Close a thread, will you? Lock down comments, will you? Did you lock down pingbacks?
Build a better mousetrap, and all that…
Number of comments: 0 Add comment
April 8th, 2014 by exurbankevin
A California state senator who authored gun control legislation asked for campaign donations in exchange for introducing an undercover FBI agent to an arms trafficker, according to court documents unsealed Wednesday.
The allegations against State Sen. Leland Yee were outlined in an FBI affidavit in support of a criminal complaint. The affidavit accuses Yee of conspiracy to deal firearms without a license and to illegally import firearms.
ee discussed helping the agent get weapons worth $500,000 to $2.5 million, including shoulder fired automatic weapons and missiles, and took him through the entire process of getting them from a Muslim separatist group in the Philippines to the United States, according to the affidavit by FBI Special Agent Emmanuel V. Pascua.
Muslim terrorists, illegal gun running and a California legislator pivotal in creating California’s some of draconian anti-gun legislation. Honestly, who needs drugs when reality is this messed up?
“‘How did you go bankrupt?’ Bill asked. ‘Two ways,’ Mike said. ‘Gradually and then suddenly.’”
- Ernest Hemingway, The Sun Also Rises
The years of the Obama presidency have been challenging for America, but they’ve placed an even greater strain on American progressives. From the utter failure of Obama’s economic stimulus package to the own-goal of Obamacare and the ongoing crisis in the Ukraine, everything that progressives “know” and hold dear to the hearts is being shown to be false at best, and destructive to themselves and their country at worst.
Remember this, the “solution” to the (alleged) harm that George W. Bush did to the economy of the U.S.? Remember this graph? This is what Obama and the Democrats told us back in 2009 what unemployment would look like in the U.S. once their $152 billion dollar boondoogle was passed.
Here’s the harsh reality.
Good thing we spent all that money, or else we’d really be in trouble!
The (un)employment record of the Obama administration continues to be gloomy: The latest figures for February show that the jobs market is rotten to the core, with little hope of change in sight. The government-first, people-second policies of Obama and his cronies have not only failed to produce the jobs as they predicted, they’re trying to halt the progress of job markets that are actually growing, and stop other jobs before they even start.
The narrative for decades was simple: Republicans are rich plutocrats who only care about money and power, and the people who run the GOP got their money and power by sending middle-class Americans to the poor house so they could buy another summer mansion.
And that was the sympathetic view: People who hated Republicans called them Nazis and left it at that.
ObamaCare is showing that the truth is a lie. Democrats, who are supposed to care about the downtrodden, passed ObamaCare, not Republicans, and ObamaCare is ruining the lives of millions of Americans. Obama told us if you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan (you can’t), if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor (you can’t) and that with his new law, health insurance would cost less than your cell phone bill. Now he’s telling us that we should stop paying our cell phone bill and our cable bill and sign up for one of his law’s lousy, expensive health care insurance plans.
The devastating failure of Obamacare will ripple down through American politics for generations to come, because it breaks apart the foundation that the house of cards of modern liberalism is built on, namely that liberals care for people more than conservatives do. Canceling health insurance and kicking millions of people off of health plans just to make sure their cronies are well-paid is something that Republicans are supposed to do, not Democrats. Now that the pathetic sympathy of the Democrat’s “love of the common man” has been shown to be nothing but a power grab (and a poor one at that), the ongoing narrative of Democratic excellence at social issues is coming to a screeching halt.
Speaking of collapsing narratives, as a child of the 80′s, we knew, knew growing up that Ronald Reagan would kill us all with his cowboy “My side good, your side bad” attitude towards Soviet aggression. The medias made sure to tell us that the Soviets were more than willing to make peace, if only we took the courageous first step and laid down our nuclear weapons first, the the Kremlin would do the same. It wasn’t the Soviet Union’s 1800+ missiles pointed at Bonn, Belgium and Birmingham that were the problem, it was the 500+ missiles that our cowboy President and his buddies in the military-industrial complex wanted to put in Europe as a counterweight to those commies that was the problem.
Reagan was going to get us all killed. Liberals knew that, and weren’t afraid to tell us that by any means necessary.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the apocalypse: The apocalypse wasn’t there when we arrived. Faced with an enemy that was willing and able to call it’s bluff, the Soviet Union (much like liberalism now…) collapsed under decades of mismanagement and failed policies. Faced with the harsh realities of an economic meltdown and an opposing leader who could lead, Grobachev and glasnost ended communism, and the Cold War ended.
But that’s not how liberals see it. Somehow, communism was doomed all along, and it just happened to collapse while Reagan was President (much like Richard Petty just happened to be in the lead on all those Daytona 500′s he won… I digress.), and Reagan’s words and deeds had nothing to do with Communism’s fall, it was going to happen anyways despite what Reagan (or Thatcher, or Pope John Paul II) did. To a progressive, communism ended in the Soviet Union because of any reason besides a show of strength from the West.
Flash-forward 20 years, and the President of the United States is on-record saying that after he’s re-elected, he’ll have “more flexibility” to lower the defenses of the United States to the President of a resurgent Russia. Less than two years later, Russian tanks are rolling through the independent country of the Ukraine, and the U.S. does nothing. A man like Russian President Putin respects strength, not flexibility, and to people like him, being flexible only means it’ll be easier to tie you in knots when the time comes. There is no doubt in my mind that in his classes at Columbia and Harvard in the 80′s, Obama bought into the “conventional wisdom” of the 80′s that Reagan’s strength is what made the world dangerous, not the Soviet’s aggression. The U.S and the world is now paying the price for our President’s failure to grasp the true history of the Cold War and live the lie of a progressive worldview where America is always the one at fault.
In just six short years, liberals and progressives have failed spectacularly in economic policy, in social policy and in foreign policy. Not only have the failed, but those policies have done serious damage to the United States at home and abroad. It’s time to end the nanny state before she smothers the baby in the crib.
Obama has increasingly sounded like the nerdy kid in a bad horror movie constantly warning his friends to stay out of danger as he’s called on the Democratic base to not be complacent in 2014.
“You’ve got to pay attention to the states,” he begged at a recent fundraiser for the Democratic Governors Association. Obama lamented that Democrats don’t think state-level races in the 2014 midterms are “sexy enough.”
Raising cash for Senate Democrats in Virginia, Obama said Democrats tend to get “a little sleepy” and “distracted.”
And so how does Obama himself avoid getting distracted from the urgent needs of running the country?
“The president is looking forward to spending some time with his wife and daughters, who are traveling down to Florida as well,” he continued. “There are some recreational amenities on the property, including workout facilities, tennis courts, a couple of golf courses.
“If there is an opportunity for the president to enjoy some of those amenities, then he’ll do that. What he will do, and what he is looking forward to doing, is getting a little downtime in the warm weather with his wife and daughters.”
The poor dear. Imagine the stress he he must have dealing with a ruthless dictator hell-bent on the brutal repression of an innocent nation.
I was talking about dealing Eric Holder, of course, not Vladimir Putin.
There was a time, a long time ago, when modern liberals understood there were enemies abroad as well as enemies overseas. My political heroes in my teens and twenties were men like Democratic senators Sam Nunn and Joe
Leibowitz Leiberman and New Republic editor Marty Peretz, men who understood that freedom abroad and freedom at home went hand in hand.
The idea of a robust foreign policy has gone the way of the “Blue Dog” Democrat, and with it, so has the Democrat’s commitment to defending the freedom of our allies and expanding our influence in a global economy.
Does the United States have an economic or military stake in Russia’s invasion of the Ukraine? Probably not. Does the United States have an economic or military stake in making sure that Russia’s influence in Europe is checked and countries like Poland and the Czech Republic don’t fall under Russia’s influence once again? You betcha.
Obama declined to place a ballistic missile shield over eastern Europe because of Russia’s objections. He relied on Russia to get him out of a sticky situation with Syria’s weapons of mass destruction that is a spectacular failure. He sent Hillary to literally and figuratively “press the reset button” and start a new era of trust between Russia and the United States.
The problem is, Putin has a reset button as well, and he wants to reset the clock back to 1956, but the Obama administration is fixated on abolishing Fox News, spying on American citizens and abolishing conservative political groups. If and when the administration talks about foreign policy, it’s to declare that a war isn’t really a war or announce that global warming is just another word for nuclear bomb.
There was a time when Democrats understood that the world is a dangerous place, and that the oath to fight “all enemies, foreign or domestic” listed those enemies in that order for a reason. The fact remains that if Obama battled Putin with the same energy he battles Republicans, this crisis would never have happened.
An ASU law prof weighs in on Arizona’s “controversial” anti-gay/pro-religious freedom bill and finds it to be a big, fat nothing-burger.
“…in Phoenix, Tucson and Flagstaff, which do extend rights based on sexual orientation, only the government can take action against an offending firm, with companies already able to claim a shield against government action under existing law. There is no individual right to sue.
‘My summary is, it means almost nothing,’ said Paul Bender, former dean of the Arizona State University College of Law.
‘People talk about, “I’ll go into a bakery and ask them for a wedding cake,’ and they’ll say, “I don’t do wedding cakes for gay weddings,”‘ Bender said. ‘So what? You can’t sue them for that.’”
So it looks like a government body created a law that does no real good and only serves to make legislators feel like they’re “doing something”?
Wow. How often does THAT happen?
The Beatles first performance on the Ed Sullivan Show.
Neil Armstrong walking on the moon.
The invention of sliced bread.
What do all of these have in common?
They all PALE to the the Arizona Bloggers (Conservative) meetup on the 22nd, location TDB. If you’ve gone to one, you know they’re always a good time of fun and smart talk with like-minded people.
Last week, the Congressional Budget Office released its assessment of Obamacare’s impact on the jobs market, and the message it sent to the few remaining supporters of the law was brutal.
In its new budget outlook, CBO very clearly states that Obamacare amounts to an implicit tax on work and workers that will reduce employment by as much as 2.5 million jobs over the next ten years.
You make it more expensive to work and people work less. How hard is that to understand? For Nancy Pelosi, very hard indeed.
“What we see is that people are leaving their jobs because they are no longer job-locked,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told reporters after House votes Tuesday afternoon. “They are following their aspirations to be a writer; to be self-employed; to start a business. This is the entrepreneurial piece. So it’s not going to cost jobs. It’s going to shift how people make a living and reach their aspirations.”
Because, of course, Craigslist is FILLED with ads for jobs for post-doc gender studies majors with an art history minor.
What happened to the liberalism of old that celebrated work, not dismissed it? Where are the calls to increase production in the bomber factories or buy war bonds? When did Rosie The Riveteer decide to live the life of Julia? Why is today’s liberalism so hostile to the idea of an honest day’s pay for an honest day’s work?
The liberal leaders of today didn’t arise from unions on the factory floor, they clawed themselves out of the muck of local politics to fight their way to the top of the D.C. food chain, or they are transplant from the far-off lands of upper-crust college law schools. Very few of them know what it’s like to actually have to work for a living, and fewer still are acquainted with the consequences of not working. Whether it’s in the halls of power of the halls of academia, they’ve never had to face the consequences of their actions: That’s what committees and adjust faculty are for.
The reaction to Obamacare assault on jobs is merely the latest expression of the consequence-free lifestyle that Democrats endorse. Democratic operative (now candidate for State Senate) Sandra Fluke drew national headlines a few years back for demanding that taxpayers fund her sexual lifestyle choices. Never mind NSA spying, drone attacks on civilians or IRS bullying, as long as people can be free from the consequences of who they choose to sleep with, they are truly free.
Forward, into a Brave New World.
It appears that the dextrosphere is panicking over the fact that an iconic worldwide brand closely associated with a nation of immigrants uses immigrants to sell its product.
For the record, as an immigrant to the U.S., I thought this Coke commercial was pretty neat. It’s a good reminder that people come to this country from many other cultures speaking many different languages, but somehow, they wind up being Americans.
Which is really, really cool. I’ve lived in a country with an official language (two of them, in fact), and designating an official language or an official religion only ends to countries breaking themselves into small and smaller pieces. If we truly believe in the idea that liberty and freedom are universal human rights and are not limited to just one nation, then those ideas are what we need to concentrate on, not the language they’re communicated in.
Also, if you’re worried that because of this commercial, “America The Beautiful” will become an anthem for the Progressive Left, relax, it already is. It was penned by Katherine Bates, a die-hard Progressive who may or may not have been a lesbian, but who sure did love big government and world-wide treaties.
A lifelong, active Republican, Bates broke with the party to endorse Democratic presidential candidate John W. Davis in 1924 because of Republican opposition to American participation in the League of Nations. She said: “Though born and bred in the Republican camp, I cannot bear their betrayal of Mr. Wilson and their rejection of the League of Nations, our one hope of peace on earth.”
Besides, anyone who knows the history of English knows that language has a long and glorious history of sucking up new languages and cultures and making those words a part of the language.
Or perhaps you think words like “burrito”, “menu” and “martyr” came from Olde English? If so, take ten minutes and find out where our language actually came from. We borrow more stuff than my next door neighbor.
Look, I love the Ray Charles version of America The Beautiful as much (or more) as the next guy, but his version was heavily influenced by soul music, which comes out of the call and response of worship services in black churches. Ray’s iconic version of this great song was filtered through the lens of immigration. Forced immigration from which our country is still healing from, but immigration nevertheless, so why are we arguing about that same song being sung by even more immigrants?
And I mean it’s not like our national motto is written in a language other than English, right? Right?