Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

Making it viral from The Right Scoop:

From the description:

Louisiana Senator Elbert Guillory (R-Opelousas) explains why he recently switched from the Democrat Party to the Republican Party. He discusses the history of the Republican Party, founded as an Abolitionist Movement in 1854. Guillory talks about how the welfare state is only a mechanism for politicians to control the black community.

From the Right Scoop, last month – Obama speaking in Colorado to push for citizen disarmament and greater state power (video at the link):

The opponents of some of these common sense laws have ginned up fears among responsible gun owners that have nothing to do with what’s being proposed, nothing to do with the facts, but feeds into this suspicion about government. You hear some of these quotes:

I need a gun to protect myself from the government.”
We can’t do background checks because the government’s going to come take my guns away.”

The government’s us. These officials are elected by you. They are elected by you, I am elected by you. I am constrained as they are constrained by a system that our founders put in place. This is a government of and by and for the people.

Quickly, common sense dictates that criminals and madmen never follow laws, so the laws only impact good people who should never be disarmed.

From there, remember, this is the same guy who was responsible for targeting his political opponents through the IRS.  He’s the same guy who tapped the Associated Press’s phones and targeted journalists reporting things that made him look bad.

Obama’s not constrained at all by the Constitution.  He’s actively ignoring the Constitution.

Those officials are not elected, they are appointed, and those officials are engaged in political campaigns to build the empires of their political masters – targeting enemies so their patrons will succeed.  The police chiefs he goes to for gun control are appointed, the mayors who support him win elections through their appointed goons who engage in the Curley Effect to create political empires through handing out taxpayer money to pay voters.  The IRS stooges he has targeting political enemies are appointed as well – and all believe they are the Ruling Class, above accountability, and above you.

Obama’s lying.  This is a government that operates on its own, with no regards for the citizen; a government that targets citizens, and has tax collectors like eyerolling IRS twerp Shulman targeting unpopular groups and then smirking about it.

(There’s a lot of important nonverbal communication going on with Shulman.  If you haven’t seen it, it’s very relevant.)

Obama shipped guns to the narcoterrorist cartels, he let an ambassador die in Benghazi and then lied about it (and it’s suspected worse was going on than that), and he’s currently engaged in a war on journalists.  And yet he tells you that it’s all “rhetoric” that makes it difficult for everyone to compromise and surrender to his good ideas…

We’ve got to get passed some of the rhetoric that gets perpetuated that breaks down trust and is so over the top that it just shuts down all discussion.

No, Barry, you’re a wannabe tyrant.  And Americans don’t negotiate with tyrants.  There is no “discussion” with tyrants.  There is no “just a little bit” of oppression.  There is no talk and talk and talk and “compromise” with tyranny.

His actions are targeting citizens who disagree, and targeting journalists who might accidentally report the facts or say something he doesn’t like… his words are diplomatic – and telling you everything you see and hear is wrong, and he’s just so reasonable and means well for you and it’s good if you let him do good things for you.  But remember the definition of diplomacy: the art of saying “nice doggy” until you can find a rock.

Watergate and Obama

Posted: May 20, 2013 by ShortTimer in Barack Obama, Government, Media, Politics, Tyranny
Tags: ,

From the UK Telegraph:

…Four decades after Watergate and two decades after his death, we still can’t stop talking about the dark anti-hero of American politics. …

The latest non-Watergate to be labelled its second coming is actually a combination of three separate scandals afflicting the Barack Obama administration.

The collective weight of this scandalabra threatens to derail the president’s ambitious legislative agenda, dragging him to premature lame duck status. But it doesn’t represent outright criminality emanating from the Oval Office or promise to provoke a constitutional crisis, however fervently Obama’s critics might wish it.

In fact the ritualistic invocation has the opposite to the desired effect, making the scandals look smaller than they are by comparison with Nixon’s. So, partisan projections aside, how do these scandals really stack up?

The Telegraph author criticizes the comparison of Watergate, then goes on to note how “the IRS scandal is the most serious”, but frankly, he’s got it backwards.

Fast and Furious, which was hushed up by a complicit media, was the most serious.  Then Benghazi, which is starting to get attention.  Hundreds have died from Fast and Furious.  Four have died from Benghazi.

The IRS scandal and the AP snooping scandal are chilling effects of tyranny, but they aren’t the administration covering up murders, or covering up leaving an ambassador and his staff to die.

Finally, there is the continuing inquiry into the killing of four Americans in Benghazi. After damning congressional testimony from former deputy chief Libya diplomat Greg Hicks, the White House belatedly released a barrage of emails – which showed that the editing of the now-infamous “talking points” used by officials in television interviews was largely the product of a bureaucratic turf war between the CIA and the State Department.

Yeah, except that doesn’t cut it.  The talking points are a question of who’s covering up what and why.  The “bureaucratic turf war between CIA and State Department” is a whitewash by the media.

Who ordered the stand-downs?  Why wasn’t there an F18 doing a low altitude flyby over Benghazi at supersonic speeds  and terrifying the terrorists by showing American air power was there?

This media look at the Obama scandals is entirely backwards, but it is right to recognize that Watergate and Obama’s four scandals are different.

Nixon had CREEP and the Plumbers out playing political tricks and breaking into hotels.

Obama shipped guns to narcoterrorist cartels that have killed hundreds (including two USBP Agent Brian Terry and ICE Agent Jaime Zapata), left a US ambassador and his staff to die and then lied about it and played politics with the coverup, then he went after political opponents with the IRS and went after media with the DOJ.

Nixon’s Watergate was some shady political tricks.  Obama’s scandals are murder.

Secnav Mabus, in addition to naming ships afterer labor leaders like Cesar Chavez, lying blue falcon scumbags like John Murtha, is naming a new Navy littoral combat ship after Democrat Gabby Giffords… a naming purely for political purposes.

The Navy’s newest ship will be the USS Gabrielle Giffords.

Navy Secretary Ray Mabus made the announcement at a Pentagon ceremony today, calling Giffords someone whose name is synonymous with courage.

Getting shot in the head by a madman and suffering through recovery is not synonymous with any kind of courage that would warrant naming a ship after a congressman from a landlocked state.  This is politics.  It’s doing favors for Democrat politicians and it’s been doing favors for the administration by keeping Giffords and her head wound in the spotlight.  If it weren’t for her head wound, she wouldn’t be important to the Democrats at all.

The contrast is very sharp when you note that then-HM1 Holly Crabtree was shot in the head by a sniper while on patrol – and the courage it takes to go on patrols in hostile territory, risking her own life just by being there – and then surviving a headshot – is the kind of courage that might well warrant naming a ship after her… a sailor wounded in combat.

crabtree & sis

Chief Crabtree just retired from the Navy after 14 years and that serious wound that she still hasn’t recovered from.

Of course, Secnav Mabus was more interested in scoring Democrat and anti-gun political points by keeping Giffords in the spotlight:

Mabus said the notion occurred to him that this would be a “fitting tribute” not only to Giffords but to Navy families because she was a Navy spouse.  Her husband, Mark Kelly, was until recently an astronaut and Navy pilot.

Really, it’s a fitting tribute because she married a guy who drove boats?

In the navy, pilots drive boats.  Aviators fly planes.  One could probably safely assume it’s a typo, but either way, it shows that the ship is being named for no reason other than politics.

Giffords is a political prop for gun control and undermining the Constitution, and has been used as willing a political tool since she was shot.  She was also used to blame Sarah Palin, too.  The left exists only for politics.

By contrast, again from the Crabtree story:

After being wounded, Crabtree was attached to James A Haley Veterans Affairs Hospital in Tampa, Fla. While there, besides receiving therapy, she “inspired and motivated several critically wounded soldiers and instilled a positive, can-do spirit.” For that, she received her fourth Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal on Friday.

Somewhere there’s a bitter combat arms guy who’d joke about the way NAMs are handed out like candy for making people feel good, but I’d say Crabtree is the exception, not the rule.  In 2005 the GySgt in my platoon got a NAM for getting some ice out into the field when it was hot.  HM1 Crabtree is out getting people to push through serious injuries – she’s probably earned hers.

Crabtree, 32, grudgingly accepted medical retirement.

I can still move my hand. I can still walk a little bit. I’m still good. I can do something,” she said of wanting to continue her career. Finally, she gave in.

She’s a 14 year veteran and she’s only 32 years old.  She was 18 when she joined, and spent 14 years of her life in naval service.  Reread her statement again until it sinks in.  Crabtree is worthy of a ship.

I can still move my hand. I can still walk a little bit. I’m still good. I can do something.

 

chief crabtree 2

Fair winds and following seas, Chief Crabtree.

NYT Says Fewer People Own Guns

Posted: March 10, 2013 by ShortTimer in Guns, Media, Politics, Second Amendment, Tyranny

Cuz, y’know, record sales for the last few months means it’s all the same people buying guns, despite all evidence to the contrary.

From the New York Times:

The share of American households with guns has declined over the past four decades, a national survey shows, with some of the most surprising drops in the South and the Western mountain states, where guns are deeply embedded in the culture.

The gun ownership rate has fallen across a broad cross section of households since the early 1970s, according to data from the General Social Survey, a public opinion survey conducted every two years that asks a sample of American adults if they have guns at home, among other questions.

There may be some statistics that would make this slightly plausible if it were to account for the increase in illegal aliens who can’t own guns, as well as the collapse of the nuclear family, which often means that with separated parents, there are two households instead of one, which could “reduce” ownership, even though if the same family were together, it would count as 1 rather than .5.

The rate has dropped in cities large and small, in suburbs and rural areas and in all regions of the country. It has fallen among households with children, and among those without. It has declined for households that say they are very happy, and for those that say they are not. It is down among churchgoers and those who never sit in pews.

Okay, NYT, I’ll call and raise you:

The rate has dropped down low below a box, the rate has dropped below my socks.
The rate has dropped like a falling fox, the rate has dropped just like a rock.

“We do not like those evil guns, we do not like them any one!
We do not like your P95 Ruger, we do not like your P08 Luger!
We do not like them in your house, we do not like them under your blouse!
We do not like those evil guns, we do not like them any one!

We do not like your AR-15, we don’t like black things that are mean!
We do not like your old shotgun, we do not like them any one!
We do not like them in your home, we do not like them when you roam!
We do not like your FN SCAR, we do not like your BAR!
We do not like those evil guns, we do not like them any one!

We do not like them when you carry, we think you act like Dirty Harry!
We do not like your Remington, we think you are just very dumb!
We do not like them in your hands, we do not like them on your lands!
We do not like that you resist, so we crush you with the State’s mighty fist!
We do not like your evil guns, and we will take them every one!
We do not like your little lives, you will comply or you will die.”

And they go on, basically with that in mind:

That decline, which has been studied by researchers for years but is relatively unknown among the general public, suggests that even as the conversation on guns remains contentious, a broad shift away from gun ownership is under way in a growing number of American homes. It also raises questions about the future politics of gun control. Will efforts to regulate guns eventually meet with less resistance if they are increasingly concentrated in fewer hands — or more resistance?

Why not look at this like other natural rights?  “Will efforts to regulate speech eventually meet with less resistance if they are increasingly concentrated in fewer hands, or more resistance?”  Because “efforts to regulate”, as in – infringe upon rights – are somehow a desirable thing to these creatures.

The very first comment at the story blows this whole story to pieces:

To repeat yet once again my query concerning such surveys, do the surveys take into account the numbers of Americans who lie about their ownership of firearms?

The difference between this issue and others, is especially when it comes to guns – whose business is it?  Years ago, it was always best to never say you owned guns because they’re prized by thieves.  Nowadays, it’s popular to not say so because the question is what is the government going to do with that data (whether fed, state, or local).

Many, many gun owners inherently distrust some elements of government, and there’s no reason why they would tell the truth to pollsters.  Other topics may be lied about at different rates, but gun ownership, by its very nature, is a different animal.

Consider the opposition alone to the Colorado bans.  Those numbers are not consistent with a precipitous drop in support for the Second Amendment and gun ownership.

Nor are historically unprecedented numbers of background checks done not just on current gun owners’ new purchases, but on new gun owners’ new purchases.

From the Weekly Standard:

“Democratic legislators also have to be mindful that even members of their own partisan coalition are conflicted about this proposed legislation.  While only 8% of Democrats oppose all of the gun control measures we tested, 70% of Democratic voters oppose one or some combination of the proposals (either the comprehensive package, the background checks, the liability claim, or the high-capacity magazine ban).”

“These poll numbers prove that Governor Hickenlooper and the Democrats are listening to Bloomberg and Biden instead of Coloradans,” comments state senator Greg Brophy, responding to the poll, in an email to me.

As for Republicans, Autry writes, “Not surprisingly, Republican voters in the state overwhelmingly oppose the comprehensive package (62% say it’s the wrong approach and another 26% say it goes too far), oppose holding manufacturers and sellers legally liable (94% oppose), and oppose the high-capacity magazine ban (85% agree with opponents).  For the most part, the highly politically prized Independent voting bloc also opposes the key gun control measures we tested in this survey.  Fully 69% oppose passing the comprehensive legislation (33% oppose outright, 36% think it goes too far), 84% oppose holding manufacturers and sellers liable, and 55% oppose the high-capacity magazine ban when presented with both sides.  The one area of exception is the proposal to require gun buyers to pay the cost for a background check (51% of Republicans and 69% of Independent favor it).  But, on the whole, Independents are more inclined to agree with Republicans (and gun owners), than with Democrats (and anti-NRA allies).”

The fact of the matter is, Autry writes, most Coloradans don’t think the legislation will make them “safer.” “Importantly, Colorado voters do not believe these sweeping gun control measures will make them any safer.  Two out three Coloradans (65%) say these new gun control laws won’t reduce crime or make the state any safer, while just a third say they will (32%).”

Colorado is saying no, but the tyrants are pretty much deciding to crush the rights of citizens anyway.  They don’t care that the people are opposed, they are the anointed, they have a mandate, elections have consequences, and they’re going to get it the way their betters who rule them in government want to give it to them.

And they may well be gone if they do.

And there “very well could be political repercussions for supporting this legislation, as well.  Nearly half (48%) of voters say they would be less likely to vote for their State Senator in the next election if he or she supports these gun control bills (40% more likely).  There is strong intensity behind this as well – thirty-seven percent (37%) of voters overall say they would be much less likely to vote for him or her.”

From Washington Times:

The White House announced Tuesday that it is canceling tours of the president’s home for the foreseeable future as the sequester spending cuts begin to bite and the administration makes good on its warnings of painful decisions.

Announcement of the decision — made in an email from the White House Visitors Office — came hours after The Washington Times reported on another administration email that seemed to show at least one agency has been instructed to make sure the cuts are as painful as President Obama promised they would be.

In the internal email, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service official Charles Brown said he asked if he could try to spread out the sequester cuts in his region to minimize the impact, and he said he was told not to do anything that would lessen the dire impacts Congress had been warned of.

While it’s a relatively small thing, it is an indicator of how the Obama administration has gone out of its way to try to make any attempts at fiscal austerity seem horrible.

In 1995, when there were government shutdown issues, the first things done were the most public – like closing down the Washington Monument and national parks.  The attempt was to make all these cuts look severe.

The problem is that the sequestration cuts are done against parts of government that are “discretionary”, which is almost the exact opposite of what one would expect.  “Mandatory” here means handouts that were carved into law by statute – even if they are parts of government that have no Constitutional basis.  “Discretionary” spending is appling to sections of government that are generally constitutionally mandated, rather than “mandated” by statute law.  This is how welfare handouts become sacred, but the Army and Navy could be completely disbanded.

From Article I, Section 8:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Among those duties, imposts, and general welfare something as APHIS might be of little import, but it’d also probably withstand at least a cursory examination for Constitutional scrutiny.

It’s worth noting that “general welfare” does not mean handouts.

Nope.

Bob Woodward says the White House is warning “you’ll regret this” because he’s saying Obama’s sequester response is “madness”.

Drudge had it as his headline today.  From Business Insider:

Bob Woodward said this evening on CNN that a “very senior person” at the White House warned him in an email that he would “regret doing this,” the same day he has continued to slam President Barack Obama over the looming forced cuts known as the sequester.

Real Clear Politics has some video of an exchange with Wolf Blitzer where he discusses it as well.

This started because Woodward said Obama’s sequester strategy was “madness”HotAir has a good roundup of it and the reactions.

So why is this a story?  Because it’s a historical footnote for reporters.

Woodward wasn’t asking questions about Fast and Furious.  Woodward didn’t think there was anything worth asking about Benghazi.

In Fast and Furious, the Attorney General authorized smuggling guns to narcoterrorist cartels in Mexico with the express outcome of finding guns at crime scenes.  We have Congressional testimony of ATF agents who ran the operation discussing that.  Heck, CBS’s Sharyl Attkisson even managed to get the story moving a little bit.

John Dodson during an interview with Sharyl Atkisson

The Justice Department hid it, hushed it up, and refused to turn over documents.  What they did turn over was a joke.

That's not a print of Malevich's "Black Square".

And Obama exerted executive privilege over things he claims he had no knowledge of (which isn’t how EP works), and it all went away because the media doesn’t ask questions.  If Woodward had wanted to, he could’ve run with it and taken down two administrations.  But he’s in the tank for Obama just like the rest of the complicit media, he’s just upset that he’s being threatened.

With Benghazi, we had questions of an admiral being relieved because he wanted to go and help our ambassador & embassy personnel.  There were questions of what the ambassador was doing in Benghazi anyway – and what about the MANPADS in Libya going to SyriaWoodward blew it off.

This isn’t really a story.  It’s journalists looking at one of their heroes and saying “yeah, he’s taking a stand”.  No, he’s not.  He’s an irrelevant old man who 5 years into an administration that’s had plenty of scandals hushed up by the media, is just now realizing that they’re not the people he and the rest of the media have been carrying water for.  But he’s old, and just a curiosity today, and he’ll be forgotten just as quickly as Geraldine Ferraro was when she questioned misogynistic Democrat attacks on Palin during the 2008 elections.

From CSM/Yahoo:

Bloomberg vs. NRA: Big spending could swing Illinois race

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s ‘super PAC’ is spending $2.1 million to defeat a pro-gun candidate in the race to replace Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. It’s part of his broader attack on NRA power.

New York CityMayor Michael Bloomberg is sending a message to Democratic officials nationwide with upwardly mobile ambitions: Support the National Rifle Association at your peril.

Through the “super political-action committee” he launched shortly before the November election, Mayor Bloomberg has purchased $2.1 million in political attack ads in the special vote to replace Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., who resigned in November. The primary target is Debbie Halvorson, a former member of Congress who once received an “A” rating from the NRA and opposes President Obama’s push for an assault-weapons ban.

Halvorson just lost tonight.  But what’s worth noting is that Bloomberg spent $2.1 million.

The NRA, according to OpenSecrets.org, has only spent $19.5 million  on candidates from 1989-2012, in all races.  They do note there are other methods of spending:

During the 2010 election cycle, the NRA spent more than $7.2 million on independent expenditures at the federal level — messages that advocate for or against political candidates.

That’s $7.2 million across an entire year, and across the entire country.  Bloomberg, a billionaire who knows what’s best for you – spent $2.1 million on one race with Democrats against Democrats.

Halverson’s stance ultimately doomed her when a big NYC billionaire who hates guns decided to destroy her.  She did see it coming, though.

“If you can tell me that banning another gun will go after the criminals, I’d be all for it. I’d be for anything that stopped the killing and gets guns out of the hands of criminals, but it won’t work. (Chicago’s) Cook County has had an assault weapons ban since 1993 and they have the highest murder rate in the country,” she told The Hill.

“That’s why I refuse to just say I’m for it, knowing in my heart it’s not going to work. It would have saved me a lot of grief, there wouldn’t be all this money going against me, but I’ve been an elected official too long and I know too much. I know that won’t work.”

Too late.

Halvorson accuses Bloomberg of trying to “purchase” the election. “We cannot allow Bloomberg to buy this district from New York,” she told reporters Monday.

She says she has not received an endorsement from the NRA. One of her top opponents in the Democratic primary will be Ms. Kelly, a former Illinois state representative who is running on a pledge to reduce gun violence by supporting assault-weapon and conceal-carry-permit bans and reducing the loophole for weaponry sold at gun shows. The winner of the Democratic primary on Feb. 26 is seen as being the favorite in the April 9 general election.

..

Bloomberg’s involvement could be decisive, says Professor Sabato. The $2.1 million Independence USA ad buy dwarfs the $50,000 Halvorson has spent on her race to date, according to data from the Federal Election Commission.

$2,100,000 to $50,000.

215 to 5.  43 to 1 spending ratio.

Kelly won:

A multimillion-dollar ad blitz by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to stop an NRA-backed House candidate in Illinois paid off Tuesday night, as local official Robin Kelly crushed more than a dozen Democratic candidates vying to replace disgraced former Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr.

Bloomberg and gun control proponents seized on the results as evidence of momentum in their push to enact President Barack Obama’s gun control package. The mayor will take that message to Washington Wednesday in meetings with Vice President Joe Biden, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), according to Bloomberg’s public schedule.

Bloomberg’s visit coincides with a hearing the Senate Judiciary is slated to hold Wednesday on a proposal to ban assault weapons.

The outcome marked a major win for Bloomberg, who spent around $2.3 million attacking Halvorson for her pro-gun views and propping up Kelly. The ad blitz swamped the underfunded ex-congresswoman and prompted her to brand him as an out-of-town billionaire trying to buy a House seat.

Note that it marked a major win for Bloomberg… so there’s no “branding” him as an out-of-town billionaire buying a house seat – he IS an out-of-town billionaire buying a house seat.

And his group, Independence USA PAC, spent more than $14 million in races across the country.

His PAC’s name is delightfully Orwellian.  A billionaire dictator who tells people how much soda they can drink in a city he rules with an iron fist goes out and buys already-gerrymandered house seats from one Democrat to hand to another all in the name of disarming the US population calls himself in favor of “Independence”.

Colorado Governor Iffy On Gun Ban

Posted: February 23, 2013 by ShortTimer in Democrats, Government, Guns, Politics, Second Amendment
Tags:

Via Sipsey Street, from GunsSaveLives:

According to coloradopeakpolitics.com, the governor of Colorado, John Hickenlooper is wavering on a proposed magazine capacity limit that is making its way through the Colorado state legislature.

Since magazine giant Magpul, which is currently operating in CO, has announced they will pack up their operations, move across state lines and take hundreds (possibly thousands) of jobs with them and since there has been a huge national fallout over comments made by Democratic lawmaker Joe Salazar regarding women with guns and rape… the governor is apparently considering not supporting new gun control bills.

From ColoradoPeakPolitics:

At the start of the session legislative Democrats were confident to the point of cocky about their gun control legislation. Only a few weeks later, after a national controversy erupted over Rep. Joe Salazar’s (D-Thornton) remarks about rape and Magpul Industries threatened to leave the state over a proposed high capacity magazine ban, the issue has shifted, and fast.

And there is no Colorado politician better attuned to the shifting winds of the Colorado electorate than Governor John Hickenlooper.

Colorado Peak Politics notes that from CPR interviews, Hickenlooper is “weighing it”.  Which means he may be able to see that if he vetoes it, he won’t be facing harsh opposition from the general public the way he would if he passed it.  He can also see that his own party probably isn’t going to vote against him or primary him if he does take a “reasonable” route and shut down the anti-gun forces in the state.

For Hickenlooper, a veto is a win-win.  He gets to be seen as actually reasonable, and while his party will be losing seats, he probably won’t face much difficulty in retaining his.

As Milton Friedman was fond of saying, you just have to get the wrong people to do the right thing.