About Me

Name: John Caile
Email: johncaile@sditraining.net Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Media Brown Shirts Run Amok

For the few remaining Americans who still don't recognize the blatant bias in the mainstream press, the coverage of the April 15th "Tea Parties" should remove all doubt.

From the laughably under-reported numbers of participants, to the incredibly hostile comments from journalists who have forgotten the meaning of the word "reporting," the mainstream media maniacs did everything but pledge allegiance to the Obama administration.

The Associated Press described the rallies this way in their opening paragraph:
"Whipped up by conservative commentators and bloggers, tens of thousands of protesters staged "tea parties" around the country Wednesday to tap into the collective angst stirred up by a bad economy, government spending and bailouts."
"Whipped up?" Apparently, to today's "journalist," anyone who doesn't embrace Obama's brand of Liberal Fascism and economic insanity MUST be being led astray by "conservative commentators and bloggers." They couldn't possibly be merely expressing disagreement with policies they correctly identify as disastrous.

Here in Minnesota, overhead video clearly showed about 6000 to 8000 people at the peak of the rally. Given that many people were coming and going throughout the event, the total number was likely closer to 10,000. So how did our local press and TV report the attendance?

Well, WCCO, the CBS affiliate, announced at around 5:30 PM that the crowd numbered "almost a thousand people" then added "although organizers expect as many as twice that number." Even the police on scene laughed at that one - though the rally ran from 5:00 until 8:00 PM, and the biggest crowds didn't arrive until around 6:30, by the time of the WCCO "report" there were already at least 4000 people present.

The TV reports also made sure they reported about the "counter protest" from some socialist group that loves high taxes (on you, that is), but surprise, surprise, they failed to mention the number of people in that group: about a dozen.

And local print media was no better - the StarTribune (known affectionately as the "RED Star tribune") also reported a figure of around a thousand. Coincidentally, these are the same people who refer to half a dozen "welfare rights" protesters as "a large crowd."

Falsely reporting the attendance was only the beginning. The real story was the nearly hysterical fear mongering by the news types. From CNN's Jeffrey Toobin, who found the events "disturbing," to various other talking heads fearfully expressing similar "concerns" (with properly furrowed brow, of course) the verdict was unanimous: be afraid, America. The way they talked, you would have thought they were reporting on a 1930's Nuremberg rally (then again, these are the same people who actually did call George Bush "Hitler" so we shouldn't be surprised.)

But there was no more perfect example of the downright delusional mental state of the media than the CNN female talking head who verbal assaulted a participant at the Chicago Tea Party.

If you haven't seen it, she asked a man who was with his toddler why he was at the rally, and before the man had said half a sentence, she jumped all over him and went into what can only be described as a pro-Obama rant about how grateful the man should be for the "stimulus" money that Illinois will receive.

And as if that weren't enough, she signed off with a completely outrageous comment about the crowd being "anti-goverment, anti-CNN" and opining that this was to be expected since the event was "promoted by the right wing, conservative FOX network" (it wasn't, of course).

But the larger issue is this: Why was this woman arguing with the man in the first place? She is supposed to be reporting - NOT advocating (in this case, almost violently) for the policies of the Obama administration.

Now, anyone with a functioning brain knows the answer: Mainstream news people today are NOT interested in objective reporting of the news. And they are certainly not interested in the truth.

Instead, today's media (who are 90% left-wing Democrats) are committed to promoting the expansion of Big Government Liberalism, by electing, protecting, and defending liberal Democrats who share their vision of a Brave New World.

And they say WE'RE crazy...


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Media Malpractice on Guns...Again

Like crack addicts, the anti-gun nut jobs at "20/20" just can't quit. Pretending to be "investigating" what might happen if students in a classroom were carrying concealed handguns when confronted by an armed attacker, their latest propaganda effort was almost laughable to anyone in the firearm training field.

Not surprisingly, the entire scenario was clearly rigged to produce their desired result (convincing you that you shouldn't carry a gun). For starters, rather than using a student as the shooter (as is almost always the case in real life), "20/20" instead employed a highly trained firearms expert to act as the attacker.

Even more ridiculous - the "attacker" not only knew in advance that there would be an "armed" defender, but even WHERE THEY WOULD BE SITTING - they had the defender sitting in the same seat every time! Why not at least have the defender sitting in a different seat? And why not sometimes have multiple defenders?

To further slant the results, the defenders were not trained shooters.  In addition, the clumsy "safety" equipment they had to wear made handling their "guns" even more difficult.

All this silly nonsense aside, this latest episode begs the question: Why did "20/20" decide to manufacture this absurd charade in the first place? Why not look at what has actually happened in such situations where students really were armed?

After all, if the producers of "20/20" were genuinely interested in "investigating" armed defenders in mass public shootings, you would certainly think their first step would be to contact Professor John Lott, the one person who has done more legitimate research on the subject of multiple victim homicides than anyone in the country.

Professor Lott, an economist and statistical expert, has investigated dozens of actual  incidents, both in America and around the world - and these are REAL cases, not simulations. More to the point, a number of these cases involved armed defenders.

But he didn't even get a phone call.

Sort of like doing a special on astro-physics, and NOT interviewing Stephen Hawking.

Naturally, "20/20" did see fit to contact just about every gun-control group in the country. You need only look at their website to see the overwhelming bias - it is peppered with talking points right out of the Brady Campaign playbook, along with sappy emotional stories of victims of "gun violence" - leaving out the fact that most of these victims died at the hands of gang members.

Oh, sure, they found a couple of people from the pro-gun side to give the impression that they were being "balanced" in their report, but don't hold your breath waiting for ANY mainstream media organization to be truly honest in their treatment of guns and gun ownership.

The anti-gun (and anti-self defense) media propaganda machine will continue to roll along, misinforming the public...and threatening your very right to defend yourself.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Playgrounds to Pirates - Dealing with a Bully

After listening to the endless hand wringing of gutless politicians, it was deeply satisfying to see some Navy SEALS finally teach the rest of the world how you deal with pirates.

You kill them.

And naturally, since the Captain of the hijacked ship was rescued unharmed, everyone in the media is gushing about how Barak Obama should be credited with "leadership" even thought it is clear that he was pretty much "hands off" on this operation (so if it didn't happen to turn out so well, he could escape responsibility).

But the real issue is this: why have Americans gotten to the point that we are afraid to take necessary action if there is the slightest possibility of someone getting hurt?

After all, anytime force is used, whether in military operations or day to day police work, collateral damage is always a possibility. And in a hostage rescue operation, the chances are even greater that innocents will be hurt, or even killed. That's just the reality that we need to face.

But if the most powerful nation on earth can be cowed into inaction by the potential loss of even ONE life, we are basically making the statement to every terrorist and thug in the world that all they need to do is get a hostage or two, and we will capitulate to their demands. And the result of such indecision and capitulation will always be an increase in such attacks.

Because all bullies operate in the same way. The big bully on the playground may know full well that he could easily beat up his victim, but what he depends on is that his victims will be so fearful of getting hurt that they will give him what he wants. Thus, the kids who give the bully their lunch money will be targeted again and again, while the little kid who is willing to get hurt by fighting back, and let's the bully know that he won't have an easy victory, will be left alone.

This is not about some kind of macho chest-thumping. It is about saving lives by recognizing a reality that has existed since the dawn of humankind. Some people simply cannot, and will not, be "reasoned" with. There will always be situations where it will be necessary to use force to  protect and defend ourselves.

Will military action to rescue hostages occasionally result in casualties among those we seek to save? Of course, but quick and decisive action will ultimately save many more lives in the long run. If we cannot understand and accept this reality, we will be dooming ourselves, and our children, to more and more such incidents of international extortion.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Linguistic Lunacy - P/C Comes to the Grocery Store

In a major food store near my house, there is an aisle marked "international" foods. Above the aisle, banners hang from the ceiling announcing various cuisines. But a couple of these banners seem to be more about political correctness than food choices.

For instance, one of the signs says "Asian" -  but don't bother looking for delicacies from Mongolia or the Philippines, both of which are Asian countries. Also missing are specialties from Afghanistan, Indonesia, Lebanon, Turkey, Armenia, Bangladesh, or any of the more than two dozen countries on the world's largest continent.

Not even Russia, by far the largest country in all of Asia, garners even a foot of shelf space. But you WILL find lots of space dedicated to Chinese, Thai, Vietnamese, Korean and Japanese foods and sauces. But why only these particular countries?

When did "Asian" stop being about geography and instead come to mean ONLY those cultures with...wait a minute. What DO these cultures have in common? Oh, that's right, these are all cultures whose people have, you know, "those kind of eyes" - the people we used to call "Oriental" precisely so we could distinguish them from the other "Asian" peoples.

Seems that the politically correct just HAD to come up with some different word to describe "those people" - and indicate umbrage at a term that had nothing to do with "racism" in the first place. Then again, these are the same people who imperiously pronounce that henceforth, "colored people" would be "racist" but that somehow, "people of color" would not. Get it? Oddly, the PC crowd used to say that "Oriental is a food, not a person" - apparently, now it's NOT a food, either.

In reality, the thought police have simply engaged in the same kind of racial generalizing that they pretend to abhor - putting all people with similar physical features under one bland label: Asian. Imagine someone describing a friend whose ancestors came from Sicily as "my European friend" - you'd look at them like they were a bit weird. But had the same person referred to "my Asian friend" you wouldn't raise an eyebrow.

As for me, I simply describe people of Vietnamese descent as Vietnamese, people from Korea as Korean, and my many Hmong friends as, well, Hmong - I prefer to recognize the true "diversity" that these very different cultures represent, rather than lumping them into some catchall term like "Asian." And setting aside why it is that some people feel compelled to define people by their ethnic ancestry, if you do feel such a need, do NOT refer to me as "European" - my ethnic background is Irish. Not Italian. Not Norwegian. Not German. Nor any of the other very different countries that make up the continent of Europe.

And can we all please refrain from that "hyphenated-American" nonsense - but that is a subject for another day.

The other example of idiotic political correctness run amok in the "international" food aisle: right down from the "Asian" banner there is one indicating "Hispanic" food - Uuuh, folks, there is no such thing as "Hispanic" food. Hispanic does not refer to a specific ethnic heritage, or even a country. Hispanic merely means "Spanish speaking." Thus Cubans would be considered Hispanic, just as immigrants from Mexico, Spain, or Nicaragua would be.

Anyone who is well-traveled will know that there is an ocean of difference between Cuban and Spanish cuisine, or between Mexican and Nicaraguan food, for that matter. But then, sanity and reason must never be allowed to interfere with the march toward ever more absurd political correctness - not even in a grocery store.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama - Dangerously Incompetent

It is becoming painfully clear that in a hundred-watt world, Barak Obama is a nightlight. In less time than it takes to say "hope and change" the Bumbler-in-Chief has shown himself to be utterly inept in almost every aspect of governance.

In filling his cabinet he seemed unable to find anyone who had actually remembered to pay their taxes. Now, true, the majority of people who voted for Obama don't pay taxes either, but, come on, are you telling me he didn't even check to see if prospective senior officials in his administration weren't tax cheats?

His embarrassing gifts to foreign heads of state have included, are you ready for this, an IPOD and a pile of...CD's. Gee, that ought to go a long way toward "rebuilding America's image in the international community."

Then there is his crowning achievement (pun intended) - his horribly misnamed "stimulus" package. Obama's answer to what should have been a minor economic slowdown was to turn it into a disaster by initiating the largest deficit spending orgy in U.S. history...and "paying" for it by sending the national debt into the stratosphere. He then went off the Socialist deep-end by announcing that the Federal Government would be taking over the auto industry.

The result has been a plummeting stock market and skyrocketing unemployment, as business leaders reacted to each new example of Obama's lack of financial acumen. And Obama's claims of "inheriting" a troubled economy were not convincing, at least to anyone with a memory longer than a sitcom - barely a year ago the Dow was at 13,000 and unemployment around 5%. The business community looks forward, not backward - and they don't like what they see from Obama and the Democrat controlled Congress.

And Obama's missteps have not been limited to the domestic arena.

Just this week, Obama gave a speech in France, where after basically apologizing for everything America has done since the founding of the country, he gave forth as to how the world should move to "wind and solar power" - while standing in a room blazing with lights powered by...nuclear reactors. (For those of you who get your "news" from John Stewart, France gets 80% of it's electricity from nuclear powered generators.)

It seems that Obama's idea of diplomacy is to stop referring to terrorists as terrorists, refrain from labeling enemy combatants, well, enemy combatants. And in the most laughable example of liberal idiot-speak, the Obama administration has announced that terrorist attacks on civilians will henceforth be called..."man caused disasters."

But perhaps the greatest example of Obama's naivete is his almost suicidal view on nuclear weapons - he wants the United States to unilaterally disarm itself. Now, we expect this sort of nonsense from the unwashed professional protester class who inhabit Seattle coffee shops, but not from the Commander in Chief of the most powerful military force in the world.

After all, America may be the "big dog" economically and militarily, but remember that we represent less than 5% of the world's population, and in Obama's "nuclear free world" the United States would be as vulnerable as an unarmed man in a forest full of wolves.

And this kind of wrong-headed thinking on defense is not limited to nuclear weapons - Obama is just as eager to see every individual American disarmed. His visceral hatred of the 2nd Amendment is well documented, and the anti-gun loons currently in charge of the Democrat party share his views.

We have come to expect a certain percentage of the American public to be naive in matters of national and international policy. But for a President of the United States to be so unutterably clueless on so many issues cannot bode well for the future of the country.



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Socialism is Like Cancer

Because it's impossible to have "just a little bit" of either.

And like cancer, socialism always starts small, then grows and spreads.

Like cancer, there is seldom any pain or discomfort in the early stages.

Like cancer, the longer it is allowed to go unchecked, the more difficult it is to get rid of it.

And like cancer, socialism eventually destroys everything it touches.

Obama's speech on the auto companies was a perfect illustration of socialism in capitalist clothing (i.e. -  a lie). He claimed that the government had no interest in "taking over" the auto companies, and then in the next breath described how the government was going to do precisely that.

Because, if you have even a basic proficiency in the English language, you would be hard pressed to understand how telling auto companies what kind of cars they can build, how they will build them, and under what "business plan" they will operate, is anything BUT having the government "run the auto companies."

Then again, liberal double-speak is nothing new - we've been listening to it for years. They're not spending taxpayers money to give union teachers more goodies, they're "investing in education."

It's not a tax increase, it's "an infusion of revenue."

It's not a welfare payment to people who pay no income tax at all, it's "an earned income tax credit."

It's not the largest increase in deficit spending in the history of the nation, it's "an economic stimulus package."

The truly scary part about Obama's Socialist Coup is that so many ordinary Americans simply don't understand the enormity of what he is doing. Then again, we shouldn't be surprised - thanks to the last forty years of "investing in public education," not one in ten Americans even understands the simple basic elements of free-enterprise capitalism, let alone why it is infinitely superior to any other system.

Capitalism has produced prosperity on a scale unimagined in ancient times, when wealth was controlled by kings and nobles, and before that tribal chieftains, and eons before that, the strongest man in the cave. Capitalism has allowed tinkerers working in their garages, basements, or tool sheds to become the Wright brothers, a Steve Jobs, or a Bill Gates.

However, capitalism also allows for something that most people would rather avoid: pain. Because an essential element in a robust system of free enterprise is that those who succeed are rewarded, while those who fail are not. This is a good thing, because pain and failure cause rational people to change, adapt, rework their plan, and ultimately, have a better chance at success.

But Socialism is all about avoiding pain, even at the expense of success and excellence. To the high-priests of the modern liberal nanny-state, ALL pain is inherently bad, and thus something to be prevented, no matter what the cost. In the Utopian worldview of the modern liberal, NOBODY should be allowed to fail.

And as long as we have more people who would choose avoiding pain, rather than courageously risking failure in the pursuit of success, then the cancer of socialism will continue to spread.

But time is short - liberal socialism has already spread deep into every aspect of our lives, and unless we "operate" soon, it will be too late, and just like cancer, it will ultimately destroy us.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

It's Official - Democrats are Insane

If there was any doubt that the Obama-Pelosi-Reid Democratic party has gone off the deep end, it was removed when they announced that the government would now tell you what color your car can be. California legislators are actually considering making black cars illegal.

You see, black cars absorb sunlight and get hotter than white cars, and heavens, you might actually dare to run your air conditioner more often, and then, oh-my-gosh, you'll burn more gasoline, and that will mean more carbon dioxide, resulting in more "global warming" and, and, and...

I'm sorry, but at some point, even the most died-in-the-wool Democrat voters have to face the uncomfortable reality that their party has been hijacked by people who, quite frankly, have lost their minds.

In less than fifty years, the once proud "party of the working man" has become the party of the welfare state - the only "workers" that today's Democrats  seem to care about are GOVERNMENT employees. With millions of private sector employees being laid off, note how few, if any, of those armies of government "social workers" are losing THEIR jobs.

The party of the down to earth Harry Truman (who actually took the bus to the White House) has become the party of an empty suit elitist snob, Barak Obama.

The party of civil liberties has become the party of the fascist nanny state - from "speech codes" on university campuses to smoking bans in private businesses (and soon to come: smoking bans in your car, and eventually, your own home).

My great grandfather was a big time Democrat power broker at the beginning of the 20th century. John F. McGuire smoked cigars, drank Irish whiskey, ate bloody rare steaks, and owned a cabinet full of guns (including his favorite, one of the first Colt Government Model 1911 pistols). If he were to arise from his grave, he would be appalled at what he saw.

He would also likely NOT be welcome in the Democrat Party.

And think about this - today, the two biggest campaign contributors to the Democrat Party are trial lawyers and government employee unions, followed closely by...Wall Street financial interests. Yes, Virginia, whether you are talking about Fannie May and Freddie Mac or the folks at the big brokerage firms, it is Democrats, not Republicans, who receive the biggest party donations from "those rich guys."

Certainly, today's Republicans have drifted toward the mushy middle, but today's Democrats have fallen off the far left side of the universe - they have become unabashed Socialists.

A friend of mine summed it up this way: "Today's Republicans have become 1950's Democrats, and today's Democrats have become 1950's Communists."

It was bad enough when liberal Democrats mandated the monstrously expensive and ineffective ethanol scam, forcing taxpayers to subsidize a fuel that lowers their gas mileage and decreases the life of their engines.

It was worse when the same liberal fascists announced that we would all have "Big Brother" devices in our cars to tax us on every mile we drive.

But when these modern day Stalinists actually consider legislating what color of car you can drive, is should be a wake-up call to even the most loyal Democrats that their party is being run by the clinically insane.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Programming America - 21st Century Brainwashing

Americans seem to be acting more and more like trained monkeys, jumping onto every idiotic bandwagon that comes down the pike. From "global warming" madness, with its endless variations of "green" worship, to the hostility toward "the rich," people seem willing, if not downright eager, to adopt whatever view seems to be the one that "most people" have.

Psychologists call it the "cascade affect" - once a belief, or a viewpoint, reaches a critical mass, where more than half of people seem to share it, then it becomes more and more uncomfortable for anyone to hold an opposing view - you feel like an outsider. So, rather than question, or even think critically about the issue, most people just go along.

Take the almost lynch mob hysteria directed at "big business" these days. No sooner did the mainstream media instruct people on how "angry" they were supposed to be at the fact that some executives got relatively big checks, then folks stopped watching "American Idol" long enough to start talking about how "angry" they were. Never mind that these same people simply yawned when Obama and the Democrats initiated more spending in 60 days than all previous American Presidents combined.

But where did this animus toward business in general, and the wealthy in particular, come from? After all, for two centuries, America has admired those who achieve - being the biggest, the fastest, the strongest, the most successful, was what being an American was always about. But today, even the word "rich" has become almost a pejorative. But why?

The answer, it turns out, is no further away than your nearest TV or movie theater screen. Because the way propaganda works is this - subtle themes are repeated over and over again, slowly but inexorably causing a change in the views, attitudes, and yes, even tastes, of the viewers. Most of the time, we aren't even aware of it - we just keep absorbing the messages until one day, we wake up and find ourselves thinking "like everyone else."

And over the last 40 years or so there has been a clear shift in the messages contained in entertainment media, particularly in the way people in the business world are portrayed. Before the age of television, we used to have films like "The Fountainhead" in which Gary Cooper brings to life Ayn Rand's genius architect, struggling to make his sweeping visions of mile-high skyscrapers a reality.

But not anymore.

Today, just about anyone in business is portrayed as a pariah. From crime shows like "CSI" and "Law and Order" to a comedy like "Boston Legal" - it is almost impossible to watch any TV show that doesn't have numerous derogatory references to anyone in the business world. More to the point, the characters in these shows who are corporate types are almost universally portrayed as mean, arrogant, cold, harsh, unfeeling, dishonest, and of course, "indifferent to the suffering of the little guy."

If you landed from Mars and watched American TV, you'd think that there wasn't an "executive" anywhere in America who earned an honest dollar, much less one who went home at the end of the day and kissed his children good night.

Be honest, when was the last time you saw anyone in a mainstream TV show or Hollywood movie who was a vaguely sympathetic character, let alone heroic? In fact, the only "business people" who might actually be shown in a positive light on mainstream television tend to be "whistle-blowers" - like Russel Crowe's character in "The Insider" who was working to "expose" the horrors of "Big Tobacco."

Come to think about it, even the very word "big" - which used to have a positive connotation, is now used to demonize. We have BIG tobacco, BIG Oil, BIG Pharmaceuticals, as if just being BIG is in and of itself evidence of being BAD. Note, however, that Hollywood has never done a movie or a TV show that shows the (genuine) dangers of BIG GOVERNMENT.

But, hey, if Barak Obama's "plan" does half the damage to the economy and the American free enterprise system that we fear it will, it should make one hell of a Mini-series...if there is any money left to produce it, that is.









Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The REAL Lesson of the Oakland Cop Killings

The utter failure of gun control was on display in Oakland this past weekend, where a worthless piece of human trash who had an "extensive criminal history" shot and killed two police officers during a traffic stop, then killed two more during a standoff at an apartment complex.

Now, no one who is the least bit familiar with the facts of urban violence will be surprised that yet one more multiple offender, already out on parole for assault with a deadly weapon, was able to obtain firearms, even in California, a state buried in gun control regulations.

Of course he could. Every legitimate research effort has confirmed that thugs, drug dealers, and psychotic killers are not prevented from getting their hands on guns by ANY law, whether Federal, State, or local.

Even interviews with gang members (who are responsible for more than 80% of violent crime) bear this out - they refer to gun control efforts as "a joke" and interviewers frequently report that "they just laugh at gun laws" supposedly created to prevent them from obtaining guns.

Yet you can bet that the Brady Bunch and their kindred spirits in legislatures across the country will be expressing their usual outrage. Not against the killer, of course - but against his gun. They will be obsessed with what kind of gun he used, and their useful idiots in the media will chime in on cue, wondering (with furrowed brow) "where he got the gun."

And once again the gun control fanatics will attempt to convince Americans that if we pass just one more law, then this kind of thing "will never happen again." But we know that the laws they come up with will not be directed at those who perpetrate these monstrous crimes.

No, the gun control lobby will doubtless propose yet more foolish, ineffective, and ultimately destructive restrictions on legitimate gun owners, desperately hoping to somehow "control" what is nothing more than a tool made of metal and plastic. And no matter how many times gun control fails, for them the answer is always (surprise, surprise!) - more gun control!

But at some point, I have to believe that even the most jaded, uninvolved, clueless citizen must finally come to the realization that it is the CRIMINALS, PSYCHOTICS, and the GANGS that need to be "controlled" - not guns.

There is no magic solution to violence, but unless and until we get serious about putting the predators in prison, and keeping them there, incidents like the one in Oakland will continue to happen more than they otherwise would.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

AIG - Masterful Manipulation

You have to hand it to the "Teleprompter-in-Chief" - he uses misdirection as skillfully as David Copperfield. Focusing the attention of the masses on some "bonuses" (they weren't even actually bonuses, but that's another story) paid to AIG personnel, Obama has the whining class (all of those Democrats who hate anyone who makes more money than they do) missing the larger issue. Unfortunately, so have many others who should know better.

Naturally, more than a few gutless Republicans are jumping on the bandwagon, expressing oh-so-indignant offense at a private company daring to send out some bonuses to, you know, "rich" guys. Think about that - the same people who let out nary a peep over the $170 BILLION of taxpayer money given to AIG, suddenly get outraged over an amount that is less than 0.1% of that amount (you read that right - 1/10th of 1 percent!).

Hey, I'm an AIG stockholder, and thus have more standing to complain than anyone, but I did not support the bailout. If AIG was going to fail, I'd rather see that (and lose my shirt on the stock), than see the new Commisars running the company. But the fact is that AIG's revenues and profits were growing steadily - they peaked at $113.3 Billion in 2006, then began falling in 2007 - the year the Democrats took over Congress.

More to the point, where is the outrage over Obama and the Taxacrats writing a TRILLION dollars worth of checks to every conceivable Democrat constituency, from the 40% of Americans who pay NO income tax, to ACORN, a radical socialist front group?

This entire issue is nothing less than an artfully orchestrated attempt by Obama and his ilk to promote a lynch-mob mentality against free enterprise and our capitalist system, and to gin up support for the largest increase in repressive governmental regulation in U.S. history. And if you think the "lynch-mob" metaphor is hyperbole, then you haven't heard about some of the vicious hate-mail from the loser-class, advocating the torture and murder of executives who received bonuses (hey, I thought liberals were against torture - oh, I forgot, it's OK against Americans who WORK for a living).

So now we are treated to the bombast of the imperialist idiots in the House and Senate, who are making McCarthyism seem benign by comparison. After all, at least McCarthy was after Communists - today, the inquisitors ARE the Communists, because make no mistake, their ultimate goal is to destroy the very foundations of free-market Capitalism.

Meanwhile, like the audience at a magic show, Americans willingly go along with the deception.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama Administration Stabs Gun Owners in the Back

We warned you that Barak Obama would publicly deny his radical anti-gun agenda, while engaging in "stealth" attacks on private gun ownership. The most recent example is a directive from the Department of Defense that will severely aggravate the current ammunition shortage.

For those who either don't own guns (or have been living in a cave) supplies of ammunition are getting alarmingly low. Many retailers report shelves virtually empty of popular pistol and rifle ammo.

Most ammunition manufacturers depend on reclaiming used brass cartridge cases from the military, that are then recycled to make new ammunition. It is a system that has benefited both the military and the private sector, not to mention saving the taxpayer's money.

So it is beyond comprehension at a time of serious ammunition shortages, as well as budget shortfalls, that ammunition manufacturers would receive a letter stating the following:

"Effective immediately DOD Surplus, LLC, will be implementing new requirements for mutilation of fired shell casings. The new DRMS requirement calls for DOD Surplus personnel to witness the mutilation of the property and sign the Certificate of Destruction.

Mutilation of the property can be done at the DRMO, if permitted by the Government, or it may be mutilated at a site chosen by the buyer. Mutilation means that the property will be destroyed to the extent prevents its reuse or reconstruction. DOD Surplus personnel will determine when property has been sufficiently mutilated to meet the requirements of the Government."

Now, one has to be curious about WHO suddenly decided to mandate a new policy that makes a bad situation worse, has no benefit to the military, and will result in an increase in costs to the American taxpayer, precisely when the government is running a gigantic deficit.

But of course we know the real reason behind such actions - after losing a number of elections both locally and nationally, the anti-gun radicals have learned that the way to succeed is to avoid highly public confrontations like wholesale gun bans.

Instead they have adopted "incrementalism" - under-the-radar campaigns that slowly rob legitimate gun owners of their ability to exercise their rights. They know that they don't need to take your guns away if they can simply make it more and more complex, expensive, and difficult to own and use your guns.

So, obviously, something like an ammo shortage is a dream come true for the gun haters. Why bother with their guns when simply denying them ammunition makes their firearms useless?

One wonders when those gun owners who were stupid enough to vote for Obama (and his like minded Democrats in the Congress) will finally stop denying the obvious.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Time for Sanity in Spending and Taxes

Those paying most of America's bills are getting sick of hearing about "middle class tax cuts" - and they're really fed up with free-loaders who pay no income taxes whatsoever. It's time for tax policy that actually does make everyone pay their "fair share" instead of forcing our most productive citizens to shoulder an ever more repressive tax burden.

Contrary to the myth perpetrated by liberal propagandists, the so-called "rich" actually pay an outrageously excessive share of the nation's taxes.  Even ultra-liberal New York Mayor Bloomberg finally admitted that more than 50% of New York City tax revenue comes from less than 1% of the city's population!

The best solution would of course be to eliminate the income tax altogether, and replace it with a national sales tax. But, with a Democrat Congress and a Democrat President, the chances for any kind of sanity in tax policy are virtually nil - because for Democrats, tax policy has never been about economic reality, let alone fiscal responsibility. For them, tax policy has always been a means of taking from those who achieve so they can give to society's losers (otherwise known as the Democrat base).

But if we are going to continue to tax income, the only (genuinely) fair way to do it is to make sure that EVERYONE pays. Under the current system, an ever shrinking percentage of people are paying more and more, while a growing segment of the population is paying less and less, with almost 40% paying NO income taxes at all.

Worse, these same dead-beats are actually getting what amounts to welfare checks FROM the government under misleading labels like the "earned income tax credit." This is not only obscenely unfair, it is fiscally untenable in the long term. With ever more people riding IN the cart, at some point, those pulling the cart will eventually decide that enough is enough, and either throttle back in their businesses, or just "cash out" altogether.

Mayor Bloomberg expressed fear that if even a small percentage of the high achievers now paying the tab were to leave New York for greener (lower tax) pastures, the city could be facing a financial crisis. Imagine if just a fraction of the nation's top talent decide to just throw in the towel - we could be looking at virtual bankruptcy on a national scale.

Sadly, Obama has already put us on that path - his so-called "stimulus" package is nothing but a huge run-up of spending, using the equivalent of the nation's credit card (to be paid for by your children and grandchildren), while including yet more "tax credits" to those who don't pay any taxes in the first place.

Instead, if we really want to bring the country out of recession, we should be CUTTING government spending, and reducing, not increasing, the tax burden on our most productive citizens. We should be cutting the capital gains tax to near-zero, cutting the corporate tax rate to 10%, and cutting the top marginal individual tax rate to 25%.

Oh, and one more thing. We should RAISE the bottom tax rate to 15% - starting FROM THE FIRST DOLLAR earned. I know, the current thinking has always been to tax those at the bottom less and less, but look where that strategy has gotten us. Besides, it's time that everyone has "skin in the game." After all, we want to be "fair" now, don't we?

And we need to make all of these changes PERMANENT. There is no "quick fix" for a market economy, but time and again, both here and around the world, the surest way to promote growth is to cut taxes on those who provide the jobs. And short term tax breaks aren't the answer - the private sector responds to long term certainty, and the resulting economic growth from predicable and permanent tax cuts would provide a real "stimulus" to the people who actually make this country work.

Real jobs come from private sector entrepreneurs, not government. As hard as it is for liberals to swallow, the undeniable truth is that the best thing we can do for "the poor" is to cut taxes on "the rich."

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Shooting Rampages - A Teachable Moment

The eerie coincidence of two mass public shootings in both Germany and America has oddly undermined the position of gun control advocates. After all, for decades we've heard the claim about how much "safer it is in Europe, where they have strict regulations on guns."

Ooops.

But there's more. It turns out that Wednesday's school shooting in Germany is just one in a series of shootings at German schools, including an incident in 2002 in which a 19 year old student killed 15 people before turning the gun on himself. Here again, haven't we been given the impression that "school shootings" are unique to "gun crazy" America?

Naturally, after the 2002 shooting rampage, German officials overreacted by...you guessed it, passing more gun control laws, including raising the minimum legal age for owning a gun from 18 to 21. But the shooter in yesterday's massacre was only 17 - thus he was too young to legally possess a gun even under the old laws!

Ooops, again.

Obviously, their new restrictions were no more effective than the previous laws. But don't hold your breath waiting for reality (or even common sense) to sink into the craniums of those who hate guns and fear private gun ownership. They will persist in blaming the actions of every psychotic killer on "guns."

Even worse, they will likely miss (or simply ignore) the obvious lesson - that gun control doesn't really work any better in Europe than it does here. Instead, I wouldn't be surprised if they attempt to use these occurrences to "prove" that what we really need is - you guessed it! More gun control! And not just more - but WORLD-WIDE gun control!

Such international rules on guns have already been proposed by numerous anti-gun groups both here and in Europe, with oversight and "enforcement" provided by...the U.N. Now there's a thought that should send chills down the spine of any thinking human being - let's give our rights over to the U.N. - an organization whose officials can't find their shoes in the morning (those who even wear shoes, that is).

So, take heed, gun owners - these most recent shooting incidents will be unlikely to result in a change in the "thinking" of the anti-gun contingent. But even those who don't own guns should view these most recent incidents as opportunities to question the current knee-jerk reaction of responding to every sensational shooting by passing yet more laws.

But the harsh reality is that no matter what ridiculous new gun control schemes are implemented, whether here or in Europe, none of them will save a single human life. They will only "succeed" in placing the innocent at greater risk, and violating the rights of the 99.997% of gun owners who never harm anyone.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama - Politics Over Science...Again.

Using the canard (that's "lie" for you public school students) that he is "motivated by science, not ideology" Barak Obama has signed an executive order allowing funding for "stem cell research." Wow, a triumph of reason over religion, right? After all,  isn't it those right-wing Christians who want to keep Michael J. Fox from being cured of Parkinson's disease?

In a word, NO. Obama's "stem-cell" order is a perfect example of how, like most liberals, Obama is more than willing to ignore science for the sake of politics - not to mention once again misleading the American public. How so?

First of all, the debate is NOT about "stem-cell research" - it is about what kinds of stem-cell research should be funded. Often lost (or hidden?) in the debate is the fact that there are essentially TWO kinds of stem cells: adult stem cells, and embryonic stem-cells.

Setting all ideology aside, let's look at the science. Since there is already extensive research data on both types of stem cells, funding should be based on which protocols work, and which don't. And in this area the science is clear.

Adult stem cells have already been used to develop cures for dozens of ailments, and have successfully been used to cure real people, thousands of them. Additionally, treatments utilizing adult stem cells have extremely low incidences of negative side affects. In other words, SCIENCE has shown efficacious treatments with little downside risk using ADULT stem cells.

But what about those embryonic stem cells, the ones that liberals always seem so obsessed with finding a use for (they never want to pass up a chance to kill a human embryo)? Well, embryonic stem cells have been the subject of research for over 25 years, both here and around the world. Hundreds of millions of dollars has been put into embryonic stem cell research. And how many people have been successfully treated using embryonic stem cells?

Zero.

That's right. Not a single viable treatment has been developed using embryonic stem cells, and not a single patient has been cured. And there's more. The few attempts at embryonic stem cell treatments have shown a high rate of negative side affects, including malignant tumors. One of the few human trials involved a man in China who was treated with embryonic stem cell therapy - he developed so many tumors that he died.

OK. So we have two types of stem cell treatments: Adult stem cells, that have a demonstrated record of success, with minimal side affects. And then we have embryonic stem cells, with an abysmal record of failure, along with numerous side affects. Now, which treatment would be the one that SCIENCE indicates is the one where we should put our money? Obviously, adult stem cells are the way to go.

Their continuing support of government scams like ethanol subsidies to reduce "human induced global warming" (in the face of ever more scientific evidence that the earth is actually cooling) has already shown that Obama and his liberal cohorts will ignore science whenever it conflicts with their socialist ideology.

That Obama now supports dumping billions of dollars into embryonic stem cell research when the science to date clearly argues against it, simply proves once again that it is politics, not science, that will continue to drive his presidency.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Investors: Trading Stocks for Glocks

For the price of a box of ammo you can buy a dozen shares of Citigroup, now less than $1 a share. But given the choice, more and more people are opting for bullets over banks, selling their plummeting stocks and buying guns and ammunition. Guns, especially handguns and military style rifles, are flying off the shelves - an AR-15 put up on the rack will be gone in "about an hour" a local dealer reported.

And ammunition prices have nearly doubled as demand has soared - many sporting goods stores have nearly empty shelves. Even Wal-Mart, who buys huge quantities at a crack, report that popular handgun and 223 rifle ammo is "put on the shelves in the morning and is gone by the end of the day."

More intriguing is that, while existing firearms owners are doing much of the buying (especially ammunition), many of the customers are first time gun owners, including a rapidly growing percentage of women. And far from the media-induced stereotype of gun owners as "Larry the Cable Guy" - today's purchaser is more likely to be a middle-class man or woman with a family.

And they don't stop there. Both men and women are signing up for firearm training classes, and scrambling to get permits to carry handguns for self defense. In many states where training classes are required in order to obtain a carry permit, instructors report a dramatic rise in student applications. Here again, many more women are signing up than in years past.

All of these developments are significant, because what real people do with their own money is a far better indicator of the actual mood of the country than some slanted "survey" conducted by a Democrat-worshiping media. And where people are putting their money today shows how little faith they have in the policies of the Obama administration and his minions in the Congress.

But what are these people worried about? Gun control by an administration with a clear anti-gun bias? Certainly that is a driving force for many, made even more believable by Obama's own Attorney General, who recently blurted out his desire to bring back the ridiculous "assault weapons" ban - a failed policy of demonizing certain types of rifles because they were "scary-looking" to liberals.

But there is more. The nose dive that the economy is taking after Obama's massive spending spree is fueling fears of an increase in crime - a very legitimate concern, as historical crime data show that crime typically does increase as economic conditions worsen.

Another concern is that a confluence of events could cause a serious threat to civil liberties. Everyone remembers the L.A. riots where rampaging mobs were only kept at bay by store-owners, many of them Korean immigrants, who were smart enough to have firearms on hand to protect themselves. But people also remember that many of the guns used by these merchants were later labeled "assault weapons" and declared illegal by the California legislature - owners had to relinquish them or face prosecution.

And we all remember the crime and violence in post-Katrina New Orleans, where residents had their firearms confiscated by police - leaving Louisiana citizens defenseless. Subsequent legal action found the actions of the New Orleans police unconstitutional, and some legal safeguards have been put in place as a result. But gun owners quite legitimately remain dubious.

After all, it is easy to see how a serious economic crisis combined with increased crime would need only a spark to turn the whole situation into full-scale civil unrest, even riots. And under such conditions, the administration would have a strong temptation to use it as an excuse to introduce sweeping and repressive gun control - some even fear that Obama might actually institute marshal law.

Coincidentally, at this very moment HR 45 is being quietly pushed through the Congress. This Democrat-authored bill is nothing but an insidious scheme that would require ALL legal gun owners to register like sex-offenders, including providing government bureaucrats with a list of EVERY GUN YOU OWN, making confiscation during a time of "national crisis" frighteningly easy.

Many people must see the same handwriting on the wall - they look at Obama's hysterically misguided response to an economic downturn, and don't see it as much of a stretch to imagine what Draconian measures he might consider in the event of violent civil strife.

So many Americans are "voting with their dollars" -  by selling their stocks...

...and "stocking up" on guns and ammunition.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive