rating!  Aren't you at least the tiny bit curious to hear how he picked up the endorsements of Latinos, labor unions (see here and here), and Democrats?

No?  Ideological purity über alles?  Fine.  Just get used to last-place finishes...

Will The White House Punish Gene Sperling?

Legendary journalist Bob Woodward's stunning accusation yesterday:

WOLF BLITZER, CNN: You're used to this kind of stuff, but share with our viewers what's going on between you and the White House.

BOB WOODWARD: Well, they're not happy at all and some people kind of, you know, said, look, 'we don't see eye to eye on this.' They never really said, though, afterwards, they've said that this is factually wrong, and they -- and it was said to me in an e-mail by a top --

BLITZER: What was said?

WOODWARD: It was said very clearly, you will regret doing this.

BLITZER: Who sent that e-mail to you?

WOODWARD: Well, I'm not going to say.

BLITZER: Was it a senior person at the White House?

WOODWARD:  A very senior person.

Politico outs the "senior person" as Gene Sperling, Director of the National Economic Council and Assistant to the President for Economic Policy (as per the White House website).

Damage control is already underway:

A White House official said: “Of course no threat was intended. As Mr. Woodward noted, the email from the aide was sent to apologize for voices being raised in their previous conversation. The note suggested that Mr. Woodward would regret the observation.”


Maybe it was just a poor choice of words, but word choice is crucial when you are an assistant to the president, and dealing with what is presumed to be a free press. But I'm not buying the innocence routine here; if Sperling was so free with his tongue on a famed journalist like Woodward, there seems little doubt he's loosed it in a similar fashion on lesser lights before.

Why did Gene Sperling think he could get away with such a threat? As mentioned above, perhaps he's done it before, with no consequences. Or maybe he sees himself as a sort of Scott Pritchard character from Costner's No Way Out; a power-mad General Counsel to the Secretary of Defense:

You have no idea what men of power can do!


Here's the question: Will Sperling be sanctioned by the White House?

Depends. The Obama fanatics are circling the wagons, accusing Woodward of senility and all but calling for a Soviet-style institutionalization of the revered reporter. On the other hand, the MSM is giving the story some play, at odds with their usual role as drooling sycophants. And Obama knows it is easier for him to lose his economic assistant (how hard is it to repeat "raise taxes!" ad nasuem, anyway?) than to lose the mainstream media.

But it could be that Obama will take the third way:  Do nothing at all, and let Sperling's ugly threats to a famed journalist - who broke ranks, and called out the president on his misdirection and lies - stand.

It would send another type of message entirely.

We'll see if the media gets it.


UPDATE:  The released emails from Gene Sperling seem even more damning:

But I do truly believe you should rethink your comment about saying saying that Potus asking for revenues is moving the goal post. I know you may not believe this, but as a friend, I think you will regret staking out that claim...

Shakespeare On The Sequester (and Obama)

Representative Tim Huelskamp (R., Kan.) quoted the bard (well, paraphrased, it seems), when asked about thy hysterics - primarily Obama's, fanned by the media - surrounding tomorrow's inevitable sequester:

“It is a tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury and signifying nothing”


Huelskamp is being polite. There are many other Shakespearean snarks that would have been equally appropriate to mark the president's humiliating behavior:

Thou whoreson, senseless villain!

The Comedy of Errors (4.4.24)

More of your conversation would infect my brain.
Coriolanus (2.1.91)

Away! Thou'rt poison to my blood.
Cymbeline (1.1.128)

O thou vile one!
Cymbeline (1.1.142)

They have a plentiful lack of wit.
Hamlet (2.2.198)

There’s no more faith in thee than in a stewed prune.
1 Henry IV (3.3.40)

I scorn you, scurvy companion.
2 Henry IV (2.4.115)

Away, you mouldy rogue, away!
2 Henry IV (2.4.117)

Thou mis-shapen dick!
3 Henry VI (5.5.35)

Sequester: Obama's Plan To Torment Americans Into Acquiescence

Literally. So says  Politco:

He will divide, isolate and defeat Republicans using all the powers of his office and all his skills as a political campaigner. As Americans grow frustrated with the cuts, Republicans will reject their party’s no-tax mantra and demand that Congress end the standoff, even if it means raising some new revenue – just the way Obama is demanding.

Obama’s trying to speed this result, by releasing state by state details of the pain and suffering the sequester will cause, all meant to get Republicans to cave.

If Republicans hold firm, the White House will look to its next major point of leverage: the real-life hassle of the sequester itself. Once people feel the pain, Republicans will want to find a way out, the theory goes.


So Obama wants people - the people whom elected him leader - to "feel the pain"?  Oh, you betcha.

Glenn Reynolds, yesterday:

SO SINCE DEMOCRATIC LOBBYISTS ARE SAYING THAT the worst thing for them is if the sequester hits and nothing happens, I assume that the Obama Administration is doing what it can to ensure maximum sequester-pain for voters. Somebody ought to be filing FOIA requests for emails concerning sequester implementation; there’s probably some gold there.

Well, don't count on the media to do it, they've got too much invested in the narrative.  The president will be poking us with cattle prods, and as we writhe in agony, the press will tell us the Republicans are doing it.

Paul Rahe warns us some bad shit is coming down the 'pike:

Everyone has seen this before at the state level. The legislature trims the projected budget, and the Governor, intent on expanding patronage, responds by declaring an emergency and by cutting access to state parks, library hours . . . you name it. The point is to rally the public against the legislature by cutting popular items while carefully protecting the pork that sustains the Governor's political party.

This sort of irresponsibility is, I suspect, what we will soon see at the federal level. The difference is that Obama will be more brazen and audacious than any Governor has ever been.


Rahe goes on to point out the obvious - that the media will align against the Republicans - and speaks of a need for courage.

I speak of a need for some insanity.

Republicans leadership needs to start going batshit crazy now - today, this minute - and point out the fact Obama has been lying about the sequester for months, and intends to inflict increased hardships upon the American people in order to bend the federal government to his will.  They must warn  - on every radio and TV show they can get their pug-ugly faces on - that Obama is planning to make the life of every American as miserable as possible, for as long as possible, in the hopes they will pressure the Republicans to join him in the raping and looting of what remains of our national treasure.

"We always said change was not going to be easy..."

Look into the camera and say it, girls:  Barack Obama will not stop twisting the arms of hardworking Americans until they do his bidding, and launch their own attack upon the Republican party.

Stick to the storyline - and let the media snicker.  And when it goes down, the Republicans will be in the stronger position, because they will have called it all beforehand.

There is another option:  Stay defensive, and wind up evolving into the Whigs by 2014.

Up to the Republican leadership now.  Cower, and die as a party (and a nation).  Start shouting now about the evil that is about to befall us...and everyone might just be saved.

Sequester-geddon!

From the official Twitter feed of  Barack Obama, via Ricochet:

Share why your family can't afford severe spending cuts to vital services for kids and seniors: OFA.BO/QxoFAf #JobsNotCuts

RT if you agree: It's time for Republicans in Congress to protect middle-class families—not tax loopholes for millionaires. #JobsNotCuts

FACT: If Congress refuses to act by Friday, more than 370,000 mentally ill children and adults will go without treatment. #JobsNotCuts

FACT: Automatic spending cuts would eliminate more than 4 million meals for sick and homebound seniors if Congress doesn't act.#JobsNotCuts

FACT: Impending spending cuts would end programs for nearly 1.2 million disadvantaged students if Congress doesn't act. #JobsNotCuts

FACT: More than 800,000 defense employees will be forced to take unpaid leave if Congress doesn't stop impending spending cuts. #JobsNotCuts

FACT: If Congress doesn't act by Friday, automatic spending cuts will threaten more than 30,000 teacher and school staff jobs. #JobsNotCutss


And in related news:

During President Barack Obama's meeting with U.S. governors at the White House Monday, the president dismissed members of the press to hold a private, hourlong discussion with the visiting state executives. Whatever was said after the cameras left the room especially incensed South Carolina Republican Gov. Nikki Haley.

"I could not be more frustrated than I am right now," Haley told reporters after the meeting. She said that when she asked Obama if he would consider a last-minute plan to shave about 2 percent from the annual federal budget without increasing taxes, the answer was "no."
"My kids could go and find $83 billion out of a $4 trillion budget," Haley said. "This is not rocket science."


Meanwhile, Michelle Obama poses before a military contingent, and preens for the fops and dandies at the Oscars.

Why do I have the feeling that no matter what happens, the Obamas - and the political class - will be immune from the effects (no matter how great or small) of the sequestration?

Note that POTUS hasn't threatened us with a cutback in Air Force One budgets, either...which means that, sequester or not, the demagoguery will go on...

Yay.

Helen Hunt Is Just Like Us! Oh, Wait A Minute...She's Not

The headline is "designed" to fool you:

Helen Hunt flaunts low-budget Oscar style

Oh! What's she wearing? What's she wearing? Tell me tell me tell me!

In perhaps the most surprising fashion choice of the evening, Helen Hunt hit the Oscar red carpet decked in -- wait for it -- H&M.

The Best Supporting Actress nominee was happy to boast to E!'s Ryan Seacrest about the origin of her get-up.


Why would she boast about going downscale? Wait for it --

Hunt had eco-friendly reasons for picking the navy gown, explaining she chose H&M because, "they made a beautiful dress and they are going green." The retailer works with Global Green, which Hunt has been collaborating with to fight climate change. In promoting the good cause and wearing something she already owned, Hunt explained, "It's a win, win, win!"


Awww...because it gives her a chance to preen about being green!  Never let an opportunity to be self-righteous go to waste, I suppose.

But when all is said and done,  is seems as if Ms. Hunt is not an authentic plebe after all. Rather than accessories with H&M's value-priced jewelry, she chose to go in another direction:

But the actress didn't walk the carpet without adding a little bit of glam to the H&M frock, accentuating the dress with $700,000 worth of jewelry.


That nearly three-quarters of a million worth of ice is there for a reason, folks. It's purpose is to let you know - quite clearly - that while she might don the proletarian fashion, she assuredly is not one of us.

She's your better - both morally and financially - and don't you forget it....

Referral of the day....

Sigh...

Sorry, Jen...

The Sequester: Is Barack Obama That Crazy Guy On The Street Corner, Wearing A Sign Claiming The World Will End At Midnight?

Planes crash, schools close, houses burn, criminals run free.

Welcome to the “Mad Max” world that President Obama envisions if the federal budget is reduced by 2.3 percent.

Instead, his claim that the $3.6 trillion budget can’t be trimmed by $85 billion without the country collapsing reveals the utter futility of believing he will ever save America from financial disaster. The nation is headed for ruin unless it cuts spending, but the president refuses to do anything about it.


That's Michael Goodwin in today's New York Post, who has no kind words for the president's latest antics

To see how preposterous the claim is, imagine a smaller example — a family with a weekly budget of $100. Under Obama’s math, cutting $2.30 a week would mean the family would have to give up its home, car and food.

It sounds crazy because it is, especially because Obama proposed these cuts in the first place. He knows he’s blowing smoke, so why does he do it?

Sequester -The Video:  "... here at the end of all things..."

Part of Obama’s motive is not, strictly speaking, about the money, but about the chip on his shoulder regarding wealth. Sharpton said Obama told him and other black leaders privately that “he did not get all he wanted from the rich” with this year’s income-tax hikes.

That certainly doesn’t sound like an economic argument. It sounds like retribution, maybe even reparations.


George Will mocks Obama's theater of the absurd as well:

It is, however, inaccurate to accuse the Hysteric in Chief of crying “Wolf!” about spending cuts under the sequester. He is actually crying “Hamster!”

As in: Batten down the hatches — the sequester will cut $85 billion from this year’s $3.6 trillion budget! Or: Head for the storm cellar — spending will be cut 2.3%! Or: Washington chainsaw massacre — we must scrape by on 97.7% of current spending! Or: Chaos is coming because the sequester will cut a sum $25 billion larger than was just shoveled out the door (supposedly, but not actually) for victims of storm Sandy!

Artist's rendition of Sequester: The Day After

Or: Heaven forfend, the sequester will cut 47% as much as was spent on the AIG bailout! Or: Famine, pestilence and locusts will come when the sequester causes federal spending over 10 years to plummet from $46 trillion all the way down to $44.8 trillion!

Or: Grass will grow in the streets of America’s cities if the domestic agencies whose budgets have increased 17% under President Obama must endure a 5% cut!

....Today, while Obama prepares a governmental power grab to combat global warming, sensible Americans, tuckered out with apocalypse fatigue, are yawning through the catastrophe du jour, the sequester. They say: Cry “Havoc!” and let slip the hamsters of sequestration.


Interesting that both Goodwin and Will - neither of whom can be classified as right-wing nuts - both see malice in Obama's grandstanding. One hopes the American people can see it as well - fear of what this man is capable of is probably a more useful emotion right now than fatigue.

Me? I'm just pissed off, 'cause I hate being lied to. Mark Tapscott in the Washington Examiner:

But the lie of sequestration goes even beyond predictable prevarications like LaHood's. The sequestration cuts are from the government's "baseline" budget, which includes built-in spending increases every year.

So what the professional politicians bewail as a spending cut is actually nothing more than a reduction in the amount that spending will increase each year.

Put another way, this whole series of threats that the Pentagon won't be able to defend the nation, passengers will have to suffer three and four hour waits in security lines at the airports (when they are open), women and children will be thrown off Food Stamps, and on and on are ... lies, pure and simple lies.


Every time Obama opens his mouth to speak on the sequester (or anything else, for that matter), he should be preceded by a public service announcement, much like this one given by Leonard Nimoy in a supernatural episode of the Simpsons entitled "The Springfield Files":

Hello. I'm Leonard Nimoy. The following tale of alien encounters is true. 
And by true, I mean false.
 It's all lies. But they're entertaining lies. And in the end, isn't that the real truth?

The answer is....No.

Oregon's Gun Control Bill: If Your're Not Paranoid Yet...

Guess what?  They are coming for your guns!  Well, in Oregon, at least. But no doubt this is only the start.

Here's what state legislators are looking to pass into law in the appropriately-named "Beaver" State:


Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon [defined as any gun with a scary-looking attachment] or large capacity magazine shall, within 120 days after the effective date of this 2013 Act, without being subject to prosecution:

(a) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state;
(b) Sell the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to a firearms dealer licensed under 18 U.S.C. 923 for lawful sale or transfer under subsection (2) of this section;
(c) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to a law enforcement agency for destruction;
(d) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable;


So here we are..."Surrender your weapons!" time has come to America...

But it gets worse:

This 2013 Act being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist, and this 2013 Act takes effect on its passage.

Yeah, because downtown Portland is ablaze:

Didn't Obama just decry "manufactured crises"?  Or does that somehow not apply to any crises the Democrats manufacture?

Not sure what they're putting in the water in Oregon, but their plan to basically seize weapons from law-abiding citizens is neither original nor clever.  Lots of folks throughout history have declared states of emergency in order to convert citizens into subjects; in fact, note the very definition of the word:

Dictatorships are often characterized by some of the following traits: suspension of elections and of civil liberties; proclamation of a state of emergency; rule by decree; repression of political opponents without abiding by rule of law procedures; these include single-party state, and cult of personality...


Seems like we're almost there.

Paranoid yet?  If not...maybe you're the one with the tinfoil hat tied on too tight....