Saturday, December 1, 2012
An Immodest Proposal
If the Dems want to "forgive" ex-students their college loans they should offset this expenditure by taxing the institutions who benefited from the mass fleecing. I propose a surcharge of 20% on all tuition over $10,000/year. The surcharge will also extend to expenses like textbooks and lab fees and room and board and shall be levied until such time that the taxpayer is relieved of the burden created by this act of erasure.
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Obama Mght Be Outed And Impeached In The Same Year
2013 might be a tough year for the president. His administration deftly ran out the election clock on Benghazi, Fast and Furious and security leaks could emerge as a third scandal. But Benghazi and Fast and Furious are alive and well and they will be returning to center stage in the near future.
The Fast and Furious investigation will resume with Eric Holder being held in contempt of Congress. A declaration of Executive Privilege is not necessarily a "Get Out of Jail Free" card. The parallels with Watergate are remarkable. In 1972, President Nixon successfully ran out the clock and was re-elected in a landslide. Immediately thereafter his problems snowballed.
It has often been said about Watergate that it was not the crime but the cover-up that destroyed the administration. True. Truer yet about Fast and Furious. This is a complicated case. I don't know what happens when the Attorney General is held in contempt. Executive Privilege can stall the process but there are constraints on this exercise. If the White House can be shown to obstruct justice (as with Watergate) the entire administration will unravel like a Chinese sweater in a bed of kittens. A criminal cover-up could certainly result in impeachment.
Then, there is Benghazi. Again, a cover-up has been attempted but this cover-up might not be criminal in nature. Susan Rice et al (an et al that includes the president and the secretary of state) were not under oath when they lied to the American people. So this administration might get yet another pass on yet another series of lies. But then there was a bloodless coup where Petraeus and others were asked to resign. Uh oh.
This is a ham-fisted operation if ever there was one. If high-level personnel were terminated to keep them quiet that could be construed as an obstruction of justice (even though a criminal probe had not yet been launched.) And this tactic also highlights the national security issue of personal relationships.
That might sound like excess verbiage but let me explain. If General Petraeus is asked to resign because he has a mistress and thus is vulnerable to blackmail, what does that say about someone who might have smoked crack and gotten it on with Larry Sinclair? The door will be knocked off its hinges and "All The President's Men" could take on a whole new meaning.
In the Benghazi scandal the cover-up might pale in comparison to the events of September 11, 2012. Fast and Furious resulted in dozens of deaths but a few mea culpas could have ended it. The public watches too much cheesy television where the government employees are always saintly. In real life government agencies have used criminal proxies to distribute weapons and narcotics and then bust the subordinates. They might rail against the drugs or guns as they distribute them but they have distributed contraband as adroitly as any criminal enterprise.
This might not be a routine exercise but it is not an uncommon practice either. Eric Holder could have said "mistakes were made" and we could have moved on. Instead, there was an elaborate cover-up. That is where Fast and Furious and Benghazi diverge.
Whatever happened on September 11, 2012 was scandalous. Ain't no rug big enough to sweep this one under. Presidential inaction might be the most favorable spin for this scandal. A personality that will pimp his own mother's memory and allow his half-brother and aunt to live in squalor might just hit the snooze button when his fellow Americans are under attack. Chilling to think that the president's indifference might have resulted in the torture and death of four of his countrymen. But reality might be even worse. Much worse.
So the president might get outed, his staff indicted and he might get impeached while enduring prolonged budget wars as the Middle East continues to flare up from time to time. These events might break a normal man but the narcissist will revel in the attention. The narcissist will celebrate his stardom as his country burns.
2013 should be an interesting year.
The Fast and Furious investigation will resume with Eric Holder being held in contempt of Congress. A declaration of Executive Privilege is not necessarily a "Get Out of Jail Free" card. The parallels with Watergate are remarkable. In 1972, President Nixon successfully ran out the clock and was re-elected in a landslide. Immediately thereafter his problems snowballed.
It has often been said about Watergate that it was not the crime but the cover-up that destroyed the administration. True. Truer yet about Fast and Furious. This is a complicated case. I don't know what happens when the Attorney General is held in contempt. Executive Privilege can stall the process but there are constraints on this exercise. If the White House can be shown to obstruct justice (as with Watergate) the entire administration will unravel like a Chinese sweater in a bed of kittens. A criminal cover-up could certainly result in impeachment.
Then, there is Benghazi. Again, a cover-up has been attempted but this cover-up might not be criminal in nature. Susan Rice et al (an et al that includes the president and the secretary of state) were not under oath when they lied to the American people. So this administration might get yet another pass on yet another series of lies. But then there was a bloodless coup where Petraeus and others were asked to resign. Uh oh.
This is a ham-fisted operation if ever there was one. If high-level personnel were terminated to keep them quiet that could be construed as an obstruction of justice (even though a criminal probe had not yet been launched.) And this tactic also highlights the national security issue of personal relationships.
That might sound like excess verbiage but let me explain. If General Petraeus is asked to resign because he has a mistress and thus is vulnerable to blackmail, what does that say about someone who might have smoked crack and gotten it on with Larry Sinclair? The door will be knocked off its hinges and "All The President's Men" could take on a whole new meaning.
In the Benghazi scandal the cover-up might pale in comparison to the events of September 11, 2012. Fast and Furious resulted in dozens of deaths but a few mea culpas could have ended it. The public watches too much cheesy television where the government employees are always saintly. In real life government agencies have used criminal proxies to distribute weapons and narcotics and then bust the subordinates. They might rail against the drugs or guns as they distribute them but they have distributed contraband as adroitly as any criminal enterprise.
This might not be a routine exercise but it is not an uncommon practice either. Eric Holder could have said "mistakes were made" and we could have moved on. Instead, there was an elaborate cover-up. That is where Fast and Furious and Benghazi diverge.
Whatever happened on September 11, 2012 was scandalous. Ain't no rug big enough to sweep this one under. Presidential inaction might be the most favorable spin for this scandal. A personality that will pimp his own mother's memory and allow his half-brother and aunt to live in squalor might just hit the snooze button when his fellow Americans are under attack. Chilling to think that the president's indifference might have resulted in the torture and death of four of his countrymen. But reality might be even worse. Much worse.
So the president might get outed, his staff indicted and he might get impeached while enduring prolonged budget wars as the Middle East continues to flare up from time to time. These events might break a normal man but the narcissist will revel in the attention. The narcissist will celebrate his stardom as his country burns.
2013 should be an interesting year.
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Items From My Mailbox. Thanks Bonnie
You’re sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door.
Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers.
At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way.
With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun.
You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it.
In the darkness, you make out two shadows.
One holds something that looks like a crowbar.
When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire.
The blast knocks both thugs to the floor.
One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside.
As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble.
In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless..
Yours was never registered.
Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died.
They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm.
When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter.
"What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask.
"Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing.
"Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven."
The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper.
Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys.
Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them..
Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times.
But the next day's headline says it all:
"Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die."
The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters..
As the days wear on, the story takes wings.
The national media picks it up, then the international media.
The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.
Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win.
The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects.
After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time.
The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.
A few months later, you go to trial.
The charges haven't been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted.
When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you..
Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man.
It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.
The judge sentences you to life in prison.
This case really happened.
On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk , England , killed one burglar and wounded a second.
In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term..
How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire ?
It started with the Pistols Act of 1903.
This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license.
The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns..
Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.
Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987.Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw.
When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.
The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions.
(The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)
Nine years later, at Dunblane , Scotland ,
Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.
For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals.
Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners.
Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns.
The Dunblane Inquiry, a few
months later, sealed the fate of the
few sidearms
still owned by private citizens.
During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun.Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.
Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying,
"We cannot have people take the law into their own hands."
All of Martin's neighbors
had been robbed numerous times,
and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs
who had no fear of the consequences.
Martin himself, a collector of antiques,
had seen most of his collection
trashed or stolen by burglars.
When the Dunblane Inquiry ended,
citizens who owned handguns
were given three months to turn them over to local authorities.
Being good British subjects,
most people obeyed the law.
The few who didn't were visited by police
and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply.
Police later bragged that they'd taken
nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.
How did the authorities know who had handguns?
The guns had been registered and licensed.
Kind of like cars. Sound familiar?
WAKE UP AMERICA ; THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION.
"...It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."--Samuel Adams
If you think this is important, please forward to everyone you know.
Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers.
At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way.
With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun.
You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it.
In the darkness, you make out two shadows.
One holds something that looks like a crowbar.
When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire.
The blast knocks both thugs to the floor.
One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside.
As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble.
In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless..
Yours was never registered.
Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died.
They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm.
When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter.
"What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask.
"Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing.
"Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven."
The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper.
Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys.
Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them..
Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times.
But the next day's headline says it all:
"Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die."
The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters..
As the days wear on, the story takes wings.
The national media picks it up, then the international media.
The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.
Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win.
The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects.
After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time.
The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.
A few months later, you go to trial.
The charges haven't been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted.
When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you..
Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man.
It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.
The judge sentences you to life in prison.
This case really happened.
On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk , England , killed one burglar and wounded a second.
In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term..
How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire ?
It started with the Pistols Act of 1903.
This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license.
The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns..
Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.
Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987.Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw.
When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.
The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions.
(The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)
Nine years later, at Dunblane , Scotland ,
Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.
For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals.
Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners.
Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns.
The Dunblane Inquiry, a few
months later, sealed the fate of the
few sidearms
still owned by private citizens.
During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun.Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.
Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying,
"We cannot have people take the law into their own hands."
All of Martin's neighbors
had been robbed numerous times,
and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs
who had no fear of the consequences.
Martin himself, a collector of antiques,
had seen most of his collection
trashed or stolen by burglars.
When the Dunblane Inquiry ended,
citizens who owned handguns
were given three months to turn them over to local authorities.
Being good British subjects,
most people obeyed the law.
The few who didn't were visited by police
and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply.
Police later bragged that they'd taken
nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.
How did the authorities know who had handguns?
The guns had been registered and licensed.
Kind of like cars. Sound familiar?
WAKE UP AMERICA ; THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION.
"...It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."--Samuel Adams
If you think this is important, please forward to everyone you know.
Monday, November 26, 2012
The Literal Worship Of Barack Obama
You want to send a chill up my spine? Don't show me a vampire or a zombie. No werewolves or serial killers. I could sleep through "Saw" or "Hell Raiser" or Elm Street anything. All a giant yawn.
But show me a brainwashed cultist and the nightmares will start long before I sleep. Cult leaders are the creepiest thing in the whole world, except of course for their followers. Brrrr.
Jamie Foxx refers to Barack Obama as "our lord and our savior." In the comments on Youtube there are several "You are too stupid to get that he is joking..." And I suspect that if Foxx is pressed he will say that clearly it is a joke and the people who are weirded out are just too stupid to understand his humor.
Foxx isn't joking. He is indeed an Obama supporter. Obama worship is real and it is real creepy. Unless one is promoting a Solyndra, a Light Squared, A General Electric, a Goldman Sachs or something of that ilk, there is no rational reason to vote for Barack Obama.
The keyword is rational. Yes, there are irrational reasons to vote for one's cult leader. Ask Jamie Foxx about that.
My first post at this site four years ago dealt with the frightening religiosity of Obama's Kool-Aid kids. "What it took me a long time to realize is that religion performs a socially {I should have said social not socially. Oh well. I was rushed.}utilitarian function. It allowed for the suspension of reason at specific, designated times. Thus, people were less likely to permanently suspend reason as a lifestyle choice."
It scared me then. It scares me even more now that Obama has been re-elected after turning in one of the worst job performances of any first term president. But if one is under his spell, if one has guzzled the Kool-Aid and pledged allegiance...
I used to think that if people abandoned organized religion, individuals and society would both be more rational. I was wrong. We are genetically religious and that religiosity has to have an outlet. When the outlet is a political figure, tragedy is not far behind.
HE AIN'T JOKING. NO ONE IS LAUGHING. THIS IS SOME SCARY SHIT!
But show me a brainwashed cultist and the nightmares will start long before I sleep. Cult leaders are the creepiest thing in the whole world, except of course for their followers. Brrrr.
Jamie Foxx refers to Barack Obama as "our lord and our savior." In the comments on Youtube there are several "You are too stupid to get that he is joking..." And I suspect that if Foxx is pressed he will say that clearly it is a joke and the people who are weirded out are just too stupid to understand his humor.
Foxx isn't joking. He is indeed an Obama supporter. Obama worship is real and it is real creepy. Unless one is promoting a Solyndra, a Light Squared, A General Electric, a Goldman Sachs or something of that ilk, there is no rational reason to vote for Barack Obama.
The keyword is rational. Yes, there are irrational reasons to vote for one's cult leader. Ask Jamie Foxx about that.
My first post at this site four years ago dealt with the frightening religiosity of Obama's Kool-Aid kids. "What it took me a long time to realize is that religion performs a socially {I should have said social not socially. Oh well. I was rushed.}utilitarian function. It allowed for the suspension of reason at specific, designated times. Thus, people were less likely to permanently suspend reason as a lifestyle choice."
It scared me then. It scares me even more now that Obama has been re-elected after turning in one of the worst job performances of any first term president. But if one is under his spell, if one has guzzled the Kool-Aid and pledged allegiance...
I used to think that if people abandoned organized religion, individuals and society would both be more rational. I was wrong. We are genetically religious and that religiosity has to have an outlet. When the outlet is a political figure, tragedy is not far behind.
HE AIN'T JOKING. NO ONE IS LAUGHING. THIS IS SOME SCARY SHIT!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)