The only entertainment I get these days is from the Pacers and Blackhawks. The Pacers have a team of guys without a superstar who have embraced the team concept and followed their coach's lead to achieve a 2-2 tie against King James and the Heat. The Hawks were the best team in the NHL this shortened season, but had to fight back from a 3-1 deficit against the mighty Red Wings to earn a berth in the Western Conference Finals with a game 7 overtime victory.
I discovered Jonathan Toews and Patrick Kane a few years back when they were a pair of 18-year-old rookies. Working in Chicago, I picked up a ticket and went to see the Blackhawks one evening. I saw those talented rookies play and thought they were going to be pretty good. Sure enough, the two youngsters led their team to the Stanley Cup shortly after I became a fan.
The Hawks were challenged by a hot Red Wing goaltender that they just couldn't seem to solve. Jimmy Howard was turning away something like 40 Hawks shots each game as the Red Wings build their 3-1 series lead and threatened to end the Windy City's hopes for this year. But somehow the chink in Howard's armor was discovered and the Blackhawks took 3 in a row to advance.
Brent Seabrook grabs the puck off a hard check from Dave Bolland and wrists it past Howard to pick up the Hawks overtime win. Too bad I couldn't see it.
The games have been televised on an obscure sports channel, I think owned by NBC, that my Dish doesn't even offer. So I have to catch up after the game ends by reading the stories on the internet and catching the highlights on SportsCenter.
What, doesn't the NHL want people to watch their playoffs on television?
It's still going to be fun to find out whether Indiana can take 2 of 3 and advance to the NBA Finals, and whether the Blackhawks can find a chink in Jonathan Quick's armor to move past the LA Kings in their Western Conference Final.
Thursday, May 30, 2013
Desperately Seeking Good News
Where's the good news in a disastrous run of bad news?
Well, I am enjoying a rare stretch of time off. The stock market's booming for the moment, although many are predicting it's just a bubble due to burst by the end of the summer. Ultimately, on a personal level things are OK for now.
But I've already been informed that my health insurance will be cancelled at year-end because it doesn't comply with the ObamaCare standards. The letter from the insurance carrier also informed me that my only alternative will be to purchase a policy from the ObamaCare "exchange". I have tried to figure out what that might cost, and the answer seems to be as much as 20 grand. I'll probably be better off to skip it and pay the fine (or as renamed by John Roberts, the tax)
There's no longer any doubt about the Benghazi story. The State Department denied all requests for improved security, the Ambassador plus 3 others were horribly murdered by Islamic terrorists, then the President and Secretary of State knowingly lied for weeks about what actually happened. There's no need to keep asking who created the lie, when it is absolutely clear that Barry and Hillary kept repeating it.
The IRS targeted conservative groups that were perceived as enemies of Obama during his re-election campaign. Christians, Tea Party groups, Constitutional groups, and many other organizations aligned with the Right were harrassed. Investigators keep trying to find the smoking gun tying the practice to Obama, but they won't find it. The Democrats and Obama's inner circle have built a wall around their president to protect him and will sacrifice themselves before they allow him to be tied to the scandal. Worse yet, the harrassment continues even today while the IRS claims they've stopped it.
Eric Holder ordered gestapo-style wiretaps and fishing expeditions against AP reporters, Sheryl Atkisson at CBS, and Fox News. Undoubtedly searching for anything that could be used against them so those reporters the White House believe are their enemies to make them examples as warning to any reporters who might be thinking about digging into stories that might reflect badly on Obama.
It appears that most of the public is either unaware of all these scandals or simply don't care. Both theories mean very bad news for America. If the public fails to rise up and demand the removal from office of all those responsible, they're voting for totalitarian government.
If you are like me and things are going along OK for you, just wait until next year. We're all going to feel the pain of full implementation of ObamaCare. Then will we see the tyrannical government escalate beyond the harassment already happening and start to come after us?
We're about to find out.
Well, I am enjoying a rare stretch of time off. The stock market's booming for the moment, although many are predicting it's just a bubble due to burst by the end of the summer. Ultimately, on a personal level things are OK for now.
But I've already been informed that my health insurance will be cancelled at year-end because it doesn't comply with the ObamaCare standards. The letter from the insurance carrier also informed me that my only alternative will be to purchase a policy from the ObamaCare "exchange". I have tried to figure out what that might cost, and the answer seems to be as much as 20 grand. I'll probably be better off to skip it and pay the fine (or as renamed by John Roberts, the tax)
There's no longer any doubt about the Benghazi story. The State Department denied all requests for improved security, the Ambassador plus 3 others were horribly murdered by Islamic terrorists, then the President and Secretary of State knowingly lied for weeks about what actually happened. There's no need to keep asking who created the lie, when it is absolutely clear that Barry and Hillary kept repeating it.
The IRS targeted conservative groups that were perceived as enemies of Obama during his re-election campaign. Christians, Tea Party groups, Constitutional groups, and many other organizations aligned with the Right were harrassed. Investigators keep trying to find the smoking gun tying the practice to Obama, but they won't find it. The Democrats and Obama's inner circle have built a wall around their president to protect him and will sacrifice themselves before they allow him to be tied to the scandal. Worse yet, the harrassment continues even today while the IRS claims they've stopped it.
Eric Holder ordered gestapo-style wiretaps and fishing expeditions against AP reporters, Sheryl Atkisson at CBS, and Fox News. Undoubtedly searching for anything that could be used against them so those reporters the White House believe are their enemies to make them examples as warning to any reporters who might be thinking about digging into stories that might reflect badly on Obama.
It appears that most of the public is either unaware of all these scandals or simply don't care. Both theories mean very bad news for America. If the public fails to rise up and demand the removal from office of all those responsible, they're voting for totalitarian government.
If you are like me and things are going along OK for you, just wait until next year. We're all going to feel the pain of full implementation of ObamaCare. Then will we see the tyrannical government escalate beyond the harassment already happening and start to come after us?
We're about to find out.
Friday, May 24, 2013
Goodbye Boy Scouts
Too bad the Boy Scouts gave in on the homosexual issue. This is the day that marks the end of the venerable organization. "Morally straight" doesn't belong in the scout oath any longer, I suppose.
I wouldn't allow my boys to participate in a troop that I know includes a group of "gay" boys. Neither will I contribute any longer to their fundraisers. Middle school and high school aged boys aren't old enough to be so sexually active, therefore any that claim they are "gay" need to generate investigations by Child Protective Services to find out the identity of their male rapists.
In light of the news of an explosion in homosexual assaults in the military that corresponds with the new regulations on allowing them to serve openly, I'm surprised the leaders of the Boy Scouts aren't a little more sensible.
It is a sad day. So long, Boy Scouts.
I wouldn't allow my boys to participate in a troop that I know includes a group of "gay" boys. Neither will I contribute any longer to their fundraisers. Middle school and high school aged boys aren't old enough to be so sexually active, therefore any that claim they are "gay" need to generate investigations by Child Protective Services to find out the identity of their male rapists.
In light of the news of an explosion in homosexual assaults in the military that corresponds with the new regulations on allowing them to serve openly, I'm surprised the leaders of the Boy Scouts aren't a little more sensible.
It is a sad day. So long, Boy Scouts.
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Polar Opposite
Had the radio on during breakfast. Was listening to the morning news program on a talk radio station, which generally trends to the right. The host invited a writer from ThinkProgress.org to explain his contention that we're focused on the wrong scandals. The host let him talk without comment or argument or attempt at rebuttal.
It was a great learning opportunity for this conservative. It gave illumination into the mind of the American Liberal, and solidified the fact that Liberal thinking is the polar opposite of mine.
Benghazi, IRS, and investigating the Press are not scandals, according to this Leftist (I didn't catch his name). He has 3 far more important scandals to talk about.
1. Gays were removed from the Gang of 8 bill. This is the guy's number 1 scandal, and he's extremely upset. A provision was removed from the Immigration Bill that would have permitted chain migration for gay partners of those illegal immigrants granted legal status by this new law. In other words, it would have allowed the newly legalized "immigrant" the right to bring his or her same-sex partner into the United States as a legal resident and spouse.
Since I think the entire bill is a travesty, I am not going to get worked up about some provision to give special treatment to gay partners. Of course I've been appalled for a long time that there's a movement that seems to be succeeding designed to enshrine aberrant behavior to destroy one of God's most important institutions and therefore destroy the foundational definition of the nuclear family.
2. X Thousand people got killed with guns just since the NewTown massacre. Hearing him talk, you'd think the guns just jumped up and killed all of those people by themselves. In his strange world, the reason gun control legislation failed was because of the nefarious and corrupt obstruction by Republicans who want the violence to continue. He expressed his hope that gun control will be re-introduced and might sail through this time around.
I think the second amendment is there for a reason. I'm also well aware of what happens in places that ban firearms, but that's merely a side measure of proof why the second amendment defines an important right that should never be abridged by a tyrannical government.
3. Guantanamo isn't closed. Apparently to this Leftist, Gitmo is living proof of the bad intentions and abuses of the American government. He's scandalized that people can be held in an offshore prison with no hope in sight of presenting their case in front of a court of law.
I'm not worried about Gitmo one way or the other. I can only ask, where else should we put the terrorists we captured in the act of murdering Americans? As far as trial, I'm still confused why we haven't proceeded to try them in the military tribunals as specified in law? Unless I'm misunderstanding something, the reason is because the current president wants to try them in civilian courts instead but is getting resistance from the citizens. So how does it make sense to bring extremely dangerous terrorists into major American cities to undergo a public "show" trial?
4. The budget deficits have gone down. The Leftist guy claims we've saved billions and billions by shutting down the Iraq war and winding down Afghanistan. So let's start spending money to "rebuild" America! This guy says the scandal is in Republicans who keep hammering the ideas of cutting spending and reducing the size of government when what America needs is the opposite! He claims the Republicans are now lying when they say the budget is out of control.
Of course the deficits are down. Deficits have been running a trillion to a trillion and a half. This year the projections are down below 1 trillion for the first time since Obama took office. I realize Liberals don't care even a little bit about unprecedented levels of deficits and debt in the Obama era. Sort of like the high-spender claiming that we can keep spending as long as there are checks in the checkbook. Yes, part of the reason deficits are going down is due to Republicans in congress refusing to give Obama more checks in the checkbook. This Leftist think it's scandalous, but I think it's great and want them to cut even more.
I'd like to see this guy's personal financial statement. I'd lay odds that he lives paycheck to paycheck and teeters on the brink of bankruptcy.
We're polar opposites. All the pundits saying Republicans and Democrats should find common ground and compromise for the good of the country. It's not possible. There is no common ground possible between polar opposites.
It was a great learning opportunity for this conservative. It gave illumination into the mind of the American Liberal, and solidified the fact that Liberal thinking is the polar opposite of mine.
Benghazi, IRS, and investigating the Press are not scandals, according to this Leftist (I didn't catch his name). He has 3 far more important scandals to talk about.
1. Gays were removed from the Gang of 8 bill. This is the guy's number 1 scandal, and he's extremely upset. A provision was removed from the Immigration Bill that would have permitted chain migration for gay partners of those illegal immigrants granted legal status by this new law. In other words, it would have allowed the newly legalized "immigrant" the right to bring his or her same-sex partner into the United States as a legal resident and spouse.
Since I think the entire bill is a travesty, I am not going to get worked up about some provision to give special treatment to gay partners. Of course I've been appalled for a long time that there's a movement that seems to be succeeding designed to enshrine aberrant behavior to destroy one of God's most important institutions and therefore destroy the foundational definition of the nuclear family.
2. X Thousand people got killed with guns just since the NewTown massacre. Hearing him talk, you'd think the guns just jumped up and killed all of those people by themselves. In his strange world, the reason gun control legislation failed was because of the nefarious and corrupt obstruction by Republicans who want the violence to continue. He expressed his hope that gun control will be re-introduced and might sail through this time around.
I think the second amendment is there for a reason. I'm also well aware of what happens in places that ban firearms, but that's merely a side measure of proof why the second amendment defines an important right that should never be abridged by a tyrannical government.
3. Guantanamo isn't closed. Apparently to this Leftist, Gitmo is living proof of the bad intentions and abuses of the American government. He's scandalized that people can be held in an offshore prison with no hope in sight of presenting their case in front of a court of law.
I'm not worried about Gitmo one way or the other. I can only ask, where else should we put the terrorists we captured in the act of murdering Americans? As far as trial, I'm still confused why we haven't proceeded to try them in the military tribunals as specified in law? Unless I'm misunderstanding something, the reason is because the current president wants to try them in civilian courts instead but is getting resistance from the citizens. So how does it make sense to bring extremely dangerous terrorists into major American cities to undergo a public "show" trial?
4. The budget deficits have gone down. The Leftist guy claims we've saved billions and billions by shutting down the Iraq war and winding down Afghanistan. So let's start spending money to "rebuild" America! This guy says the scandal is in Republicans who keep hammering the ideas of cutting spending and reducing the size of government when what America needs is the opposite! He claims the Republicans are now lying when they say the budget is out of control.
Of course the deficits are down. Deficits have been running a trillion to a trillion and a half. This year the projections are down below 1 trillion for the first time since Obama took office. I realize Liberals don't care even a little bit about unprecedented levels of deficits and debt in the Obama era. Sort of like the high-spender claiming that we can keep spending as long as there are checks in the checkbook. Yes, part of the reason deficits are going down is due to Republicans in congress refusing to give Obama more checks in the checkbook. This Leftist think it's scandalous, but I think it's great and want them to cut even more.
I'd like to see this guy's personal financial statement. I'd lay odds that he lives paycheck to paycheck and teeters on the brink of bankruptcy.
We're polar opposites. All the pundits saying Republicans and Democrats should find common ground and compromise for the good of the country. It's not possible. There is no common ground possible between polar opposites.
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
Obama Never Denied Involvement in the IRS Scandal
An important point I think everybody's missing. When asked about the IRS scandal, Obama never denied orchestrating or knowing about it. He only claimed to have heard nothing about the internal government audit report until very recently. It was a carefully crafted response designed to hold up against any possible future charges of lying. He technically may not have lied, but he certainly misled.
The fact he has never denied being involved in the IRS targeting of individuals he and his campaign deemed enemies I think means he was neck deep in it. If he didn't personally order it done, it seems virtually certain he both knew and approved.
Americans, regardless of party affiliation, do not condone such behavior. Obama should be a civilian. Now.
The fact he has never denied being involved in the IRS targeting of individuals he and his campaign deemed enemies I think means he was neck deep in it. If he didn't personally order it done, it seems virtually certain he both knew and approved.
Americans, regardless of party affiliation, do not condone such behavior. Obama should be a civilian. Now.
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Still Working to Understand
The favorite pastime of political advocates is assigning nefarious motives to their opponents. Flipping channels last night, I endured the pain of the Bill Maher show long enough to get the gist of what he's railing about these days. Bill's the polar opposite of me politically, and I find it difficult not to assign nefarious motives to his political points of view.
Somewhat predictably, he made it clear that nothing Obama's been caught doing bothers him much. To him, it's small stuff compared to his Great Satan, G.W. Bush. His message was, so what if Obama made stuff up to cover his tail on Benghazi - that's nothing compared to what Bush did in Iraq. So what if Obama's using the IRS to harass his political adversaries - everybody does that. So what if he's investigating reporters - they probably deserved it.
I heard him wrap up his show claiming the biggest scandal perpetrated by the hated Republican Party is that Carbon has reached 400 parts per million in our atmosphere, therefore the GOP is purposefully bringing death and destruction to the entire planet. Hyperbole much, Bill?
Something I have learned in individual conversations with Democrats is that many of them are extremely loyal to their party. That loyalty translates into a blind support for Obama, regardless of his actual actions in office.
Try to tell them about Fast & Furious, the IRS harrassment of his enemies, Benghazi, sending his EPA out to shut down the entire coal industry, making sure all Federal lands are off-limits for oil and gas exploration, trying to outlaw fracking, investigating news reporters, supporting infanticide, and on and on. They'll reject every story out of hand, and refuse to even consider whether or not they are true. A favorite response from a Democrat to any attempt to educate them is, "Oh, you're just listening to Limbaugh".
Because if they actually are forced to face the truth about the leaders of their chosen party, it would destroy them. Because they have given their entire mind, heart, and soul to the Democrats. Because they've spent a lifetime convincing themselves that they're good, caring people because they support Democrat good, caring causes. If all they've invested suddenly is revealed to be a sham, their life no longer holds meaning.
I'm sorry for them. See, I don't have an emotional connection to Republicans. I actually disagree with the Republican Party quite often, and really don't care much for many of the party's leaders (McCain, Graham, Boehner, Cantor to name a few). I don't hate them, but I don't believe they truly have and act on any definable set of principles.
But Republicans promote policies that I prefer over those promoted by Democrats. I agree with Republican policies about 80 percent of the time, and Democrat policies maybe 2 percent of the time. So I've got noplace else to go.
I tried to defend Bush when he was attacked unfairly, which was pretty much every day. But I was against many of his signature achievements, especially Medicare Part D and No Child Left Behind. I didn't oppose his action to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, but then became concerned that he seemed naive that Iraqis might embrace us as liberators, as we found quickly that they did not. And it took Bush way too long to realize that a Marshall Plan for Iraq simply wasn't going to work.
But now we have a president who pushes policies I strongly disagree with just about 100 percent of the time. He's an egregious and shameless liar who makes me cringe whenever I hear one of his speeches. And his corruption and tyrranical tendencies are just now starting to leak out and become public.
I'm old enough to not be as worried for my own future. I probably won't be able to retire with the same level of Social Security and Medicare benefits as my parents, but I'm doing all I can to prepare to enter retirement self-sufficient. I'm more concerned for my children, who are going to have to suffer under what looks like will become a totalitarian regime. They won't have an American Dream to pursue, and will be stuck in the gray drugery of life in a Socialist society where dreams are frowned upon.
If only there was something I could do to wake people up so they could shake off the bonds placed on them by an entrenched government. Beyond this small blog and supporting candidates who seem to share my worldview, there doesn't seem to be much I can do to have an effect.
Somewhat predictably, he made it clear that nothing Obama's been caught doing bothers him much. To him, it's small stuff compared to his Great Satan, G.W. Bush. His message was, so what if Obama made stuff up to cover his tail on Benghazi - that's nothing compared to what Bush did in Iraq. So what if Obama's using the IRS to harass his political adversaries - everybody does that. So what if he's investigating reporters - they probably deserved it.
I heard him wrap up his show claiming the biggest scandal perpetrated by the hated Republican Party is that Carbon has reached 400 parts per million in our atmosphere, therefore the GOP is purposefully bringing death and destruction to the entire planet. Hyperbole much, Bill?
Something I have learned in individual conversations with Democrats is that many of them are extremely loyal to their party. That loyalty translates into a blind support for Obama, regardless of his actual actions in office.
Try to tell them about Fast & Furious, the IRS harrassment of his enemies, Benghazi, sending his EPA out to shut down the entire coal industry, making sure all Federal lands are off-limits for oil and gas exploration, trying to outlaw fracking, investigating news reporters, supporting infanticide, and on and on. They'll reject every story out of hand, and refuse to even consider whether or not they are true. A favorite response from a Democrat to any attempt to educate them is, "Oh, you're just listening to Limbaugh".
Because if they actually are forced to face the truth about the leaders of their chosen party, it would destroy them. Because they have given their entire mind, heart, and soul to the Democrats. Because they've spent a lifetime convincing themselves that they're good, caring people because they support Democrat good, caring causes. If all they've invested suddenly is revealed to be a sham, their life no longer holds meaning.
I'm sorry for them. See, I don't have an emotional connection to Republicans. I actually disagree with the Republican Party quite often, and really don't care much for many of the party's leaders (McCain, Graham, Boehner, Cantor to name a few). I don't hate them, but I don't believe they truly have and act on any definable set of principles.
But Republicans promote policies that I prefer over those promoted by Democrats. I agree with Republican policies about 80 percent of the time, and Democrat policies maybe 2 percent of the time. So I've got noplace else to go.
I tried to defend Bush when he was attacked unfairly, which was pretty much every day. But I was against many of his signature achievements, especially Medicare Part D and No Child Left Behind. I didn't oppose his action to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, but then became concerned that he seemed naive that Iraqis might embrace us as liberators, as we found quickly that they did not. And it took Bush way too long to realize that a Marshall Plan for Iraq simply wasn't going to work.
But now we have a president who pushes policies I strongly disagree with just about 100 percent of the time. He's an egregious and shameless liar who makes me cringe whenever I hear one of his speeches. And his corruption and tyrranical tendencies are just now starting to leak out and become public.
I'm old enough to not be as worried for my own future. I probably won't be able to retire with the same level of Social Security and Medicare benefits as my parents, but I'm doing all I can to prepare to enter retirement self-sufficient. I'm more concerned for my children, who are going to have to suffer under what looks like will become a totalitarian regime. They won't have an American Dream to pursue, and will be stuck in the gray drugery of life in a Socialist society where dreams are frowned upon.
If only there was something I could do to wake people up so they could shake off the bonds placed on them by an entrenched government. Beyond this small blog and supporting candidates who seem to share my worldview, there doesn't seem to be much I can do to have an effect.
Monday, May 20, 2013
Shifting Gears
Time out from politics. Let's talk sports.
It was nice to see the Pacers take care of the Knicks this weekend. Got to admit I was a little concerned that George Hill's concussion was going to end up allowing the Knicks to force a game 7 back at MSG. Happily my concerns were unnecessary. The Knicks had their 3rd quarter run and grabbed the lead for a bit, and I admit to thinking, "Here we go".
The Pacers were not going to be denied, and it seemed to me they understood well that they couldn't afford to let the series go to a seventh game. I actually rather enjoyed seeing Steven A Smith after the game looking like his puppy just got run over. He predictably blamed the officials, then dismissed the awesome Hibbert block of Carmelo at the rim with a laughable "The guy's 7'2" - He's supposed to block shots. It wasn't that big of a play!". OK, Steve, go ahead and believe that.
Today's funny story is that some sports guy misquoted Frank Vogel in an obvious attempt to get Lebron riled up. It worked. Lebron's riled up because he thinks Vogel said the Heat is "just another team". Silliness.
Is there any way the Pacers will get past the Heat to get into the Finals? Sure I hope so. If only to see the egg on the faces of virtually every ESPN commentator who are absolutely certain the Heat will win.
In the meantime, the Blackhawks are tied 1-1 with Detroit. I'm surprised that the Hawks allowed the Red Wings to blow them out at home in game 2. Somehow I think they'll be OK in the long run. It doesn't seem likely that this deep, talented, and dominating team is going to let the geriatric gang from Detroit bounce them from the playoffs early.
I'm waiting for Toews to find his game - its strange that he's pretty much been shut out in the playoffs. Whether or not number 19 gets back into the scoring column matters less than the Hawks finding a way as a team to re-establish themselves as the best team in the NHL and eventually carry off the Stanley Cup.
It was nice to see the Pacers take care of the Knicks this weekend. Got to admit I was a little concerned that George Hill's concussion was going to end up allowing the Knicks to force a game 7 back at MSG. Happily my concerns were unnecessary. The Knicks had their 3rd quarter run and grabbed the lead for a bit, and I admit to thinking, "Here we go".
The Pacers were not going to be denied, and it seemed to me they understood well that they couldn't afford to let the series go to a seventh game. I actually rather enjoyed seeing Steven A Smith after the game looking like his puppy just got run over. He predictably blamed the officials, then dismissed the awesome Hibbert block of Carmelo at the rim with a laughable "The guy's 7'2" - He's supposed to block shots. It wasn't that big of a play!". OK, Steve, go ahead and believe that.
Today's funny story is that some sports guy misquoted Frank Vogel in an obvious attempt to get Lebron riled up. It worked. Lebron's riled up because he thinks Vogel said the Heat is "just another team". Silliness.
Is there any way the Pacers will get past the Heat to get into the Finals? Sure I hope so. If only to see the egg on the faces of virtually every ESPN commentator who are absolutely certain the Heat will win.
In the meantime, the Blackhawks are tied 1-1 with Detroit. I'm surprised that the Hawks allowed the Red Wings to blow them out at home in game 2. Somehow I think they'll be OK in the long run. It doesn't seem likely that this deep, talented, and dominating team is going to let the geriatric gang from Detroit bounce them from the playoffs early.
I'm waiting for Toews to find his game - its strange that he's pretty much been shut out in the playoffs. Whether or not number 19 gets back into the scoring column matters less than the Hawks finding a way as a team to re-establish themselves as the best team in the NHL and eventually carry off the Stanley Cup.
A Big Difference between Republicans and Democrats
The big difference is that Democrats will protect their own, no matter what.
Republicans refused to protect Richard Nixon over Watergate. So he resigned to avoid going through the impeachment process, which of course the Democrats were itching to bring against him. They were miffed when he resigned and denied them the pleasure.
Obama makes Nixon look like an amateur. Yet there's virtually no chance articles of impeachment will ever make it to the floor of the House. For a couple of reasons: First, Republicans know there's absolutely no way they can get enough Democrat Senators to join them to get the two-thirds vote needed to convict. Most likely there would not be a single Democrat vote to convict. Second, Democrats are very disciplined about circling the wagons around their leaders. Nobody's going to break out and blow the whistle, a la Dean.
Obama could have been caught standing over a hundred bodies of slaughtered Tea Party members in the Oval office with his gun still smoking. And Senate Democrats still would refuse to convict him.
From where I sit, Obama more than deserves to be impeached. In a just world, the entire congress of the United States should be united in demanding he be removed from office immediately. Those who don't demand that should be removed from office themselves.
Thus the biggest sign that we've lost America to the Socialist/Communist Left is simply the fact that all of the Democrats in congress will block any and all attempts to hold him accountable for his tyrannical activities. And they'll get re-elected by an ignorant mass of people who care only that their government checks keep coming.
How about a new idea? Let's make a deal with Mexico. Suppose we open up the border for awhile to let all conservative and liberarian types from the U.S. buy up all the property in Mexico while we give the Left what they want so badly in allowing all the poor Mexicans to stream across into the north.
Then let the new residents of Mexico set up our government south of the border to mirror that instituted by the founders, and let the liberals complete their transformation of North America into their dream of a social democracy.
Then we'll control the border to cap the number of people who want to escape the Leftist Utopia to be free in the new Mexico, so as not to damage our booming economy.
Just a thought.
Republicans refused to protect Richard Nixon over Watergate. So he resigned to avoid going through the impeachment process, which of course the Democrats were itching to bring against him. They were miffed when he resigned and denied them the pleasure.
Obama makes Nixon look like an amateur. Yet there's virtually no chance articles of impeachment will ever make it to the floor of the House. For a couple of reasons: First, Republicans know there's absolutely no way they can get enough Democrat Senators to join them to get the two-thirds vote needed to convict. Most likely there would not be a single Democrat vote to convict. Second, Democrats are very disciplined about circling the wagons around their leaders. Nobody's going to break out and blow the whistle, a la Dean.
Obama could have been caught standing over a hundred bodies of slaughtered Tea Party members in the Oval office with his gun still smoking. And Senate Democrats still would refuse to convict him.
From where I sit, Obama more than deserves to be impeached. In a just world, the entire congress of the United States should be united in demanding he be removed from office immediately. Those who don't demand that should be removed from office themselves.
Thus the biggest sign that we've lost America to the Socialist/Communist Left is simply the fact that all of the Democrats in congress will block any and all attempts to hold him accountable for his tyrannical activities. And they'll get re-elected by an ignorant mass of people who care only that their government checks keep coming.
How about a new idea? Let's make a deal with Mexico. Suppose we open up the border for awhile to let all conservative and liberarian types from the U.S. buy up all the property in Mexico while we give the Left what they want so badly in allowing all the poor Mexicans to stream across into the north.
Then let the new residents of Mexico set up our government south of the border to mirror that instituted by the founders, and let the liberals complete their transformation of North America into their dream of a social democracy.
Then we'll control the border to cap the number of people who want to escape the Leftist Utopia to be free in the new Mexico, so as not to damage our booming economy.
Just a thought.
Friday, May 17, 2013
Why I'm Fed Up with Washington
I'm off today. So I had a chance to watch the hearing with the former "Acting Director" from the IRS about the scandal. I found out he is just like everybody else in Obama's world. Delaying, denying, acting ignorant, spinning desperately to avoid answering any question at all.
He knew about the targeting of conservative groups, but then claimed he had nothing to do with it. He was exposed as lying in a previous session with the congressional committee, but flatly denied it by saying, "I stand by my earlier testimony". He refused to name names, over and over again, when asked, "Who authorized this?" He blamed low-level functionaries in Cinncinnati, but admitted that the hierarchy knew about it. His testimony was full of contradictions. His self-defense seems to be incompetence, yet somehow he knew what was going on and even tried to defend it by saying it was done to improve efficiency.
He's already out. In a just world his government career is over (but just watch, Obama will reward him with a cushy appointment somewhere else in the government). So why can't he just honestly tell the nation what happened?
What do I think happened? I have a theory.
After the "Citizens United" case was decided at the Supreme Court, Obama was angry. He thought it was outrageous that conservative candidates might now have the opportunity to raise money from their natural constituencies in Corporate America, just as Democrats have been raising money for generations from Unions and Trial Lawyers and Leftist billionaires like Soros. Everybody in Obama's circle shared his outrage, including the Bureaucrat class.
Whenever they gather, they talk about the unfairness of it all. Why now the horrible Tea Party and other extreme right wing groups would be allowed to set up their own tax-exempt organizations in direct competition with Media Matters and MoveOn.org which might result in Obama being replaced by Mitt Romney! The IRS bureaucrats didn't need direction from the Obama campaign to know they didn't want that to happen.
So they created this system. Pull out all obviously right-wing applications for tax exempt status. Delay, harass, and attempt to collect private information about their donor lists and their political activities. Deny their applications whenever you can. Leak their donor lists to the Democrat activist groups when you think you can get away with it.
Of course Obama knew. Obviously Axelrod knew and approved. They would give a hearty pat on the back and "Well Done" to Miller and the other bureaucrats whenever they saw them. But they of course were careful not to put anything incriminating in writing. Miller made sure the IRS did everything they could to help the Obama campaign by throwing up obstacles in front of all the conservative groups. Obama is very thankful.
So nobody's going to come clean with the information sought by the investigation. This one will go the way of Fast & Furious and most likely Benghazi. Obama will slam the door on all investigations so no evidence can be collected. He will make sure everyone with direct knowledge of what actually happened is intimidated or bribed in whatever way is necessary to keep them quiet.
And for the next three years, America will have nothing but the uneasy feeling that their government is terribly corrupt and possibly even tyrannical. But nobody at the top who is actually responsible will ever go to jail, or even lose their job.
He knew about the targeting of conservative groups, but then claimed he had nothing to do with it. He was exposed as lying in a previous session with the congressional committee, but flatly denied it by saying, "I stand by my earlier testimony". He refused to name names, over and over again, when asked, "Who authorized this?" He blamed low-level functionaries in Cinncinnati, but admitted that the hierarchy knew about it. His testimony was full of contradictions. His self-defense seems to be incompetence, yet somehow he knew what was going on and even tried to defend it by saying it was done to improve efficiency.
He's already out. In a just world his government career is over (but just watch, Obama will reward him with a cushy appointment somewhere else in the government). So why can't he just honestly tell the nation what happened?
What do I think happened? I have a theory.
After the "Citizens United" case was decided at the Supreme Court, Obama was angry. He thought it was outrageous that conservative candidates might now have the opportunity to raise money from their natural constituencies in Corporate America, just as Democrats have been raising money for generations from Unions and Trial Lawyers and Leftist billionaires like Soros. Everybody in Obama's circle shared his outrage, including the Bureaucrat class.
Whenever they gather, they talk about the unfairness of it all. Why now the horrible Tea Party and other extreme right wing groups would be allowed to set up their own tax-exempt organizations in direct competition with Media Matters and MoveOn.org which might result in Obama being replaced by Mitt Romney! The IRS bureaucrats didn't need direction from the Obama campaign to know they didn't want that to happen.
So they created this system. Pull out all obviously right-wing applications for tax exempt status. Delay, harass, and attempt to collect private information about their donor lists and their political activities. Deny their applications whenever you can. Leak their donor lists to the Democrat activist groups when you think you can get away with it.
Of course Obama knew. Obviously Axelrod knew and approved. They would give a hearty pat on the back and "Well Done" to Miller and the other bureaucrats whenever they saw them. But they of course were careful not to put anything incriminating in writing. Miller made sure the IRS did everything they could to help the Obama campaign by throwing up obstacles in front of all the conservative groups. Obama is very thankful.
So nobody's going to come clean with the information sought by the investigation. This one will go the way of Fast & Furious and most likely Benghazi. Obama will slam the door on all investigations so no evidence can be collected. He will make sure everyone with direct knowledge of what actually happened is intimidated or bribed in whatever way is necessary to keep them quiet.
And for the next three years, America will have nothing but the uneasy feeling that their government is terribly corrupt and possibly even tyrannical. But nobody at the top who is actually responsible will ever go to jail, or even lose their job.
Thursday, May 16, 2013
American Conversation
Setting: Lunchtime in a company lunch room.
People are seated at tables throughout the room. I'm at a table with Sally and Jane (not their real names).
Sally blurts out,
"I can't stand that guy".
I follow her gaze to the corner where a television is on. Picture only, no sound.
John Boehner is speaking behind a podium. I can't tell what he's speaking about, because there's no sound and no hints on the screen.
"You mean John Boehner?", I ask Sally.
"Yeah", she answers. "I can't stand to even look at him".
That intrigued me, so I decided to try to find out what was motivating her hatred.
"Why do you hate John Boehner?" I asked.
"I just can't stand the guy" she responded.
"But what is it about him that you hate so much?" I pressed.
"Just look at him!", she exclaimed. "Those shifty eyes, that fake tan ..."
"OK, so you think he has shifty eyes and a fake tan", I repeated. "I have never been good at looking at somebody's eyes and from that knowing whether they're a good or bad person. Maybe you have a special intuition about those things."
"Do you hate him just because of those things, or is there more to it than that?"
After thinking for awhile, she said, "Well, he's the biggest reason Congress gets nothing done. He's such an obstructionist - for no reason!".
"Hmm, that's interesting" I said. "OK, so help me understand better. What bill did he block that you really wanted to see passed?"
The table was silent for over a minute, as each of us just continued eating our lunch without speaking. Finally I decided that Sally wasn't going to answer my question, so I picked up my sandwich wrappers to throw in the trash and stood up to leave.
"I just can't stand the guy", said Sally as I turned to leave.
People are seated at tables throughout the room. I'm at a table with Sally and Jane (not their real names).
Sally blurts out,
"I can't stand that guy".
I follow her gaze to the corner where a television is on. Picture only, no sound.
John Boehner is speaking behind a podium. I can't tell what he's speaking about, because there's no sound and no hints on the screen.
"You mean John Boehner?", I ask Sally.
"Yeah", she answers. "I can't stand to even look at him".
That intrigued me, so I decided to try to find out what was motivating her hatred.
"Why do you hate John Boehner?" I asked.
"I just can't stand the guy" she responded.
"But what is it about him that you hate so much?" I pressed.
"Just look at him!", she exclaimed. "Those shifty eyes, that fake tan ..."
"OK, so you think he has shifty eyes and a fake tan", I repeated. "I have never been good at looking at somebody's eyes and from that knowing whether they're a good or bad person. Maybe you have a special intuition about those things."
"Do you hate him just because of those things, or is there more to it than that?"
After thinking for awhile, she said, "Well, he's the biggest reason Congress gets nothing done. He's such an obstructionist - for no reason!".
"Hmm, that's interesting" I said. "OK, so help me understand better. What bill did he block that you really wanted to see passed?"
The table was silent for over a minute, as each of us just continued eating our lunch without speaking. Finally I decided that Sally wasn't going to answer my question, so I picked up my sandwich wrappers to throw in the trash and stood up to leave.
"I just can't stand the guy", said Sally as I turned to leave.
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
Not Time to Celebrate
Turn the tables and imagine for a moment that the President is a Republican. Imagine the Republican President is facing the same scandals - Benghazi, IRS targeting of Democratic organizations, snooping on all of the AP's phone records in search of a leaker. The impeachment hearings would already be concluded, and headed to the Senate for the trial.
All three scandals are consistent with everything those of us paying attention have been seeing for the past 4-plus years. The Obama Administration is secretive, thuggish, and has no regard for the constitution or the law. The ends justify the means. Obama can't get what he wants through congress? OK, I'll just order one of my agencies (EPA, ATF, Homeland Security) to do it anyway. Obama doesn't like a law? OK, we just will refuse to enforce it.
So the Benghazi "whistle-blowers" testified that they were bullied and threatened by political staffers appointed by Obama to try to stop them from appearing. So the top IRS officials, also appointed by Obama, have now been identified as the source of the illegal scrutiny the IRS has been giving to conservative groups. And I saw Eric Holder's press conference this evening, where it sure sounded to me like he was the one behind the Soviet-style investigation into the activities of the Associated Press. Strange, since the AP's long been a reliable tool of the Obama Administration.
I'm not celebrating. Even if Obama is impeached or forced to resign, I won't celebrate. Because it's a terribly sad era in American History. We're now experiencing the consequences of electing a president we knew nothing about, who promised nothing but vague notions of "hope" and "change". We might have done better to elect an avowed enemy of the United States - at least we would have known what we were getting ourselves into.
No celebrations. Sure, I'd like to see Obama kicked out of office, but all that will happen is the idiot Uncle Joe Biden will take over. It's hard to imagine things would improve under those circumstances. Ugh.
If only Obama would step up and tell the truth, just once in his life. If only he would tell us, "Yes, we screwed up big time in Benghazi. Both by failing to keep our people safe and by lying about it afterward." If only he would say, "My campaign team told my IRS appointees to make sure they did as much damage to groups supporting my opponents as humanly possible. And I'm not sorry."
But we all know the honest Obama does not exist. So no celebrations, not now, not until we get a new president.
Unless that president is Hillary. Heaven Help Us.
All three scandals are consistent with everything those of us paying attention have been seeing for the past 4-plus years. The Obama Administration is secretive, thuggish, and has no regard for the constitution or the law. The ends justify the means. Obama can't get what he wants through congress? OK, I'll just order one of my agencies (EPA, ATF, Homeland Security) to do it anyway. Obama doesn't like a law? OK, we just will refuse to enforce it.
So the Benghazi "whistle-blowers" testified that they were bullied and threatened by political staffers appointed by Obama to try to stop them from appearing. So the top IRS officials, also appointed by Obama, have now been identified as the source of the illegal scrutiny the IRS has been giving to conservative groups. And I saw Eric Holder's press conference this evening, where it sure sounded to me like he was the one behind the Soviet-style investigation into the activities of the Associated Press. Strange, since the AP's long been a reliable tool of the Obama Administration.
I'm not celebrating. Even if Obama is impeached or forced to resign, I won't celebrate. Because it's a terribly sad era in American History. We're now experiencing the consequences of electing a president we knew nothing about, who promised nothing but vague notions of "hope" and "change". We might have done better to elect an avowed enemy of the United States - at least we would have known what we were getting ourselves into.
No celebrations. Sure, I'd like to see Obama kicked out of office, but all that will happen is the idiot Uncle Joe Biden will take over. It's hard to imagine things would improve under those circumstances. Ugh.
If only Obama would step up and tell the truth, just once in his life. If only he would tell us, "Yes, we screwed up big time in Benghazi. Both by failing to keep our people safe and by lying about it afterward." If only he would say, "My campaign team told my IRS appointees to make sure they did as much damage to groups supporting my opponents as humanly possible. And I'm not sorry."
But we all know the honest Obama does not exist. So no celebrations, not now, not until we get a new president.
Unless that president is Hillary. Heaven Help Us.
Saturday, May 11, 2013
Realization
As with most Conservatives, I have been puzzled by how Democrats seem to range somewhere between denial and "So What?" when it comes to the Benghazi disaster. For example, last night on "The Five", Juan Williams represented the denial wing.
(paraphrasing) "I have yet to see any evidence that the President or Hillary did anything wrong".
Had I been given the opportunity, I would have asked him to clarify. With all the evidence collected to date, including both testimony and documentary evidence, what do you mean? Do you mean that you regard the evidence as tainted or manufactured, or are you suggesting that it all happened with underlings without the knowledge of the President or Secretary of State?
So to try to answer my own questions about why the entire nation hasn't risen up to demand Obama's resignation or impeachment, I've developed a sort of theory.
Polls suggest that a significant percentage of the population has never heard of the Benghazi incident. Many who think they have think it's about some guy named Ben Gazi.
So my theory is that some substantial number of people, perhaps more than half of the country, don't pay any attention. They don't know or care in the least about the news, and even less so about politics. These are the folks who voted for Obama twice because of his media created persona, without the slightest idea about what the guy actually believes and wants to do to the country.
Then there's the small group of loyal Democrats, who get their news from MSNBC. Many of those folks have heard of Benghazi, but they'll tell you it was simply a tragic attack on a consulate in Libya that has been politicized by Republicans simply to destroy Obama and Clinton. To them, there's no back story, no scandal, unless you want to agree with them that the scandal is the GOP hatchet job being unfairly perpetrated on their heroes with the dishonest cooperation of Fox News.
Then there are the informed Democrats, who I believe know full well what happened in Benghazi. They know that Hillary was the one who decided to reduce security after being begged by Ambassador Stevens to beef it up. They know that when the attack started, Obama told Hillary and Leon Panetta to "deal with it yourselves", then likely took Hillary's advice to order rescue troops to "stand down". They know, but they don't care. Some of them believe they did the right thing.
Democratic power in Washington is the most important thing to them. They might be disappointed in their President and future President by their behavior in this incident. But in their minds, letting the scandal be fully exposed means opening the door to having some Conservative Republican elected President in a few years. That cannot happen, regardless of how egregiously incompetent or even criminal their president has been.
So the only way the Benghazi scandal will get legs and lead to a groundswell of citizens demanding an impeachment is if informed independents join conservatives to tip the scales over 50 percent. Given the huge size and apathy of that first group I described, that seems impossible.
The best case scenario for this scandal is that Hillary's plans to take the presidency in 2016 could be derailed. But I'm not all that hopeful even for that outcome.
(paraphrasing) "I have yet to see any evidence that the President or Hillary did anything wrong".
Had I been given the opportunity, I would have asked him to clarify. With all the evidence collected to date, including both testimony and documentary evidence, what do you mean? Do you mean that you regard the evidence as tainted or manufactured, or are you suggesting that it all happened with underlings without the knowledge of the President or Secretary of State?
So to try to answer my own questions about why the entire nation hasn't risen up to demand Obama's resignation or impeachment, I've developed a sort of theory.
Polls suggest that a significant percentage of the population has never heard of the Benghazi incident. Many who think they have think it's about some guy named Ben Gazi.
So my theory is that some substantial number of people, perhaps more than half of the country, don't pay any attention. They don't know or care in the least about the news, and even less so about politics. These are the folks who voted for Obama twice because of his media created persona, without the slightest idea about what the guy actually believes and wants to do to the country.
Then there's the small group of loyal Democrats, who get their news from MSNBC. Many of those folks have heard of Benghazi, but they'll tell you it was simply a tragic attack on a consulate in Libya that has been politicized by Republicans simply to destroy Obama and Clinton. To them, there's no back story, no scandal, unless you want to agree with them that the scandal is the GOP hatchet job being unfairly perpetrated on their heroes with the dishonest cooperation of Fox News.
Then there are the informed Democrats, who I believe know full well what happened in Benghazi. They know that Hillary was the one who decided to reduce security after being begged by Ambassador Stevens to beef it up. They know that when the attack started, Obama told Hillary and Leon Panetta to "deal with it yourselves", then likely took Hillary's advice to order rescue troops to "stand down". They know, but they don't care. Some of them believe they did the right thing.
Democratic power in Washington is the most important thing to them. They might be disappointed in their President and future President by their behavior in this incident. But in their minds, letting the scandal be fully exposed means opening the door to having some Conservative Republican elected President in a few years. That cannot happen, regardless of how egregiously incompetent or even criminal their president has been.
So the only way the Benghazi scandal will get legs and lead to a groundswell of citizens demanding an impeachment is if informed independents join conservatives to tip the scales over 50 percent. Given the huge size and apathy of that first group I described, that seems impossible.
The best case scenario for this scandal is that Hillary's plans to take the presidency in 2016 could be derailed. But I'm not all that hopeful even for that outcome.
Thursday, May 09, 2013
Quick Observations
Fox News was all over the Benghazi hearing this morning. Presumably the other networks either barely mentioned it or ignored it altogether.
USA Today buried the story on Page 4. I read the story, which takes great pains to ignore many of the key points of the day. When it does report on the testimony, the writer prefers to paraphrase rather than quote. Then the writer offsets every watered-down paraphrase with a direct quote from whichever government representative seeking to refute the testimony. The net message conveyed by the USA Today writer is a Republican-inspired purely political theatrical production that doesn't even deserve anyone's attention.
If you share the USA Today's attitude, all I ask is that you find the video or even key excerpts and watch. Then tell me you don't come away with a completely different attitude about the Benghazi massacre.
Stopped for gas on the way in today, and the gas station/convenience store was very busy. So I noticed, perhaps not exactly for the first time, who was driving the hottest cars. If I may keep the same adjective, what was apparent was that in all cases, the hottest cars were being driven by the hottest women.
After a half-century of noticing that the best looking cars seem nearly always to be driven by the best looking women, may I now proceed to make the suggestion that there's a linkage? Is it reasonable to suggest the pattern comes from the most attractive women who attach themselves to the most successful men who have sufficient wealth to provide them with an upper-class lifestyle, which includes the hottest and most expensive automobiles?
I think it's safe to make those connections based on empirical data without being labeled sexist.
USA Today buried the story on Page 4. I read the story, which takes great pains to ignore many of the key points of the day. When it does report on the testimony, the writer prefers to paraphrase rather than quote. Then the writer offsets every watered-down paraphrase with a direct quote from whichever government representative seeking to refute the testimony. The net message conveyed by the USA Today writer is a Republican-inspired purely political theatrical production that doesn't even deserve anyone's attention.
If you share the USA Today's attitude, all I ask is that you find the video or even key excerpts and watch. Then tell me you don't come away with a completely different attitude about the Benghazi massacre.
Stopped for gas on the way in today, and the gas station/convenience store was very busy. So I noticed, perhaps not exactly for the first time, who was driving the hottest cars. If I may keep the same adjective, what was apparent was that in all cases, the hottest cars were being driven by the hottest women.
After a half-century of noticing that the best looking cars seem nearly always to be driven by the best looking women, may I now proceed to make the suggestion that there's a linkage? Is it reasonable to suggest the pattern comes from the most attractive women who attach themselves to the most successful men who have sufficient wealth to provide them with an upper-class lifestyle, which includes the hottest and most expensive automobiles?
I think it's safe to make those connections based on empirical data without being labeled sexist.
Wednesday, May 08, 2013
Thoughts on Mark Sanford
I used to live in South Carolina, but don't believe Sanford had surfaced on the political scene before I left. Democrats believed they had a chance to steal the House seat from South Carolina because of the former governor's famous affair with an Argentine woman.
Today they're sneering at the Republicans who returned the philanderer to Congress over their candidate, who tried very hard to present a moderate image and pretend she would not vote the Democratic party line. All Republicans who pay attention know for a 99.9% certainty that no Democrat will cross the wall to vote with the GOP on any issue, so they of course didn't fall for the charade.
The question of the day is whether electing Sanford is tantamount to GOP hypocrisy? They will be pointing out on all the left-wing "news" channels that the party that promotes "Family Values" proves it doesn't really practice what it preaches when it elects an admitted adulterer. Democrats are subject to no such scrutiny, because they reject "Family Values", so sexual misbehavior by their leaders may be ill-advised, but does not require banishment.
It must be pointed out that the Democrats are disingenuous when they equate Sanford with Bill Clinton. Sanford didn't break any laws. He never committed perjury and never suborned perjury or threatened anyone who might testify against him in court. Clinton did all of those things. So the key difference between the two cases that Democrats will never acknowledge is that their guy broke the law, while Sanford did not.
I'm disappointed that South Carolina was unable to field a strong candidate for their Republican Primary for that seat to offer a serious alternative to Sanford. If I were still there, I would have hoped for a better choice, and would be disappointed that Sanford was the only option. Because voting for the Democrat, Colbert-Busch, means voting for Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama. Which of course is far beyond the pale, and will never justify a protest vote over the adulterer who will at least vote mostly with Republicans.
If Sanford had broken the law while having his affair, that would have been too much for me. I would not have voted for him. I would have supported his GOP opponent in the primary, then skipped that race on the ballot yesterday. If the Republican Candidate is a felon, I could not support such a person with my vote. But in Sanford's case, I would have grudgingly pulled the lever for him for the chance to at least slow down the Obama-Pelosi agenda.
Today they're sneering at the Republicans who returned the philanderer to Congress over their candidate, who tried very hard to present a moderate image and pretend she would not vote the Democratic party line. All Republicans who pay attention know for a 99.9% certainty that no Democrat will cross the wall to vote with the GOP on any issue, so they of course didn't fall for the charade.
The question of the day is whether electing Sanford is tantamount to GOP hypocrisy? They will be pointing out on all the left-wing "news" channels that the party that promotes "Family Values" proves it doesn't really practice what it preaches when it elects an admitted adulterer. Democrats are subject to no such scrutiny, because they reject "Family Values", so sexual misbehavior by their leaders may be ill-advised, but does not require banishment.
It must be pointed out that the Democrats are disingenuous when they equate Sanford with Bill Clinton. Sanford didn't break any laws. He never committed perjury and never suborned perjury or threatened anyone who might testify against him in court. Clinton did all of those things. So the key difference between the two cases that Democrats will never acknowledge is that their guy broke the law, while Sanford did not.
I'm disappointed that South Carolina was unable to field a strong candidate for their Republican Primary for that seat to offer a serious alternative to Sanford. If I were still there, I would have hoped for a better choice, and would be disappointed that Sanford was the only option. Because voting for the Democrat, Colbert-Busch, means voting for Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama. Which of course is far beyond the pale, and will never justify a protest vote over the adulterer who will at least vote mostly with Republicans.
If Sanford had broken the law while having his affair, that would have been too much for me. I would not have voted for him. I would have supported his GOP opponent in the primary, then skipped that race on the ballot yesterday. If the Republican Candidate is a felon, I could not support such a person with my vote. But in Sanford's case, I would have grudgingly pulled the lever for him for the chance to at least slow down the Obama-Pelosi agenda.
Tuesday, May 07, 2013
The Story of Benghazi
It was September 11th. The anniversary of the terrorist destruction of the World Trade Center in NYC. Terrorists love to plan attacks on momentous anniversaries, but our Liberal leaders in Washington DC discounted the possibility and decided to act as if it were any other ordinary day.
Meanwhile there were multiple sources of intelligence from Libya, where insurgents drove out and killed their former dictator. The intelligence pointed strongly to a likely attack on the diplomats who happened to be away from the Tripoli embassy, doing as yet unknown business in the American Consulate in Benghazi.
The Ambassador made multiple requests of the State Department for beefed-up security, because he was well aware of the threats from Al-Qaeda linked terrorists. Sure enough, a full-scale assault took place on September 11th. It lasted more than 8 hours and ended with the death of the Ambassador plus 3 other Americans trying to fight off the terrorists.
The attack was of course immediately reported to Washington. Special Operations Commandos were ready to deploy immediately to drive off the attackers and rescue the Ambassador and the other Americans that were with him. Washington ordered the commandos to "stand down". The Ambassador, a computer specialist, and two CIA agents were abused, tortured, and killed.
The White House convened an emergency meeting the next day to construct a cover story. They threw away the actual assessment provided by the CIA and other Intelligence sources in order to concoct their own fabrication about a protest over some YouTube video they claimed was disrespectful of Islam.
They sent Susan Rice, one of Hillary's top assistants at State, out to all the Sunday news shows to deliver the false story that the event was merely a protest over the video that sort of got out of control.
Today, three people with direct knowledge of the events of that day are scheduled to testify in front of congress. Previews of their testimony suggest that they're prepared to expose Hillary as a liar and schemer who was in the middle of the Stand-Down order, the decision-maker who denied the Ambassador's requests for higher security (in fact, she ordered security to be drawn down), and either the source of or an active participant in the creation of the false narrative about the YouTube video.
What we probably will never know are the answers to these questions:
1. What was Ambassador Stevens doing in Benghazi in the first place? What was his mission there?
2. Why did Hillary ignore the Ambassador's pleas for better security, and actually reduce his protection in response?
3. Why were the commandos ordered to stand down once the attack was underway? Who issued the order? (It's the Commander-in-Chief's job, so I think that's the obvious answer)
4. Why was it something like 23 days before investigators arrived on the site of the attack? Why was the site of the attack left open and unprotected during that entire time, when anyone could have entered and taken evidence and documents away without delay?
5. Reports suggest that America knows the identities of several of the attackers, but has yet to try to capture them?
The fact we don't have answers to these questions is disturbing. I have no reason to believe these questions will be answered today. The only people who know the answers are Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and their senior staff. And none of those will ever tell.
Democrats have no defense other than to call the whole investigation a GOP witch hunt. I haven't heard any member of the Administration, the State Department, or the Democratic Party attempt to offer a plausible explanation for what happened on 9/11. They instead fight back with charges of GOP partisan destruction (Dan Rather says the Republicans want to tear out Obama's heart and feed his liver to the dogs).
Mike Huckabee thinks this will destroy the Obama presidency and that he will be forced to leave office before the end of his term because of what will be revealed in this investigation. I think he's dreaming. Bill Clinton skated on his sex scandal, committing and suborning perjury, and using the power of the presidency to intimidate witnesses against offering testimony. So Obama will skate on this scandal, just as he did on Fast & Furious.
The only political question is whether this will destroy Hillary's chances to be nominated, then elected the next president. In a sane, reasonable world, Hillary wouldn't have a snowball's chance in Hell. In our insane upside-down world, Snowmen thrive amidst the flames of the netherworld.
Meanwhile there were multiple sources of intelligence from Libya, where insurgents drove out and killed their former dictator. The intelligence pointed strongly to a likely attack on the diplomats who happened to be away from the Tripoli embassy, doing as yet unknown business in the American Consulate in Benghazi.
The Ambassador made multiple requests of the State Department for beefed-up security, because he was well aware of the threats from Al-Qaeda linked terrorists. Sure enough, a full-scale assault took place on September 11th. It lasted more than 8 hours and ended with the death of the Ambassador plus 3 other Americans trying to fight off the terrorists.
The attack was of course immediately reported to Washington. Special Operations Commandos were ready to deploy immediately to drive off the attackers and rescue the Ambassador and the other Americans that were with him. Washington ordered the commandos to "stand down". The Ambassador, a computer specialist, and two CIA agents were abused, tortured, and killed.
The White House convened an emergency meeting the next day to construct a cover story. They threw away the actual assessment provided by the CIA and other Intelligence sources in order to concoct their own fabrication about a protest over some YouTube video they claimed was disrespectful of Islam.
They sent Susan Rice, one of Hillary's top assistants at State, out to all the Sunday news shows to deliver the false story that the event was merely a protest over the video that sort of got out of control.
Today, three people with direct knowledge of the events of that day are scheduled to testify in front of congress. Previews of their testimony suggest that they're prepared to expose Hillary as a liar and schemer who was in the middle of the Stand-Down order, the decision-maker who denied the Ambassador's requests for higher security (in fact, she ordered security to be drawn down), and either the source of or an active participant in the creation of the false narrative about the YouTube video.
What we probably will never know are the answers to these questions:
1. What was Ambassador Stevens doing in Benghazi in the first place? What was his mission there?
2. Why did Hillary ignore the Ambassador's pleas for better security, and actually reduce his protection in response?
3. Why were the commandos ordered to stand down once the attack was underway? Who issued the order? (It's the Commander-in-Chief's job, so I think that's the obvious answer)
4. Why was it something like 23 days before investigators arrived on the site of the attack? Why was the site of the attack left open and unprotected during that entire time, when anyone could have entered and taken evidence and documents away without delay?
5. Reports suggest that America knows the identities of several of the attackers, but has yet to try to capture them?
The fact we don't have answers to these questions is disturbing. I have no reason to believe these questions will be answered today. The only people who know the answers are Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and their senior staff. And none of those will ever tell.
Democrats have no defense other than to call the whole investigation a GOP witch hunt. I haven't heard any member of the Administration, the State Department, or the Democratic Party attempt to offer a plausible explanation for what happened on 9/11. They instead fight back with charges of GOP partisan destruction (Dan Rather says the Republicans want to tear out Obama's heart and feed his liver to the dogs).
Mike Huckabee thinks this will destroy the Obama presidency and that he will be forced to leave office before the end of his term because of what will be revealed in this investigation. I think he's dreaming. Bill Clinton skated on his sex scandal, committing and suborning perjury, and using the power of the presidency to intimidate witnesses against offering testimony. So Obama will skate on this scandal, just as he did on Fast & Furious.
The only political question is whether this will destroy Hillary's chances to be nominated, then elected the next president. In a sane, reasonable world, Hillary wouldn't have a snowball's chance in Hell. In our insane upside-down world, Snowmen thrive amidst the flames of the netherworld.
Friday, May 03, 2013
How We Got Into This Mess
Is very simple. America abandoned God. We kicked him out of our schools and called it "Separation of Church and State". A phrase which appears nowhere in the Constitution, by the way, and has been misused to mean something entirely different from what Thomas Jefferson meant when he penned it in a letter.
We abandoned his commandments when the Supreme Court "discovered" a brand-new constitutional right to privacy, which they proceeded to twist into a right to murder babies.
We are not engaged in a no-holds-barred race to become the modern Sodom & Gomorrah. The media hates one professional athlete (Tim Tebow) for professing his Christianity, while they celebrate another (Jason Collins) for "courageously" announcing he likes to have sex with other men.
Our country wouldn't be in the terrible mess it's in if it were not for our abandonment of God:
We wouldn't have had the economic collapse if a corrupt government hadn't colluded with greedy financiers to create the overheated mortgage market where unqualified home buyers were given loans they could never pay back.
We wouldn't have a healthcare crisis if a corrupt government hadn't colluded with greedy insurance companies and organizations which exist solely for the exploitation of poor people to eventually pass the most corrupt healthcare bill in history.
We wouldn't be arguing about "gay marriage", period.
We wouldn't be in a rush to forgive untold millions of illegal immigrants in order to give them Democratic Voter Registration Cards if we cared about the security of our country and treating immigrants fairly.
We wouldn't be arguing over new bans on firearms if we hadn't decided to "save money" by closing all of the facilities for the mentally ill, turning the insane loose on society to shoot a bunch of folks for no reason now and then.
We wouldn't have as many unemployed people if more folks took seriously their responsibilities to provide for their families.
We wouldn't have 88 percent of girls under 20 having illegitimate children if we even tried to instill basic morality in our children anymore.
We wouldn't have record levels of unmarried domestic partnerships if we actually respected God's sacrament of marriage.
I could continue, but this should be enough to convey the idea. Our own founding fathers predicted that this unique Republic, which was blessed to be the most free and most prosperous country in the history of the planet, could not withstand a departure from God.
We cannot withstand God's turning his back on us. That's why when totalitarian government takes full control, we should not be shocked. Those of us who know enough are very saddened, though.
We abandoned his commandments when the Supreme Court "discovered" a brand-new constitutional right to privacy, which they proceeded to twist into a right to murder babies.
We are not engaged in a no-holds-barred race to become the modern Sodom & Gomorrah. The media hates one professional athlete (Tim Tebow) for professing his Christianity, while they celebrate another (Jason Collins) for "courageously" announcing he likes to have sex with other men.
Our country wouldn't be in the terrible mess it's in if it were not for our abandonment of God:
We wouldn't have had the economic collapse if a corrupt government hadn't colluded with greedy financiers to create the overheated mortgage market where unqualified home buyers were given loans they could never pay back.
We wouldn't have a healthcare crisis if a corrupt government hadn't colluded with greedy insurance companies and organizations which exist solely for the exploitation of poor people to eventually pass the most corrupt healthcare bill in history.
We wouldn't be arguing about "gay marriage", period.
We wouldn't be in a rush to forgive untold millions of illegal immigrants in order to give them Democratic Voter Registration Cards if we cared about the security of our country and treating immigrants fairly.
We wouldn't be arguing over new bans on firearms if we hadn't decided to "save money" by closing all of the facilities for the mentally ill, turning the insane loose on society to shoot a bunch of folks for no reason now and then.
We wouldn't have as many unemployed people if more folks took seriously their responsibilities to provide for their families.
We wouldn't have 88 percent of girls under 20 having illegitimate children if we even tried to instill basic morality in our children anymore.
We wouldn't have record levels of unmarried domestic partnerships if we actually respected God's sacrament of marriage.
I could continue, but this should be enough to convey the idea. Our own founding fathers predicted that this unique Republic, which was blessed to be the most free and most prosperous country in the history of the planet, could not withstand a departure from God.
We cannot withstand God's turning his back on us. That's why when totalitarian government takes full control, we should not be shocked. Those of us who know enough are very saddened, though.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)