No Room for Gun Control

The recent mass shooting in Aurora, CO have renewed calls for more gun control from the usual suspects.

New York Mayor Bloomberg, Michael Moore, various celebrities, and virtually every leftist talking head have called for new laws and restrictions on the ownership or possession of guns or ammo.

The problem is that there is no room for gun control anymore.

There are only two types of gun control laws: 'small laws' and 'big laws'.

Small laws are the incremental restrictions that try to ban the little things: bayonet lugs, flash hiders, one-gun-per-month, large capacity magazines, armor piercing ammo, and so on.

Large laws are the complete ban of firearms or types on firearms: local gun bans, banning handguns, banning assault weapons, etc. 

Here is the problem for erstwhile gun control fanatics: the small laws don't work, and the big ones have been struck down by the Supreme Court.

The small laws have been tried for decades in various configurations. The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, for example.  All of these laws have had zero effect on crime.  Banning Saturday night specials did not reduce handgun crime at all.  Nor did banning the importation of certain guns, nor restricting teflon coated ammunition. None of it worked to reduce gun crime. 

The big laws were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.  The Court held that the Second Amendment meant what it said: there is a right to keep and bear arms.  Therefore all the laws banning the possession of firearms are null and void.  You cannot ban entire classes of weapons, nor can you restrict the ownership of guns. 

So with the small laws proven to be ineffective and the big laws off limits, there is no room left for gun control.

The American public has figured this out, and support for gun control has dropped to post-war record lows.  The voting power of the pro-gun lobby has made gun control measures impossible to pass, and politically lethal for politicians except those ensconced in the most liberal districts.

100 Degrees of Hot Air

100 Degrees of Hot Air

It is 100 degrees out today, so it seems like the perfect time to talk about Global Warming.  Err, Climate Change.  Whatever they call it now.

It seems the Inter Academy Council (IAC) just release a new report about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports.

You know what it says?  It says all the previous IPCC reports are complete and utter lies.  They are 100 degrees of hot air.

Well, it does not use those exact works.  But it does make some startling admissions that show pretty clearly that all of the previous reports were politically motivated junk masquerading as science by a pretty important organization.

"The IPCC is the world's most prominent source of alarmist predictions and claims about man-made global warming. Its four reports (a fifth report is scheduled for release in various parts in 2013 and 2014) are cited by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the U.S. and by national academies of science around the world as "proof" that the global warming of the past five or so decades was both man-made and evidence of a mounting crisis."

"The IAC reported that IPCC lead authors fail to give "due consideration ... to properly documented alternative views" (p. 20), fail to "provide detailed written responses to the most significant review issues identified by the Review Editors" (p. 21), and are not "consider[ing] review comments carefully and document[ing] their responses" (p. 22). 

In plain English: the IPCC reports are not peer-reviewed.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/ipcc_admits_its_past_reports_were_junk.html#ixzz20uqTjtu9

There are further criticisms:

The IAC notes that the summary sections are 'too political'.  Since the summary part is the only part that laymen and the new media ever read, everything we have been told about climate change has been 'too political'.  And by 'too political', they mean 'not science at all'.

False use of confidence intervals gives the report more gravitas than it deserves.  Confidence intervals have a specific meaning in statistics and science.  The IPCC would ask people for their opinions and then report that global warming predictions have an '80% confidence', conflating mere opinion for science.

The IPCC summary findings are no more than opinion polls of true believers.  This would be like going to a church and asking all the congregants if they are confident that there is a god, and then reporting that there is a 80% scientific certainty that god exists.

If you ask people who will directly benefit from solving the problem if the problem is real, of course you get 80% confidence.  The real question is, who are the 20% of  'climate scientists' that do not believe that climate change is real??

There are more problems than this, but the point is made. 

Several years ago skeptics began to question the processes and assumptions of the IPCC.  They were ignored by the press, and ridiculed by the warmist community.

Well, now the IAC has admitted the truth.  The IPCC reports are not science.  They are political manifestos trumped up to look like science.

Can we please stop talking about climate change?  It is time we all accept that the gig is up, the news is out.  Climate Change is a hoax perpetrated by Leftists to gain personal power, money, and glorious headlines. 

Worshipping the Collective

President Obama has been on the campaign trail a lot recently, and this has allowed him to be a little more revealing about who he is and what he believes.

You didn’t get there on your own...

Recently he told an audience  “There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me because they want to give something back,” the president said. “If you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own.”

He expounds on this with “If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges.

He concludes with "If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen,” he said.

These statements are very revealing, a window into the soul of the man who leads our Federal Government.

When there is success he sees the work of the collective.  He denigrates and diminishes the effort and the sacrifices of the entrepreneur.  He sees only the fruit of the government and the benefits of the government.

This flies in the face of actual experience.

Where individualism is allowed and encouraged, people and nations prosper.  This is not opinion -- this is fact.  The Heritage Foundation data clearly demonstrates that liberty drives wealth, not government 'investment'.   One glance at history reveals that collectivism results only in poverty for the masses.

The idea that the business man owes something back to society is the root of evil, not the virtue that Obama claims it to be.

The entrepreneur makes sacrifices and takes risks.  He works incredibly hard.  He does all of this in the face of competitors and a government makes this success as hard as possible.

We owe a huge debt of gratitude to the entrepreneur and the business man.  They are the ones that make everything in our society possible.  If you are reading this on a computer, you should thank Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, not the government.

The worship of the collective is the path to hell.  It has impoverished and oppressed billions, and murdered a hundred million more.

Obama needs to step away from the mirror and look at the real world where businessmen to far more good for mankind than parasitic politicians.

Justice Roberts, Media Whore

Now we know that Justice Roberts sold our Republic out in order to 'protect the reputation of the Court'.

From Beltway Confidential:
Chief Justice John Roberts voted against Obamacare, but then — in a move that angered his conservative colleagues — switched his vote as he became convinced that a 5-4 ruling against the law would damage the reputation of the Supreme Court.

Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy went through weeks of debate with each other, as Kennedy tried to convince Roberts to strike down the law and Roberts wrangled with Kennedy to create a 6-3 majority in support of the bill, “two sources with specific knowledge of the deliberations,” told CBS News.

This is shocking. Truly shocking.

Rather than execute his sworn duty to uphold and defend the Constitution, he upheld Obamacare because he was worried that the liberal media would say bad things about him.

This is beyond shocking.

This is grounds for impeachment.

The venial stupidity of the ruling damages the Court far more than any rational ruling would, no matter how unpopular the decision.

Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life precisely so that they do not have to curry favor with the public or the media.  The fact that he worries about his reputation in the media so much that he places it above the welfare of the nation and the rule of law is unconscionable. .

It is unthinkable that a Justice would change his mind on a matter of such incredible importance for such a trivial and banal reason.

Justice Roberts is a media whore, unfit to serve on the Supreme Court.

Turn Out the Lights

Will the last honest person in Washington please turn out the lights?

It is pretty clear now that we are in the end phase of our experiment on liberty.  We are about to find out if this nation, or any nation, dedicated to the idea that all men are created equal can long endure.

Justice John Roberts has put the final nail in the coffin of our Liberty.

His decision that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was Constitutional is a travesty.  An abomination. A clear case of sophistry and incoherence passed off as law.  Essentially, he decided that Obamacare can stand because the mandated payments by people without insurance were at tax, not a mandate.  He decided this even though the clear langauge of the law stated that it was not a tax, and the people who passed it at the time insisted it was not a tax.  In fact, the Democrats STILL will not admit that it is a tax. 

This is enough to make Lady Liberty's head explode.

The Justice Roberts had the temerity to say that it is not the Court's job to protect the American people from the political choices that we make.  While the may be true, it is most certainly his job to protect the Constitution from the poltical choices we make.

This ruling ends our experitment with the idea of a Constitutional Republic and a government of Limited Powers. 

The Federal Government now has unlimited power to regulate and tax every aspect of American life.  There are no longer any limits.  None.  We are no longer citizens. We are subjects.

• We have also discarded the idea of checks and balances between the branches.  We have the Congress openly ignoring its duties to pass budgets and authorize spending.  There has been no Federal budget approved in over 3 years but they continue to spend money at a pace that will bankrupt the nation within the decade. Congress is standing idle as out nation spins into a death spiral.  Congress are a laughingstock, the court jesters to King Obama.
• The President has assumed imperial powers.  He is in contempt of Congress, appointing officers without approval from the Senate, creating new laws through executive orders while refusing to enforce legitimate laws like DOMA and immigration law.  He has abused his powers in barring oil exploration, expanding the regulatory state, starting wars with sovereign nations, shipping arms to drug cartels, banning oil pipelines.  Obama as Emperor.
• The Supreme Court is the last bastion of our Liberty and they have utterly abdicated the field.  They have made a number of rulings that fly in the face of plain language, common sense, and the Rule of Law.  The Obamacare debacle is but the latest and most egregious example.  Lest we forget, the first amendment no longer covers speech within 60 days of an election, and emiment domain taking for the public good now allow for your property to be summarily transfered to another citizen as long as they claim they will pay higher taxes. 

We have the perfect storm of an imperialistic Marxist as Presidient, an ineffective indolant and corrupt Congress, and a vacuous, immoral and political Supreme Court.

We might have a chance to pull out of this whirlpool that threatens to consume us if we had an honest and unbiased press that was explaining these facts to the American people.  But, alas, we do not. 

The  fifth column we call the press is too busy undermining the foundations of Western Civilization to notice that our Republic is disintegrating right before our eyes. 

Unless something radical happens in the next election cycle, we will celebrate the 4th of July for the last time this year.

Wrong Answer, Mitt!

Over the weekend Mitt Romney demonstrated why he will lose the general election in the Fall.

He is letting Obama set the agenda, and he is weak and unfocused in his responses.

Obama recently announced that he is enacting the DREAM act through executive order.  This obviously unconstitutional and crass political ploy to get all these people to vote for Obama illegally.

The political play here is to set up Romney as anti-Latino, and he is falling into the trap.  This is not about immigration.  This is about the unconstitutional nature of the Executive Order.

Romney should be denouncing this move in the strongest terms possible based on the illegality of the Order, not the content of the order.

Here, instead, is his response:

At a campaign bus tour, Mitt Romney criticized President Obama’s newly announced immigration policy not to deport DREAM Act-eligible youth, but did not say explicitly whether he would reverse the order if elected.

“I think the action that the president took today makes it more difficult to reach that long-term solution because an executive order of course is just a short-term matter,” Romney said, echoing Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL).

“It could be reversed by subsequent presidents,” Romney said. “I would like to see legislation that deals with this issue. And I happen to agree with Marco Rubio as he will consider this issue. He said this is an important matter. We have to find a long-term solution. But the president’s action makes reaching a long-term solution more difficult. If I’m president, we’ll do our very best to have that kind of long-term solution that provides certainty and clarity for the people who come into this country through no fault of their own by virtue of an act of their parents. Thank you.”


Here is what he should have said:

President Obama has issued an Executive Order to enact parts of the DREAM Act, specifically issuing work permits to illegal aliens.  I strongly condemn this action because it is Unconstitutional.   The President has no power to make laws.  He only has the power to enforce the law.  The DREAM act was not passed into law by Congress.  It was defeated.  It is a grossly unconstitutional act to issue an executive order creating new laws. 

I call on President Obama to rescind this order. I call on Congress to reign in the President and re-establish the separation of powers called for by the Constitution. I call on the Supreme Court to intervene and stop this madness.

If this Order still stands when I am sworn into office I will immediately overturn it and restore our Republic to the Rule of Law.

Romney's willingness to get sucked into the trap of being against immigration will not help is election campaign.  The press will overshadow the true issue at hand and play up the "Romney hates Latinos' angle.

What's Wrong with Muslims

So, what is wrong with Muslims?  Well for starters, they are wrong.

By that I mean their world view and their facts are completely wrong.

There was recently a meeting here in Chicago where some of their beliefs were on display:

According to the American Muslim Forum for Democracy, Hizb-ut-Tahrir, the group that hosts the meeting, is a radical origination that promotes world-wide jihad, and targets young children to join their movement. The following excerpt comes from AMFD’s 2009 call for Muslim organizations to denounce and condemn the Hizb-ut-Tahrir.

Dr. Mohammed Malkawi (aka. Abu Talha)

Hizb ut-Tahrir is an Islamist network that is committed to creating an Islamic Caliphate that spans the globe. The organization is banned in Germany and Russia as well as several Arab countries and targets Muslim children between the ages of 9 and 18. Many compare their efforts to organizations like the Hitler Youth. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, is counted among their alumnus.

There were four speakers at the event, three of which that wanted to remain unidentified, with the center of attention focusing upon the key note speaker, Dr. Mohammed Malkawi aka Abu Talha, Hizb’s Deputy Spokesperson. The following are some of the claims made by the four speakers:

• American Capitalism has caused all that is wrong with the Muslim world today.
• The Capitalist System was created to restrict Muslims.
• Jews and Christians will not be happy with Muslims until they adopt their way of life.
• The fall of Communism and the decline of Capitalism sends a clear message that the rise of Islam is imminent.
• Capitalism has failed due to its high suicide, high poverty, and many other adverse rates, while at the same time there were no statistics mentioned about the same rates in Arab Nations.
• Capitalism systematically creates poor people.
• The Democratic process in the US and around the world is a mirage.
• Obama failed on two issues, Palestine and dealing with the entire Muslim world.
• That they are a peaceful non-violent movement, however, while viewing the diagram on the overhead projector showing the structure of the Sharia governing cabinet, it listed a private secretary in charge of Jihad.

Let's look at each of these claims.

American Capitalism has caused all that is wrong with the Muslim world today. It is hard to take this claim seriously.  Genital mutilation, honor killings, and pedophilia are caused by American Capitalism?  The rampant poverty in Muslim countries is entirely due to the economic policies enforced under Sharia.  This claim is the opposite of the truth.  Blaming America is an easy way to avoid looking in the mirror and taking responsibility for the horror that is life in Muslim countries.

The Capitalist System was created to restrict Muslims.  I hate to break it to him: we don't think about you that much.  He gives us too much credit, and he places himself in a larger role in the western mind than is true.  Capitalism was not 'created'.  Unlike Marxism, Capitalism is what happens naturally if you leave people alone to trade freely with each other.    We are Capitalists because it is the only moral and effective economic system, and 'restricting' Muslims has nothing at all to do with it.

Jews and Christians will not be happy with Muslims until they adopt their way of life.  This is sheer tautological nonsense.  We are not happy with you because you are trying to kill us. You are trying to kill us because your beliefs demand that you slay the infidels. You will keep trying to kill us until we become Muslims.  OK, got it.  Submit or die.  How about this: stop trying to kill us.  Then we will go back to not thinking about you.

The fall of Communism and the decline of Capitalism sends a clear message that the rise of Islam is imminent.  Here he may actually have a point.  The collapse of Communism and the unwillingness of the West to defend itself have created a power vacuum that Sharia and Islam have moved into.  Where I would disagree is that I do not view this through the same theological lens -- he seems to be  claiming a mandate.  I would view it as a failure on the part of civilization to defend itself from the barbarians at the gate.  If only there were an example we could learn from where a great power declined and fell to savages...

Capitalism systematically creates poor people.  This is the opposite of the truth.  Capitalism creates rich people.  If capitalism creates poor people, how were there poor people in time before Capitalism?  The Bible mentions the poor.  Robin Hood robs from the rich and gives to the poor.  Capitalism arose in the 15th -17th centuries.  Poverty pre-exists Capitalism.  In fact, Capitalism is the only economic system that raises the poor out of poverty.  Simply look at the Heritage Foundation rankings of countries by GDP.  The truth is crystal clear.  Capitalism makes people rich.

The Democratic process in the US and around the world is a mirage. The US election process is not perfect, but the West has free and fair elections.  Apparently he is aligned with the Trilateral Commission and Bilderberg nut bags that think everything is being controlled behind the scenes.  Or he is projecting the ridiculous farce that he sees at home in Third World elections onto the West.  But either way, our elections are as close to the Voice of the People as any process ever used.

Obama failed on two issues, Palestine and dealing with the entire Muslim world.  Here he approaches the truth.  Obama has failed on Palestine and dealing with the entire Muslim world.  But I suspect he and I do not agree on the nature of that failure.  I think that Obama has sown the seeds of global warfare by supporting the 'Arab Spring' revolutions that have allowed radical Muslims to rise to power throughout the Middle East. But let's stick to the basics point where he is wrong: Obama has failed on a lot more than two issues...

they are a peaceful non-violent movement... listed a private secretary in charge of Jihad. This is absurd on its face.  Islam is the most violent religion/philosophy in the world today.  It is sheer nonsense to claim non-violent status while rioting, killing, bombing, and beheading people everyday. The fact that they have someone in charge of Jihad is interesting, but you need to look no further than the daily newspaper to see that Islam is inherently violent.

Our Muslim troubles stem largely from two sources: 1) their desire to kill us; 2) their complete detachment from reality.

I don't know how to engage in 'peace partnerships' with such savages.

 

How to Lose a War in 7 Simple Steps

One peculiar aspect of American war fighting is our enthusiasm for fighting with self imposed handicaps.

This began in Korea, where we refused to attack certain targets or fight in certain areas, and became standard in Vietnam.  We never lost a battle, but we managed to lose the entire war.  The loss was ultimately political -- we lost the will to win, and the fighting on the ground was dragged out because we severely handicapped our troops ability to win.

We are now recreating the circumstances of the Vietnam war in Afghanistan, and it seems we are bound and determined to lose this war too.

So how do you lose a war against an enemy that is 1/100th your size and mired in the stone age? 

Easy, if you follow the 7 Simple Steps:

1.  Announce that you plan to lose -- the object of war is to defeat the enemy.  To kill them if necessary, but more likely, you convince them that the cost of fighting the war exceeds the benefits.  When you tell the enemy that you plan to leave in a few years, you tell them that all they have to do is wait you out. We have occupied Germany for 70 years with no end in sight.  We occupied Japan for 50 years. What is the point of telling the Afghans that are leaving other than to demoralize our own troops and embolden the enemy?  Why would our troops fight for a place we plan to give back to the savages in a few months?  Why would the savages surrender when they know they only have to endure this pain for a few more months?  Announcing a timetable for withdrawal is announcing that you plan to lose the war.

2.  Cede the Moral High Ground -- we are fighting a just war against people that are trying to kill us and destroy all of Western Civilization.  We do not need to be ashamed of what we are doing.  When we allow the press and the Left to portray the war as nothing more than white man's greed and the deliberate killing of innocents, we have lost the moral high ground.


3.  Defer decisions to the locals -- no offense to the Afghans, but why in the world would we consult with 7th century savages on how we conduct a 21st Century war?  We are fighting over there precisely because the locals were unable to defeat the Taliban in the first place.  Allowing them to plan and run the war is folly.  Like Vietnam, our 'ally' is of dubious loyalty and capability. Letting them plan and run the war effort is like letting a monkey drive a bulldozer.  It ain't gonna end well.

4.  Telegraph your punches --Our Afghan 'allies' in this war have not exactly earned our trust over the past 10 years.  Allowing them to veto night raids, telling them the location of planned patrols, and sharing the location of our ground forces is the same as giving this information directly to the Taliban.  During Vietnam we shared the location of our Green Beret teams with the South Vietnamese, who promptly shared it with the North Vietnamese.  We will come to find out that the exact same thing is happening in Afghanistan, and we are foolishly telling the enemy where to find us.

5.  Give the enemy a safe haven -- War is hell, and it helps to have a place to rest and refit. We lost in Vietnam because we respected borders that the enemy did not.  The Viet Cong routinely used bases in Laos and Cambodia as safe haven from attack, and we lost the war because we would not root the enemy out of these bases.  We are now doing the exact same thing in Afghanistan.  We are respecting a Pakistani border that neither the Afghans nor the Pakistani's respect.  We are allowing the enemy to rest and refit in plain sight in Pakistan, and we will lose this war unless we go after them in these safe haven training camps.

6.  Fight like a bunch of lawyers -- In order to reduce friendly fire and civilian casualties, we are requiring soldiers to get permission to fire from people many levels higher in the chain of command.  Watch some of the video coming out of the war.  It is infuriating to watch Taliban soldiers fighting in plain sight while our troops do nothing but wait for permission to return fire.  These rules of engagement are insane, requiring men bleeding in a muddy ditch to get permission to return fire from lawyers sitting in an air conditioned office a thousand miles.  There are countless examples from Vietnam where these policies got troops killed and helped the enemy win the war.  Why are we not letting the troops fight?

7.  Tell the enemy where to hide -- We have not only placed entire countries off limits, but we placed specific building off limits as well.  We will not strike or attack mosques, as an example.  This is the height of stupidity, as it give then enemy a base of operations that is immune to attack.  Now we have extended that immunity to nearly EVERY BUILDING in Afghanistan(!!!).  Seriously.  We will no longer target buildings for fear of creating civilian casualties. This is a far cry from our attitude in 1945 where we deliberately killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in Dresden and Hiroshima. We have zero chance of killing the enemy if we allow them safe haven in every building in the country.

When you look at the war as a win-lose proposition, it does not appear that we have the will to win.  We have the technology, the firepower, and the most capable army ever fielded.  We simply lack the will to allow them to win the war.

In fact, the current rules of engagement are so restrictive that we appear to be actively trying to lose the war.

It is criminal to place our troops in harm's way and then prevent them from defending ourselves.

Either win the war, or admit defeat and get the hell out.

Maybe, just Maybe...

Maybe the tide has turned. 

Perhaps in a few years or decades, we will look back and see this as the turning point.

Like the moment the Germans surrendered at Stalingrad as the Japanese carriers disappeared beneath the water off Midway, the failed ouster of Scott Walker may be viewed as the pivotal defeat of the Left. 

The Unions have been working on a grand bargain with politicians for 50 years: The politicians deliver super sized salaries, pensions, benefits, and entitlements, and the Unions deliver votes.

This bargain has made government workers the best paid workers in the land, with the average salary well above the average household income.  The low retirement ages and incredibly rich pensions have allowed cops, firefighters and teachers to retire at 50 years old with 80% of their pay, often more than $100k per year. 

It has also bankrupted virtually every state, county, and city in the land.

Scott Walker, Wisconsin Governor, fought to break that cycle by depriving the Unions of a small sliver of that bargaining power and by forcing the union workers to kick in a small payment towards their retirement.

The Media, the Unions, and the Left reacted with fury.  Democratic representatives fled the state rather than vote.  Protesters disrupted the capital, occupied government buildings, and burned the governor in effigy.

When all that failed, they initiated a recall election.

Well, that recall effort appears to have failed.  And failed big, with a 60-40 split in a very liberal state.

Wisconsin taxes are stable, the budget is under control, and the economy is starting to grow.  If the people of Wisconsin can figure it out how to break the control of the unions, anyone can.

The Unions have lost face, lost power, and they are starting to lose members.  Now that Union membership is no longer a requirement for a government job, Union rolls are down sharply.

Politicians no longer need to fear the power of the Unions.  The people have spoken, and they have spoken loud and clear:  We will not stand by idly while the country drives over a Union created cliff.

Perhaps this is the moment where the rest of the country realizes what we are capable of doing, and standing up in November and throwing Leftist and Statists and RINO Republicans out of office.

Our situation is much like that of the Allies in 1942 -- things look bleak, and we have a lot of fighting left, but we may have just turned the tide. 

Stupid is as Stupid does...

Forrest Gump is one of the greatest movies of all time.  It makes me cry every time I watch it.

It is not only a great film with wonderful acting, state of the arts special effects, and a tear-jerker of a story, it serves as a morality play for the the modern era.

I don't pretend to understand what the motivations of the people involved in the film were, other than to make great art and more a lot of money, of course.  But I do know that they have created a snapshot of the last half century that clearly defines the Left from the Right in this country.

Robin Wright plays Jenny, the abused and neglected child that grows up to be a stripper, drug abuser, free love hippie, and communist that eventually dies of AIDS.  She lies, she degrades herself, she abandons people, and otherwise destroys herself in the pursuit of hedonism.

Tom Hanks plays Forrest Gump, the mentally challenged boy who grows up to be a college sports hero, a warrior that wins the medal of honor, a business man, philanthropist, and loyal and devoted lover and husband.  He defends women's honor, keeps his word, works hard, makes a great fortune, gives it away to those to whom he is in debt, and protects and nurtures the ones he loves.

The contrast between the leading characters could not be more stark, and the lives that they lead  could not be more different.

We are not told about Forrest Gump's politics, but we see where Jenny stands. She hangs out with the abusive leader of the SDS and the Black Panthers, and attends an anti-war rally.

We can presume that Forrest's politics would be opposed to this leftist milieu, but this is presumably confirmed when Forrest becomes the mortal enemy of the commies when he defends Jenny against the SDS hippie who hits her.

So what does this movie tell us?

Does it say that everyone who plays sports, serves their country, works hard, keep promises, starts a business and gives back to the community is a low IQ moron?

Or that the hip and cool people take drugs, have recreational sex, and rage against the machine?

Well, in the end, the results of these lifestyles becomes clear.

The intelligent, hedonistic, self absorbed, anti-Establishment, and anti-capitalistic lifestyle ends badly when Jenny is dying of AIDS and leaving a young son to make it in the world alone. Even during her life she seems empty and unfulfilled, constantly searching and never finding.

The simple life, where honor and courage matters, promises are kept, our country is served, hard work is done, risks are taken, charity is given, and love is eternal results in a young man being loved and raised by his father.  Forrest is simple, but he puts everything into the task at hand, and he never wavers or breaks his promises.

While it is possible to read too much into a film, I think the message is loud and clear.

The self absorbed lifestyle of the Left ends in personal ruin, while a life based on serving others with honor gives better results.

When you view Obama and the modern Left through the lens of Forrest Gump, it becomes very apparent who the stupid ones are in this world.

Forget Sharia, let's use Klingon Law

The United States government has officially lost it's mind.

There is currently a debate over the enforcement of Sharia law in our courts.  Several US courts have overturned bans on enforcing Sharia law in the US, claiming that it create religious discrimination.

Those in favor of the ban on Sharia in US courts make a few interesting points:

• Sharia is antithetical to US law as it does not provide equal protection to women
• Sharia provides for punishments that would be 'cruel and unusual' and therefore unconstitutional

Those against banning sharia claim that banning it would discriminate against Muslims and create a hostile legal environment.

I would like to point out the following: This is an insane conversation!  It misses the most important point: Sharia law is NOT THE LAW.

To wit:

Sharia law has not been passed by a legislature and is therefore not the law.  Period.  It is NON-LAW.

Passing a law that says judges can only use the laws passed by the legislature to interpret the law is, well, redundant.  

What the hell are judges using now if not the laws that have been passed?  Since when does a judge think they have the power to use laws that have not been passed to interpret the law??

Who actually thinks that we should use laws from other places to interpret our laws? 

"Hi, you are under arrest for selling alcohol."

"But, it is legal to sell alcohol here in Illinois"

"Yes, but we are using Arkansas law for this, so you are guilty"

This is absurd.  You are subject only to the laws of the jurisdiction that you are in, not the laws of some other land.

It is literally insane that we are having this discussion.

If I walked into a courtroom and demanded that the case be tried under Klingon law as laid out in the Star Trek series, they would laugh me out of court.

Why?  Because Klingon law is NOT THE LAW.  It is non-law.

So why in the heck are we even talking about enforcing other non-laws in our courts of law?

It is not relevant to the discussion that Sharia is a hateful 7th century mysticism that is mired in bigotry and misogyny.  What matters is that it is NOT the law.  Even if Sharia law was all sunshine, ponies and flowers, it would still be non-law.

How have we so badly lost our bearings that courts are rendering decisions that allow the use of non-laws to be used to interpret the law?

How Dumb can Catholics be?

In the wake of Obama's demands that Catholic institutions provide free contraceptives and abortions, the Catholic Church has started to fight back.... by surrendering.

Oh, sure, the Catholic Church is making some noise.  They are claiming that they are going to fight back. They have filed lawsuits.  But when it comes time to make hard choices, the idiots running these places decide to surrender without a whimper.

The Franciscan University of Steubenville, a small Catholic college in Ohio has been providing insurance to its students and faculty for many years.  It is now dropping that coverage due to the Obama regime's requirements and the increased cost due to other mandated coverages.

This is exactly the wrong response.




This is what Obama and the Left want to happen.  Now all these students will have no coverage or have to run to the open arms of the Federal Government.

Stupid, retarded, moronic, cowardly Catholic leadership.

The correct response to to ignore the Unconstitutional mandates and carry on as before.

Tell the Feds to screw.  Dare them to arrest you for the crime of freely exercising your religion.

When they send you letters throw them in the trash.  When the show up with guns force them to arrest you and close the place down.  Do not surrender.  

Make it very clear who the bad guys are, and who is using force.

By dropping health coverage you not only push more people into dependency, you allow the Left to paint you as uncaring and greedy.

"See? The Church does not care about women.  It will kick you to the curb rather than pay a few extra dollars to protect your health.  Only the Democrats really care about you, and we will give you lots of free goodies if you vote for us".

I was worried that the Catholic laity did not possess the faith and fortitude to resist the temptation of filthy lucre from the devil of statism.  Now we see that the  leadership is even weaker and more craven than the people themselves.

If this is the best that the Catholics can do, we are doomed.

Worst. President. Ever.

As we draw closer to the end of Obama's first term I think we can officially call it: Worst. President. Ever.

There are a few ways to measure his 'success':

• Economy -- His performance in this area is rivaled only by that of Hoover and FDR.  The damage done by FDR is huge, but we have survived 80 years or so since he left office.  I doubt we will last 80 years with the debt that Obama has run up, and the wholesale nationalization of industries.  The subsidization of 'green' companies has destroyed billions in wealth and created huge future liabilities.  The denial of the Keystone pipeline alone will cause billions in economic damage and almost guarantee a future environmental disaster as the oil is shipped to China.

• Foreign Policy -- the legacy of Obama will be the 'Arab Spring' that he so actively promoted. IT has turned out to be nothing more than Islamo-fascists rising to power all over the Mideast.  We are helping replace moderately bad regimes with evil Islamic theocracies that will engulf the region in the flames of war within the next 18 months. Our Allies have been snubbed and our enemies have been coddled while Obama bows down before the Saudi King. The has promised to unilaterally disarm, and to 'be more flexible' with the Russians after he is no longer accountable to the voters.



Forward!

• Legal and Civil Society -- Obama has destroyed the Rule of Law.  When Black Panthers walk because they are black, and George Zimmerman is charged because he is 'white', we have lost the rule of law.  When Arizona is sued by the DoJ of enforcing Federal Laws, and when Obama ignores court orders, overrides bankruptcy laws, install unelected officials as 'czars', and appoints officials without Senate approval, we have lost the rule of law.  When Obama makes overt threats against the other branches of government, when Congress 'deems' laws to have been passed instead of voting on them, and when the President ignores the will of Congress and funds foreign powers and projects, we have lost the rule of law.  He has fanned the flames of racial tensions and will be largely responsible when these fevers erupt in rioting and racial violence. His brand of proto-socialist class warfare is dividing the country along economic lines as much as he is dividing us along racial lines. His support of the Occupy Wall Street thugs and low lifes says a lot about where his sympathies lie.

Each of these areas has been an unmitigated disaster for the United States.  Obama and his team have proven themselves unprepared (at best), incompetent (very likely) or actively opposed to American ideals (increasingly likely).

 

We will know very soon what the future impact of the Obama administration will be. The damage to our economy, our allies. our civil society are huge and will be manifest in short order. The CBO is now predicting that we will 'hit a wall' in 2015. In other words, the United States of America will cease to exist in 36 months due to the mismanagement of Obamanomics alone. The CBO makes no comment on the coming race wars and Islamic revolution.

 

Obama:  Worst. President. Ever.

 

 

 

Global Warming Theology

The Global Warming people have finally just come out and admitted that what they preach is not science, but religion.

As a religion, it has it's holy writ, it's ceremonies, and it's sacrifices.  It also has a message for all you heathens out there:


The angry, birth-giving God, judging human sin against the planet is the theological reflection we Christian theologians need to provide for Earth Day 2012, and from now on. Our message to the whole society must be strong and direct so that people can grasp the extent to which climate catastrophe is already starting, and we must act.

God is judging our sin against the planet, and She is very, very angry about it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/a-new-earth-day-theology/2012/04/22/gIQAvxLmZT_blog.html

May Day, and the rise of Laziness

The Socialists and Anarchists from the Occupy movement are trying to create a general strike on May 1. 

So far it looks like a huge non-event.  But they are trying really hard to advertise this.  Here are some examples of ads they are using to entice people to protest.
 
 “Work, it takes so much from us. Other than headaches and hassles, it gives back so little”

“We are forced to sell our bodies and our time to survive. Every day we work, and everyday you squeeze your profit from our labor”

It is truly amazing how ignorant some people can be.

Apparently they subscribe to Rousseau's world view where noble savages idled their days away in the garden of Eden. It has not occurred to them that mere survival is damn hard work.

Not one of these hot house flowers would last a week if the had to exist outside the comfort and protection of the  modern industrial society they hate so much.

The amount of work required to live has dropped precipitously since the industrial revolution. 40 hour work week too much for you? Try working 80-100 hours a week to survive on a pre-industrial farm.

If you think the 'evil bosses' are exploiting you with their factories and capital-driven businesses, try living without them. Go live for a month without anything produced for you by a corporation or gained through free trade.  Then we shall see who needs whom.

One final rant: no one is forcing them to do anything. There is no such thing as 'wage slavery'. Shut the hell up and leave us alone. Seriously, there are many places on the globe where you will not be exploited by 'wage slavery'. Go there, please, give it a try.  

But be sure to bring a gun so that you can avoid the actual slavery that is so prevalent in those areas of the world.  And make sure your shots are up to date...

Not-So-Green Green Jobs

When people are employed to clean up HazMat sites left in the wake of another Obama debacle, do these count as ‘green jobs’??

The Obama administration funded Solyndra to the tune of $500MM in taxpayer funds.  It promptly went belly up, leaving behind a giant mess and a half a billion dollar hole in our pockets.

The also left behind a huge HazMat site:

MILPITAS (CBS 5) — Three months ago, CBS 5 caught Solyndra tossing millions of dollars worth of brand new glass tubes used to make solar panels. Now the bankrupt solar firm, once touted as a symbol of green technology, may be trying to abandon toxic waste. . . .

CBS 5 found the building locked up, with no one around. At the back, a hazardous storage area was found. There were discarded buckets half filled with liquids and barrels labeled “hazardous waste.”
The building’s owner, a company called iStar, claimed in court documents, “there may be serious environmental, health and safety issues” at the premises. According to the documents, they include, “numerous containers of solvents and chemicals. . . and processing equipment contaminated with lead.”

 
This exposes a few things that the Left would rather not let you see:

Green Technology Ain't So Green:  The Left likes to tout solar and wind as the 'energy of future' that does little or no damage to the environment.  We already know that wind power is useless because power companies cannot rely upon it and have to keep an equivalent amount of carbon-based generation running at all times to make up for the variability of output.  Plus the blades of the wind turbines mince up a few hundred thousand birds every year, including raptors on the endangered species list.  This is a net-negative to the environment no matter how you slice it.... (what, too soon?)

Solar panels are supposed to be benign, passive devices that reduce our impact on the planet. Now we see that the processes used to manufacture them are soaked in hazardous chemicals. So much for being green.

Green Jobs Are a Myth:  We 'invested' $500MM in Solyndra which went bankrupt less than 2 years later.  It created a few thousand 'green jobs' for a few months before the fraudulent business model doomed the enterprise.  It would have been cheaper just have given each employee a few hundred thousand and told them to take the year off.  We would be $250MM ahead, and without a giant mess to clean up.

Government can Invest Wisely: It should be obvious by now that private investors jump on all the 'good' ideas early.  Many of these ventures go broke anyway.   By the time Solyndra came begging at the public trough they had already been turned down by every private venture fund and every bank.   There was a reason that no one would fund it: It was a bad idea.  The business model for Solyndra was broken, new technology had superseded it.  It was doomed to fail and no rational investor would touch it.   But that did not stop the Obama administration from pouring a half billion down that sewer.  It is easy to bet wrongly when you are betting other people's money. 

Political investment with other people's money will NEVER work. 


Green People Ain't So Green:  The executives Solyndra were on a crusade to free mankind from the shackles of carbon based energy.  They would sacrifice everything and stop at nothing to make the planet a little greener.  Unless, of course, they were going to lose some money. Then they don't have quite as much environmental fervor. 

Team Obama set up the loans so that the equity investors got paid back first (unheard of in non-fraudulent loans, by the way).  Now that the 'green investors' might have to pay to clean up the HazMat mess they left behind, they run away screaming like selfish children that they should not be held accountable.

It seems their devotion to the planet is closely aligned with their personal financial interests. If they can be 'green' in a get rich quick scheme, they are all in.  But the moment that they might lose money, they run for the exits, leaving the taxpayers to foot the bill.

Obama Bans Free Speech, No One Notices

President Obama recently signed into law a measure that effectively ends First Amendment protections for political speech.  The law says that it is now a felony to protest in the vicinity of anyone that is under Secret Service protection.

Given that the Secret Service protects a number of people, and that the President has the authority to grant protection to anyone at any time, this is a major limitation to free speech. 

The fact that this is a felony charge is outrageous.  

A felony conviction means:

• You can never vote again for the rest of your life
• You can never own a gun again for the rest of your life
• You will have a felony on your record whenever you apply for a job
• You will have 'one strike' down in states that have Three Strikes laws, potentially sending you to prison for the rest of your life.
• Professional licenses such as lawyer, doctor, plumber, hairdresser can all be revoke due to felony convictions

In effect, your life is completely shattered by a felony conviction.

All because you happened to say something when the Secret Police Service are nearby.

This law has enormous potential for abuse. 

The enforcement of the law is at the discretion of the protectee.  This means that the President can order the arrest of his enemies, while tolerating the protests of his pals. 

When Joe Biden was booed at a parade last summer it was shrugged off as a sign of the general discontent of the people.  Today, the Secret Service can sweep into the crowd and arrest people for the thought-crime of booing the person that is under their protection.

When Michelle Obama got booed at a baseball game recently it was embarrassing for the First Lady.  Now she has the power to order the mass arrests of everyone in the stadium.

This is no different than the secret police in North Korea arresting people for the crime of not crying hard enough when the Dear Leader passed away.

I used to be optimistic that the Supreme Court would strike down nonsense like this. But the court has been very unreliable on matters of free speech.

The way the laws are interpreted currently, strippers and degenerate artists dunking things in urine enjoy unlimited First Amendment protections, but people taking out political ads and holding political protests are subject to arrest at any time.

We are standing by and watching the dismantling of America, the stripping of our Liberties, and the end of our way of life.

Lovelock Lied, People Died

Global Warming's leading 'scientist' has finally come clean -- he was lying the entire time.

From MSNBC:
James Lovelock, the maverick scientist who became a guru to the environmental movement with his “Gaia” theory of the Earth as a single organism, has admitted to being “alarmist” about climate change and says other environmental commentators, such as Al Gore, were too.
 http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change?lite:

He goes on to admit that he has no idea what is really going on with the climate:

“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said.

“All right, I made a mistake.”

So here we have one of the leading experts in Climate Change admitting that he was wrong, and that his claims are wildly overblown.  He also names names, pointing out that Al Gore and other's claims are grossly exaggerated and false.

Can we put a fork in this topic yet?

Seriously. 

Apparently not:
This self-evident truth is not enough to stop the true believers in Climate Change.  Just today President Obama announced that he wants to spend $700MM to combat Global Warming in Africa.

This would be insanity if we had the $700MM laying around with nothing better to so with it.  In a time when when are running trillion dollar deficits, it is beyond insane, it is tantamount to treason.

When we are taking resources out of the private economy and squandering it on global warming studies and other crap, and when we are create carbon taxes and dump cash into solar companies that go bankrupt within weeks of being funded, we are destroying the economy and making us all poorer.

When money diverted into cars that won't drive and wind turbines that won't spin, we lose the chance to invest in lifesaving drugs, or to buy a better air conditioning unit, or save for the future.

When that happens people die.  Life expectancy is correlated to wealth, and when you destroy wealth people die younger.

Since the Left likes stupid chants, perhaps they can shout this one when then gather for their next inane protest:

Lovelock Lied, People Died

Republicans are Better People, and Smarter, too.

As if it was not enough that studies show Republicans are better human being than Democrats, now we know Republicans are better informed as well.

From the Daily Caller:

Yet another new survey shows that Republican supporters know more about politics and political history than Democrats.

On eight of 13 questions about politics, Republicans outscored Democrats by an average of 18 percentage points, according to a new Pew survey “Partisan Differences in Knowledge.”
The Pew survey adds to a wave of surveys and studies showing that GOP-sympathizers are better informed, more intellectually consistent, more open-minded, more empathetic and more receptive to criticism than their fellow Americans who support the Democratic Party.

“Republicans fare substantially better than Democrats on several questions in the survey, as is typically the case in surveys about political knowledge,” said the study, which noted that Democrats outscored Republicans on five questions by an average of 4.6 percent.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/22/science-say-gop-voters-better-informed-open-minded/#ixzz1spOMgOdP


There have been many studies in the past that have shown Republicans are better, more compassionate, more civic minded people than the Democrats.

Republicans vote more often, contribute more to charity, contribute more to charity even if you exclude donations to religious organizations, donate blood more often, coach little league more often, and beat their wives less often.   OK, so, I made that last one up, but the point is that in every dimension that defines actual compassion and humanity, Republicans trounce Democrats.

It comes as no surprise that that Republicans are better informed.  We have the facts, truth, logic, and history on our side.  They have emotion, greed, and envy on their side.

Since the cannot win a debate or even prevail in a friendly conversation without any facts or logic, their only recourse is to call you names, shout you down, or refuse to talk to you: 

A Republican tries to speak on a college campus: Shout them down, ban them, or throw pies at them.

A Republican proposes a reasonable budget (something Democrats have failed to do for three years: call him a racist, create ads showing him pushing old women off cliffs, and denounce him as a zealot.

A Republican points out that Obama has not been a very effective President based on the economy, foreign policy, and the deficit: call him a racist, accuse him of using racial code words to hide his racism, and call him a racist.

Time to face the facts, Democrats: Republicans are better people, and smarter, too.

LIberal's Idea of Helping: Get someone else to help

Tipper Gore is a typical rich Liberal.  She cruises around in limos, lives in mansions, and feels morally superior to the rest of us.

Gore, like many Liberals, adopts pet causes and makes an ostentatious display of 'caring' and helping all while personally doing very little other than showing up at parties and testifying before Congress.

This behavior is the exact opposite of true charity and reveals the spiritual and moral depravity of the Left.

From the Post Gazette:
Gore, who is the wife of former Vice President Al Gore, started work as an advocate for the homeless in the mid-1980s, after her children -- who were in grade school at the time -- asked her about a homeless woman they saw on the street.

They wondered how they could help the woman and asked why she had no home. Eventually, Gore decided to take action.

"In their childhood innocence, they were absolutely right," she said. "There's a moral imperative for all of us to end homelessness."

Gore herself bragged in speeches that her daughters caught sight of a homeless woman from their limo one day, and demanded that they stop and help.  Tipper, presumably horrified at the thought of bringing a filthy stinking alcoholic inside their little bubble, suggested an alternative. 

She had the girls write letters to Congress about the plight of the homeless and demanded that something be done.   That's right.  She can't be bothered to slow down and offer the woman some Grey Poupon, but she can demand Congress take action!

Note the word 'eventually'. This means she left that woman to die in the gutter, and when it was convenient, she decided to take decisive action and write some beautifully crafted letters on her very expensive personally engraved stationary. 



Charity begins in other people's wallets!!!  -- Tipper Gore*

Sure enough, Congress responded by increased funding for the homeless, and Tipper Gore set up a foundation to receive these grants and begin the arduous task of aiding these poor creatures. 

With other people's time and money, of course.

This is the definition of Liberal compassion: speed past the homeless laying in the gutter, but demand that taxpayers pony up some of their hard earned cash so you can grab some headlines as the 'defender of the homeless'.

Real charity would have looked very different.  Real charity would have been to stop the limo and save that woman at your own expenses and in your own home.  And to never speak a word about it in public.

Instead, Gore confuses compulsion for charity, and fawning headlines for good deeds.  She thinks that by forcing you, the taxpayer, to give your money to the homeless that she is the paragon of virtue.

The opposite is true.  She is a selfish, immoral harpy who lives off of self-promotion and stealing credit from other people.

In other words, she is a Democrat.





*Note from our attorney: Not an actual quote.

A Night to Regulate

Chris Berg claims that a failure of regulations sank the Titanic. (The Real Reason for the Tragedy of the Titanic, Friday April 13)

This is narrowly true, but it misses the real point and allows us to draw the wrong conclusions.

The disaster was caused not because the regulations were too lax, but because the regulations existed at all.

What happens in the real world is that the regulatory 'minimums' become the maximums as well. When the designers of the Titanic were determining the number of life boats the conversation centered on what was required, not what was prudent or safe.

The presence of the regulations relieved the builders and designers of the burden of reason and thought. They did not build the ship to be safe, only to comply with the safety regulations.

Thus a a great tragedy was born. 1,500 people perished in the cold dark waters of the North Atlantic, but the myth of 'safety regulations' lives on.

Regulations are pure evil.  They do nothing to increase actual safety.  And many regulations are shown to decrease safety.  CAFE standards for vehicle mileage lowering vehicle mass and increasing death is the classic example.

Regulations are the slow gentle path to tyranny.  The people become accustomed to government officials hold power over every aspect of their lives.

It is hard to reconcile the idea that we are a free people when you look at the hundreds of thousands of pages of Federal, State, and local regulations that govern every aspect of our lives.

From the mundane to the inane, regulations have been slowly destroying our liberties for over a century.  

Here it comes!

Several months ago I told you that Romney was unelectable, and that the Democrats would use his Mormon faith against him.

Well, here it comes....

Senator: '[Obama] Going to Throw the Mormon Church at [Romney] Like You Can’t Believe It'
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/senator-obama-going-throw-mormon-church-romney-you-can-t-believe-it_635549.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

I hate being right all the time.

Destruction of the Country, Obama Style

There have been rivers of cyber ink spilled discussing Obama's apparent campaign to destroy the country. Most of it has really been a discussion of opposing philosophies. Socialism against Capitalism. Progressivism opposed to Conservatism.

It has been easy to view many of the things he has done as destructive, even anti-American.

• Race baiting
• Class warfare
• Disrespect for he rule of law
• Ruinous deficit spending
• Coddling of terrorist and terrorism

But there has been little evidence of a naked assault on the core values of the country.

Until now.

He is launching a direct assault on the separation of powers and the very foundations our Republic.

The Supreme Court is poised to undo the crowning achievement of his administration: Obamacare. Rather than accept the fact the Constitution does not permit the Federal government to wield such powers, he and is allies in the media and the congress have launched an unprecedented assault on the court.

           PRESIDENT OBAMA: So there is not only an economic element and a legal element to this, but there is a human element to this, and I hope that is not forgotten in this political debate. Ultimately, I am confident the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a Democratically-elected Congress. I just remind conservative commentators that for years we have heard the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint. That an unelected group of people would somehow return or overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Here’s a pretty good example. Well, I am confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step. As I said, we are confident this will be over, this will be upheld. As I said, we are confident this will be upheld because it should be upheld. Again, that’s not just my opinion. That’s the opinion of a whole lot of constitutional law professors and academics and judges and lawyers who have examined this law, even if they’re not particularly sympathetic to this particular piece of legislation or my presidency.

  

Said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D), a former attorney general of Connecticut. “The court commands no armies, it has no money; it depends for its power on its credibility. The only reason people obey it is because it has that credibility. And the court risks grave damage if it strikes down a statute of this magnitude and importance, and stretches so dramatically and drastically to do it.”

The Cover of Newsweek: Will the Supreme Court Bertay Us?

 

This is disgusting behavior from Obama and his allies. They routinely applaud when the courts overturn laws they do not like. If he really believes this he is profoundly ignorant of the Constitution. Since he supposedly taught Constitutional Law at Columbia, ignorance of the content of the document he is sworn to uphold is unlikely.

Which leave the obvious: he knows full well what the Constitution provides, but he does not like the limitation on his power. And therefore he aims to destroy the Supreme Court.

He and his allies are waging a war with two objectives:

• Intimidate the court into keeping the law on the books
• Create a campaign narrative that somehow the will of the people has been usurped by a small group of 1 percenters.

It is understandable that he would want to keep the law from being overturned, and he wants to get reelected. To do this by diminishing the authority and the position of one of the other branches of government is in excusable.

Worst Demagogue Ever

President Obama is surely the worst demagogue we have had as a President.  Ever.

He seems incapable of normal speech and reasoning.  Everything out of his mouth is warped and twisted to the point of being the opposite of the truth.

For example:
Via Beltway Confidential:

Obama said that Republicans have “one message and that is, we’re going to make sure that we cut people’s taxes even more — so that by every objective measure our deficit is worse and we will slash government investments that have made this country great,” he argued, “not because it’s going to balance the budget, but because it’s driven by our ideological vision about how government should be. That’s their agenda, pure and simple.”


Government investments have made this country great? 

Silly me.  All along I thought it was Freedom and Capitalism that made this country great.

But before we discuss that, let's look at his other points:


"one message and that is, we’re going to make sure that we cut people’s taxes even more"

The Ryan budget includes tax cuts.  But it also includes spending cuts.  Not enough spending cuts, mind you, but they are there.  To claim that Republicans have one message is a lie.


"so that by every objective measure our deficit is worse"

The Reagan tax cuts produced record receipts to the Federal Treasury.  The Clinton tax cuts produce a surplus.  Tax revenues are at historical averages.  20% of GDP or so.  It is spending that has risen out of control at 27% of GDP. To claim that tax cuts increase the deficit 'by every objective measure' is a lie.


"will slash government investments that have made this country great"

The only 'investments' the government has made that can be argued as increasing our greatness are roads, bridges, and dams.  These actually do add value, even if they are not exactly Constitutional. The Republicans have not proposed cuts to the highway program. Even if they did, the highway bill is such a small fraction of the budget that it would not make our deficit materially worse.  To claim that Republicans will "slash government investments that have made this country great" is a double lie.

Obama has proposed a budget that was such a farce it was voted down 414 to 0.  That's right.  Not a singly Representative voted in favor of his budget.   Not ONE.  Not even the looniest Democrat in the House would go on record as supporting Obama's budget.

The Democrat controlled Senate has not proposed or passed a budget in over three years.

So Republicans produce a plan while the Democrats do not.  Ryan proposes budget that gains support from his own party at least.  Obama proposes such a ridiculous budget that NO ONE votes for it. 

Who are the ideologues, Mr. Obama?  Who is agenda driven, pure and simple?

Worst.  President. Ever.