A Name for the Numbers

It's easy, in the current economic and political environment, to cite numbers.  It's easy to point to 8%+ unemployment, 11% if we had the same labor force we did in 2008.  What gets lost in citing those numbers is the fact that every one of those numbers represents millions of people.  Last week, 359,000 families saw their income reduced or completely eliminated.  Those are families, based on current unemployment, now looking at a sparse Thanksgiving and Christmas.

Numbers are antiseptic and safe.  We can look at 8% unemployment and postulate theories on what would help.  But a person- a person is a different matter.  A person is real; a person has to be considered as a person.

I'd like to introduce you to one of those people who would otherwise be a statistic.  A real man, with real problems, and a perspective you won't hear from those claiming their "Obama Phones."  Meet "BackwardsBoy."  You see a link to his blog in my sidebar, and he's a fellow AoSHQ Moron.  Beyond that, he's an unemployed machinist.

I have never met BBoy face-to-face.  Nevertheless, I have valued his opinions for quite some time.  He's not exactly what you would think of when you consider the unemployed- not until the last few years, anyway.  A Machinist by trade, he had over 30 years of experience in manufacturing, including as shop foreman.  I think it should go without saying that he had to be very good at his job to do that.  He has also been a Mechanical Designer. In February of 2008, after the recession would retro-actively be declared, but before the crash of October and the declaration of "official" recession, he was cut loose from his employer.  For four years, with the exception of a stint as a telemarketer from July of 2011 to April of this year, he has been unemployed.

BackwardsBoy lives with his fiance, who is on disability.  He is her primary care-taker.  While machinist, and tool- and die-making jobs exist elsewhere in the country, they are mostly unavailable in Central Florida, where he makes his home.  Their financial situation and his wife's health make it impractical, if not impossible, to relocate. 

He was pursing an AS in Computer Science, completely self funded, but could no longer afford to continue.  He has had two heart attacks, including one which resulted in a bypass in 2009.  It is obvious that they have had more than their fare share of obstacles.  Nevertheless, and despite his self-designation as a "Curmudgeon," he remains optimistic.  "...they say what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.  I should be able to bench press a Buick by now," he writes.

Refusing the victim, "pay me" mentality of the Peggy Josephs of the world, BackwardsBoy and B'Gal have refused virtually all Government assistance.  He did take the full 99 weeks of unemployment, and B'Gal draws SSDI due to her disability, but they have not moved onto food stamps, Medicaid, or any other form of welfare.  In his words, "...because I want to be self-sufficient for as long as I can."  His income, such as it is, comes from music gigs- hardly a reliable source of income.  They've cut all the corners they can.  They moved into a smaller home and reduced all their bills to the minimum possible.

It would be easy for someone in that position to want a hand out.  He worked for 30 years in a vital trade; it would be easy to say, "I've contributed, you owe me."  But he rejects that.  Instead, asked what he would change about the current economic climate, he still waxes conservative:
"I'd concentrate on free market solutions instead of government programs, reduce regulation, cut spending drastically, initiate a flat tax of no more than 12% in combination with a balanced budget amendment, and do my best to reinvigorate American manufacturing (we are the world's largest consumer market, why aren't we making our own products?)."

So when you see people weeping over their "Obama Phones," and when you see the Peggy Josephs of the world, don't despair- BackwardsBoy and others like him are out there, too.  But when you see those numbers that come out every Thursday, and the Unemployment numbers which come out the first Friday of every month, remember this, too: every one of them represents a BackwardsBoy.  He doesn't want our charity, but he deserves an economy with a place for him.  He deserves an economy where he can once again put in an honest day's work, for an honest day's wage. 

Barack Obama has had nearly 4 years to provide that climate.  He has failed miserably.

Obama Campaign: Women are all Sluts

Well, the pre-menopausal ones, anyway.

The latest trick up the SCOAMT's sleeve seems to be suggesting that young women will go through $18,000 dollars of birth control.  As DrewM at the AoSHQ points out (with screen cap), that's roughly 160 years of BC pills.  So what is the Obama campaign suggesting?

Certainly Captain Wonderful McMomjeans wouldn't lie about birth control costs, so he must be suggesting that a mere 99.8% effectiveness of contraception is not good enough- suggesting, in turn, that women have so much sex that they need hysterectomies to avoid pregnancy.  In short, women, he just called you all sluts.  You just can't control your promiscuity, in his view.

Republicans, however, believe you are quite competent and capable of affording a $9.00/mo prescription all on your own without Government (or, even, Mom and Dad's) help.  Moreover, we don't believe you're sluts.

And who is waging the "War on women?"

NY MTA Passes Islamic Anti-Blasphemy Policy

1st Amendment Takes Second Place to Threats of Violence

The New York Mass Transit Authority, by an 8 - 0 vote, has decided that Free Speech does not apply when a Muslim might be offended.

A set of so-called "provocative" adds calling out Muslims as "savages" had been the targets of vandalism.  The same forces defacing posters representing speech with which they disagreed denounced the MTA (despite the fact it was a privately purchased advertisement) and called for the silencing of their opposition by removal of the add.  Just like Sir Robin, the MTA bravely turned and fled.

Important to note in this, the MTA had already rejected the ads once.  They called them "demeaning."  I suppose accuracy can be demeaning when your religion is as savage as Islam.  They only acquiesced when a Federal Court forced them to do so, citing the First Amendment.

Once the ads went up, various pro-Islam (or, more likely, anti-Semitic) actors began defacing the ads and calling for their removal.  So the MTA decided they could limit speech that it "reasonably foresees would imminently incite or provoke violence or other immediate breach of the peace."

Why is it that I think that this will only apply to something that criticizes Islam?  Oh, that's right, because it's only Muslims who burst into flames when their religion is "mocked."  This is a direct violation of the 1st Amendment, and I hope the American Freedom Defense Initiative (who sponsored the ads) take it back to court.  They are attempting to impart to a graphical ad the same power to cause imminent harm as yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater.

This his horribly offensive.  It is passing an anti-blasphemy law in everything but name, and there is little doubt that the only religion sheltered by it will be that of 12th century savages living in the modern day.  An advertisement calling someone a bad name is not responsible for people reacting violently.  The people who react violently are responsible for people reacting violently.  It is not the fault of the ad that people deface it; it is the fault of the people who deface it.

But the NY MTA would rather force you to shut up, than expect them to behave themselves.

On Desperation and Despair

Desperation:

One of the things I've noticed over the last couple of years- the Obama Administration and their internet trolls increase in both frequency and shrillness of posts when something bad for Obama is happening.  So, when you see an uptick in troll activity and/or an uptick in stupid stories coming from the Administration and their shills in the Media, you can be pretty certain they're trying to distract you.  Sometimes this is to distract from a current problem.  Just as often, it is preemptive and designed to get you fixated on one thing, so they can slip something else by you unnoticed.

Case in point: yesterday, on the AoSHQ, we had worse than usual troll activity.  There was a lot more of it, and it was a lot more desperate than normal.  Everything, though, was about the polls.  Now, Republicans pretty well have this poll thing figured out, so poll trolling is a low ROI tactic.  There are two websites that I know of that use Math! to show what bunk the polls are, and most Conservatives on the internet are at least familiar enough with the problems to say, "And what are the internals."  So it doesn't make much sense to try to get people worked up over the polls.

So when they came in constantly talking about the polls, and there were so many of them, it got me to thinking: something big is coming. 

Sure enough, today the economic news came out, and it's terrible.  Ace points out how terrible it is: we're somewhere between 50% & 70% chance for recession next year.

Now, this isn't to brag on my prescience.  It's a warning- when you see the trolls latch onto something, be careful not to get too engaged; as likely as not, they want you paying attention to them and debunking them so that when the real thing (whatever that may be) comes along, you're too busy debunking polls to notice.  Conservative Blogs, Talk Radio, Twitter, and all the other forms of Guerrilla Media are having an impact, and the Liberals are desperate to lessen that impact.

Despair:

The flip side of Trollish Desperation is Conservative Despair.  Call them Eeyores, Concern Trolls, or whatever, there seems to be a class of Conservative who have decided that the election is already over, and that we've lost.  These include well known pundits, and lesser known bloggers.  They never seem to be satisfied, and they never seem to be willing to work to make things better.

They'll complain about what the Romney campaign is doing, or not doing, but when you point out that the Romney Campaign has a suggestion site, they ignore it and move on.

Not to call him out specifically (well, okay, a little) because I like his opinions on most things, one particular example is @DrewM- both on twitter and regular poster at the AoSHQ.

This morning, he was tweeting about the failings of the Romney campaign- how Romney has to offer a way forward, and how he needs to have "targeted events."  I don't know if he just didn't see them, or chose to ignore them, but I responded to the tweets by pointing out that Romney has been doing exactly those things.  The most recent example was just yesterday when he had a whole day devoted to manufacturing and skilled labor, in conjunction with Mike Rowe (who did not expressly endorse Mr. Romney).

Indeed, Mitt Romney is doing just about everything the Eeyores are saying he should, and they continue to ignore it.  When they do acknowledge it, they then turn around and complain that "he's not doing enough," or "he's not getting his message out."  Well, how about this, instead of complaining that he isn't doing what he is expressly doing, or complaining that the word isn't getting out- how about you help get the word out?  R.S. McCain has been phenomenal on this, as have others.

If you want Mitt's message to get out, then help it get out.  It's that simple.

Obama's Economy: GDP 1.3%, Jobless Claims 359K, Durable Goods -13.2%

Obama's economy continues apace- into the toilet.  Out today, Jobless Claims were "at the lowest level since July" (yeah, that's a long time back) at 359,000.  And that was the good news.  GDP, already "growing" at the glacial pace of 1.7% for Q2 was revised downward to a near-dead 1.3%.  Orders for durable goods dropped a jaw-dropping 13%.

Now, it would be easy to make this about the president- and the blame is certainly his.  His party took over the US Congress (both houses) in 2007.  It was their legislative policies which largely controlled what happened to the economy after that date.  The held super-majorities in both houses, plus the presidency, beginning in January 2009 and continuing all the way through 2010.  President Obama got every single thing he asked for, and more.

Despite that, and it's a valid point, I think it is more important to focus on what those numbers mean.

The "good news" from today's numbers is that 359,000 people don't have jobs today who had them this time last week.  That's 359,000 families who are having to cut back- most of them to cut further back.  Many of these, because so many families now are, were one-income families.  Now they are no income families.  Certainly unemployment benefits are available to most of them, and those benefits will do some to help, but long-term unemployment is still a huge factor in today's economy- there are no guarantees that any of these people will find work before their unemployment benefits run out.

The GDP revision, down to 1.3% growth from 1.7% is bad news.  We're at the tipping point of re-entering a recession, if we ever truly came out of the last one.  It's not just our economy that is slowing down, either.  China and Japan are both looking at bleak economic news as well.  That's on top of the economic catastrophes that are Greece and Spain.  All in all, the world is on the cusp of economic disaster, and it may already be too late to prevent it.

If the GDP revision is bad news, the Durable Goods number is catastrophic, and maybe apocalyptic.  Where employment is a trailing indicator, durable goods are a leading indicator of where the economy is heading.  If people and companies purchased 13% less durable goods last month than the month before, it's because they see no need for them, no way to pay for them, or both.  Those are more jobs which will be lost in the future, and fewer current jobless who will be able to find jobs.

Every one of these number is catastrophic for American families.  For four years we've lived in economic horror and insecurity.  In six weeks, we have a chance for change.  Economically, there are only two things that can believed of Barack Obama- he's inept, or he's a menace.  Those are the only two options, and America can afford neither.

Rock and Roll Lifestyle

The group Cake has a question for Barack Obama:

Even as they're asking Americans to cut back and do with less and to accept the new normal of 8+% unemployment, the Obama's lived a quite lavish lifestyle at your expense last year.  All told, they spent $1.4 Billion in tax-payer money.  In comparison, the British spent less than %58 Million (or about 4% of what the Obamas spent) on the Royal Family.  By further comparison, Convicted Felon, Nazi Collaborator, and Barack Obama supporter George Soros has a total net worth of about $19 Billion.  Mitt Romney's net worth is only about $250 Million.  That is- if he liquidated every asset he owned, he would fall short of Obama's lifestyle for one year by about $1.15 Billion.

Barack Obama wastes no time in taking Mitt Romney to task for being rich and spending his own money.  He doesn't hesitate to call him "out-of-touch."  Yet Mitt Romney lives, on his own money, a much more modest lifestyle than Barack Obama.

Barack Obama encouraged, and even endorsed the "Occupy" movement, while spending about a 5th of the entire Net Worth of Convicted Felon and Nazi Collaborator George Soros, and over 5 times the entire Net Worth of Mitt Romney.

Specks, Planks, Eyes.  Some dis-assembly required.

President Petulant Child Gaffs, Blames Romney

Maybe we should call him President Peter Principle.  Good alliteration, there.  On the other hand, I still prefer SCOAMT.

At a rally in Kent, OH, speaking to students (the only place PPP can get a decent crowd seems to be universities), President Obama said he wanted to "export more jobs."  He quickly corrected himself (maybe he could claim to be 1/32 Indian, like Liz Warren.  His Indian name could be "Needs Constant Correction.") and said "export more products."

Now, beyond the fact that exporting more simply to export more is not actually good for the economy, he once again showed how low-class and petulant he can be by following up his correction by blaming Mitt Romney for the gaff by saying, "I was channeling my opponent there for a second."

Now, this might be appropriate behavior for a High School Student Council President, it certainly is not for the President of the United States.

Welcome to the Party, Pal!

Hmmm.. maybe that didn't come out quite right.

Fellow AoSHQ Moron, Dave in Fla, has started a blog.  It's mathy, but it's good.  Much like unskewedpolls.com, he analyzes the polls and adjusts them based on "Math!" to get what he hopes is a more accurate result.

Give him your eyeballs, friends and readers, it's worth your time.

Barack Obama Covering Up Facts in Ambassador Stevens Murder

Knew in 24 hours it was a terrorist attack, blamed "mob" and "video" for over a week.

 It is now being reported that US Intelligence, and therefore the White House, knew within 24 hours of the attack on the consulate in Benghazi, Libya was a terrorist attack with links to Al Qaida.  Despite this knowledge, the Administration continued to blame a film no one had heard of, and fewer had seen, for the attack.  So lax were they in following up on the attack, CNN was able to waltz in and take Ambassador Stevens' personal diary.

This is not your normal kind of cover up.  Nothing is gained by claiming a "mob" is responsible when we know that terrorists are.  Admitting it was a terrorist attack would not be showing any cards.  It would not be giving away any intelligence, or intelligence sources.  It would, however, have been embarrassing for the SCOAMT in office.  The first successful terrorist attacks on US Soil since 9/11 happened on his watch, less than 4 years after taking office, and just months after his administration provided assistance to the Islamist governments which now control both Egypt and Libya.

But even that does not explain covering up that fact.  Everyone knew it was a terror attack as soon as it happened.  Mobs don't carry mortars and RPGs.  So covering that fact up still makes no sense.  Unless there's something else that we don't know.

Rumor is spreading on the internet that part of the reason for the attack was that Ambassador Stevens was openly gay.  Christians just don't want same-sex couples to marry, Muslims think they should be beheaded.  Was that part of the reason for the attack?  If so, do Hillary Clinton (who personally appointed Ambassador Stevens) and Barack Obama (her boss) bear some amount of the direct blame for the attack?  If it was part of the reason, it would seem theirs is a more proximate relationship than some YouTube video, wouldn't it?

Or maybe that's completely wrong, and there was some other reason behind the attack.  Certainly it's true that Islamic terrorists love themselves some anniversaries, and the first 9/11 when they had a real opportunity would have been too good to pass up- but that wouldn't explain the cover up.

So what is the Administration hiding?  What dark secret won't survive the light of day?  What did Barack Obama know, and when did he know it?

Once More, With Feeling

Health care is not a right.

Do I need to say that again?  Health care is not a right.  Rights are Natural.  That is, they come from Nature (well, God, but this isn't a theological debate, so I'll stick with "Nature"), and they exist whether or not there is government, or even society.

Absent society, let alone government, I have the right to secure and protect my own life.  Absent society, I have the right to accumulate property.  Absent society, I have the right to do as I choose and pursue whatever endeavors I desire.  Those are rights.

Society arose, in part, to protect our rights.  In return, we sacrificed a small amount of that right to do as we choose (Liberty), and took on certain responsibilities.  I sacrificed my Liberty to shoot you at the slightest provocation, and took on the responsibility not to be a mooch.  Society and Government only work well when the vast majority of the population adheres to those limits on Liberty and upholds their responsibilities.

Then there are privileges.  Privileges are things that require a society, or even a government, or they have no meaning.  Privileges, in general, are "freedoms" in that they are things we can do with our right to Liberty, and they normally have no direct cost.  These are things like, in modern Republics and Democracies, voting.

Where rights have responsibilities, privileges have prerequisites.  It is a privilege to vote.  In the United States, I have to meet the prerequisites of being a citizen, aged 18 or older, with no felonies, and registered to vote.  It is a privilege to drive a car.  In Texas, I have to meet the prerequisites of having proof of ability to pay liability claims, be aged 16 or older (15 in certain cases), and obtain a driver's license.

Finally, there are products and services.  Products and services require a society to operate, but not necessarily a government.  If I cannot make or do something myself, that is a product or a service.  Products and services, beyond relying on a society to have any meaning, also submit to the laws of supply and demand.  If you can't provide it for yourself, then you must rely on someone else to provide it.  That means there is cost associated with it, and the more rare and/or valuable that product or service is, the more costly it will be, in general.

Now, into which of these categories does health care fall?  Does it sound like something that Nature provides you?  Well, perhaps in the form of dirt to "rub some dirt in it," but not really beyond that.  Does it sound like a privilege?  Not by our definition.  Health care is a combination of products (bandages, sutures, medicines, etc.) and services (administration of those products, consultation and diagnostics, health maintenance).

You cannot make it a right by wishing it so.  No matter what you do, health care will be a combination of products and services which are therefore subject to the laws of supply and demand.  One of the things demanded is human labor.  Doctors, Physician's Assistants, Nurses, and various technicians are all human beings who are selling their labor as health care workers to you, the consumer.

The Democrats are trying to make a big push (still? again?) to convince people that ObamaCare, which attempts to turn the product/service known as "health care" a right by forcing changes on the health insurance industry.  This ignores several problems, the most severe of which is the fact that no amount of human action can turn something into a "right."

But, they say, "It is a right.  Look at other 1st world countries."

Yes, with their ever ballooning deficits and forced austerity.  Not to mention waiting lists months or years long, ever shrinking pay for ever increasing work for doctors and so on.  But let's ignore that, for a moment, and consider something else.

In Europe, they claim to have made health care a "right."  But have they?  Do doctors and hospitals no longer get paid?  We have a word for forcing someone to work without paying them, and it isn't a very nice word.  If they do get paid, then what do you expect will happen if they stop getting paid, or suddenly decide that the pay is not commensurate with the stress and workload, and go into a different industry?  What will Europeans do then?  Can the legislatures of Europe grant everyone the knowledge and skill do provide their own health care?  Can the legislatures of Europe pass a law that enables someone to perform their own appendectomy or brain surgery?

Of course the answer is "no."  If there were a sudden shortage of doctors, many would do without health care, as they are already forced to do even in countries where health care is supposed to be a "right."

As an aside: Consider this: if the Government could mandate things to be "rights" does that not mean they could also legislate so that certain things are no longer "rights?"  Be careful what you wish for.

NYT: Barack Obama is a Stuttering Clusterf*ck of a Miserable Failure

Via Jim Geraghty at NRO, the New York Times took a "lengthy look at President Obama's" foreign policy- specifically in the Middle East.  Of course, the official hagiographers of the SCOAMT administration never come out and say it, but the article paints the Obama foreign policy as (quoting Geraghty) "withering and bleak."  You might say, it has been a stuttering clusterf8ck of a miserable failure.

Geraghty highlights (so you don't have to give the NYT traffic if you don't want to) some parts of the article, but I was struck by this (emphasis mine):

Arab officials echo that sentiment, describing Mr. Obama as a cool, cerebral man who discounts the importance of personal chemistry in politics. “You can’t fix these problems by remote control,” said one Arab diplomat with long experience in Washington. “He doesn’t have friends who are world leaders. He doesn’t believe in patting anybody on the back, nicknames.“You can’t accomplish what you want to accomplish” with such an impersonal style, the diplomat said.

I'm so old, I remember when nicknames for foreign leaders were the sign of oafish incompetence.  My, that was just 4 years ago.  Whoda thunk?

So let me get this right: Barack Obama was supposed to make the Muslim world love us.  Only he's distant with them, won't do the work necessary to build friendly relationships, let alone actual friendships, was absolutely without feck in handling the Iranian uprising and the the "Arab Spring," blamed others on his staff for his own failures.  Oh, and to top it off, he spent most of his time with the UN General Assembly today blaming America and our love of Free Speech for the actions of barbaric thugs in Cairo and Benghazi, among other places, just a couple of weeks ago.

The Economy, of course, is of paramount importance, but I can't imagine anyone who seriously believes that the tax-and-spend policies of the Democrats will help the economy as much, let alone more, than Mitt Romney's ideas of slimming down government.  If the Economy is #1, Foreign policy, in that it feeds into and off of the Economy, is issue #2, and Barack Obama has been a complete and miserable failure.

Barack Obama: "We Accept" Limits on Free Speech

Today's address by Barack Obama to the UN General Assembly was execrable for a variety of reasons.  I could go into a variety of reasons, but the most important are these two quotes:

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."

and

"Many countries do not share our freedom of speech... we accept that."

Yes, Barack Obama has admitted to the world that he is willing to limit Americans' speech.  That's what those two phrases mean, and there is no way to spin them otherwise.

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam?"  How about those who slander Christians, or Christ Himself?  How about those who slander Jews?  Mormons?  Hindus?  Why is Islam special?  Or are we suddenly defending religion from vitriol and I just missed it?  Wait, no, Modern Family and The New Normal are still on TV, so I'm guessing I didn't miss a memo, there.

And since when do we accept limits on Freedom of Speech (note the caps)?.  Understand that "accepting" other countries' limits on speech means implicitly accepting when a Muslim country jails someone for being a Christian.  It means, taken to a not-unimaginable-end, that we're willing to arrest people for violating speech rules in other countries.  Oh, wait, we already did that.

No American should accept limits on Freedom of Speech, and slander of Mohammed should not influence whether the future "belong[s] to" you or not.

With these statements, Barack Obama is setting the stage for more midnight, brownshirted raids.  Right now it's for the maker of a movie who his administration quickly threw under the bus for coordinated Terror Attacks (Remember: post 9/11 years w/o terror attacks: Bush - 7/ Obama - 3).  What next?  Do we capitulate when the Muslims already in this country start demanding "anti-blasphemy" laws?  Do we start surrendering American Christians and Jews to Muslim thugs?

Nothing short of a full-throated defense of Freedom of Speech should ever be acceptable from the United States President. 

No, Mr. Obama, we don't accept that.

Unions: Anti-Capitalism At Work

Most people would begin a piece on how unions are bad by issuing some standard broiler plate that "they had their place," and "they were necessary once."  I don't grant that.  I don't grant that they were ever necessary- certainly not as they were actually constituted.  I don't grant that they ever provided a needed service- labor changes were already occurring, and the negatives associated with them were always higher than the benefits they provided.

Regardless of how one views the rise of the unions, however, one cannot seriously argue that they are still necessary.  They are a suck on productivity, they support the worst workers to the detriment of the best workers.  They are quite willing to destroy livelihoods of innocent parties to get their way.

Two cases to illustrate.

The union representing the pilots for American Airlines have successfully organized what is probably an illegal sick-out.  They were smart enough to do it vocally, so they'll probably get away with it, but ever since a Bankruptcy judge said that AMR could impose a contract on the pilots, an unusual number of them have been calling in sick, or submitting maintenance requests.  They will never convince me that this is a coincidence.  Whether the union itself organized it is immaterial- the pilots are engaging in a sick-out. 

As a result of this sick-out, less than 2/3 of American Airlines flights are arriving on time.  Given that most flight traffic is business in nature, this is costing the economy potentially millions or billions of dollars.  It is certainly costing American Airlines millions of dollars that, given it is in bankruptcy, it doesn't have to spare.  And even if the pilots are successful in getting a "better" contract, all they'll do is make American's fiscal situation worse.  That could ultimately cost all of them, all of the flight attendants, and all of the ground crews their jobs- not to mention the associated vendors.  As a result, more fliers will go on other airlines.  Since the competition will have decreased, meaning the supply of flights will have decreased, but the supply of flights will not have increased, you can expect airline tickets to increase in price.

The pilots don't care about any of that, though, they only care about their own paydays.  But it's the AMR executives who are the greedy ones.

The second case is that of the NFL Referee's strike/lockout.  Currently, an NFL ref probably has a full-time job outside of officiating.  So, for the six months a year of part-time work they do for the NFL, they get paid $150,000.  Yes you read that correctly.  For (being generous here) 80 days of work, they're being paid more than many "middle class" families.  So what's the problem?  They want a pension. 

Seriously?  You're getting paid $150,000 for 80 days of part-time work, and you can't put some of that money away for your own retirement?  Maybe referees are as stupid as people claim.  As a result, injuries are already up.  At least one, and possibly two, games have been decided by bad/questionable calls.  And the people who are going to be hurt, if the refs are successful, are the players and vendors, not the owners.  Owning a professional football team, unless you're Jerry Jones, is a hobby.  It's often a well-paying hobby, but it's a hobby.  You don't do it if you can't afford it.  So it's not going to hurt the owners, particularly, if the season is a shambles.  What will happen, though, is that more players will get hurt, games will be more boring, and fans will walk away.  And that hurts vendors.

But the referees don't care about that.  They only care about getting a pension for part-time work.  But it's the owners who are the greedy ones.

The thing is, this is the only tactic unions have.  The only thing they can do is destroy, or threaten to destroy, a business.  They're a legalized protection racket.  "Nice business you have here.  Be a shame if something were to... happen to it."

Judge: Let The Dead Vote

As other states have done, Texas issued a new law that the Secretary of State needed to purge voter rolls of any dead voters.  This is actually something that the State was already doing, but the data source for information on dead voters was changed from the Bureau of Vital Statistics to the Social Security master list.

As a result, 77,000 probable matches have been found.  The include "strong matches" of people with the same name, date of birth, and social security number, and "weak matches" of people with the same date of birth and last four of social security number.  In both cases, counties are sending letters asking voters to verify their vital status.

Proving, once again, that opposition to cleaning up voter rolls is more about enabling voter fraud than making sure no one is "disenfranchised," a State District Judge issued an injunction against the cleanup.

Really.

The linked article talks to people on both sides (actually, it's one of the better articles from the Star Telegram I've seen in quite a while).  What it never gets around to addressing- or addressing very well, is the fact that their primary reason for stopping the enforcement is that people are already engaging in voter fraud.

Pull quote (emphasis mine):

"Even on information you get from probate courts, there might be someone registered to vote who uses a different first name, married name, maiden name. I've seen instances where two people are using the same Social Security number."

Now, unless the Social Security Administration started issuing the same SSN to different people, that means that one of those two people is engaged in active vote fraud.  Doesn't it make sense to weed those out?

Well, not if you're a Democrat, and one of your major voting blocks is the Dead Vote.

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/09/23/4282755/purge-of-voter-rolls-in-texas.html#storylink=cpy"

President Obama: The Problem "has been Islam"

But I was pretty certain and continue to be pretty certain that there are going to be bumps in the road because — you know, in a lot of these places — the one organizing principle — has been Islam.

That's a direct quote from the President on 60 Minutes last night (one minute for every live viewer, I suppose).   Many pundits, especially Conservative pundits, are focusing on the "bumps in the road" portion of the comment.  They are rightly pointing out that the murder of four Americans, including an ambassador, and the assaults against our embassies and those of our allies are hardly mere "bumps in the road."

One thing I think is not getting enough attention, though, (and I'll toss a h/t to Gabe over at the AoSHQ for this) is the fact that Barack Obama is finally admitting that Islam is the problem.

Islam requires these riots and murder.  To Islam, there is nothing worse than an insult, real or perceived, and any insult must be answered with violence.  It is a barbaric religion focused on conquest.  In short, Islam is Evil.

Now, I don't think Barack Obama is going to confront this Evil he has so tepidly admitted, but it is nice to at least finally get the admission.

If you want to place blame for the various crises in the Middle East on someone, look no further than Islam.  If you want to place blame for Israel's precarious position on someone, look no further than Islam.  If you want to place blame for violence, destruction, and murder in the Middle East on someone, look no further than Islam.

Obama is a Racist

Blames Latinos for his Miserable Failures.

How else am I supposed to read this?

On the Spanish Language TV Channel, Univision, Barack Obama said the following:

“The most important lesson I’ve learned is you can’t change Washington from the inside."

Now, considering this is the man who was elected based on "Hope!" and "Change!" that sounds like an admission of failure.  Which, I suppose, is at least honest of him.  But maybe he should have stayed in the Senate a little longer before running for President if he was that naive.

He went on to say that, in a hypothetical second term he would:

”be in more of a conversation with the American people so they can move these issues forward.”

This is what I have a real problem with.  For the better part of 3 years, you couldn't turn on the TV without seeing this blithering idiot's face.  Every problem he had was not one of policy, to hear him tell it, but one of communication.  He needed to "tell better stories," he once said.  So what he's saying here is that the problem isn't him, it's you.  He's been up here reading off his Teleprompter, and you rubes are just too cynical.  If you'd bought into the Hope and Change rhetoric more, he wouldn't have been such a failure.

And since he said it on Spanish Language TV where only Latinos and the hard-core politicos were going to see it, it's obvious that he's blaming Latinos.

I can only come to one conclusion here.  Barack Obama is a Racist.

Years W/O Terrorist Attack on US Soil: Bush 7 / Obama 3

Specific and Credible Threat Reported for Benghazi Embassy

When terrorist thugs attacked our Consulate in Benghazi, murdering the Ambassador and three additional personnel, Barack Obama's Administration stated that the attack was a "spontaneous" outgrowth of a riot.  The story was that the Ambassador was merely a target of opportunity.

Now, however, we have learned that Libya had informed the State Department of a specific threat against the Benghazi Consulate.  It also appears that there was no mob, and therefore no riot.  This was a specific terrorist attack.  Further, Ambassador Stevens had already told the State Department that he was on an Al Qaida hit-list.

During the aftermath of 9/11, I was told that those attacks were George Bush's fault for not "connecting the dots."  Despite no specific credible threats, the idea was that Bush should have consulted the auguries and determined that 19 terrorist thugs were going to hijack four airplanes and use them to kill 3,000 people.

Well, now we don't have disconnected dots, we have three very specific pieces of information.  It is well known that Al Qaida specifically, and Islamists more generally, love anniversaries.  We also had a specific report of a specific threat against the Benghazi Consulate.  Ambassador Stevens was known to be a specific target for assassination.  If Bush and Clinton were at fault for 9/11/2001, then Barack Obama is directly responsible for the security failures that lead to the death of Ambassador Stevens.

Ambassador Stevens's blood is on the hands of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Obama's Economy: 382,000 Newly Unemployed

This morning, the Department of Labor released this weeks "Initial Unemployment Filing" numbers- that is, the number of people who were employed this time last week who are no longer employed this week.  That number?  An "unexpected" three hundred eighty-two thousand.  Last week's number was revised upwards.  The four week rolling average also ticked upwards.

American can do better than this.  America should do better than this.  Unfortunately, approximately 52% of Americans bought into "Hope" and "Change" four years ago.  Since his inauguration, the SCOAMT has thrown money to his buddies and cronies, he has given away billions of dollars to countries that hate us.  He has imposed a de facto moratorium on off-shore oil drilling, he has kiboshed the Keystone-XL pipeline project.  He has doubled the national debt.  He has run up the annual deficit(!) to over $1,000,000 million dollars.  He has interfered with, and subverted, bankruptcy laws.  He has intimidated corporations.  His party has enacted costly, but useless, regulations on the finance industry.  His Fed Chairman and Treasury team have teamed up to make the dollar virtually worthless with round after round of printing money.

As a result, we have the smallest workforce, by percent of the population, that we've had in decades.  Record numbers of people are unemployed.  Record numbers of people are taking food stamps or other government assistance.  The very forgiving U3 measure of unemployment is at 8.1%.  It would be over 11% if the workforce were the same as it was when he came into office.  The more realistic U6 measure of unemployment hovers near 15%.  Gas prices have doubled.  US median income has plummeted.

In about 6 weeks you will have two options- more of this, or a new direction.

America can do better.  America should do better.  In six weeks, help America do better.

Coca-Cola Workers: "NO!" To Teamsters

Reject Unionization Again.

How many times does this make?  I think I heard (though I can't find a link, so take it with a grain of salt) that it's number 3 in 5 years.  Maybe Unionization should have a three strikes rule- you can try to unionize a shop three times, and after that you don't get any more tries.

I didn't talk about this while the talks were going on for two reasons: one, I think a private shop unionizing is stupid, but perfectly fine as far as it goes.  Second, I don't have a dog in this fight beyond my general disdain and distrust of unions.  Now, however, I will talk about it.

I work as a software developer.  Several times over the last five or six years, people have advanced the idea of creating a software developers' union.  It has been roundly rejected, cruelly ridiculed, and viciously mocked.  Software developers understand something that, apparently, some people do not.  We're all mercenaries.  Not just software developers- everybody.

When you work for an employer, you are looking for the best nexus of home/family time, pay, benefits, work environment, and other "intangibles."  Everyone does.  Similarly, when an employer hires you, they're looking for the best nexus of cost, performance, reliability, and a different set of intangibles.  That's how commerce works, and being an employee is nothing short of selling your labor as a service.  Just like any other commercial transaction, laws of supply and demand apply.

Now, when a worker is faced with the option of voting "yes" to a union, they are often lobbied by the union (the employer is prohibited from directly lobbying against it) to vote for the union.  Often they're promised "better working conditions," "better pay," "better benefits," and all sorts of pie-in-the-sky nonsense.  And, indeed, the union can often deliver those in the short run.  What they're leaving out (it's in their own best interest that workers never think of these things) is the costs.

Those costs can be on the employer, or on the employee.  Employer costs include greater labor costs, including compliance with a whole new "collective bargaining agreement," higher facilities costs, and greater administrative costs (over and above higher pay and more expensive benefits).  Costs on the employee, besides the union dues themselves, are things like favoritism of tenure instead of merit, and a worse work environment due to slacking and lazy coworkers.

When a shop unionizes, it is not representing the best workers.  They didn't need representation anyway.  The best workers were already getting raises.  They were already getting to take vacations, because they weren't calling in sick a day here and a day there.  They already had a relaxed, enjoyable work environment- such goes with knowing your boss is happy with your work.

When a shop unionizes, it does not even represent the "average," or middle tier workers.  They weren't in any danger of losing their jobs.  If they weren't getting raises all the time, they were getting them some.  If they're good at their jobs and the raises aren't coming, they could be fairly certain of finding gainful employment elsewhere.  They may or may not have been getting to take real "vacations" but they were being good enough with their time off to make sure they could at least take the occasional 4 day weekend.  Their work environment, if not jovial, was not bad- again, if it were, they could find gainful employment elsewhere.

No, when a shop unionizes, it represents the bad workers.  It represents the lazy and incompetent.  They are the ones who need union protection.  They are the ones whose jobs are most tenuously held, and the ones least likely to get another job in the same field if they're let go.  They are the ones who don't get vacation, because they're playing hooky every third week.  They are the ones with a "hostile work environment," because their bosses and coworkers know they're useless louts.

If you're a good worker, or even a mediocre one, and you vote for unionization, you're really voting to support the jerk next to you who takes seventeen "smoking breaks" during the day.  A vote for unionization, if you're a good worker or a mediocre one, is to say that some other worker- who is just showing up for his pay check, should have more perks than you just because he has "seniority."  A vote to unionize, if you're a good or mediocre worker, is a vote to allow the already lazy and useless to be insulated from their poor work habits.

US House Passes "Buffett Rule"

But not the one you're thinking.  Warren Buffett famously stated that his secretary pays a higher percentage of her income in taxes than he does, and went on to lie that he and other rich liberals wished they were taxed more.  In true class-warfare style, the Democrats tried to use this as leverage to raise taxes, and failed.

Now, the Republican lead House of Representatives has passed its own version of the Buffett Rule.  Unlike the version which would have slammed small businesses, this simply provides a check-box on tax form 1040 (and variants, I'm guessing) that allows someone optionally to pay an increased amount of taxes.  Now Warren Buffet and his ilk can pay all they want in taxes, leaving the rest of us alone.

Somehow I doubt they'll avail themselves of the opportunity.

Eric Holder Derelict in Duty As AG

"Didn't Know" about Fast And Furious

The Inspector General's report on the covert Act of War known as Operation Fast and Furious has been released.  The Obama designated fall guy has resigned, but the report (which is still full of "questions") says that Eric Holder did not know of the operation.

 "The report says Attorney General Eric Holder was not made aware of potential flaws in the program until February of last year."

Now this is a travesty.  A year's worth of investigation, and Eric Holder still has not turned over but a tiny fraction of the documents subpoenaed by Darrell Issa.  Over three hundred dead Mexican Citizens, plus at least two American Citizens, including Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, and the IG Report is essentially a white wash to say, "well, we investigated.  Nothing to see here, folks, move along."

Despite that, it's a damning indictment of Eric Holder.

Read that again, "...was not made aware..."  That is, Eric Holder didn't realize there might be flaws in a plan to give guns to Mexican drug cartels with no plan for the trailing and retrieval of those weapons other than to hope they showed up at crime scenes.  Doesn't that strike you as odd?  He's supposed to be the Top Cop in the United States.  You would think he would at least have the critical thinking skills to know, "hmmm.  Giving away guns has a lot of potential down-sides.  What have we done to mitigate those?"

Of course, there's another option, but it's even worse.  In the second scenario, Eric Holder is a figurehead at the top of a rogue agency that operates without his approval or say-so.  In this scenario, it's not that he "was not made aware of potential flaws," but that he wasn't even aware of the operation.  In this scenario, a covert war against the Mexican Government was waged without anyone's say-so except some assistant AG no one has ever heard of. 

Either way, it boils down to the same thing: Eric Holder was derelict in his duties as the Attorney General of the United States, and should be fired for his incompetence. 

And that's assuming there's not something more damning of him (and their probably is) in those documents he's still refused to release.

Obama Can't Be Bothered With Current National Debt

"I don't remember..."

Instead of dealing with the various fiscal or foreign calamities occurring on his watch, the President decided to go on with David Letterman and laugh it up.  I guess because laughing is better than actually dealing with the variety of things the President should be hearing.  Eventually talk turned to the deficit- which, by the way, is over $16 million million dollars.

Now, a real man, a man who believed in personal responsibility, might have said something like this: "The debt is far too high.  We spend more than we take in, and we have to find some way to fix that."  He could have even left it right there, and everyone (well, all 10 of Letterman's viewers) would have nodded sagely at his wisdom.

Barack Obama blamed Bush.  You know, considering how incompetent our betters in the Media would have us believe George Bush was, the Democrats seem oddly powerless to reverse any of his policies.

When pressed on the debt, Barack Obama couldn't even bring himself to say the real number.  Instead, he responded “I don’t remember what the number was precisely.”

Now, this can only be two things, and neither of them are good.

Either the President is so disconnected from his actual job of governing the country that he doesn't know how badly in debt we are, or he's a rank coward.  If one takes his answer at face value, he's too busy with ritzy fund raisers and playing golf to find out how much money his administration is spending (yes, Congress (in theory) appropriates funds, but the Executive Branch could always decide to spend less than is budgeted).  If one discounts that obviously false assertion, then what is left is that Barack Obama, even after blaming George Bush for his failures, is too cowardly to dare remind anyone about the US Debt level.

This is the president who has overseen two credit downgrades.  Contra what the Media and Democrats (but I repeat myself) would have you believe, the problem has always been a question of repayment- simply raising the debt level doesn't solve anything, because it doesn't solve the actual debt problem.  It just piles more debt on top of debt.  So not only is he too cowardly to remind people of his miserable fiscal failures, he's also too cowardly to actually attempt to address the root causes of the problem in the first place.

America does not need a rank coward in office.  America does not need a President who can't be bothered to keep up with the economy.  Either way, Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterfr*ck of a miserable tyrant.

Obama Admits He's an Entitled Celebrity, Not a Public Servant

"And Jay-Z now knows what my life is like: We both have daughters, and our wives are more popular than we are," Obama said to laughter and applause. "So we've got a little bond there. It's hard, but it's okay." - Barack Obama

Apparently Barack Obama's life is "hard" because his wife is more popular than he is?  Because he has daughters?  And an entitled celebrity somehow understands "what [his] life is like?"  Give me a break.

Yes, I know it was (alleged) humor.  I get that he was trying (and failing) to be funny.  The problem is that people don't joke about things that are inherently false.  Something has to have a grain of truth- no matter how tenuous- to be funny at all.  All of which means that Barack Obama, that stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable tyrant, believes that Jay-Z "knows what his life is like."  And that's a travesty.

If any celebrity has any inkling of what the President's life is like, something is horribly wrong.

The president's life should be incomprehensibly hard, especially now.  The Middle East is bursting into flames again- no, not over a movie.  China and Japan are gearing up for a war that, especially combined with the Middle East conflagration, could spell a third world war.  Our own economy is in the tank- with labor participation at near-record lows, and U3 unemployment is still over 8%.  The Fed just decided to devalue our money again, so commodities (yes, gold and silver, but also oil) will start climbing rapidly.  The Median Income in the United States has fallen for the fourth straight year.

Despite all of this, SCOAMT has time to laugh it up with Jay-Z and on David Letterman.  He spoke with the Spanish language "People" magazine while our embassies were being attacked.  He's gone golfing I don't even know how much- more than the hated George W Bush did in 8 years, I know that.  He lives the life of a celebrity, and he wants us to re-elect him.

Maybe instead of yukking it up with high-dollar donors, the President could, oh, I don't know- be President?  Maybe instead of jetting off to fundraisers with champagne towers, he could spend some time trying to figure out how to clean up the mess he made in the Middle East?  Maybe he could spend some time trying to make sure the Chi-Coms don't try to invade Japan- who happens to be our ally? 

I know, crazy, right?

Obama Apologist Admits Neo-Feudal World View

Tries to explain that the State already owns everything

So, on twitter, Matt Yglessias, a supposed journalist/pundit, had this to say about the President's "I believe in redistribution" remarks:

@mattyglesias - The concept of "redistribution" falsely implies that the existence of property is prior to the existence of the state. #mythofownership

Okay, so parsing this barely literate piece of crap, the best I can come up with is this: Matt Yglessias believes that complaints about redistribution are flawed because they take as a premise the idea that property (I'm going to be kind and suppose he means "private ownership of property"- Twitter is only 140 characters, after all) did not exist before government existed.

This passes for an explanation of SCOAMT's comment: that Redistribution is the natural state of things, since the State inherently owns all property. 

Nice of them to admit that, I guess.

I know it won't get through Mr. Yglessias's plutonium-dense skull, but maybe I can reach a few people here, so I'll explain exactly why he's wrong.

Private property is one of the Natural Rights of Man.  That is, if there were no government, I would still have the ability (and, therefore, the right) to amass for myself property of various kinds.  I could make/purchase/steal a home.  I could make/purchase/steal money.  As long as I could hold it, I would have a right to it. 

As friend-of-the-blog, and one-time AoSHQ Moronette (we miss you) Dagny once stated (this may be a paraphrase): "we enacted a government so we didn't have to spend all our time using our spear to protect our women and our meat, not so they could ban our spear, take our meat, and tell us how to take care of our women."  That is, man invented government to take that "steal" portion of the "make/purchase/steal" option off the table.  Man enacted government, giving away some of our freedom (the freedom to coerce others, mainly) in return for the security that anyone trying to coerce us would be punished.  We did not enact government to take our stuff and give it to someone else.  Or, as Matt Yglessias would have you believe, so that we could have stuff in the first place.

Indeed, what he says is the acme of neo-feudal thought.  I can no longer call it Marxist, because they're no longer even pretending that Government is a "necessary evil;" they've come right out and admitted that they believe Government is morally superior to individuals.  Which Marx did as well, but he hid it better.

It was the feudal mindset that said all property- all property- belonged to the crown, and was granted via fiefdoms and leases as temporary private property.  The land a Duke or Baron or Knight "owned" was not his, but his lord's.  And, unless that lord was the King, it didn't even belong to the lord, but rather his lord- right back to the Crown.  The prices the serfs and peasants paid to grind their grain, or cross a bridge, or weave their wool was not a tax, it was payment for property that was rightly the lord's.

This is the mindset of Obama and his minions.  And they believe they will be the new lords, and you will be the new peasants and serfs.

What Happened to "Reject the Premise?"

In this post, noted Romney-phobe DrewM decides to level the charge against Mitt Romney that he's "writing off" 47% of Americans.

Which is rich, considering his favorite was Newt "Don't Accept the Media Premise" Gingrich in the primaries.

Drew is reading the statement released by absurdly leftist outlet Mother Jones exactly the way the Media would like it read.  He's "writing off" the non-taxpayers.  He's just giving up on them.

One little problem.  That's not what he said (emphasis added).

“There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47% who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what.
“And I mean the President starts off with 49, 49…he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. 47% of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn’t connect.
“So he’ll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean, that’s what they sell every 4 years. And so my job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.
“What I have to do is convince the 5% to 10% that are independents, that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or another depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not.”

 What, exactly, is incorrect in Mitt Romney's remarks?  Does Drew believe that those 47+% who are tied to the Democrats will be convinced, in 6 weeks, to vote for Mitt Romney?  Does he believe that a message of "you have to take responsibility for yourself, which means not accepting government handouts" is suddenly going to start selling after 60 years?

Now, I've never been to war, but I've played chess and plenty of war-games.  One of the things I've learned from that is, in any given scenario, you have to pick your objectives and go after those.  If opportunities to obtain other objectives present themselves, and obtaining those objectives won't harm your ability to obtain your primary objectives, then you can go after those, too, but they are definitely secondary.

Now, this is Mitt Romney making a true statement of how he views his strategic objectives.  He's not fighting for the 47%, because that's going to be wasted effort.  Specifically, the kinds of things he'll have to say to woo them will be exactly the kind of things the Media can use to demoralize Republicans.  He's not fighting for his roughly 40% (it's really more than that, Mitt), because all he has to do for them is keep them focused and energized- something the SCOAMT is doing for him, in point of fact.

So the ones he has to concentrate on are the persuadable middle.  That's where he has to focus his message of smaller government.  That's the primary objective.

Only once that primary objective has been obtained can he afford to focus his attention on the secondary objective- that 47%.  That will probably have to wait until after a couple of years of GOP control of Washington.  They're not going to be persuaded by anything he says.  Many of them are partisan ideologues who will never be persuaded.  So the ones he's going to persuade, he's going to have to persuade with actions and their results.

That's not "writing them off."  That's not saying they're "takers."  It's simply acknowledging the fact that there is no realistic way that Barack Obama gets less than ~47% of the vote- and much of that comes from people who pay no taxes and do receive a lot of government pay-outs.

Let's not mistake tomorrow for today, and try to fight tomorrow's battle before today's has been won.

Psychotic Death Cult Coerces U.S. President

One week ago today, members of a psychotic death cult, known to the world as "Islam" began a protracted and concerted assault on the United States and her values.  On the 11th Anniversary of the 9/11 Attacks, and for the rest of that week, members of the so-called "Religion of Peace" assaulted US Embassies, as well as Embassies of US Allies.  The excuse they seized upon for their attacks was, supposedly, the release of a movie no one had heard of, and even fewer had watched.  They claimed it insulted Mohammed.

In response to these unprovoked attacks, the United States demanded justice, and informed the Countries in which the violence occurred that we would be beefing up security, whether they liked it or not.

Wait.  No.  That was on Bizzaro Earth.  On real Earth, the U.S. Government, Democrats, and their allies in the media did their best to make the issue about the movie and that it was "bad."  They decided to enact defacto anti-blasphemy ordinances in favor of Islam (but no other religions), enacting defacto Sharia Law, at least in part.  In addition, they executed a literal night-time raid by literal brown-shirted enforcers to throw a man in jail for exercising his right to free speech.  Here's what that looked like:

Blindfolded...

Does that look like a man who is having his identity protected, or does he look like a political prisoner about to be left to rot in the gulag?

Now, others have been chronicling the SCOAMT Administration's epic failures of foreign policy.  But many, if not most of them, have said something wrong- because it's easy to say.  What they're saying also fits in with their world view that most people are basically good.  I have no such illusions, and since no one else (at least- no one else who's mouth isn't flecked with foam) is saying it, I will.

Islam is evil.  It's adherents are evil.  There is no way to be a devout Muslim without being evil.  It is not just a "backward" religion.  It is not just a "young" religion.  It is evil to its core.  In many ways, Mohammed met the Christian definition of "Anti-Christ."  The religion is founded on World Conquest and forced conversion.  It preaches intolerance and slaughter.  Its adherents regularly stone women for being raped.  If a man can't keep it in his pants, that's obviously the fault of the woman- who was swaddled in so many layers of clothing it's a minor miracle she hadn't already suffocated.

Islam is a perversion of parts of Christianity and Judaism.  It claims to be the continuation of those two traditions, yet, to do so, must say that God is a liar.  Or, at least, that God chooses liars as His representatives.  For Islam to be true, every part of the Old Testament (using the Christian Bible) after the birth of Isaac must be either completely false, or at least a misrepresentation of God's will.  For Islam to be true, Jesus himself had to be a liar and a con-man (at best), who was guilty of blasphemy.  And yet, it incongruously claims that Jesus was a prophet of God.

Since its introduction, Islam has been responsible for genocide and war.  It has kept its adherents largely impoverished and given them a perpetual victim mentality.  It's adherents are willing to strap bombs to their children.  Even the ones who don't go that far cheer when others do.

Now, many will say- and this is the untrue thing that I referred to earlier- that it's a "minority of Islam" that does these things.  No, it is not.  Anyone who rejects forced conversion, anyone who rejects Jihad, anyone who rejects the stoning of rape victims and honor killings is not practicing Islam.  They may claim to be Muslim, but that's rather like someone claiming to be Jewish while sleeping with his neighbor's wife, working on Saturday, and eating a breakfast of pork sausage and bacon every morning.  It would be like someone claiming to be a Christian but never going to Church Services, never giving money to the needy, and never taking communion. 

Islam preaches these things.  To deny that it does is like denying that Christianity preaches the resurrection of Christ.  It's like denying that Hinduism teaches reincarnation.  You can claim all you want that "only a minority believe," but that just means that there are a majority of people who claim to follow the religion who don't actually follow the religion.

And if that were true, the outrage from the so-called "Moderate Muslims" would be deafening.  They would rise up with the rest of us to claim that this requirement that all speech contrary to Islam be silenced is not only un-American, it is also outrageous on more general grounds.  They would be clamoring to go on talk shows and TV to say "We don't support this."

But they don't.  Maybe they don't because they're afraid.  It's hardly a secret that Militant Islamists (the fanatics, even among the devout) seek to kill those who disagree with Islam, or who paint it in a bad light.  Maybe they think its self-evident that they don't support it.  We'll, sorry, folks, but it's not.  Or maybe, just maybe, there really is a part of them, too, who does agree with it.  There are Christians like that.  The ones I mentioned before- who don't go to Church, never perform any actions of a Christian, and don't take communion- yet they're glad for those who do.  They realize, at some level, that this is what is required of Christians, and they're glad some people are keeping it up- even as they do not. 

Now, I understand this is... well, maybe not "incendiary" but borrowing trouble.  But we cannot defeat "Radical" Islam if we continue to deny that the only thing "Radical" about it is that they are actually practicing the literal words preached to them from their own Koran.  You cannot solve a problem you refuse to acknowledge.  The problem is not some small minority of Muslims, the problem is Islam.

U.S. Under Siege

Cairo.  Benghazi.  Tunisia.  Yemen.  Sudan.  University of Texas (Austin).  North Dakota State University.

As the US and her allies (Israeli embassy in London, British and German embassies in Tunisia) are under attack for a third day, you hear much hand-wringing from the Media and from Barack Obama's administration.  There was absolutely no way, they say, they could have foreseen this.

None?  No way at all?  You mean, besides all their previous actions?

Meanwhile, the Media focuses on a movie no one had heard of, and Mitt Romney's criticism of the Cairo embassy statement.  The Media would have you believe that a film maker in California, a pastor in Florida, and Mitt Romney caused all this.

No.  It was Barack Obama who assisted with the ouster of Mubarak and Qaddaffy.  It was Barack Obama who apologized to the entire Islamic world for what he perceived as America's faults.  It was Barack Obama who claimed that the barbarians in Egypt and Libya were justified for their violence.  If any one person deserves blame for the current world crisis, it is Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States.

Now the US is under siege, and the Commander-in-Chief is a man who loves the Islamic world more than he loves America.  The US is under siege, and the President has decided to golf while the world burns. 

Why Do We Do This?

Over at the HQ this morning, commenter Truman North asked this: "What makes us do this? What makes us follow this stuff so compelling, when it makes us so mad?"

And I responded:

Actually, I've thought about this, and I can't answer for you, but I'll answer for me.

Really, there are 3 things.

1- An obsessive personality (really). I'm going to be fixated on or addicted to something, so it might as well be something significant.

2- An understanding of what is really at stake. I never remember going through the Liberal phase most kids go through. I never recall ever thinking, "Well, if we just did this the world would be better and everyone would love everyone else, and it would be perfect!" Maybe that's because, reared as a member of the Church of Christ, I always understood the fallen state of man and that human perfectibility is impossible.

So, when I look at what people like Mike Bloomberg or TFG, the SCOAMT, are doing, I understand that they're demanding a price (my Liberty) for which I will get no benefit in return- the benefit they're promising is impossible. I don't particularly like getting bilked out of things, especially my Liberty, so I watch it like a hawk.

3- Empowerment. With the rise of the Blogosphere, my voice can finally be heard. Between comments here (which generate results on Google and Bing), and my own Blog (yes, I have one), people are finally hearing what I have to say. They're finally hearing my viewpoint.

Because of Twitter, Facebook (no, I don't have an account, but it's still out there), and Blogs, we finally have weapons that normal people can use that give us a chance in the Media/Culture war.

And I wanted to expand on that.  Well, on numbers 2 and 3.

I think a lot of people don't really understand what's at stake.  That's what's behind my posts like "Hey, This Matters" over at the Axiom Report, and "Don't Tread On Me" here.  It's easy to think of tyranny as this big machine marching inexorably down the street.  It's easy to imagine it as something big, that everyone would notice.  Usually it isn't.  Usually tyranny is little.  Usually tyranny is subtle.

That's why things like New York City's ban on sugary drinks over 16oz is important.  That's why ObamaCare is so important.  That's why it's important to realize that the current problems in the Middle East were not caused by a movie. 

The Political Left hates Liberty.  Liberty is messy.  Liberty means that sometimes people hurt each other.  Sometimes its even completely innocent.  No matter the cause, however, the Left hates it when people exercise Liberty, because that takes them further from their goal of complete control "for the greater good."

The empowerment piece, however, is probably what puts it over the top.  I've known that Liberals wanted to control, rather than to govern, for a long time.  It wasn't until recently, however, that I had anything I could do about it.  Letters to my Representatives were met with no response, or form letters.  People with money "on my side" tended to stay silent, partially out of fear, and partially because Conservatives tend to keep our opinions to ourselves.  People "on their side" with money (like Convicted Felon and Nazi Collaborator George Soros) went to a great deal of trouble to push their agenda.

Now, much of that has changed.  I get responses from my Representatives which indicate they actually read my correspondence.  The "Army of Davids" is making it so that my position is being heard, despite the best efforts of the Media to drown it out.  People with money "on my side" have started spending money to defend themselves and, as a side effect, me.  People "on their side" with money have had to become more circumspect in how they spend it.

I, alone, don't make much difference.  I, in combination with you, and everyone else who refuses to remain silent, are beginning to make a huge difference.

Beyond Parody

If I had wanted to write a parody of what an out-of-touch Liberal Reporter would say about the attacks on American Embassies in the Middle East, I would have started with this piece from Kari Huus from NBC.  Then I would have directed a critical eye at it and said, "Nah, that's too much."

Oh.  My.  God.

Her (I presume Kari is a her) premise seems to be that yes, yes, those attacks are deplorable, but it's not the Muslim's fault.  It was the fault of that icky YouTube video that no one had heard of, let alone seen, prior to the attacks.  Indeed, she tried to equate them to "vocal protest."  Yes.  Really.

Want proof?  Sure you do, that's an unbelievable charge.  No one would try to equate the rape and murder of four Americans, including an Ambassador, with vocal protest.

He pointed to the uproar over 1988 Hollywood film "The Last Temptation of Christ." Director Martin Scorsese's adaptation of a book by the same name showed Jesus struggling with lust, depression and doubt, and  engaging in sex — in his imaginings — before snapping back to reality and dying on the cross. That movie was seen as blasphemy by some Christians, who — though not violent — were vocal enough to prevent the film from being shown in many parts of the United States.

Wait what?

Now, some may point out that this isn't "her" saying it, but the interviewee.  That is, these aren't her words, they're his.  Three problems with that.  First, at no point does she express any incredulity over the assertion, which one would expect if she did, in fact, disagree.  Second, this isn't a direct quote, meaning this is her interpretation of the comment, again, you would think there would be some comment if she disagreed.  Finally, the only one interviewed for the piece was John Espizito- there were no contrasting opinions.  Based on all of that, it is quite clear that Ms. Huus agrees with the sentiment.

And that's not the worst from the article.  How about this little gem (later in the piece):

"Muhammad didn’t win over his enemies by violence, he did so through compassion."

Ummm... excuse me, but I'm pretty sure "slay them" and variations of such are found throughout the Koran.  He did expressly win over his enemies by violence.  Indeed, it was because he failed to win them over and was exiled that he started assembling armies and conquering his neighbors "by the sword."

Here's another:

"Innocence of Muslims" features wooden acting, poor dubbing, awkward sexual moments and ham-fisted insults, with none of the production values of "The Last Temptation of Christ," or any serious exploration of Islam. Experts said it would almost certainly have remained obscure had it not ignited the protests and violence after being circulated in Arabic via the Internet.

Yes, because it's quality should matter regarding a) it's "worthiness" as free speech and b) whether or not someone should be offended enough to riot and murder.

Perhaps the kicker, though, it the thought that dominates the end of the piece.  The thought seems to be that Muslims, in general, are just nice, go-along-to-get-along folks, rubes even, who just can't help themselves when their religion is subjected to any form of criticism or ridicule.  Further, that the ones to blame here are somehow not "Muslims" but are, instead, "extremists in the region who are using anti-American sentiment to advance their own goals." 

Umm... goals like Jihad, forced conversions, and world conquest?  Like the Koran teaches?  Those goals?

More:

"The sad thing is these people are doing it on purpose," he said. "And unfortunately these Muslims fell right into the trap."

Yes.  Because the victims here are not four murdered Americans, it's the Muslims.

That NBC could approve this piece is beyond me.  Beyond being moral relativist drivel, which I expect, it's infantile, one-sided, and pathetically credulous.  Moreover, it's insulting- it's insulting to Muslims (oh, those poor dears are too stupid to know they shouldn't riot), it's insulting to Christians (vocal oppostion to an offensive movie is just like rioting, anal rape, and murder), but mostly its insulting and insensitive to those victims and their friends and family.  It's using their deaths to squash religious speech of which Ms. Huus obviously disapproves.  They deserve better than that.

H/T: @tsrblke

Our Opponent in't Obama- It's the Media

You'll hear conservatives say this from time to time, and it often gets written of as sour grapes.  The problem here is that it is sour grapes.  It's also true.

Consider: When barbaric savages in Cairo and Benghazi stormed our consulates there, tearing down our flag and raising the Al Qaida flag in Egypt, and killing our Ambassador and two others in Libya, the Consulate in Egypt released a statement blaming a YouTube video for the violence.  Barack Obama said nothing.  Mitt Romney called the Consulate (and therefore: State Department, and therefore: Administration) statement "weak," among other things.

Did the Media focus their ire on the savages responsible for the attacks?  No.  Did they focus their enmity on the Administration whose weak policies lead these human filth to believe they could execute these attacks and get away with it?  No.  They focused their hate on Mitt Romney, saying he spoke too soon.

Consider: Today the news came out that 382,000 Americans are out of work this week who had employment last week (that what the "jobless claims" are- initial filings of unemployment).  The Labor Department blamed Hurricane Isaac.  Did the media laugh at them? No.  Did the media decry the blame shifting to the weather?  No.  They simply accept it.

These are but two examples, and recent at that.  Alternative media has made great inroads against the Media over the last decade or so, but much still remains to be done.  We need to fight them at least as much as, and probably more than, we fight the Democrats.

So- start a blog.  Get on twitter.  Or just support your local blogger.  But let's defeat our opponent so we can start really saving this Country we love.

Strong Words

"Certainly in this situation, what we're going to expect is that (the Egyptian government is) responsive to our insistence that our embassy is protected, our personnel is protected, and if they take actions that they’re not taking those responsibilities, as all countries do where we have embassies, I think that’s going to be a real big problem.”

That quote is described by NBC's Shawana Thomas as "strong words."  Here is her quote:

"Obama’s strong words could mark a dramatic shift in the U.S.’s relationship with Egypt, which has been consistently pro-American since the late president Anwar Sadat. The country has maintained a peace accord with Israel since the 1979 Camp David Accords and since 1982 has received $1.3 billion in military and development aid from the U.S, according to the State Department."

Strong words?  If those are strong words, I'm an Olympic power lifter.  "We're going to expect they're responsive?"  "I think that's going to be a real big problem?"  What?

In this same interview, he said "that while he does not believe Egypt is an ally of the United States, he also doesn't consider the country an enemy."  So, they're not an ally, but they're not an enemy.  So... they're neutral?  Egypt is suddenly the Switzerland of the Middle East?  Give me a break.

In international diplomacy, neutrality is a specific stance which requires certain actions.  Egypt does not hold that stance and does not take those actions.  This means it can only be an ally or an enemy.  Any view of our relationship with them that does not realize that basic fact is naive at best.  I would say, three-and-a-half years into a Presidency, they're criminally negligent. 

Egypt is now run, in fact if not in name, by the Muslim Brotherhood.  The Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist organization which believes in the destruction of "The Great Satan."  That would be us, for those not paying attention.  Egypt is a hostile nation.

The thing is, they didn't have to be.  Hosni Mubarack was not a nice man, but he was our ally.  Perhaps just as importantly, events of this week prove that "nice man" is not a qualification for long employment as the leader of a Middle Eastern nation.  Howling savages literally stormed the gates- that suggests the need for a rather firm hand in preventing that kind of violence.

As there are now reports of similar riots/attack in Yemen and other ME nations, it is necessary for a realistic foreign policy.  President Obama has shown that he is unwilling to embrace a world view which would even allow for one.

Probably reeling from the cognitive dissonance, even Barack Obama has been forced to embrace "Peace through Strength" however.  He has ordered the Navy into the area, and sent 50 Marines (50?  What?) to Libya to "secure the embassy."  As Ace says, "I guess to secure the bodies."  This is implicit acknowledgement that nothing preserves the peace like the threat of sufficient violence.

They say it's better to be respected than feared, and that may be true.  But I'll take "feared" over neither, and I personally believe in the addendum, "but it's best to be both."

H/T: @tsrblke

Lead By Children

So, in the wake of the dual embassy attacks in Cairo and Benghazi, we find out that The SCOAMT had not met with his security council in at least a week prior to 9/11.  Meanwhile, the Malfeasant Media were all fawning over his "successes" in the middle east.  If that weren't enough, we find out that the embassy in Benghazi was not actually guarded by Marines, as it should have been; that duty had been contracted out to a local security force.

Now, I could say many things about this.  In fact, I opined on it to some extent earlier, but I think there's something else that we need to be clear on.

We're being lead by a Child with a sense of entitlement the size of Jupiter, and all the political acumen of a retarded potato.  With apologies to the mentally retarded, as well as to potatoes.

What?  Did they think all the bad people had gone away?  Did they think that the apparently omnipotent George W Bush had defeated terrorists and they didn't have to be on guard anymore?  Did they believe their own press about the Muslim world now loving us because of Barky's apology tour?

These are a child's beliefs.  Grown ups know that the world is a dangerous place, and that we must be on guard.  We take notice of our surroundings and circumstances, and we either avoid places and times of extra danger, or we take extra precautions we can't avoid them.  Grown ups wouldn't have been surprised by multiple "protests" (read: attacks) on the anniversary of 9/11. 

Children believe that everything is safe because Mom and Dad will keep them safe.  Children don't think twice of jumping out of a tree, because they know Mom or Dad will catch them.  Children are oblivious to their surroundings, knowing that Mom and Dad wouldn't take them somewhere dangerous.

The world is a dangerous place.  There are people who hate us and want to kill us.  Many of those people now revere September 11 as a sort of holy day which they celebrate by killing more of us.  We have enemies.

We need an adult to lead us, not a child.

F*ck This Sh*t

Yesterday into early this morning, barbarous scum wearing human suits attacked the US Embassy in Benghazi, Libya.  In the attack, they firebombed the embassy itself and killed the US Ambassador.  It appears they hanged him.  They certainly paraded his body through the streets.

What is the Obama Administration answer to this?

Barack Obama:

"As Ambassador in Tripoli, he has supported Libya's transition to democracy. His legacy will endure wherever human beings reach for liberty and justice. I am profoundly grateful for his service to my administration, and deeply saddened by this loss."

Hillary Clinton: 

"We condemn this vicious and violent attack that took their lives, which they had committed to helping the Libyan people reach for a better future."

Strangely absent?  Any call for Justice.  Every last one of those involved in this attack have declared war on the United States of America.  Every last one of them should be brought to justice.

But, you see, it's all our fault.  That, at least, is what the US Embassy in Cairo would have you believe, and so would the Media.  From the linked article:

The protests broke out due to outrage linked to an American video posted online that many Muslims have found offensive. Soon after news of Ambassador Stevens' death broke, Afghan President Hamid Karzai condemned the "inhuman and abusive act" of the filmmakers, which he said, "has caused enmity and confrontation between the religions and cultures of the world,"

Get that?  Its our fault because someone made a movie.  Those poor Islamists simply couldn't stop themselves from committing an Act of War against the United States.  They couldn't help dragging the body of one of our citizens- one who had attempted to help them- through the streets like some trophy.

Well, F*ck that.

It's time for America to stand up for ourselves again.  Every single Islamist should be pissing in their burkas right now, not sure when the bombs will drop- ending their murderous lives.  What passes for the Libyan government should be begging us to give them time to deliver the murderers into our hands.

But because Barack Obama is without spine, without shift, and without feck, they aren't.

Well, F*ck that, too.

Congress should immediately declare war on Libya, and impeach the President if he does not act immediately to resolve the situation.

And none of this "You break it, you bought it" folderol.  No: smash them and let them pick up the pieces.

And maybe, just maybe, electing someone with spine, with shift, and with feck in November will remind the barbarians in the world that America is no the country with which they wish to fight.

Remember: He's the Foreign Policy President

In his speech accepting the Democrat Nomination for President, Barack Obama made mention that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan don't have his foreign policy experience.  Now, beyond the sheer gall required for someone who's only "foreign policy experience" prior to gaining the Presidency involved believing that 'Austrian' was a language, I don't think I would run on foreign policy if I had the President's record.

Let's address the assertion that Mitt Romney has no foreign policy experience first, though, because it's obviously false if you think about it for just a couple of minutes.  As the founder and leader of an international corporation, Mitt Romney interacted with foreign cultures at many levels- from the purely personal up through various levels of government.  As head of the Winter Olympic Games held in Utah, he, again, interacted with various countries at various levels of government.  More pertinent to actual foreign policy, he had to juggle their needs and demands quite judiciously to bring of a successful Olympic Games.  As Governor of the State of Massachusetts, he was one of those government officials with whom international businessmen interacted.  Additionally, he would have interacted on a directly diplomatic basis with various foreign governments, as he tried to entice foreign companies (which are often tied to their home country's national interests) to open facilities in his state. 

So it is fairly safe to say that Mitt Romney has at least as much, and really more, than Barack Obama had in 2008.

Now, let's consider Obama's foreign policy experience since 2008.

Immediately after taking office, Barack Obama returned the bust of Winston Churchill which had graced the White House for decades to Great Briton, offending our ally.  He scolded Israel for their position regarding settlement expansion, offending our ally.  He went on a "World Apology Tour" where he bowed before several foreign leaders and declared that America was not actually exceptional.  He joined in two wars without congressional authorization- making those actions illegal.  He failed to support a genuinely democratic uprising in Iran, and supported faux democratic uprisings (really lead by the Muslim Brotherhood, a terrorist organization) in, among other places, Egypt and Libya.

Now, Egypt appears to be becoming more hostile to Israel, Iran is unabashedly pursuing nuclear arms, and our allies have good reason to believe we won't be there to support them.

But remember: he's the Foreign Policy President.

Then, yesterday- on the anniversary of the 9-11 attacks, savages in Egypt and Libya stormed our embassies.  In Egypt, they literally stormed the walls, tore down the US Flag, and raised a flag to Al Qaida.  In Libya, they fire-bombed the embassy, and killed the US Ambassador and at least two of his staff in what is being described, alternatively, as a mortar or missile attack.

But remember: he's the Foreign Policy President.

Immediately after the act of war in Cairo, the Cairo embassy Apologized for America, and claimed that Americans were responsible for the attack, because we'd upset their poor Muslim sensibilities.

Immediately after the act of war in Benghazi, the President "condemned the attack."  No further action appears to be in the offing.

Does anyone believe that the Cairo embassy would have apologized for upsetting poor Muslim sensibilities after having been attacked under Mitt Romney?  Does anyone think that he would issue a mere "strongly worded letter," to Libya?

But remember: Barack Obama is a the Foreign Policy President.