"America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within."
--Joseph Stalin

Wednesday, February 27, 2013

GAO Reports: Obamacare Will Likely Add $6.2 Trillion To National Debt Burden

Will Malven

$6.2 Trillion . . . $6.2 Thousand Billion . . . $6.2 Million, Million . . . It doesn't seem to matter how you say it, the numbers are so high that it is difficult to comprehend them.

That is how much the Government Accountability Office has reported "Obamacare," when fully implemented, will add to our already monstrous $16.5 Trillion debt over the next 75 years.

75 years? Oh, well that's not so bad, is it?  After all, that's only $83 Billion/year in additional spending for the next 75 years.
"A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon your talking real money."
--attr. to Sen. Everett Dirksen (R-IL)
That "$83 Billion" sounds awfully close to the $85 Billion in sequester cuts (split over 2 years) the Obama Administration and Democrats are screaming about being so large that hundreds of thousands of teachers, firemen, policemen, rape-victims, orphans, circus clowns, Savile Row tailors, animal trainers, carney barkers, and untold souls will suffer unimaginable privation and absolute destitution should they occur (funny how, when it suits Democrat objectives, $80 Billion is a huge amount of money, but when it doesn't suit their purposes, $80 Billion is merely a drop in the bucket).

This is the next story that will be studiously ignored or blithely explained away by the MSM and other Obamapologists as our nation plummets towards the economic abyss that most rational economists see looming in our near future.

Anyway you slice it, this merely confirms what Republicans have been saying about "Obamacare" from day one, that it's a budget buster and will add hundreds of billions of dollars to our already burgeoning debt.  Now the GAO has confirmed our worst fears.

From The Hill
GAO: Health law will increase deficit if cost-cutting steps stop
By Elise Viebeck - 02/26/13 03:12 PM ET

". . . Assuming the law is enforced as-is, the U.S. deficit will decline 1.5 percent as a share of the economy over the next 75 years, according to the GAO. Auditors attributed 1.2 percent of this improvement to the Affordable Care Act.

Under a different set of assumptions, the law has the opposite effect over time, the GAO said -- the deficit will increase by 0.7 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) if the law's cost-containment measures are phased out.

The report attributed this potential increase in part to the law's most expensive features -- the Medicaid expansion and the provision of insurance subsidies.

The report was requested by Sen. Jeff Sessions (Ala.), the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee. On Tuesday, he and his office jumped on the figures to say that the healthcare law will increase the deficit by $6.2 trillion over 75 years.

To arrive at this figure, Sessions's office assumed the second scenario, in which the law's cost-containment measures end, and added up 75 year's [sic] worth of deficits using GDP projections from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services . . ."

The left, via MediaMatters (from whom all MSM "journalists" get their marching orders), has already dismissed this information by claiming that the GAO report only states this as a worst case scenario should all of the cost-containing measures written into the "Affordable Healthcare Act" not be enacted or retained.  Oddly, they fail to mention just what those "cost-containing measures" are--or not so oddly since they include things like "death-panels" and the $700 Billion dollars in cuts to Medicare payments to doctors and hospitals.

Does anybody (other than the Obama propagandists at MediaMatters) really believe that those "cost-containing measures" will survive in this political environment--even with Democrat politicians--once the voting public becomes fully aware of them?
NOTE:  One could easily label the Obama faithful at Media Matters gullible and naive if it weren't for the fact that they are paid disinformation peddlers working (indirectly) for and at the behest of by the Obama Administration, the Democrat Party, and their liberal directors.  As it is, they are nothing more than malevolent Democrat Party hacks writing apologetic disinformation intended to deceive the American people and lull them into a state of apathy and lethargy so that Obama and his fellow-travelers can implement their Marxist policies with the least possible opposition.  They are aided in their efforts by the lock-step march of MSM reporters in parroting their disinformation.
The reasoning is straight-line logic, the math elementary, which is why it escapes liberals completely.  You can't add 30-40 million uninsured people to the roles, broadly expand coverage to include 26-year old "children," and force coverage of "pre-existing conditions" onto an actuarially-based system of payment without something giving.  It just doesn't stand the laugh test.

Insurance rates are based on the concept of distributed risk.  In any given pool of people, you will have a certain number who will be ill, a much greater number who are healthy and at low risk to become ill at any given time.  The cost of treatment of those who are ill is distributed among all the insurance premium payers and so premiums remain as low as is reasonably possible based on the probability of any one person becoming ill according to actuarial calculations.

When the pool of people is greatly expanded to include those for whom the probability of becoming ill is much greater, as in those with pre-existing conditions or those who were previously unable to afford to pay for healthcare and who therefore are a greater health-risk (poorer diet, riskier habits and lifestyles) then the collective average risk associated with any one person in that pool rises and thus premiums must inevitably rise for all.

This is straight-line logic and forms the basis of conservative predictions and the de facto evidence now being reported by the GAO, that the Affordable Healthcare Act will cause healthcare costs to sky-rocket for every citizen (just as the previous euphemistically named "Affordable Housing Act" led to sky-rocketing costs in housing).

Liberals lack the higher-order mental discipline necessary to follow straight-line logic.  They're too easily distracted by the fairy-dust, will-o-wisps and magic bunny-trails their leaders leave for them--the siren song Media Matters and their echo-chamber MSM sing leads them into their unreal realm of illogic.

Under Democrat direction (or misdirection) since FY 2007 our national debt has soared from just under $9 Trillion (yes GWB was still president in 2007 and 2008, but Democrats controlled both houses of Congress) to $16.5 Trillion in FY 2012, an increase of 7.5 Trillion dollars, or 83% in just 6 years (60% under Obama alone).

Now with "Obamacare," Democrats have committed our federal government to an additional 6.2 trillion dollars in deficit spending and doomed every working citizen to paying more money for less (and lower quality) healthcare.

Welcome another blessing from our Fearless (Clown Prince Narcissist in Chief) Leader and his Democrat Party Fellow Travelers. 

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Sunday, February 24, 2013

Maryland State Legislature Takes First Steps Towards Despotism

Will Malven

Wow!  Can you say dictatorship?

In an absolutely breathtaking example of liberal hubris, the Maryland state legislature is planning to circumvent their citizens ability to protest anti-gun rights legislation by holding simultaneous hearings on 51 bills in 3 committees over 2 days.  This is not an example of responsible, responsive government, this is an overt attempt to dilute the ability of citizens to protest their actions.
Friday, March 1st @ 1:00 PM:
  • 4 bills in the House Health & Government Operations Committee
  • 7 bills in the House Judiciary Committee (including the Governor’s gun ban)
Tuesday, March 5th @ 1:00 PM
  • 15 bills in the House Judiciary Committee
  • 25 bills in the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee
Read more at Ammoland.com.
If you weren't paying attention to how former Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democrats in the House acted in passing Obamacare, these actions might surprise you, but for most conservatives, this sort of high-handedness--while still shocking--is routine for Democrats.

This is a perfect example of the danger to our rights which liberal law-makers represent.  They have an agenda and they don't care what their citizens think about that agenda, they're only interested in pushing it through.  They can't be bothered with what we little people think, they know what is good for us and they are going to impose that agenda on us . . . for our own good.

Their intent is to curtail the rights of their own constituents without asking them if they should do so . . .
Why, if they paid attention, then (GASP!) we might come to expect that sort of obedience to the will of the people on a regular basis . . . My God, we might even expect "representative government" rather than simply acquiescing to dictates from our betters.
These are not the actions of well-intentioned legislators, these are the actions of men and women who know what they are doing is wrong.  They know that what they are doing will upset a large number of their constituents, so they are conniving to conduct their business in a manner so as to prevent us from protesting their actions.

People who know what they are doing is right, don't need to use subterfuge.  They don't need to use tricks or play games to defeat their opponents.  To the contrary, they're eager for discussion and view debate as an opportunity to educate; they're eager to face dissent and opposition.  Because they are certain of the rectitude of their actions, they don't fear those who disagree with them.

These are the actions that one might have seen from the old Soviet Union Polit-buro.  These are the actions of despots, not "representatives." These are the actions of people who are willing to go against the will of those who elected them. 

This is the "tyranny of the majority" against which our representative form of government was supposed to protect us. Democrats enthusiastically embrace laws protecting minority rights when it suits them, when it applies to one of their cause celebres, but let someone speak out in support of gun rights or some other non-politically correct subject then suddenly their response is "polls show that a majority of people want restrictions," or "90% of voters want universal background checks."

What happened to protecting people from the tyranny of the majority--especially when it applies to constitutionally protected rights?

Frankly, I'm surprised the Maryland legislators didn't plan this for 1:00 AM rather than 1:00 PM; the dark of night is a more appropriate time for this sort of subterfuge.

By rights, there ought to be 100,000 citizens of the state of Maryland storming the capitol.  By rights, these legislators should be seized, taken out to the steps of the capitol building, and tried for treason.  By rights, they should be executed for attempting to destroy the very foundations of our society . . . but they won't.

"Bread and Circuses"

Our people have become sheep.  Our citizens have allowed themselves to be lulled into complacency and apathy.  They trust that those they elect have citizens' best interests at heart. 

The people are more concerned with who the next "American Idol" will be and what Simon Cowell is doing than they are with what's happening in the houses of their legislatures and what laws are being passed.

. . . and so I quote Juvenal's "bread and circuses" (so pathetic has our education system become that few will even know who Juvenal was or understand what he was saying--hint, Juvenal was a Roman poet and satirist, not a young person).
The people, who once bestowed commands, consulships, legions, and all else, now concern themselves [with governing] no more, and long eagerly for just two things - bread and circuses.
A modern version of that might read "fat and happy."  People have food on their tables (increasingly being provided by the government) and an endless variety of mindless entertainment with which to amuse themselves on cable television.

Our government "by the people, of the people, and for the people" is becoming a government over the people and that role reversal is being achieved voluntarily.

We have a President who believes the Constitution is an impediment; who believes that he can rule by executive order (royal edict) and completely bypass the checks and balances our Founding Fathers set up in the Constitution . . . and sadly, we have a Congress that is afraid or unwilling to stop him.

Now we have state houses like those in New Jersey, Connecticut, and Maryland who have decided that the voices of their citizens are unworthy of consideration.  They have chosen to abridge the rights of their citizens and resort to legislative tricks to impose their will on us . . . and far too many citizens either don't care and don't know enough to stop them.

Far too many have willingly, either through ignorance or apathy, placed their trust in the government rather than their fellow citizens.

These legislators in Maryland should be stopped.  The citizens of Maryland should be marching on their capitol in protest.  That 100,000 citizens I mentioned above should be half-a million and they should be armed.  They should be so upset that they would march into the chambers and seize these legislators and toss them out in the same manner that our Founding Fathers did to their own royal oppressors, but they won't.

The vast majority of the citizens in Maryland won't even be aware of what their law-makers are doing and even if they are, they will trust that they are doing the right thing.  They have become so ignorant of history and of their rights that they no longer fear oppression.

I wish it wasn't true, but I am not so naive as to believe that enough people care sufficiently to stop it.  We are a nation of fat and happy people who are gradually surrendering our rights in the blind trust that our government will act in our best interests . . . though it seldom does so.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!?

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Being Raped? Colorado University Suggests Vomiting Or Urinating In Lieu Of Firearms

Will Malven

UPDATED 2/21/2013

Well it just doesn't stop.  More liberal "gun-grabber" insanity for you women out there.
Colorado College Advises Vomiting Or Urinating To Stop Rapists After Lawmakers Pass Gun Control Bills

BY Connor Sheets | February 18 2013 10:36 PM

The University of Colorado at Colorado Springs Department of Public Safety has updated an online statement advising female students to consider a variety of unusual actions if they are attacked, including vomiting, urinating and claiming that they are menstruating.

The advisory was updated Monday evening, just hours after the Colorado state House of Representatives passed a package of gun control bills that includes one that would make it illegal for people with concealed weapons permits to carry guns on the campuses of public universities. The bills still have to go to the state Senate and governor.

Some of the pieces of advice which were updated Monday evening on the university's public safety website are ones that many would find familiar, from running away without looking back to "yelling, hitting or biting" your attacker.
You know, you just can't make this crap up.  How twisted must a person be to reach this far just to justify depriving women on campus access to the one means most likely to protect a woman from a rapist?

Now that the Colorado House of Representatives has voted to ban guns on campus in their abject terror that some hysterical woman might run amok, the University of Colorado has put forth their suggestions as to how you ladies can deal with a rapist. 
What To Do If You Are Attacked

These tips are designed to help you protect yourself on campus, in town, at your home, or while you travel.  These are preventative tips and are designed to instruct you in crime prevention tactics.
  1. Be realistic about your ability to protect yourself.
  2. Your instinct may be to scream, go ahead!  It may startle your attacker and give you an opportunity to run away.
  3. Kick off your shoes if you have time and can't run in them.
  4. Don't take time to look back; just get away.
  5. If your life is in danger, passive resistance may be your best defense.
  6. Tell your attacker that you have a disease or are menstruating.
  7. Vomiting or urinating may also convince the attacker to leave you alone.
  8. Yelling, hitting or biting may give you a chance to escape, do it!
  9. Understand that some actions on your part might lead to more harm.
  10. Remember, every emergency situation is different.  Only you can decide which action is most appropriate."

I especially like number 9--yeah, that's a great help . . . "everything we just told you to do may cause the guy to beat the crap out of you even more."

Tell the rapist that you have a disease? . . . um yeah . . . that's likely to work.  He's certain to believe you.  Odds are, if you don't have a disease, after he finishes with you you will.

Tell them you're menstruating . . . really?  Seriously?  That might be a turn-on for some . . . I just can't go there.

Certainly the above advice is good if you're trapped without a means of defending yourself, but there isn't any legitimate reason for that ever to be the case.

This demonstrates the absurd lengths to which the anti-gun lobby is willing to go to promote it's radical agenda.  It is just sick, twisted, corrupt rationalization in a sad attempt to excuse the inexcusable actions of liberals who are more concerned that a woman protecting herself with a pistol or revolver MIGHT, possibly, potentially go all hysterical--we all know you women are unstable, hysterical crazies--and shoot several dozen innocent bystanders (well, if they're "bystanders" in a rape then they deserve to be shot), than they are in her welfare and safety.

How pathetic must one be to think like these clowns?  A bunch of metro-sexual politicians and women politicians more frightened of strong, independent women who refuse to be victims than they are that you might be raped . . . that's your Democrat feminist for you.

You Democrat women out there, you really agree with this crap?  You VOTE for these clowns?   Really?  If so, you're as ignorant and gullible as I have always asserted.

Some Republicans may question your right to abort an unborn child, but at least we want you alive and unmolested and are in full support of your ability to do so.  "War on women?"  The real "war on women" is from the left, not from conservatives.  They want you strong and independent as long as you do what they tell you.

I want every law-abiding woman out there who so desires to arm herself with the most powerful handgun with which she feels comfortable.  Get yourself a CHL (concealed handgun license) and a gun and practice, practice, practice.  Take some lessons (this goes for men as well, of course).

Learn to use you weapon with authority and confidence. Don't be stupid and wander around dangerous places when you don't have to and for God's sake don't go bar hopping or partying by yourself, but whatever you do, do it with a concealed handgun. 

Follow the links on the right sidebar.  FateofDestinee and Falia Reviews are a couple of women who will point you in the right direction.  Falia is one very petite little lady and after watching her shoot .45 autos (yes, ladies, you are fully capable of handling any calibre firearm) I have to say that any guy would have to be an idiot to tangle with her.  Falia is also very wise, she maintains facial anonymity on the internet (as I said, don't be stupid, don't make a targets of yourselves).

Visit their pages, their advice works for men as well as women, but it's great that they're on YouTube to show that women can enjoy shooting as a sport and don't have to piss on some guys leg and tell him it's raining if they're being assaulted.

These liberal idiots have their heads so far up their own posteriors--or those of Sarah Brady and Barrack Obama that they can't see clearly or think beyond whatever the MSM liberal rags dictate to them.

Jerks like Mayor "Nanny" Bloomberg and Governor Cuomo in New York don't think anyone should have a gun . . . except for the phalanx of heavily armed security with which they surround themselves.

Don't be a victim.  If I was a woman on the campus at Colorado, I would be screaming my head off at the administration and starting a campus-wide protest.  Marching to the capitol and fighting this lunacy.

Your choice ladies.  Be a victim or be empowered.  Be smart, or be a gullible, foolish victim.

Guns are not just for rednecks who drive pickup trucks named Billy-Bob and dress up in camo-gear.  They're for any sensible citizen who refuses to be a victim.

BE SAFE, ladies, unlike liberal men, we conservatives are not about to put some nebulous, imaginary, arbitrary political agenda above your welfare.  We love you and want you to get home safe and in tact.
UPDATE:  Well as shocking as it may seem, apparently you can shame a liberal if enough people laugh at them and express outrage over their suggestions.

The University of Colorado has removed the offensive list of suggestions from their web page.  See those of us who were critical of their actions apparently misunderstood the purpose of the list . . . Yes, once again we are at fault for their idiocy.  We just didn't understand what they were trying to say . . . it “was taken out of context on popular social media sites.


Liberals have no shame . . . they merely turn everything around and make it your fault.  How pathetic is that?

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

Democrat Colorado Legislator: Women Afraid Of Being Raped MIght "pop … pop a round at somebody"

Will Malven

Your not going to believe this one . . . on second thought . . . if you're at all familiar with how the minds of liberals function, you will.

The Daily Caller reports that Democratic Colorado state Rep. Joe Salazar wants to disarm women on campus.  He stood on the floor of the Colorado state House and said:
“It’s why we have call boxes; it’s why we have safe zones; it’s why we have the whistles — because you just don’t know who you’re gonna be shooting at. And you don’t know if you feel like you’re gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around or if you feel like you’re in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop … pop a round at somebody.”
Wake up ladies!  This is what all those liberal politicians actually think about you.  You can't be trusted with a gun, you're just not rational enough to use them safely.

When that 6'4" 300 lb. rapist is after you, take comfort ladies, you have a call box to keep you safe.  You have a whistle to keep him at bay.

"Don't you come near me or I'll blow this whistle" just doesn't quite have the intimidation factor of "Don't come near me or I'll blow your balls off" (note, ladies, don't aim for their privates, go for the center-of-mass shot and don't stop firing until they're down for the count).

Remember, when seconds count, your campus police are only minutes away--only as far as the nearest doughnut shop or dorm party.

Democrat liberals like Joe Salazar are motivated by fear; fear of their own imaginings.  He imagines a scenario in which one of you silly, irrational women (you know how prone to hysteria women are, don't you?) jumping at every noise and seeing rapists in every dark corner, cuts loose with her GUN (evil--dangerous--WMD--"DANGER, WILL ROBINSON") willy-nilly, killing who knows how many innocent bystanders, people passing by, and children playing in the park (at 1:00AM on campus) before she can be brought under control.

No, far better that she carry a whistle so she can alert all those people she might inadvertently shoot that she is being raped.  She can always whistle for help after she has been raped . . . if she is still breathing.

UTTER LUNACY . . . but then . . . that's what I've come to expect from the liberal anti-gun forces.

Funny, I'm a conservative and I don't know very many women (liberal or conservative) of whom I would be afraid if I knew they carried a pistol (I'm more of a mind to encourage them to do so).  They're all intelligent, rational, stable people who understand the world around them and would be most unlikely to "pop . . . pop a round at somebody" without knowing full well what they were doing and at whom they were aiming.

Actually I don't know very many hysterical, irrational women of the sort that Joe Salazar apparently does.

This is just another in a long line of dishonest, insulting statements being made by the anti-gun crowd in their dangerous efforts to impose their will on others.  Most of them know that the legislation they are pushing will not do what they claim it will.  Their motivations are two-fold, to appease those who live lives as full of fear as they, and to exercise greater control over their constituents lives, even if it means endangering those lives. 

The fact is, the legislation the (not so) estimable Mr. Salazar wishes to enact will have the opposite effect.  It will increase the likelihood that women will be raped on college campuses.

The data are quite clear that, in any concentration of people in America, the more available and accessible firearms are for the law-abiding, the lower the crime rate.  You can bet the rapists will be armed, so why shouldn't their targeted population also be armed?

And what is it about liberals that they feel impelled to lay the blame for being insulted on those whom they just insulted.  Representative Salazar later made the typical liberal non-apology apology.
“I’m sorry if I offended anyone.  That was absolutely not my intention. We were having a public policy debate on whether or not guns makes people safer on campus. I don’t believe they do. That was the point I was trying to make. If anyone thinks I’m not sensitive to the dangers women face, they’re wrong. I am a husband and father of two beautiful girls, and I’ve spent the last decade defending women’s rights as a civil rights attorney. Again, I’m deeply sorry if I offended anyone with my comments.”
In other words, according to Joe Salazar, "It's you own damn fault for being too stupid to understand what I was saying."

The concept of simply saying, "I'm sorry, I was wrong to say what I said" completely escapes a liberal.  They are so arrogant that they KNOW they can't possibly be in the wrong, so they offer that "This is what I was saying, sorry you didn't understand me" non-apology.

It's up to you women, if I were you, I would stop believing all the lies these gun-grabbers are feeding you and stop voting for them.  They don't have your best interests at heart, they only have their own political aspirations in mind.

Fact:  Universal background checks will not prevent criminals from obtaining firearms.  Those who sell to criminals are already breaking the law.  What makes you think that new laws will stop them?

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Thursday, February 14, 2013

Joe Scarborough, Al Sharpton Bash Wayne LaPierre--Liberal Racism, Elitism, Ignorance On Display

Will Malven

It's always revealing to listen to what liberals conclude from the statements of those they hate.  It tells you how they think and what their prejudices truly are.

 In the case of "Morning" Joe Scarborough and Al Sharpton, this morning's discussion of an editorial, Stand and Fight written by Wayne LaPierre and published in The Daily Caller, demonstrated just how their racism informs their understanding of what others say and the assumptions they make about their audience and supporters.  It reveals their biases (and their elitist bigotry).

First Offense:  Cartel Gangs Are Entering America Across Our Under-protected Border

What were the offending words?  Well first, Wayne LaPierre dared tell the truth about the recent influx of members of Latin American drug cartels coming to our cities: 
". . . Latin American drug gangs have invaded every city of significant size in the United States. Phoenix is already one of the kidnapping capitals of the world, and though the states on the U.S./Mexico border may be the first places in the nation to suffer from cartel violence, by no means are they the last.

The president flagrantly defies the 2006 federal law ordering the construction of a secure border fence along the entire Mexican border. So the border today remains porous not only to people seeking jobs in the U.S., but to criminals whose jobs are murder, rape, robbery and kidnapping. Ominously, the border also remains open to agents of al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. Numerous intelligence sources have confirmed that foreign terrorists have identified the southern U.S. border as their path of entry into the country . . ."
Mr. LaPierre did not say "all Latinos were criminals," nor did he imply as much.  The source of those thoughts are the minds of Messrs. Scarborough, Sharpton, and their ilk, minds mired in what former President George W. Bush called "the soft bigotry of low-expectations," and filled with hatred and contempt for those they can't understand.  They are ignorant, arrogant minds projecting their own secret (and perhaps not even consciously held) prejudices onto average Americans and gun-owners,  whom they hold in contempt.

Mr. LaPierre committed an unforgivable sin; he told the truth and in doing so (compounding his error) he dared mention one of those special, protected ethnic groups one dare not mention in any negative way lest he violate the strictures of political correctness. 

Merely by pointing out that among those crossing our borders are members of MS-13, Los Zetas, and the like--a substantial number of whom now sit in our prisons--he spoke the truth that may not be spoken.

Mr. LaPierre's statement reflects that for many law-abiding Americans, the presence of these ruthless, violent criminals constitutes sufficient threat to themselves, their families, and their communities for them to be armed with "high capacity magazines and semi-automatic rifles.

For liberals and their pet pseudo-conservatives, it's an unforgivable sin for which he must be punished--ridiculed, isolated and targeted.  He violated one of the unwritten laws of political correctness--A conservative is racist if he speaks the truth about specially protected ethnic groups.

These "Beltway-to-Boston-Corridor" elites don't have to deal with these problems, but residents in border-states and poor people trapped in inner-cities face them daily.   These threats are growing in America and the the feds and police are powerless to stop them.

Liberals, like Al Sharpton, and their pseudo-conservative lapdogs, like Joe Scarborough, zero in on the words "Latin American" and play the race-card.  Implying that to mention them proves racism.  Guilt-by-association, is used to smear anyone who disagrees with their radical anti-gun, anti-2nd Amendment agenda.

Second Offense:  Looting Occurred In South Brooklyn After Hurricane Sandy

LaPierre's second, even graver, offense was in mentioning South Brooklyn and the rampant disorder that occurred subsequent to Hurricane Sandy:
". . . After Hurricane Sandy, we saw the hellish world that the gun prohibitionists see as their utopia. Looters ran wild in south Brooklyn. There was no food, water or electricity. And if you wanted to walk several miles to get supplies, you better get back before dark, or you might not get home at all.

Anti-gun New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg had already done everything he could to prevent law-abiding New Yorkers from owning guns, and he has made sure that no ordinary citizen will ever be allowed to carry a gun. He even refused to allow the National Guard into the city to restore civil order because Guardsmen carry guns! . . ."
For liberals, the above quotation includes key words which scream "Racism."  They're known only to them until they're revealed, usually to the speaker's astonishment.  Words like "Looters," and "south Brooklyn" are liberal code-words for African Americans.
Most Americans have no idea that the residents of south Brooklyn are predominately black and have the (apparently) mistaken belief that "looters" can be of any race.  Only those who are preoccupied with race and live in the surreal, self-focused world of New York City and the Corridor know this code (I certainly didn't). 

Most revealing in this attack, neither Mr. Sharpton nor Mr. Scarborough hesitated a second in imagining that Mr. LaPierre was casting aspersion on African Americans.  It never occurred to either man that many within the South Brooklyn community would or could want to protect themselves from those looters, whatever their race. 

Do they believe blacks are only capable or rioting?  Has their own "soft-bigotry of low expectations" led them to make an assumption that, quite frankly, never even occurred to me until they mentioned it?

Worst Offense:  Second Amendment Is A Sacred Trust

Wayne LaPierre's cardinal sin. however, is that he interprets the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution literally and accepts our Founding Fathers at their word; for that, he must be demonized, he must be punished.

Having informed himself of the intentions of our Founding Fathers and their grave concerns about an over-reaching federal government, he dares defy the illuminati of the "Beltway-to-Boston" elite who have relegated our Constitution and the Bill of Rights to the status of "a quaint, out-dated,. document that contains some interesting ideas, but that should not be too closely adhered to."

Mr. LaPierre and many others of us who have actually studied the issue of "gun control" and who have read the writings of Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton, et al; we who have studied The Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers, understand that those brilliant, highly educated men had a deep and abiding fear of creating too powerful of a central government and knew that any government they devised, no matter how carefully, might eventually fall prey to those who desire power over others and would gravitate to those seats of power.

If, as Joe Scarborough and the others in the anti-gun movement assert, our Founding Fathers never envisioned firearms that use 30 round magazines and could fire them in rapidly, then it is just as true that they never envisioned a government comprised of men who abandoned real professions to be life-long professional politicians--seeking only greater power over the very people they were elected to serve.

Neither assumption is true, of course.  Professional politicians (like the prostitutes they patronize and all too often mimic) have been around since the dawn of governments and these very wise men certainly had knowledge of the evolution of firearms before their time and the gradual reduction in size, increases in fire-power, and greater portability of such weapons--they or their contemporaries had seen the the Puckle Gun and the Nock Gun and Organ Guns had been designed by Leonardo DaVinci.

It's liberal arrogance that presumes these men vision incapable of imagining a further evolution of firearms.  It's a specious argument . . . and an irrelevant argument.

Whether or not the framers of our Constitution were capable of foreseeing the invention of high capacity magazines and "assault weapons,' the principles they espoused and the reasoning behind them were based on the concept of a citizenry armed with weapons equal to those possessed by the standing armies of the time and hold true today.

It is clear that the intent behind the 2nd Amendment was to provide for an armed civilian populace as a counter-balance to a national standing army (Federalist #46) . . . as a deterrent to any attempt by those in power to over-step the bounds of their legitimate, constitutionally constrained powers.

The possibility that average citizens might not be able to depend on the police for their security and safety escapes liberals.  They can't imagine a scenario like Wayne LaPierre described, in which police are no longer funded . . . but I can . . . and I wrote about a similar situation that occurred following Hurricane Katrina.

People like "Reverend Al" and "Morning Joe" prefer President Obama's view that our Constitution is "a charter of negative liberties" and more of an encumbrance to what they deem "good government" than it is the defining outline by which our government is supposed to be structured.  They also appear to believe that our rights are defined in the Bill or Rights and the Constitution (damn that pesky 9th Amendment).

Educated, knowledgeable people like Mr. LaPierre and we who stand in support of the 2nd Amendment (and the Constitution) pose a threat to them. We are hated by them, because we threaten their agenda, thus--taking a page Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals--they attempt to ridicule and lie about us, what we believe, and who we are.

"Backwoods, Redneck, Hillbillies"

These guys believe those in the "Beltway-to-Boston Corridor" have a superior understanding of the issues, our government, and our nation.  The aura of arrogance that surrounds people like Scarborough and Sharpton and those self-congratulatory "luminaries" who daily grace the set of Morning Joe and engage in an orgy of mutual back-slapping radiates like the afterglow from a nuclear detonation.

The assumption that mere proximity to the halls of government, or being within them somehow makes their opinions and beliefs more authoritative than those held by us "yokels and rubes" out here in the hinterland, is as ludicrous as the imaginings of the elites of Hollywood's that being paid large sums of money for pretending to be someone they're not while speaking words someone else has written makes their judgment superior to that of those who pay those exorbitant prices for tickets to attend their increasingly unimaginative, banal, and mostly boring movies.

Mr. Scarborough, you are wrong.  You understand nothing about the intent and meaning of the 2nd Amendment and nothing of the people you sneer at.  We are not loonies running around in camo-gear pretending to be militia-men, we are common, ordinary people who understand a hell of a lot more than you about our Constitution, our Founding Fathers and our rights.

You are a man of no principles; corrupt and preoccupied with an obsession of appearing sophisticated in the eyes of your liberal friends at MSNBC.  Yes, on occasion you revert to conservative principles--when it suits your purpose--you profess to be a "small-government conservative," yet you believe that the police are more trust-worthy than the average law-abiding citizen (events in L.A. prove differently).

You believe that the actions of a few individuals--all of whom broke the laws and were identified as potential threats to themselves and their neighbors--provide just cause to restrict the rights of all citizens.

You believe that we should pass laws that the FBI has admitted had NO EFFECT on crime, just because they're popular in the polls.

You place political expediency above doing what is right.

Mr. Scarborough you are symbolic of what is wrong with our nation and our government.  When elected officials place their careers as politicians (and pundits) over doing what is right, then they have betrayed the trust to which they pledged an oath.  You are callow, corrupt, and wrong.

Oh, and just because polls indicate the popularity of a cause, it is not a justification for passing laws, if it was then chocolate ice cream would be free.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Wednesday, February 13, 2013

State Of The Union Speech: Hide-Bound Leftist Ideologue President Offers Stale Ideas And Continued Decline

Will Malven

In his hour-long State of the Union speech, Obama continued the Democrat Party tradition of making war on private enterprise and increasing government's control and portion of the economy.  More regulation, more spending, higher taxation and no real vision for a prosperous future . . . the man is like a broken record.

President Obama told the nation: "It is our generation's task, then, to reignite the true engine of America's economic growth — a rising, thriving middle class."

Mr. President, you can't reignite the engine of growth by placing heavy, economic and regulatory burdens on the mechanisms that create growth, American industry and businesses.  You can't stimulate growth by imposing a destructive and counter-productive carbon-tax based on the false premise of man-made climate change.  The only possible result is further erosion of our energy industry, our manufacturing base and the jobs they create.

Mr. President, you can't stimulate our economy by raising taxes on those who produce and redistributing that money to those who consume.  You can't create jobs by shrinking the profits of those businesses who hire workers.

The President proposed increasing the minimum wage to $9.00/hr.  Again, at a time in which unemployment is a nominal 8% and (when accounting for those who have simply given up looking for work) more accurately in excess of 15%, raising the minimum wage is not a move that will lead to more jobs or a more robust economy.  Such a move will only further burden businesses that are already struggling to meet payrolls and are already facing the burdens placed on them by your healthcare mandate.

The push to increase the minimum wage isn't based on some noble desire to improve the lot of the poor, it is a political move intended to generate and shore up support from unions.  Every time the minimum wage increases, so do union wages and union contributions to Democrat Party coffers.

The President demagogued on making cuts to entitlement programs, proclaiming (again) that he was, ". . . open to additional reforms from both parties, so long as they don't violate the guarantee of a secure retirement.  Our government shouldn't make promises we cannot keep — but we must keep the promises we've already made."

The President has repeatedly claimed that he was "open" to budgeting discussions, only to turn each such meeting into a political circus of self-aggrandizement and then reneging on any agreement reached.

Mr.President, how do you keep the promises we've already made when Medicare and Social Security are on the path to bankruptcy and you and your party refuse to engage in any meaningful discussions on how to save them?  How do you continue to fund a ponzi-scheme when the nation's coffers are not simply empty, but $16.5 Trillion in debt?  How do you propose to keep our promises if your party can't even agree to propose a budget, let alone pass one?

This President's not interested in working with Congress, he's only interested in scoring political points.  He's not serious about debt reduction, or "job creation," he's looking for ways to attack Republicans.

The President's not interested in reaching across the aisle or working with Congress, he intends to bypass Congress and attempt to implement his radical, anti-business, anti-Constitution agenda through Executive Orders, like the dictator he imagines himself to be.

This wasn't a State of the Union Speech, it was just another in a long line of campaign speeches aimed, not at reaching across the aisle, building bridges, and solving problems.  This was a speech designed to designate enemies, alienate and isolate the Republican Party and preach his leftist agenda.

Congress doesn't work. because this President doesn't work.  There's no leadership coming out of the Oval Office, only venom, contentious rhetoric, and political scheming.  The Republicans in the House have passed over 40 bills intended to reduce the deficit, reduce our national debt, and get America back to work, but the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, is blocking every bill from even being debated.  He is not even allowing a vote on any of the measures.

Republicans aren't blocking progress, it's members of the President's own party and his unwillingness to provide a modicum of leadership who are blocking progress.  Democrats aren't looking for a solution to today's problems, they have their eyes firmly attached to the next election and are doing everything they can to ensure that they will win back control of the House.

Democrats and the President don't care about the fate of our nation or the misery our citizens are suffering, they care only about winning elections.  They care only about gaining power and control.

This speech, Mr. President, was "dead on arrival."

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Tuesday, February 12, 2013

Senator Tom Harkin Speaks: From The Liberal Twilight Zone

Will Malven

This is just too good to pass up.  It demonstrates just how out of touch and far from reality the Democrat Party leadership truly is.

Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) was on MSNBC's The Ed Show, with Ed Schultz.  Real Clear Politics has the clip (and I have the transcript).
Schultz:  [Suck up, suck up, suck up, blah, blah, blah--Shultzy is such an ass]  What needs to happen, Tom, to stop these cuts from taking place?

Harkin:  ". . . What I want to hear from the President tomorrow night is a pro-growth, pro-jobs, rebuild the middle-class kind of speech.  He needs to lay it on the line.  That we need to invest in rebuilding jobs, in rebuilding the middle-class . . . When you hear the Republicans talk, Ed, about we gotta cut this, we gotta cut that, we gotta cut this, it's almost like they're saying, "We're poor, The United States, we're poor, we're broke."

The fact is, Ed, we're the richest nation in the history of the world.  We are the richest nation today.  We have the highest per capita income of, any industrialized country.  So you have to ask the question, 'If we're so rich, why are we so broke?'  The reason is, we have a misallocation of money, of capital.  Too much has gone into fewer and fewer hands and the large corporations.  The Republicans want to keep that going.  I mean . . .you gave one example, off-shoring, for example.  Look at it this way, Ed.  Company A builds a new plant overseas, guess what, they get a tax deduction for building that plant overseas.  They hire workers over there, they get a tax deduction for that.  All their operations overseas, tax-deductable, but all the profits they make--no taxes.  That's not fair, that's not fair."
Only a liberal idiot like Harkin can come up with a comment like that.  It beggars the imagination how this guy finds his way out of his house every day . . . I'm not even sure how he manages to dress himself.

Hey, Tom, old buddy, old pal, when your burden of debt exceeds your gross income, and your annual expenditures exceed your annual income by 30-40%, I'm pretty much certain that means your broke.  You, the government don't own the money businesses and individuals earn, they do.  The fact that you can by dent of federal law extract a portion of that income doesn't mean that it all belongs to you.  We don't live in your Democrat socialist utopia yet.

We're broke, because you and your little pals in Congress in concert with President Obama have spent too much money, not because you haven't seized a sufficient amount from the slaves who you believe work for you.  We still live in a free country in which a man's property belongs to him and the fruits of his labor are his to disperse as he chooses.

If anyone wonders how this nation got into the fiscal condition it's in, Senator Tom Harkin has just given you a peek into the Bizarro world of the liberal mind.  Liberals believe that the path to "rebuilding jobs, in rebuilding the middle-class" lies though Washington D.C., not through private enterprise, capitalism, and industry.

Liberals believe in the redistribution of wealth, the "allocating" of money as they would direct it, not as a free-market naturally distributes it.  They don't believe in merit and reward, they believe in take it all and distribute it evenly.  Their "shared sacrifice" is nothing more that the shared lives of privation and quiet desperation that all other state-run economies have led to.

Ask the people of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union how a state-run economy works.  For some curious reason, expatriates from those nations all seem to be the strongest advocates of our free-market system.  They have lived the lie that Democrats are preaching.  They know the truth.

If the American voter doesn't wake up and realize the garden path down which Harkin and those of his ilk are leading us, they will suddenly wake up to a nation that has no economy, that has no currency and that no longer functions.

The net result of that will be a declaration of Martial Law and the resultant civil unrest may well be the undoing of all our Founding Fathers sought to ensure when they penned the Constitution.

In December, all the MSM could talk about was "the fiscal cliff."  They haven't a clue as to what a real fiscal cliff will entail.  Sudden reductions in the budget of a few hundred billion dollars is nothing, a minor bump in the road.  The result of continuing down this primrose, self-delusional path will make the Wiemar Republic look like a picnic.

Obama and the Democrats (and a few RINO Republican) are taking us down the path of Argentina and a majority of voters are urging them forward with their hands out demanding "More."

The clueless--like Harkin--are leading the (even more) clueless.  If Republicans in Congress don't develop some real "stones" very soon, we are not going to recover from Obama's tenure.

Grim words, I know and I'm not generally given to draconian predictions, but when I hear one of the elite of our government, one of the 100  of "the most deliberative body" in our government make dishonest, inane comments like those above, I begin to envision a dark time ahead.

I'm again wondering if all those "preppers" out there I have made fun of and sneered at aren't perhaps wiser than I.  The more I see the inability of Washington to do what is RIGHT in lieu of what is politically expedient, the more I begin to wonder about the fate of this nation.

. . . Guns? Check!  Ammo?  Check! . . . now, how much does that survival food cost?

God Bless Our American Republic!!!!

Saturday, February 9, 2013

Christopher Dorner Strong Argument Against "Assault Weapons"-High Capacity Magazine Bans

Will Malven

How many times have you heard one of the anti-gun establishment make the argument, only police and military should have military style weapons or high capacity magazines?  How many times have you been engaged with one of the gun-haters over "universal background checks" and had the question thrown in your face, "What if the guy you sell it to goes crazy?"  "How do you know he won't snap and become a mass-murderer?"

I have addressed both comments in earlier commentaries, but we are now, unfortunately, faced with a perfect example of why both arguments are baseless projections and not grounded in reality.

In the first instance, my response has been, "What makes a cop any different from any law abiding citizen?  Why should the police or any other para-military government organization be better armed than the citizens they serve?"

In the second case, the response if basically the same, "What makes you think that cop you walk by won't snap?  That this morning, his wife left him . . . or he walked in on his wife and another man, or lost his house, lost a loved one, etc . . . then snapped and turned violent?"

The truth has been made manifest over the last several days as former LAPD officer Chris Dorner began his rampage of terror against his fellow officers and their families.  The arguments the gun-grabbers make are specious and based upon a false assumption that policemen are more stable of temperament, more reliable, and more trustworthy than your neighbor or any law-abiding citizen.

Los Angeles Manhunt: Ex-Cop Christopher Dorner Sought for Killing Spree

The former LAPD officer allegedly targeted police officers and their families.
Dianne Sawyer  03:16 | 02/07/2013

"As we come on the air, 10,000 law enforcement officers are trying to find a killer in Los Angeles, California. A sweeping manhunt, triggered by this man. A former policeman, accused of a shooting spree, targeting fellow cops and their families. And these images say it all. Police officers on the hunt for someone who knows their call codes, their moves. On highways, a request that commuters study license plates and call 9-1-1. And tonight, a city is on the edge. ABC's David Wright is there. David

Reporter: Good evening, Diane. Tonight, police officers across this whole region feel they are under attack. Police headquarters here on lockdown. Every entrance, every exit, heavily guarded. The entire police force in America's second largest city, essentially held hostage to one man who is allegedly bent on revenge. Tonight, by air, land and sea, an all-out manhunt." [video at above link]

There is nothing about a police officer, a DHS officer, an ATF officer, or a member of our military that differentiates them from any law-abiding citizen except their willingness to face danger and engage in violent acts that most people aren't readily willing to face.  It doesn't make them worse, it doesn't make them any less than, but neither does it make them more worthy of being armed.

And we have seen examples of this truth in the careless, dangerous, reckless behavior of the police in their pursuit of this dangerous killer.  Innocent citizens have been gunned down BY POLICE in two cases of "mistaken identity," including at least one fatality.  There is no excuse for this kind of reckless behavior from police.

LAPD, Torrance Police Shot At Innocent People In Frenzied Hunt For Former Cop Christopher Dorner

The Huffington Post | By Anna Almendrala
Posted: 02/07/2013 12:51 pm EST | Updated: 02/07/2013 7:19 pm EST

LOS ANGELES -- Police officers shot innocent people during the frenzied manhunt for Christopher Dorner, a former cop suspected of murdering 3 people and shooting several more.

Officers from the Los Angeles and Torrance police departments engaged in two separate shootings Thursday morning in Torrance, Calif., reports KTLA. They had come across two different vehicles that were similar to the description of Dorner's getaway car, a gray 2005 Nissan Titan pickup.

The first shooting incident happened at 5:20 a.m. Officers from the Hollywood division of the LAPD shot two people who turned out to have no connection to Dorner's crimes. They were transported to the hospital with gunshot injuries.

The second incident occurred 25 minutes later and involved Torrance police. While shots were fired, there were no reported injuries.

In a press conference Thursday morning, LAPD Chief Charlie Beck confirmed that police shot innocent bystanders during the hunt for Dorner. He detailed the two victims' gunshot wounds:

"One has a minor gunshot wound and is in the process of being released. The second person is in stable condition, with two gunshot wounds," said Chief Beck. "Tragically, we believe this was a case of mistaken identity by the officers." [emphasis added]
Throughout this latest push for more stringent gun-regulations--since the tragedy of Sandy Hook--I have been asking the question, "If politicians wish to limit magazine capacity, shouldn't the police be forced to return to revolvers as in the old days?"  If the average law-abiding citizen is to be restricted to 10, or 7 round magazines, shouldn't the police be equally subject to those restrictions?

Are the criminals they face in the street any less dangerous when they confront a law-abiding citizen?  Is the home invader any less murderous than the fleeing criminal police are chasing?  The answer, of course, is no and the assertion that "only police and the military should have 'assault weapons'" is ludicrous, unfounded in fact, and based on politicians' and liberals' own fears of their fellow law-abiding citizens and their irrational fears of an inanimate object.

As in all of these cases of someone on a killing rampage, all of the warning signs were there long before the killer began killing.  Chris Dorner's ex-girlfriend described him as "paranoid."

Chris Dorner ex-girlfriend speaks out, describes him as 'paranoid'

Miriam Hernandez - KABC News

LOS ANGELES (KABC) -- Murder suspect Christopher Dorner's ex-girlfriend, Ariana Williams, says she fears for her life while Dorner remains on the loose.

Williams filed a restraining order against him following their break up.

"For somebody like Chris, he was the type of person that without him having a badge, without him having that job, title of police officer, I really don't think he would exist without it," Williams said.

Williams dated him five years ago but says Dorner was unraveling even back then. The proud cop and Navy reservist was always on the watch for a possible attack.

"He would leave firearms all over my house," Williams said. "There'd be one, he'd be in the bed and there'd be one by the bed. There'd be one on the kitchen counter. There may be a combat knife or something, maybe I saw, in the bathroom one day or in the kitchen. He said, 'You know, you're always on duty when you're a cop. You don't ever know who is watching you or following you." [emphasis added]
Here we have a former policeman, a Navy veteran, screened as closely as any other member of the police or military, and he is acting out his paranoid imaginings as violently as any of the other recent mass murderer.

Here is the tough reality, folks; there are no sure things, no guarantees in life.  The risks of living in a free society are around us ever day and any politician who tries to sell you the idea that "if we just do this, if we just ban that, you will be safe," is selling you a pack of lies.

If we want to minimize these sorts of killing sprees, there are a few things which can be done--all perfectly within the bounds of the Constitution.
  • Allow all law-abiding citizens to purchase and possess the firearms of their choice, not of the government's choice--this includes fully automatic rifles, short-barreled rifles, sub-machine guns, and any other military small arms--it works in Switzerland, why not here? 
  • Monitor the behavior of people who display violent tendencies or aberrant behaviors like paranoia or who have been diagnosed with mental illnesses that make them dangerous to others--and if necessary, institutionalize them.  Stop worrying about hurting their feelings, they're dangerous people.
  • Eliminate all "gun-free" zones--they are standing invitations to mass-killings.
  • Place armed guards at our schools, malls and other public gathering places--there are lots of returning military veterans who have the skills and the stability and would leap at the opportunity to protect our children.
  • Broaden the ability of average law-abiding American citizens of age to obtain concealed-carry handgun licenses--an armed society is a safe society.
  • Stop law-makers from attempting to circumvent the Constitutional prohibitions against government to infringe on our inherent rights--disarming the law-abiding merely gives criminals the green-light to commit more crime.
An armed society is not only a polite society, but a safer society--and that is proven by all available statistics.

Of note, Chris Dorner is anti-NRA and a strong advocate of gun-control (and Obama, not surprisingly).  In his long, rambling manifesto (these crazies always have a manifesto) he asks: 
Who in there right mind needs a f*****g silencer!!! who needs a freaking SBR AR15? No one. No more Virginia Tech, Columbine HS, Wisconsin temple, Aurora theatre, Portland malls, Tucson rally, Newtown Sandy Hook. Whether by executive order or thru a bi-partisan congress an assault weapons ban needs to be re-instituted. Period!!!

Mia Farrow said it best. “Gun control is no longer debatable, it’s not a conversation, its a moral mandate.”
The answer is loud and clear, all able-bodied law-abiding American citizens "need a freaking SBR AR15" (and maybe a silencer too boot).  If ever there was proof that American citizens need to be as well armed as the police, this killing rampage and the reckless actions of police following it are all the proof we need.

There is no rational argument that anyone can make to the contrary and the anti-gun movement (and President Obama and his supporters) prove it.  All of their arguments are emotional appeals, efforts to prod the fears and remorse of average citizens.  They are trying to ladle on the guilt in an effort to bully citizens into surrendering the rights our Founding Fathers believed to be inherent and important enough to die for.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Personal note:  Sorry I am late to cover this story, but a family member is experiencing some difficult health issues, so I have been somewhat preoccupied.  I beg your indulgence and patience in this difficult time.

Friday, February 8, 2013

"Death Panels" No Longer Is Sarah Palin Alone, Steve Rattner, Paul Krugman Admit

Will Malven

They castigated Sarah Palin, because she coined the term "Death Panels" in describing Obamacare's "Independent Advisory Board."  
". . . And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.
They ridiculed her, attacked her sanity, her intelligence, and her integrity.  They denied that there would be anything like a death panel involved in Obamacare.  They claimed it was nothing more that "end-of-life-counseling" and that any claim to the contrary was a lie.


Here is a video recording of Paul Krugman made at a Q and A session following a speech he gave last week.

Much of what he says in the first minute is garbled, but he does assert that an 80+% debt to GDP ratio is not a "crisis level" (that is his projection of the debt level 10 years from now)--wishful thinking anyone?  Wait till Obamacare gets fully enacted.  Here's a transcript of that he said beginning at 1:00 (minute):
"Eventually we do have a problem. That the population is getting older, health care costs are rising, all of that . . . slowing . . . there is this question of how we’re going to pay for the programs. The year 2025, the year 2030, something is going to have to give.

This is Stein's Law.  Herbert Stein . . . um . . . 'if something can't go on forever, it will stop.'  
So something will have to give and we don't know how it will be done.

My vision on how it ought to be done is that we’re going to need more revenue and probably in the end--surely in the end--it will require some sort of middle class taxes as well. 

 So in the end, we won’t be able to pay for the kind of government the society will want without some increase in taxes, not a huge one, but some increase in taxes on the middle class, maybe a value added tax, something like that.  And we’re also going to, really have to make decisions about health care, not pay for health care that has no demonstrated medical benefits. 
So, God forbid, the snarky version... which I shouldn’t even say because it will get me in trouble is death panels and sales taxes is how we do this

But it's not that far out of reach. Even there, it's not this huge, impossible adjustment; the only thing major required is the politics. So if we had reasonable men and women with a shared interest in making American society work in Congress, we need to stick around the table." [my emphasis]
"Death panels and sales taxes . . ."  How very curious that we are now hearing from the grand professor of liberal economics and one of the loudest voices in pushing Obamacare and amassing a huge national debts, the same words that we conservatives have been waring against since Obamacare first raised its ugly, destructive, anti-capitalism head from the slimy pit of Democrat dreams.

BUT, Krugman isn't alone in this "startling" admission (startling only to those gullible liberal idiots who stood in rapt attention as their demigoguing demi-god Obama and his henchmen and women in the Democrat Party leadership sold their lives and their futures down the river (River Styx, I believe it was).

Oh no, former "Car  Czar" Steve Rattner, a semi-regular guest on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" has also admitted the truth, after months of sneering at Sarah Palin's characterization and basking in the resultant approbation of pseudo-conservative (and former Republican congressman) Joe Scarborough and his Moon-calf co-host Mika Brzezinski (whose primary function on the program appears to be making juvenile faces at the camera and interjecting bovine banalities as the adults at the table discuss serious issues), and their liberal friends.

From an op-ed he published in the New York Times back in September:

Beyond Obamacare

Published: September 16, 2012

WE need death panels.

Well, maybe not death panels, exactly, but unless we start allocating health care resources more prudently — rationing, by its proper name — the exploding cost of Medicare will swamp the federal budget.

But in the pantheon of toxic issues — the famous “third rails” of American politics — none stands taller than overtly acknowledging that elderly Americans are not entitled to every conceivable medical procedure or pharmaceutical. [emphasis added]

Is that not precisely what we conservatives were cautioning against time and again as Madame Speaker Pelosi and her Democrat Dragoons frog-marched Obamacare through the House without allowing Republicans the opportunity to suggest amendments and by brute force and  . . . creative . . . use of the House rules?

She herself confessed she hadn't read it and famously stated (some would say infamously stated) that "But we have to pass the [health care] bill so that you can find out what’s in it....”  Are not those words the words one might expect from a dictator rather than an elected representative?

On June 20, 2012, Jonathon Capehart reported in the Washington Post, that at a lunch on Capitol Hill with opinion writers, Pelosi attempted to defend her infamous statement, she told the White House propaganda staff . . . I mean the opinion writers . . .
"In the fall of the year, the outside groups...were saying ‘it’s about abortion,’ which it never was. ‘It’s about ‘death panels,’’ which it never was. ‘It’s about a job-killer,’ which it creates four million. ‘It’s about increasing the deficit’; well, the main reason to pass it was to decrease the deficit.” [did a damn good job of that last, didn't it Madame (former) Speaker?] [emphasis added]
Well Madame former Speaker, YOU LIED--at least according to the above two luminaries of liberal economics and avid advocates in support of Obama care.

Fewer choices and greater expense.

My 87-year old mother is currently facing a decision whether or not to begin dialysis treatments.  It is a rough go, 4 hours a day, 3 days a week--needle tracks up and down her arms, strict dietary structure, and all the associated emotional trauma associated with it . . . but at least she has a CHOICE.

With Obamacare and the "Independent Advisory Board"--death panel--we who are just beginning our journey into late middle-age will not face that choice, will not have that option presented to us.  Our "choice" will be made by a bunch of nameless, faceless bureaucrats who have no interest in whether we live of die, only on how much money a given treatment will cost balanced by the cold assessment of actuarial tables from which they will evaluate our relative worth to society.  Our "choice" will be taken away from us and in it's place, an injection of morphine and a quick death (hospice) probably spurred on by an ambitious government-paid healthcare worker.

Oh, it will all be done with a warm, caring smile and what little compassion each person called upon to do it can muster, but have no doubt, when your "usefulness to society" is deemed no longer above a certain standard, you will be advised that "WE" can no longer afford to provide you with the level of healthcare you require . . . bon voyage.

Ours will be the first generation whose "choice" (in this case, the choice to live) has been taken from us.  You know, I always thought liberals loved "choice," but I understand now that they love "choice" only as it applies to their ability to behave irresponsibly.  Only as long as liberals get to make that "choice" is "choice" a good thing.  When offered the ability of "choice" in public schools with a voucher program, liberals recoil and clearly, when discussing someone else's "choice" over what level of healthcare to receive, liberals believe government, not the individual should make that desicion.  So why don't we all just be a good little citizen-slaves and die.

It's a grim scenario and it's a grim situation with which we are all now faced.  Our fundamental freedom, the right to chose how we live our lives and how we leave our lives has been taken from us.  Like guns, like schools, like politically incorrect speech, like so-called "hate-crimes," bit by bit our freedoms and liberties--guaranteed to us, protected for us, and bequeathed to us by our Founding Fathers in the Constitution--are being taken from us.

It's a bi-partisan political problem.

The problem we have in America (well one of the problems--we have so many, mostly liberal driven) is that we conservatives keep telling Americans the truth.  We keep warning the voters that the policies Democrats (and liberal RINO Republicans) advocate lead to ruin.  We keep cautioning them that proposals like Obamacare (and ending "The Bush Tax-Cuts" and expanding the national debt to record levels, etc) will have grave consequences for them . . . and they keep believing the lies the liberals and their propaganda organ, the MSM, tell them.

It is only subsequently, after it is too late, that they discover the truth; conservatives were right and what they had been told by the press and the liberals was a lie.  Yet the next time a similar situation arises, they repeat the same mistake--they believe the lies once again and heap ridicule on conservatives, parroting what they hear from the Democrat Party Ministry of Propaganda (formerly known as "The Fourth Estate.")

The average low-information voter has yet to fully understand that the former Fouth Estate is now firmly entrenched inside walls of the Democrat camp and, with the exception of a very few voices--like Fox News Channel, Rush Limbaugh, and a few conservative bloggers (like me)--what they are being told by the MSM comes straight from the offices of the Democrat National Committee, MoveOn.org, and the Oval (Offal?) Office.

Sarah Palin was right.  Not only was she right, she knocked it out of the ball park . . . and for that she was castigated, ridiculed, mocked on programs like Saturday Night Live, The View, and Bill Maher, and pushed to the side by her own gutless party leadership as being too toxic.

I suggest that our gravest problem isn't what liberals do, leopards can't change their spots (nor demons their horns).  No, our gravest problem today is the absolute lack of intestinal fortitude in the leadership of the Republican Party.

The Republican Party leadership is comprised of spineless old ladies who are more afraid of offending a press-corps (a press-corp that holds them in absolute and utter contempt) than they in upholding their oaths of office and adhering to the principles of of our Founding Fathers and those who put them in office.

The real problem is a Congress filled with professional politicians who are more concerned about keeping their jobs than they are in standing up for what they know is right.

I can hear Boehner, McConnell, Graham, and McCain now, "We've got to protect our phoney baloney jobs, gentlemen."  "Harumph, harumph, harumph . . ." [courtesy of Mel Brooks in "Blazing Saddles"]

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Wednesday, February 6, 2013

An Armed People Are A Free People

Will Malven

Those of us who believe fervently in the "armed citizen" aspect of the 2nd Amendment understand that our Founding Fathers intended that our citizenry be so well armed with weapons equal to those possessed by any standing army that the mere fact that they were so armed would be a deterrent to any acts intended to usurp power or limit their constitutional freedoms and rights.

This man, a legal immigrant and AN AMERICAN BY CHOICE also understands what is at risk when our government begins contemplating the greater restriction of firearms held by the general public.

What more can one say?

 He referenced the Department of Homeland Security who has classified a rifle of caliber 5.56mm with a 30 round magazine as "suitable for self-defense:

Personal Defense Weapons Solicitation

Solicitation Number: HSCEMS-12-R-00011
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Office: Immigration & Customs Enforcement
Location: ICE-OAQ-MS
Solicitation Number: HSCEMS-12-R-00011
Notice Type: Combined Synopsis/Solicitation

Synopsis: Added: Jun 07, 2012 11:47 am

This announcement is being placed in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) paragraph 5.207.  It is a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial items.  5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense.  This announcement constitutes the only solicitation and proposals are being requested.  See attachments for complete details.
 So the DHS believes that an AR-16 (not AR-15, but AR-16) "select-fire" is "suitable for personal-defense."  Why is this true for people in our government and not for the average citizen?  In what way are DHS employees more suited to be so armed than are law-abiding citizens?

Once again we see a government that is determined to ensure that it's own soldiers (whether military or para-military "civilian enforcement") are better armed and better protected than the citizens they serve.

He also cites U.S. vs. Miller - 307 U.S. 174 (1939) which in part states:
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
The American Colonies In The 17th Century', Osgood, Vol. 1, ch. XIII, affirms in reference to the early system of defense in New England-
'In all the colonies, as in England, the militia system was based on the principle of the assize of arms. This implied the general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions, to [307 U.S. 174, 180] cooperate in the work of defence.' 'The possession of arms also implied the possession of ammunition, and the authorities paid quite as much attention to the latter as to the former.' 'A year later (1632) it was ordered that any single man who had not furnished himself with arms might be put out to service, and this became a permanent part of the legislation of the colony (Massachusetts)'.
 There is a great deal more in Miller, but this will provide a taste of what it says.  If you want more, follow the link above to the actual ruling.

Mr. Han also mentions Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55 (1980)

Under the dissent written by Justice Brennan with the concurrence of Justices Marshall and Powell, Section III, in part states:
[8] These legislative restrictions on the use of firearms are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties. See United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 178 (1939) (the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia")

In other words, IT'S NOT ABOUT HUNTING.

Again and again we see that throughout our nation's history, the 2nd Amendment has been viewed through with a view towards having a citizenry as well armed as the standing armies, armed with modern weapons the equal of any possessed by our nation's military and certainly equal to any possessed by any civilian para-military force such as the police SWAT teams or the DHS.

Use these sources, use this material and fight against these efforts to usurp power from the people and abridge the rights of law-abiding citizens.

Remember also, it's not about being armed well enough to fight against a tyrannical government, it's about having a civilian populace that is so well armed that the government will never even consider attempting to become tyrannical.  The pro-Second Amendment effort is about DETERRENCE, NOT CONFLICT.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

If you like it SHARE IT!  Link it on your forums and email it to your friends.

This is a battle that must be won.  Those on the left who seek to control us and strip us of our rights will NEVER give up their efforts, no matter how bleak their prospects may seem.  We must match them effort for effort and enthusiasm for enthusiasm.

President "Obomber:" Americans Have No Constitutional Protections

Will Malven

Yesterday, the world found out what we conservatives have long known about Obama, he is a lawless despot who holds our Constitution and our rights as citizens in complete contempt.

The revelation by Michael Issikoff of the existence of a Department of Justice finding that the President has the power to order the assassination of an American citizen by drone attack if they are SUSPECTED of being a high-ranking leader in al Qaeda or an "associated group," even if they are not engaged in any active plot to commit an act of terror against the U.S. shows just how far down the path of lawlessness this President has led us.

EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans

By Michael Isikoff - National Investigative Correspondent, NBC News

A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force” -- even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S.

The 16-page memo, a copy of which was obtained by NBC News, provides new details about the legal reasoning behind one of the Obama administration’s most secretive and controversial polices: its dramatically increased use of drone strikes against al-Qaida suspects abroad, including those aimed at American citizens, such as the September 2011 strike in Yemen that killed alleged al-Qaida operatives Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan. Both were U.S. citizens who had never been indicted by the U.S. government nor charged with any crimes.
Am I the only one who remembers leaders of the Democrat Party, anti-war protesters, and members of the MSM lashing out in high dudgeon--in paroxysms of self-righteous outrage--over findings by the G.W. Bush Department of Justice that water-boarding was not torture?  Does anyone remember the speeches, the editorials, the members of the Democrat Leadership standing in the well of the House and on the floor of the Senate calling for investigations of President Bush?  Does anyone recall the demands for impeachment, just because known terrorists were water-boarded?

Where are the hoards of angry protesters marching on the steps of the Capitol?  Where is the press coverage of the Cindy Sheehans, the 24-hour a day bombast by the talking heads railing against the President for violating the constitution?

I guess for liberals, foreigners captured on foreign soil actively engaged in plotting acts of terror and killing Americans have more rights than American citizens who are not even suspected of committing any crime.

We are on the cusp of (some would say we are already in the throes of) becoming a dictatorship.  We began down this road with the "War on Drugs" which led to the first real abridgements to our Constitutional protections with "no-knock" entry by police based solely on the unsubstantiated assertions of informants or even the claim by police that they had "detected the odor of drugs.  Later we saw the expansion of wire taps under the auspices of FISA with a post facto judicial approval.

Then 9-ll happened and our government hit the accelerator with the Patriot Act, George Bush's brutal violation of our Constitution, first implemented to aid in finding and killing terrorist.  Then came the establishment--largely at the behest of Democrats, but later enthusiastically supported by Republicans--of a huge new bureaucracy charged with policing our nation, the Department of Homeland Security and it's (largely under-trained) 47,000 person adjunct police force of thuggery and oppression, the Transportation Security Administration (yes, I know I am beginning to sound like Alex Jones or one of the other conspiracy theorists, but what is, is what is).

President Obama, with the willing participation of a majority in Congress, followed this with the National Defense Authorization Act, the most far-reaching intrusion into our individual rights and abridgement of constitutional protections yet witnessed by the American citizens since FDR imprisoned Japanese Americans, and possibly since Lincoln suspended the right of habeus corpus.  The NDAA greatly expanded the power of the government to investigate, wire-tap, and detain American citizens without the protections we all have come to expect.

Gone was due process, gone was judicial review, gone were the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment protections against unreasonable (and unwarranted) searches and seizures, deprivation of life, liberty, and property without due process, the right to speedy trial, the right to be confronted by witnesses against us.  Gone was habeus corpus.

In their place was the presumed good will of the state and all it's well intentioned nameless bureaucrats.  With the NDAA, our government has replaced "of the people, by the people and for the people" with "trust us, we're the government."

That was followed by recent revelations of a $2 Billion NSA "Data Collection Center" which will house within it's 2 million square feet the capability to monitor all data transmissions (including cell-phone calls, computer postings, business transactions--all computer based activities) within the United States (we have been assured that there will be no monitoring of American citizens--"trust us, we're the government").

Now, President Obama has taken this path to it's natural conclusion, the unwarranted, unconstitutional assassination of American citizens SUSPECTED  of being part of some nebulous organization OR ITS ASSOCIATES--NO CHARGES NEED BY FILED, NO INTELLIGENCE OR EVIDENCE REQUIRED--merely a finding by the President or his surrogates in the CIA and NSA that said person is suspected of being involved in potential threats.

Gone also is the word "imminent;" redefined to give it "broader" conceptual meaning.  One in which the requirement of having actionable intelligence has been removed.

Lest the reader think I am in sympathy with terrorists, or have the desire to protect them, let me divest you of that misconception now.  I am all in favor of killing the rat-bastards wherever they are, but I do believe that, no matter how distasteful he or she may be, we MUST protect the constitutional rights of EVERY citizen.

I believe in and support rendition, enhanced interrogation, and, on occasion, even assassination OF FOREIGN NATIONALS engaged in acts of terror or military actions against Americans and American interests abroad, but American citizens must retain their rights under our Constitution, or ultimately we all become subject to the same abridgements.

How long will it be before this same President--the President who views our Constitution as an impediment--decides to direct his Department of Justice to issue a finding that American citizens suspected of terrorist activities ON AMERICAN SOIL should be subject to the same treatment.

Who will define "terrorist activities?"  Will they include only violence, or will they include anything considered by this administration to be "seditious?"  Will members of so-called "militia" groups be targeted?  How about bloggers and those who express opinions contrary to those approved by this administration?

We have not just started down a "slippery-slope," we are well down one by now and we are rapidly approaching the point of no return.

Where is the skepticism of the Church Committee?  Where is the suspicion of "Big Brother" (or "Big Sister" in Obama's Administration)?  Where is the ACLU and where are all those peace protesters who have plagued every Republican Administration from Nixon to Reagan, through George W. Bush?  Where are the sit-ins, the riots, the mass protests?  Where are all of those Occupy Wall Street protestors?

. . . and even more disturbing that the absence of all of those liberal hypocrites who felt such outrage over the policies of Bush, WHERE ARE THE REPBULICANS?  Where are the defenders of our Constitution?

Maybe I am the only one left who sees the abject danger that this massive revelation of lawlessness within the Obama Administration.  Maybe I am the only one who sees the eventual outcome should this gross abridgement of our Constitution go unchallenged.

Is it paranoia or is it truly the slippery slope?
  • War on Drugs with it's no-knock entry
  • Warrant-less wiretapping under FISA
  • The 2008 relaxation of FISA restrictions
  • The Patriot Act
  • The Department of Homeland Security
  • The National Defense Authorization Act
  • The NSA's $2 Billion "Data Collection Center" in Utah 
  • The major push for an expansion of "gun-control" legislation
  • Drone attacks against American citizens based on a "suspicion"
You tell me where we are headed.  Does anyone wonder why this recent major push for stricter gun-control just happens to coincide with the revelation that our government is now actively engaged in government sanctioned murder of US citizens without due process of law?

I'm beginning to wonder if all those "preppers," and conspiracy theory hawkers haven't been more rational than those of us who have been ridiculing them.  I'm not ready to start digging a bomb shelter yet, and I retain some faith in our system, but the brazenness with which this President is flouting our Constitution and seeking through Executive Orders and DOJ "Findings" to curtail, subsume, and subvert our Bill of Rights protections has me wondering just when those in his own party will stop covering for him and truly begin to question his actions.

The atmosphere of hypocrisy within the Democrat Party and the MSM is becoming stifling.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Monday, February 4, 2013

"Shotgun Barry" And Why "The Picture" Is Irrelevant To The Gun Debate

Will Malven

Okay, so Barack "Skeeter" Obama (A.K.A. "Shotgun Barry") has finally released a picture showing "The One" firing a shotgun, presumably at sporting clays.  Predictably, the picture was met with cheers and a chorus of "Hallelujah" by the President's most ardent defenders, fears from those liberals who are so rabidly anti-gun (anti-fun?) that seeing the President doing so brought on near cardiac arrest, and jeers from the still skeptical (and knowledgeable) gun rights crowd. The White House photo would best serve as a "What Not To Do When Shooting A Shotgun" poster.

White House photograph courtesy of Sad Hill News

Once again, this White House and it's liberal apologists have played into the hands of the conspiracy prone, first by the President's claim of shooting skeet "all the time" then in New Republic publishing the obvious Photoshop of picture of the President playing golf, and then, days after the President's assertion and the highly verbal skepticism of most gun-rights advocates, finally the above photograph that begs new questions as to authenticity.

Faked New Republic picture courtesy of Blur-Brain.com

Regardless of whether the photo is real or not, IT IS IRRELEVANT.  It is meaningless in the ongoing debate over gun-control.  It doesn't matter if the President is an avid skeet-shooter (pardon me while I collapse in paroxysms of laughter), or has only fired a shotgun in his fevered imagination.  THE SECOND AMENDMENT ISN'T ABOUT SKEET-SHOOTING.

It's not about hunting, it's not about sport-shooting, it's not about target shooting, it's not even about self-defense.  It's about having a populace so well armed that those in government disposed to usurp power and curtail the rights of citizen will never even consider doing so.

As I have said repeatedly in the past, in Federalist 84, Hamilton discussed the negatives associated with having any bills-of-rights attached to the Constitution.  His reasoning was as follows, if one writes a bill that says "government may not do thus-and-so," the very people at whom this restriction is directed will inevitably conclude that, because the bill says they can't, it implies a pre-existing authority.  Such an express injunction would provide those prone to usurp, "a colorable pretext" to do so.

This is precisely the thinking of the current administration and those members of Congress bent on further restricting the rights of gun-owners.  They assume they have the power and authority to pass such restrictions, in spite of the express prohibition against doing so contained in the 2nd Amendment.

Sadly, Americans have become so used to the gradual encroachment of government into their lives and restricting their activities that they have become inured to it and they are so poorly educated in the history of their own government and what the Founding Fathers intended that they are easily seduced by the promise of these dishonest politicians of greater safety for them and their children if they will only make this one small concession . . . and the lie continues with each of those "small concessions."

The American people have been making those "small concessions" to the encroachment of government for so long that most no longer notice them.  They are lulled into a false sense of security.  Each time a voice of reason speaks out and dares sound a warning, they are ridiculed by those who are deeply invested in the growing power of the state.

Saul Alinsky identified ridicule as the most powerful tool the left has in pressing their agenda.  Those isolated voices are laughed at, called "extremists," satirized in the media and programs like Saturday Night Live and that ridicule is echoed in the press and the media by others who also have a deep investment in that growing power of the state.

So, let me repeat once more, unambiguously:  The Second Amendment was intended to prevent the government from interfering ("SHALL NOT INFRINGE") with the right--the inherent "natural right"--of every law-abiding citizen to own, possess, transport, hoard, collect, amass, use, trade and/or sell firearms--modern and equal to any that the standing armies of the day possessed (regardless of magazine capacity or appearance) and the ammunition for them--among themselves, for the express intent of ensuring that they (the average citizens) would be so well armed that no power, foreign or domestic, would even consider attempting to abridge their rights.

Madison made it clear in his writings (see Federalist 46) as did many other of those who shed their wealth and blood and spirit to wrest control of this continent and this nation from the hands of an oppressive government.  A government, much like that we have today, intent on curtailing the rights of the individual, subjecting him to constant observation, illegal searches and seizures, unconstitutional invasions of private property by police based solely on hear-say evidence and, even more disturbingly, abridgement of guarantees through the auspices of the so-called National Defense Authorization Act, up to and including assassination by drone attack (yes killing American citizens by drone attack without the due process of law required and demanded by the Constitution).

As for the picture, I'll go out on a limb here and admit that at the least, the new photograph is authentic in showing the President holding a (Browning O/U) shotgun on a summer's day.  It may even be that he actually fired the gun, but it begs credulity that he has shot skeet "all the time."

So why did I call it a poster for "What Not To Do When Shooting A Shotgun?"
  • Worst of all, he has the butt of the shotgun high on his shoulder, resting against his collar-bone rather than the meat of his shoulder.  This would, if he actually fired the gun, at the very least be excruciatingly painful and at the worst, could conceivably crack his collar-bone.
  • He also appears to have it placed at the joint between his upper arm and his shoulder placing tremendous pressure on the joint itself--in the event that he actually fired it.
  • His left elbow is way too low again causing the placement of the buttstock to be improper.  Any experience shooter would be aware of this and avoid it, if for no other reason that to avoid the pain it would cause.
  • His line of sight is BELOW the level of the upper-barrel and he would be unable to sight down the rib at his target.
  • There is very little to indicate any recoil.  Anyone who has actually fired a shotgun knows that it generates a considerable amount of recoil, enough certainly to force the shooter's shoulders back and to elevate the muzzle.  Even a well padded shotgun will leave the shooter with bruising of the shoulder following a round or two of skeet--a lightweight 12 gauge, like the Browning he's holding, packs a lot of punch.
  • The angle at which he is holding the gun is far too low for skeet-shooting, trap-shooting maybe, but certainly not skeet.
  • The smoke pattern is . . . unusual at least.  It is possible that he is using a compensated upper-barrel (there's obviously something sticking off the end of it, but then why not compensate both barrels), but I have never seen smoke shooting out sideways from a shotgun and the amount of smoke present is also "unusual."
All-in-all it is a bizarre photograph.  I'll take the White Houses word for what it depicts, but to me it resembles nothing quite so much as the President standing posing with a shotgun he has never held before as a fire-cracker is exploding out of the muzzle.  Sorry, but that what it looks like to me.

Also of note, is how carefully worded the President's claim to Franklin Foer in the New Republic interview was:
FF:  Have you ever fired a gun?

President:  Yes, in fact, up at Camp David, we do skeet shooting all the time.

FF:  The whole family?

President:  Not the girls, but oftentimes guests of mine go up there. And I have a profound respect for the traditions of hunting that trace back in this country for generations. And I think those who dismiss that out of hand make a big mistake.
Notice that he said "we" and "guests of mine," not "I."  He says that he has in fact fired a gun, then he couches the remainder of his reply carefully.  Notice that he never claimed to shoot skeet himself nor any sort of clay pigeon shooting, only that he has fired a gun.  Folks, at the risk of quoting President Obama I will say "Words have meaning," and much of that meaning is in what one does not say . . . especially when it comes to the words politicians say.

I am also led to the question, Why not "the girls?"  Does this champion of women's rights not believe that "girls" can shoot skeet, or that skeet-shooting isn't appropriate for "girls?"  I know of a lot of women who would disagree with him vehemently on that score and I'm certain that the girls enrolled in The Scholastic Clay Target Program would disagree as well.  There are a number of skeet-shooting and trap-shooting programs at schools across the country that have "girls" who compete competitively and quite often win those competitions.

I guess the President just doesn't believe that guns and "girls" mix--or perhaps he just doesn't trust Michelle with a loaded shotgun . . .

Sarah Palin might disagree:

Courtesy of U.S. for Palin

Clearly she DOES know how to shoot and uses proper form.  I'm sure she would be glad to instruct "Shotgun Barry" in the finer points of shooting.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!