Apology for Yemen Embassy Breach?

Now that the perimeter of the US embassy in Yemen has been stormed by men wielding sticks, knives, and hurling rocks, how will the White House lower the bar yet again for American humility?  Maybe another apology. It is not enough to pass blame for a region on fire by pointing to a YouTube video. In fact, we’ve been reminded in the press conference by Hillary that only a few bad people are involved. Really, have you seen the newsreels? They understandably maimed and murdered because a few Americans were insulting of Mohamed? Now it’s other embassies from western nations being attacked including Britain and Germany. Is that because of an American made trailer on YouTube? The apology must be morphed in a global religious tolerance oration from the Teleprompter.The Coice

There is a choice this election, as the Democratic campaign likes to frame it, preferring not to be a referendum election based on past performance and a near view into the future on what current policies will produce in the foreign arena and domestic economics. The two separate paths seem not just divided but more like a T intersection; Left or Right. And you better look both ways before you get onto the path or you might be run down by people racing from the left path and heading full speed past the intersection on down the Right path. Apologies and foreign aide for friendship or respect through strength.  Now that’s choice. We don’t have to look back any farther than Ronald Regan to see why voters chose him over Carter in not unsimilar situations. If you are a fence sitter independent there is not much middle ground left that the candidates share.  So let Obama make the apology and let Romney speak out on strength and help define the choice.

Mr Nice Deb


Neil Munro, The Daily Caller: Obama submits to Brotherhood, asks for suppression of anti-Islam video:

President Barack Obama has bowed to the Muslim Brotherhood’s demand that the federal government suppress a satirical video of Islam’s prophet, Muhammad.

But Youtube denied the request late Sept. 14.

Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for the National Security Council, told the Washington Post midday that the White House has “reached out to YouTube to call the video to their attention and ask them to review whether it violates their terms of use.”

Youtube’s executives shut down videos that they deem “hate speech.” A YouTube spokesperson said Sept. 12 that the video “is clearly within our guidelines and so will stay on YouTube,” and repeated that message late Sept. 14, so rejecting Obama’s unprecedented request.

Obama’s request complied with the Sept. 13 demand and threat by the brotherhood, which now governs the Arab world’s largest country, Egypt.

“Hurting the feelings of one and a half billion Muslims cannot be tolerated, and… we demand that all those involved in such crimes be urgently brought to trial,” according to an English-language statement on the brotherhood’s website.

The brotherhood’s demand included a threat of additional violence during Obama’s re-election campaign.

How God-awful  is this administration? Until I read the complete sentence, I couldn’t tell if the following statement: “Hurting the feelings of one and a half billion Muslims cannot be tolerated, and… we demand that all those involved in such crimes be urgently brought to trial”, came from the radical Muslim brotherhood or our own State Dept.

Oh, wait…

AoSHQ: You Have the Right To Free Speech That’s Helpful To The Government: Feds Looking To Jail Filmmaker

Michelle Malkin: The White House declares war…on YouTube critics of Islam:

Last night, the LA Times reported that the White House leaned on YouTube to censor the anti-Islam movie that provided jihadis with handy cover and pretext for their long-planned attackon our diplomatic posts and embassies abroad:

Administration officials have asked YouTube to review a controversial video that many blame for spurring a wave of anti-American violence in the Middle East.

The administration flagged the 14-minute “Innocence of Muslims” video and asked that YouTube evaluate it to determine whether it violates the site’s terms of service, officials said Thursday. The video, which has been viewed by nearly 1.7 million users, depicts Muhammad as a child molester, womanizer and murderer — and has been decried as blasphemous and Islamophobic.

Yid With Lid: Did Romney’s Reaction to US Embassy Violence End Obama’s Convention Bounce?

Beginning with the 9/12 numbers (covering 9/10-12) Romney’s numbers began to rise while Obama’s began to fall.  Today’s poll shows which started the day the violence began shows Romney with a small 3% lead (essentially back to where they were as the DNC convention began).

Paul Ryan: FULL SPEECH: Paul Ryan speaks at Values Voter Summit:

Paul Ryan spoke to the Values Voter Summit this morning and it’s getting great reviews from people, including Rush who has already played a portion of it on the radio.

The Daily Caller: Steyn on Obama’s Las Vegas ‘performance’: ‘Every American should be ashamed of their president’ [AUDIO]

On Hugh Hewitt’s radio show Thursday night, National Review columnist Mark Steyn, author of “After America: Get Ready for Armageddon,” said President Barack Obama gave an embarrassing performance Wednesday during his campaign swing through Las Vegas, Nev., in the wake of attacks on U.S. diplomatic stations in Libya and Egypt.

“I thought that thing last night with the president saying he had ‘a tough day’ and comparing the dead Americans in Libya to campaign supporters, which he did — I thought was one of the most disgraceful, inept and embarrassing performances by a head of state or government that I have ever seen,” Steyn said. “Every American should be ashamed of their president.”

Steyn didn’t fault the president for going to Sin City, acknowledging that sometimes plans are in place and things have to move along. But the tone of Obama’s remarks set him off.

“He didn’t script his remarks,” Steyn said. “I mean, this is a man, for example, who doesn’t have, I think, great empathetic qualities at the best of times. But to slough it off in that bloodless language — you know, when he says, now I believe this is a direct quote, ‘Obviously, our hearts are broken today.’ If you say ‘obviously’ before it, your heart is not broken. He said, ‘Oh, it’s a tough day.’ It’s not a tough day [for him]. It’s a tough day for the families of the four people who were killed.”

In Which Obama Campaign Manager Unintentionally Provides Blogger With Awesome Opportunity To Do Tea Party/OWS Compare/Contrast

The President’s porcine and thuggish campaign manager, Jim Messina, has unintentionally afforded me an opportunity to engage in one of my favorite past times – comparing the ragtag collection of confused/violent/radical malcontents who make up the Occupy movement to the benign, patriotic, and genuinely peaceful tea party.

Here is his latest fundraising letter, via Weasel Zippers:

Last night, the President went to Congress and defined in clear terms what we’re going to be fighting for in the months ahead.

That means that right now, it’s on us to get his back and work like hell to build this campaign. If we want to see this President re-elected, it’s time:

Add your name and say you’re standing with the President — and our shared vision for this country.

We don’t know which Republican is going to be our opponent yet, but here’s what we do know: Whoever wins the Republican nomination will have done so by adopting the extreme Tea Party agenda.

Whatever could he mean by the “extreme” tea party agenda?

Here is Jenny Beth Martin of The Tea Party Patriots, voicing her “extremist” support for fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government, and free markets in response to Obama’s SOTU speech. . I’ve already posted this, but in case you missed it:

So, wow – yeah – that was pretty scary. God help us all if extreme principles like those are ever adopted by any Republican in government.

Meanwhile, here’s the Obamacrat endorsed Occupy Wall Street manifesto of “demands”:

Demand one: Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending “Freetrade” by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages. Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr.

Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors.

Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.

Demand four: Free college education.

Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.

Demand six: One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now.

Demand seven: One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America’s nuclear power plants.

Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.

Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.

Demand ten: Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system.

Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the “Books.” World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the “Books.” And I don’t mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.

Demand twelve: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.

Demand thirteen: Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union.

Yes, just to be clear, Democrats have openly and enthusiastically endorsed these out of the closet Marxists. See The #OWS Hall Of Shame: Democrats Who Support/Supported The Occupy Wall Street Movement for a non-exhaustive list. This is not your parents’ Democrat party – it has swung to the hard left in recent years, and the most extreme leftist wing of the Democrat party now occupies the White House.

So for the party that is in the process of destroying our capitalist system in the name of  “fundamentally transforming” our nation, to be calling people who want to get back to fiscal responsibility and a constitutional form of government, “extremists” is just too rich.

“If you get hit, we will punch back twice as hard,” Messina once instructed Obama supporters. I believe in punching back twice as hard, rhetorically.

The Obamcrat mob, not so much. Here, once again, created and kept updated by the Jawas, is the Tea Party Versus (Dem endorsed)#Occupy Checklist:

They’ve got a hell of a nerve trying to paint the tea party as “extremist”  under these circumstances.

PS: There are some interesting opinions on the Messina photo, above, shared in Weasel Zippers’ comment section.


Dear Paul Krugman: Examples Please

In Paul Krugman’s lame follow-up  to his despicable and now infamous 9/11 column, he writes:

The fact is that the two years or so after 9/11 were a terrible time in America – a time of political exploitation and intimidation, culminating in the deliberate misleading of the nation into the invasion of Iraq.

It’s probably worth pointing out that I’m not saying anything now that I wasn’t saying in real time back then, when Bush had a sky-high approval rating and any criticism was denounced as treason. And there’s nothing I’ve done in my life of which I’m more proud.

Since comments are once again turned off, I’ll use this space to beg the question: Can we please see some examples of this intimidation – these accusations of treason from the Bushies – any of them – Rumsfeld, Rove, Cheney, any Bush Republicans in the wake of 9/11?

The reason I ask is because  while I distinctly remember the howls of outrage from Democrats that their patriotism was being questioned, I don’t remember any  Republicans in power actually doing it. Who is he talking about? Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh? Ann Coulter doesn’t speak for the Republican party, and she certainly didn’t speak for the Bush administration. Limbaugh may call himself  “the titular head of the Republican party”, but obviously, he speaks for himself, too. The Democrats’ howls of outrage were directed at the Republican party.  I’d like to see some examples of this “terrible” intimidation of which they speak.

Krugman linked to Greg Sargent, who was able to dredge up a few examples of what could be deemed “political exploitation” of 9/11 by Bushies:

Here’s Karl Rove in the runup to the 2002 midterm elections (via Nexis):

President Bush’s top political adviser said today that Republicans will make the president’s handling of the war on terrorism the centerpiece of their strategy to win back the Senate and keep control of the House in this year’s midterm elections.

“We can go to the country on this issue because they trust the Republican Party to do a better job of protecting and strengthening America’s military might and thereby protecting America,” Karl Rove said at the Republican National Committee meeting here.

Here’s Rudy Giuliani, at the 2004 Republican National Convention (via Nexis):

I looked up and seeing the flames of hell emanating from those buildings and realizing that what I was actually seeing was a human being on the 101st, 102nd floor that was jumping out of the building, I stood there; it probably took five or six seconds. It seemed to me that it took 20 or 30 minutes. And I was stunned. And I realized in that moment and that instant, I realized we were facing something that we had never, ever faced before…At the time, we believed that we would be attacked many more times that day and in the days that followed. Without really thinking, based on just emotion, spontaneous, I grabbed the arm of then-Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik and I said to him, ‘’Bernie, thank God George Bush is our president.’’ I say it again tonight, I say it again tonight: thank God that George Bush is our president.

Here’s top McCain adviser Charlie Black, during the 2008 campaign:

A top adviser to Sen. John McCain said that a terrorist attack in the United States would be a political benefit to the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, a comment that was immediately disputed by the candidate and denounced by his Democratic rival.

Charles R. Black Jr., one of McCain’s most senior political advisers, said in an interview with Fortune magazine that a fresh terrorist attack “certainly would be a big advantage to him.”

So we have Karl Rove, (the Architect)  noting the obvious, and Giuliani’s honest recounting of what he (and  a whole lot of people) were thinking on 9/11. What McCain’s adviser said in 2008 was certainly crude, but I thought we were talking about the period of time immediately following 9/11 when this atmosphere of intimidation and gross political exploitation was so palpable.

And I, of course,  could cite Democrat operatives saying  equally crude things, such as: Obama needs event ‘similar’ to OKC to ‘reconnect’ with voters. Nowhere will we find Republicans scheming with Hollywood to release a movie in October 2004, positioning the “gutsy” President as the hero of 9/11. Now that would be some political exploitation worth mentioning!

Given how the Democrat Media complex  really knows how to play up the missteps of Republicans, you would think Google with be rife with examples of Bushies accusing the Krugmans of the world of treason.

I can certainly  cite for you examples  of the Obami accusing Republicans and/or the Tea Party of treason, terrorism, (or worse).

Democrats have verbally maligned their opposition in the most shockingly abusive terms imaginable, and much of it has come from Democrats in Congress and in the Obama administration. Yes, they have literally questioned Republicans’ patriotism in very overt, stark, impossible to misread terms.

Within hours of the tragic Tucson shooting in which nine people were shot, six fatal, last January, Paul Krugman himself, leaped to the outrageous conclusion that the shooter had to be a Tea Partier. He blamed conservatives for the attack that critically injured Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, accusing them of fomenting “a climate of hate.” I can’t think of a more shameful way to exploit a tragedy than to immediately, and without any evidence what-so-ever,  blame  political opponents for it. You could even call it an attempt to “intimidate” the opposition into silence.

Of course,  the Democrats were, as usual, wrong. The gunman turned out not to be a conservative Tea Party supporter. His writings and obsessions indicated if anything, the deranged, disordered mind of a left-wing lunatic.

I’d love to see some similar examples of unhinged venom and hatred against the opposition from Republicans during the Bush era.

But I’m not going to hold my breath. Because it didn’t happen.

As James Taranto noted in 2004:

Surely it is fair for any politician to take issue with his opponent’s official acts. And if those acts were motivated by something other than antipathy toward America–as any fair-minded observer must presume they were–they could have been defended on their merits. Instead, Democrats themselves raised the issue of patriotism by defensively denying that they lacked it. A cardinal rule of political communication is never to repeat an accusation in the course of denying it (“I am not a crook”). These candidates “repeated” a charge no one had even made.

The Democrats doth protested too much.


Video: Glenn Beck Show Flames Al Gore For Civil Rights/Global Warming Comparison

Glenn Beck’s sidekick, Pat Gray,  alternated between a high pitched Sam Kinison screech, and a slow, condescending Al Gore drawl, to lambast Goracle for comparing Climate Change skeptics to racists.

It’s relentless, unforgiving, and hilarious — Al Gore so deserves this.

Will Al Gore and his warmist friends ever go away? The wheels have come off the global warming scam. The jig is up.

They’re just embarrassing themselves, now.


Breitbart TV: Major Garrett Lays into Al Gore and Global Warming Hysterics

In a candid and revealing interview with Dennis Miller, National Journal’s Major Garrett recalls the imperious, arrogant and condescending bearing of Al Gore as a Senator. Garrett believes that his recent statements comparing global warming skeptics to racists are a reflection of that same attitude.


Weasel Zippers: House Republicans Seek To Cut All U.S. Funding For U.N. Climate Change Agencies…-

WASHINGTON —House Republicans are applying a search and destroy tactic to international funding for global warming this budget season. It goes like this: Ax any line items with the words “climate change.”

Their primary targets are a pair of crucial United Nations initiatives designed to slow warming worldwide and educate policymakers about the evolving science of climate change.

We’ll see how far this goes. They also attempted to defund the Obama’s Czars in their $38 billion budget cuts bill, last April, but Obama prevented it in a signing statement, (which he had previously promised he’d never do.)


Turning a Yawning Chasm into a Growing Gulf

“Ever get the feeling you’ve been cheated?”

-Johnny Rotten, at the close of the last Sex Pistols concert.

I’m starting to feel this way every single day.

 Each day, the cries that people who are rejecting or have rejected the status quo “Are stupid, insane, or my personal favorite, “handing the election to Obama” because they just don’t see the wisdom in any debt ceiling fix that gives more spenditol to the hopelessly addicted in D.C. without honest, true (not gimmicky) and most importantly immediate cuts to the Federal Government’s spending grow louder, and I find myself growing more annoyed with people I have more similarities than differences with, not because of the differences, but because their inability to convince me that the compromise they are rallying behind will prevent the calamity they fear has driven them to derision, name-calling, insults, and questioning our patriotism.  In other words, they are acting like the Democrats do when we tell them “No.” too.

Whether it’s the New York Times’ favorite “maverick” referring to the Tea Party as Hobbits, and claiming that “Others know better” than the Tea Party Freshmen in the Congress, or people I respect telling me in serial FB postings that anyone who isn’t for Boehner’s plan to raise the credit limit again in exchange for promises to make some piddling cuts at some time that history tells us will never be made anyway, and then bring us back to this point yet again during election season is the same as a Democrat such as the President, contempt is the tune played with the complete expectation that we will dance, and its put me into a position I never wanted to be in.  I’m being pushed into declaring for the Tea Party.

It isn’t that I had any particular beef with the Tea Party.  My objections have really been more dealing with the movement’s long-term prospects.  As I said to a Republican Tea Party basher on FB:

‎1. I am not a Tea Party member. I enjoyed the fact that it was grassroots and genuine. I never signed on, because I knew that it was destined to be co-opted or marginalized because it threatened the political establishment and their power base.
2. Your willingness to appoint them with a responsibility to “shut people up” chills me a bit. The appeal of the tea party was a central message, and the ability for people who had felt marginalized or removed from the mainstream political process to participate and bring some of their own ideas to the fore. A “leadership” would be counter to that idea.
3. Much of what I’ve feared has come to pass…a degree of co-opting, both actual, and presumed by those for whom it would be handy to do so, and marginalization…by a corrupt media that needed a group of “extremists”, and a political establishment that needed a boogeyman to save us from.
4. And even though I don’t agree with a lot of them, I’d rather have a political system that doesn’t “silence” the fringes, or anything outside the mainstream, largely because I firmly believe that we HAVE to trust the people, in the firm knowledge that they are going to make mistakes (Thanks, 52%ers!) or that none of this political system means anything and we can simply officially appoint those who presume to be our betters as such, and dispense with the charade.

And how did we arrive at this point, anyway?  Really, before we entrust these responsible stewards of the public purse with the ability to spend even more money, isn’t that a question we all should be asking?  If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, while expecting a different result, then the “compromise” they are offering doesn’t make any damn sense.

The Tea Party owes its existence to government’s reckless and irresponsible spending, and the way that government demonstrated its feeling of entitlement to not only continue spending more money than it takes in, but to continually increase this spending in order to mitigate the consequences of really poor decisions. (Too Big To Fail, anyone?)

It was a terrific thing to behold as it gathered steam, because people who had never given politics a second thought, or only considered it when filling out a ballot were now looking at the ways their elected officials had squandered their trust, and enhanced their own power and finances at the expense of our own personal sovereignty and wallet.  They had realized that government by the professional and the expert first benefits the professional and the expert, and then trickles down only to the extent that doing so will also benefit the professional and the expert.  But this newfound clarity threatens not just the chattering class, whose false narratives and very selective reporting kept the majority of the nation slumbering and dreaming dreams in which every man woman and child was a lottery winner, and never had to be asked to pay for the welfare state that continued to grow in its quest to provide for them from cradle to grave, and so the new narrative began, about these “extremists” who opposed what government hath wrought not because it stifled freedom and opportunity, and confiscated wealth on an enormous scale to redistribute it to others who did nothing to earn it , but because they were “racists who didn’t want a black President to succeed.”  They were haters, who if given an opportunity to do so, would commit unspeakable acts of violence against those who disagreed with them, even kill them if they thought it necessary. 

It was certainly a surprise to the everyday mothers, fathers, grandpas, and grandmas who came to the rallies, and participated in the peaceful protests.  It was a surprise to those who came to townhalls to confront their elected officials about the trust that they so casually abused, only to find themselves shouted down, disrespected, and questioned by their public servants, and their supporters, many of whom freely feed at the public trough.  I know many people who consider themselves part of the Tea Party, one of who graciously lets me co-blog with her when I get the urge to speak up, and the media portrayals of them couldn’t be farther from the truth.  And as irritating as that is, its ok.  One of the things that came clear during the emergence of the Tea Party and the rush of the legacy media to portray them as unhinged extremists is the fact that the self-appointed cognoscenti were defending a power base, and the shriller the denunciations, the more obvious it became to observers that the media members, and their patrons in the Democratic Party were the ones standing naked while commenting to each other about their resplendent wardrobes.  The more they condescended, complained, and projected, the more hollow their lofty pronouncements rang.

And it had a result, as the elections of 2010 proved, and the consequence was a series of election gains in the House of Representatives that completely changed the make up of that body. 

Now we find ourselves facing yet another crisis.  Another in a string of crises that miraculously can only be solved by the federal government spending more money that it does not have, to pay for consequences that it bears the responsibility for.  The only truly good comparison that I can think of is the domestic violence victim who keeps going back to her abuser, because he promises that this time, things will be different…after he tells her that it is her fault that he beats her.  We keep going back, and if we hesitate, we’re told to “get our asses back in line.”  And for all the noise about the approaching deadline, “inflexible ideologues”, and swift and certain financialgeddon, and the absolute and positive need to address this RIGHT NOW, OR ELSE!  and the only option, no matter how it is dressed up, is to increase the credit limit now, and make cuts later, or whenever they can get around to it, if they feel like it, and the moon is in the right phase, with the only real distinctions being how much, and whether or not the timing is politically beneficial to one side or the other, several key facts and follow-up questions keep getting lost.

1.  We actually hit the debt ceiling in May of this year.  In all the hysteria, hyperventilation, finger-pointing, and name-calling, that fact seems to get lost.  One might ask how this got to be a “crisis”, considering the fact that it couldn’t have been a surprise.

2.  The US’s credit rating has already been downgraded.  While I don’t expect it to be a harmless event if the other rating agencies follow, I also noted that the sky didn’t fall, and I didn’t have to take a wheelbarrow full of $100,000.00 bills to the Safeway to buy a loaf of bread after it happened. 

4.  The Democrats have not passed a budget since 2009, despite the fact that it is one of Congress’ duties.  This works to their advantage.  No budget means no parameters on spending.  Anything goes until you hit the ceiling.  Besides, they were too busy with Spendulous, Cash for Clunkers, and Obamacare to actually attend to their duties.  And who do you think you are for asking pointed questions about it anyway, peasant?

5.  Do your creditors maintain your credit score when your debt to income ratio is already too high and you decide that you can and should borrow more?   So why should we believe that a government that is characterized by an abject avoidance of restraint when it comes to spending the public’s money will not suffer the same fate when if they pass a bill that bumps out that limit, and purports to address a portion of the spending problem, somehow, some way, some time?  It would be like believing that the chronic alcoholic will be ok if the bartender doesn’t serve him the last two shots he’s used to downing nightly; the real problem is in the 5 shots he was served before.  And yet the Tea Party is now the enemy of America, and actively working for the re-election of Barack Obama for recognizing that what is being offered and discussed is a “more of the same” of what we’ve had before, and declining to go along with it.

6.  Teh Fred! and others keep crowing about a victory in shifting the conversation away from tax increases, and demanding we take that, and ignore the fact that even with the “cuts” being proposed, the leviathan that is Fedzilla still grows.   More and more people are getting clued in to the magical growth formula in government accounting based on premise that Zero = Last Year’s Budget.  Taxes weren’t negotiable because despite what Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi believe, this was NEVER a revenue problem; it is a spending problem, and taking away what never should have been on the table to begin with, and then rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic will not prevent a really, really cold swim.

It comes down to this:  Government Spending first empowers the government.  Democrats have known this for years, and used it to their advantage to cultivate a block of constituents beholden to them for their sustenance due to the advent of multigenerational welfare, and they have carefully nurtured it until we have reached a point where nearly 50% of the citizens in this country don’t have any of the precious “skin in the game” that the Teleprompter President likes to babble on about, because they pay no taxes.   They have no intention of changing this state of affairs.  TPOTUS himself has all but admitted that his idea of “shared sacrifice” is that the people who are paying the check need to pay even more.   The real-life warnings that the failed welfare states of Europe pose do nothing to change any of this.  They will spend it, even when they don’t have it, and they will do anything for their fix.  If unchecked, this can only end one way.

Get used to scenes like these, because if we don’t address the festering sore that is Federal Spending now, we lose choices. There won’t be an option that helps Granny get the check that the Federal Government has no business paying her. The government will probably not have the ability to perform its enumerated duties, let alone pay for mohair subsidies, studies on the flow rate of catsup, or refurbishing mosques in foreign countries.   This nonsense cannot be sustained.  Enacting special welfare and calling it general welfare is a path to ruin.  Growing a federal bureaucracy that must continue to worm its tentacles further and further into all aspects life and business in order to justify itself is not conducive the maintenance of freedom and liberty.  This is what “go along to get along” has gotten us…legions of experts who prove day in and day out that there is no problem that government cannot create, and then make worse with its “solutions”.  Learned professionals without any practical experience who pass laws and regulations without a thought to the cost that it imposes on those who they would regulate, because they only choose to see what they have done as a goal that they have fulfilled.

We aren’t stupid for deciding that more of the same isn’t a serious answer.

We’re not unpatriotic for not trusting a professional political class peopled by Republicans as well as Democrats when they tell me that if we just do this for them this time, then they can get majorities in the next election and things will be different.  Tell it to Newt Gingrich.  We’ve swallowed that turd sandwich before.  Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.

And calling me a Hobbit because I see the snare and refuse to step into it doesn’t change my mind or my heart in the Reagan tradition.  It just tells me that you know you’re more concerned with your power than you are for the future of this country, and that lacking a convincing argument, you believe that I’m as willing to compromise as you are, in the pursuit of being loved, of course.  Just ask “the maverick”.

My friends…

No thanks. The madness can’t continue if enough people just opt out.

Am I the Only One…

…who wants to choke the s*** of the people on “our side” of the political spectrum when they keep attacking the non-expert/experienced politicians who have decided to endure hostile, partisan reporters spelunking in their sphincters and uteruses, and the scorn and derision of pundits, who often have done nothing remotely risky in their lives other than ordering iffy fish at swanky restaurants or daring to buy a suit off the rack, rather than visiting their tailor for their latest Armani.

I’d like to know when so many conservatives bought into the idea that our leaders must be drawn from the pool of experts and experienced politicians.  A careful reading of the Federalist Papers and other assorted writings make it clear that the Framers certainly never envisioned a government consisting of career politicians and professional experts rich in “knowledge” largely or completely unsupported by real world experience.  But honestly, as far afield as we have strayed from so many other things that they intended, I find this gradual acquiescence less frustrating than the unrestrained contempt that so many of these so-called conservative “journalists”, talking heads, and their devoted followers have for people like Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, or even Michelle Bachmann.

Whether it’s the vacuous and groundless criticisms leveled at Sarah Palin, (She’s dumb, she’s a hillbilly, Trig isn’t hers, OMG, she didn’t give a polished and pat answer to the hostile reporter’s query, its her fault the nutbar shot Gabby Giffords, or that she’s a quitter because she decided to stop costing the taxpayers of Alaska money fighting boundless and, ultimately frivolous ethics complaints and resigned the governorship), the “he doesn’t have a policy plan for every single contingency” leveled at Herman Cain, someone who I would wager has more ideas that would actually grow the economy and jobs in his little finger than The President and all of Congress have between themselves and their legions of advisors and staff.  Besides, I’m quite sure that the only reason an “electable candidate” like Mitt Romney can cogently answer a specific foreign policy question because at least one or more paid advisor has advised him on a safe, or expected answer to such question.  Be honest, do you think at his first inauguration, George W. Bush was planning to spend the majority of time in office in charge of conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, or that he thought that we would suffer a devastating terrorist attack on our soil that would kill thousands of American civilians, or that a cadre of career Democratic appointees going through a revolving door at Freddie and Fannie would feed an unsustainable bubble by guaranteeing bad loans and personally enriching themselves in the process, despite it being brought to his attention once in office, and his numerous warnings to Congress about their dreadful oversight after it was brought to his attention.

The fact that these criticisms come from people who haven’t decided to subject themselves to the inevitable criticism and scrutiny directed at these candidates is irritating.  These people aren’t making the decision to run because they want power.  Despite the claims to the contrary, they don’t do it for “the fame”.  I’m quite certain that Governor Palin hasn’t appreciated “the fame” that has made her daughters the focus of David Letterman’s creepy sexual innuendos, or Andy Sullivan all but petition the courts to make his own gynecological examination of her nethers.  I’m equally certain that Herman Cain didn’t decide to move into the public eye and run for office because he’d like to be President.  Representative Bachmann on the other hand, clearly enjoys driving partisan hacks like Chrissy “Tingles” Matthews insane when she purposely doesn’t play the role that he hamfistedly tries to maneuver her into.  But then, to hear some talking head with a complete lack of understanding of the tax code prattling on and pretending to know more than her would lead me to frustrate the sputtering simpleton at every opportunity as well.  No, these people made the decision to step away from their lives because they could no longer ignore the fact that decades of leadership by the experienced and the experts isn’t working.  And what thanks do they get?  A complete eclipse of consideration by self-appointed deciders obsessed with talking points, elaborate plans which may or may not survive the events of the potential candidate’s administration, ‘electablity’-otherwise known as the careful positioning that ensures that the candidate doesn’t really have a position that would evoke a strong feeling by any potential voter, and policy expertise informed by, well, more experts.  And then they lament months later the fact that the new boss is largely undistinguishable from the old boss.

I have an idea.

How about you journalists, pundits, loyal followers and other deciders who purport to be on our side try a novel strategy this time?

Shut the hell up and let us decide, m’kay?