Given the Clear Choice Between Truth and Consistency or Proven Hypocrisy Which Will the GOP Choose?

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny

As Mr. Gingrich continues his recent surge in polling a Ron Paul campaign ad offers a reality check.



Unfortunately the ad will not air on television. However, the Paul campaign is saying it will be e-mailed to select conservatives nationally.

(WSJ) Texas Rep. Ron Paul is tearing into Republican presidential rival Newt Gingrich with a new web ad that ranks among the most scathing of the year.

Hitting similar themes that the Democrats used earlier this week with a video highlighting Mitt Romney’s litany of flip-flops, the Paul campaign blasts the former House speaker in a video entitled: “Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy.”

Largely using news clips from recent weeks, the ad seeks to paint Mr. Gingrich as a paid hatchet man for the health-care industry and the mortgage giant Freddie Mac. It is also heavy with clips of conservative icons such as Rush Limbaugh and Rep. Paul Ryan taking swipes at Mr. Gingrich’s positions. {Read More}

The choice is clear. The outcome remains uncertain.

Via: Memeorandum

Yesterday's Epic Exchange Between Senators Rand Paul and John McCain

By the Left Coast Rebel

I'm a day late on this but this should go down in infamy as the starkest of the stark contrast between Rand Paul's brand of conservatism and John McCain's statism and awful personality.

From the floor of the United States Senate yesterday. Background on the story from The Hill:

Republican Sens. Rand Paul (Ky.) and John McCain (Ariz.) battled on the Senate floor Tuesday over a proposed amendment to the pending defense authorization bill that could allow American citizens who are suspected of terrorism to be denied a civilian trial.

Paul argued the amendment, which is cosponsored by McCain, "puts every single American citizen at risk" and suggested that if the amendment passes, "the terrorists have won."

“Should we err today and remove some of the most important checks on state power in the name of fighting terrorism, well then the terrorists have won," Paul argued, "[D]etaining American citizens without a court trial is not American."

McCain, however, who has spent hours of floor time in the last weeks promoting his amendment, hurried to the floor to defend it against Paul's onslaught.

More analysis over at Humble Libertarian. More here. Here's Rand Paul's incredible speech:



More Paul and McCain's response



Beyond his failure to grasp any of the valid, Constitutional points Senator Paul makes, McCain's demeanor speaks to his moral and intellectual bankruptcy and vapidity of his points.

Rand Paul -- "we lose if we surrender the Constitution to a police state..."

McCain -- "Americans might die! Guns! Rockets! How dare you even make such a ridiculous assertion... Grrr!"

Imagine this guy was nominated in 2008!

Pretty unreal...

Herman Cain "Reassessing" Campaign

CNN reports:

Embattled Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain is keeping mum on whether he will remain in the race for the GOP nomination.

When asked by CNN if he is vowing to continue his campaign, Cain declined to give a direct response.

"We are reassessing and reevaluating," Cain said.

Cain said he would have a final answer about his future plans soon.

"We will be making a decision in the next several days," Cain said.

Hat tip: Memeorandum

100 Reasons to End the Fed

This is an important resource I've put together to help educate people about the evils of central banking and inflationary monetary policy. Please share this around as much as you can! Here are the first ten reasons to End the Fed:

1. The Federal Reserve System constantly inflates the value of our dollar by printing money out of thin air.

2. Graph: The value of a $1 Federal Reserve Note in 1913 dollars (the year the Fed was created).

3. The Fed even recognizes its inflationary activity. The Federal Reserve Bank of Boston says: “When you or I write a check there must be sufficient funds in our account to cover the check, but when the Federal Reserve writes a check there is no bank deposit on which that check is drawn. When the Federal Reserve writes a check, it is creating money.”

4. American economist Irving Fisher said: “Thus, our national circulating medium is now at the mercy of loan transactions of banks, which lend, not money, but promises to supply money they do not possess.”

5. If you or I did what the Fed does when it prints money, we would be found guilty of counterfeiting and locked up for a very long time!

6. The reason you or I would be arrested for counterfeiting is it’s theft! Every bill you create in bad faith, which doesn’t actually represent the creation of real goods and services, real value that has improved life by directing resources to their most productive uses, is a lie and an appropriation of value from the rest of the world, which gives the counterfeiter goods and services in exchange for nothing, because he or she did not actually create anything of value in return.

7. This is true of what the Federal Reserve does: “Neither paper currency nor deposits have value as commodities, intrinsically, a ‘dollar’ bill is just a piece of paper. Deposits are merely book entries.” – Modern Money Mechanics Workbook, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, 1975

8. “The Fed creates absolutely nothing. It does not produce a single grain of wheat to feed people, a single drop of oil to power the engines of an industrial economy, nor a single ingot of metal from the ground to build the products and buildings that improve our lives.” -Wesley Messamore

9. This situation, in which you or I would be arrested for doing something the Federal Reserve does every day, is the hallmark of institutionalized theft and a legal system turned on its head. As French economist Frederic Bastiat said in the 19th century: “But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply… See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.”

10. The inflation that results from the Federal Reserve’s massive counterfeiting operation steals from hardworking Americans by diminishing the value of the money they earn.

Read the rest at The Silver Underground.

Medal of Honor Recipient Sues Defense Contractor

by Proof

Two months ago, Dakota Meyer was awarded the Medal of Honor by President Barack Obama for his service in Afghanistan, the military's most prestigious award. On Monday, Sgt. Meyer alleged that a defense contractor has called him mentally unstable and a problem drinker, ruining his chances for a job in the defense industry.

In legal papers filed Monday, the Marine claims that BAE Systems, where he worked earlier this year, retaliated against him after he raised objections about BAE's alleged decision to sell high-tech sniper scopes to the Pakistani military. He says his supervisor at BAE effectively blocked his hiring by another defense contractor by making the claims about drinking and his mental condition.

Well, he did have a beer with Barack Obama. That could be indicative of a drinking problem. Personally, I'd have to have more than a beer to sit down with thee current C-in-C!

The amended complaint filed in a Texas state court said that after leaving active duty in May 2010, Sgt. Meyer joined Ausgar Technologies, a defense contractor that hires veterans to train active-duty service members. At that company, Sgt. Meyer helped teach U.S. soldiers to use thermal imaging to spot roadside bombs. Less than a year later, in March 2011, Sgt. Meyer joined BAE Systems, though the suit doesn't make clear the exact nature of his job there.

Soon after joining BAE, Sgt. Meyer learned it was trying to sell advanced thermal optic scopes to Pakistan, according to the suit. In an email to his supervisor, identified as Bobby McCreight, Sgt. Meyer voiced his objections to the sale, the lawsuit states.

"We are taking the best gear, the best technology on the market to date and giving it to guys known to stab us in the back," Sgt. Meyer wrote to Mr. McCreight, according to the lawsuit. "These are the same people killing our guys."

Yeah. I don't know that this is the best time to be selling the Pakistanis state of the art sniper gear. Maybe let the current disputes get ironed out first, if such a thing is even possible.

In the suit, Sgt. Meyer said that after he voiced his criticism, Mr. McCreight began "berating and belittling" him. The supervisor criticized Sgt. Meyer for making a trip with their BAE division president and made sarcastic remarks about Sgt. Meyer's nomination for the Medal of Honor, allegedly ridiculing his "pending star status," the suit says.

At the end of May, Sgt. Meyer's complaint said, he resigned from BAE over the proposed sale to Pakistan and attempted to get his old job back at Ausgar. In the suit, Sgt. Meyer said he was told that that company wanted to hire him back as did the Defense Department program officer who approves hiring for the optics program.

About the same time, Mr. McCreight contacted a Defense Department program manager and said that Sgt. Meyer was "mentally unstable" and "had a problem related to drinking in a social setting," the lawsuit alleges.

On June 1, an Ausgar employee wrote an email to Sgt. Meyer saying his rehiring had been blocked by what Mr. McCreight told the Pentagon program manager, the suit says. Contacted Monday, the program manager, Robert Higginson, declined to discuss the case. A lawyer for Mr. McCreight didn't return a request for comment.

Sounds like maybe a decorated Marine, who'd had his boots on the ground near the Pakistani border was about to cause either some lost sales or bad PR to BAE. (Or both.)

If it can be proven that McCreight maliciously maligned a Marine and a Medal recipient, he deserves far more than a slap on the wrist. Let justice be done.

H/T Memeorandum

Cross posted at Proof Positive

America is in Danger of Becoming Chicago

By Grant Davies

The biggest special interest group in America is right on the edge of the "No Turning Back" point.

Like the city of Chicago, where almost everyone has a relative or friend who might be negatively impacted by any meaningful reform of government, the country is about to be caught in the same downward spiral.

Most people claim to want reform but are understandably unwilling to put their livelihood or that of their friends or family on the line to get it. It's the reason there is one party rule in Chicago. And now the whole country is in danger of heading down that path-of-no-return.

There is always a lot of talk about the evils of partisanship and "gridlock" in government, but in my view, there is broad agreement among those inside the Democratic/Republican combine about one thing: big government is good for both sides of this same political coin.

It only looks like gridlock. It's actually just a squabble about which group of clowns has the power to operate  the circus. And in this circus, you and I will be left to shovel up after the donkeys and elephants when the tent finally folds up.



Thanks to Dan Mitchell for this excellent video. Be sure to read his post today at International Liberty where the title is Bureaucrats Gone Wild.

This post has been cross-posted from WhatWeThinkAndWhy

Comment Moderation Unfortunately Returns to LeftCoastRebel.com

By the Left Coast Rebel

We have unfortunately decided to turn on comment moderation here at LCR. One person in particular has necessitated this move, the final straw was a female-demeaning slur (that rhymes with "runt") that a particular individual vomited upon Les Carpenter, one of LCR's many fine liberty-minded contributors.

To the offending party: shame on you.

To everyone else: Things will be back to normal here, expect a little lag between comments, once things settle down things will be back to normal (free-flowing forum with little interference from the administrators, that is unless trolls show up again).

Updated: This one's for you, potty-mouth whose profile picture was clearly taken in a men's restroom:

Martin Luther King, Jr., on Communism

Cross-posted at the Left Coast Rebel

As I continue to plug along with my undergrad studies (have I told everyone here?), consumed by work and schoolwork, once in a while I come across something amazing. For example, my entire weekend has been dominated by a 10-page paper on Martin Luther King Jr., particularly his "Letter from Birmingham Jail" essay that he literally wrote from the not-so-comfy confines of a Birmingham jail cell. Look it up.

I wasn't particularly excited to write about diving into the topic, nevertheless the choices were bleak - "Letter" or Barack Obama's post-nomination speech. I loathe Obama in every sense of the word so opted for MLK. To compare Obama to MLK? Oh the humanity...

Good: research has led me all across academia and I have found some extremely interesting things. For example, I read a 20-page essay by a professor that just happens to be an expert on MLK and Alexis de Tocqueville as well. I mean, she was quoting Tocqueville. My jaw dropped and hit the floor.

Bad: Liberal perspective on MLK abounds, most of it is simply boring to me. Good thing I have the liberty to choose my sources.

Interesting: Martin Luther King Jr.'s opinion of communism. In 1958 MLK published Stride Toward Freedom in which he gave his thoughts on everything from Gandhi to Hitler; from communism to... Nietzsche and a lot in between.

I found that MLK was squishy on Marx (in essence he thought Marx brought up necessary discussion on the problems with capitalism) but what interested me the most (of course) was his take on communism.

Fascinating:

Second, I strongly disagreed with communism’s ethical relativism. Since for the Communist there is no divine government, no absolute moral order, there are no fixed, immutable principles; consequently almost anything-force, violence, murder, lying-is a justifiable means to the “millennial” end. This type of relativism was abhorrent to me. Constructive ends can never give absolute moral justification to destructive means, because in the final analysis the end is preexistent in the mean.

Third, I opposed communism’s political totalitarianism. In communism the individual ends up in subjection to the state. True, the Marxist would argue that the state is an “interim” reality which is to be eliminated when the classless society emerges; but the state i s the end while it lasts, and man only a means to that end.

And if any man’s so-called rights or liberties stand in the way of that end, they are simply swept aside. His liberties of expression, his freedom to vote, his freedom to listen to what news he likes or to choose his books are all restricted. Man becomes hardly more, in communism, than a depersonalized cog in the turning wheel of the state. This deprecation of individual freedom was objectionable to me. I am convinced now, as I was then, that man is an end because he is a child of God.

Man is not made for the state; the state is made for man. To deprive man of freedom is to relegate him to the status of a thing, rather than elevate him to the status of a person. Man must never be treated as a means to the end of the state, but always as an end within himself.

I simply love the quote at the end:

---Man must never be treated as a means to the end of the state, but always as an end within himself.

Doesn't progressivism, in its very essence do just that -- treat man as a means to the state's ends?

What say you, progressive statists and academic collectivists?

Image via Wikipedia.

#Occupy L.A. About to Become an Endangered Feces

By Proof

...to borrow a phrase from Gilda Radner!

Villaraigosa announces impending shutdown of Occupy L.A. camp

The City Hall park where Occupy Los Angeles protesters are camped will be closed at 12:01 a.m. Monday, according to Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, triggering what officials hope will be an end to the nation's largest remaining Occupy camp.

But police might not immediately begin removing protesters who linger, the mayor said at a news conference Friday with Police Chief Charlie Beck. He said officials hope in the coming days to help protesters move their belongings and to find beds in homeless shelters for those at the camp who need them.

Health hazards, crime magnets, drugs, mental illness...these "occupy" movements are like urban street problems on steroids. It's about time the cities take back control of their populations and separate the homeless, the helpless, and the truly needy from the criminals who prey on them and the bored, spoiled brats who simply don't want to pay back what they've borrowed for their overpriced education.


H/T Memeorandum

Cross posted at Proof Positive

I Found The Path To Victory...

...and you can too!

I found a cool website that allows the user to tinker around with the states to configure any number of potential election scenarios.  The map is shown with 2012's electoral view in a tie, with Obama states in blue and Generic Republican states in red.

You can click on the map flip states to Republican red or Democrat blue depending on what you think might happen with any given match-up.  States also can be flipped to neutral so you can account for potential toss-ups.

Perhaps most importantly, the tally for the electoral college changes in real time as you make changes.

For deeper analysis, you can compare with previous years' results (e.g. 2004 and 2000).

When you're done, you can share your map with friends via email, Facebook, Twitter, etc. with easy-to-use buttons on the page.

Here's my map for a narrow win for John Q. Generic Republican (with the map's URL below the image):

http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=dLw


I think more than one of the Republicans running for president could pull off something like this, don't you?

If you want to share your own generic or candidate-specific map with the rest of us, I'll post it below...


PS: This chart is very helpful.

UPDATE: John wants to think big. Very, very big:

UPDATE II: Yikes! This one is very interesting.

Is Mitt Romney Re-electable?

Romney's disapproval ratings (click to enlarge)

For reasons that have not been explained well to me, Mitt Romney has been assumed to be a highly electable candidate for the office of the president of the United States.

Thankfully, some people are beginning to scrutinize that assumption.

But let's assume for the sake of argument that Romney can win the GOP nomination and then go on to beat Barack Obama. That would lead us to another important question: Is Mitt Romney re-electable?

Romney's record as governor of Massachusetts would raise some concern about that question. You see, Mitt Romney only served one term as governor, and looking at the precipitous drop in his approval ratings might cause one to wonder whether Romney would know how to get himself re-elected.

Mitt Romney won the Massachusetts gubernatorial election in 2002 with less than 50% of the vote (49.77%). With an underwhelming victory of that magnitude, it's no wonder Romney chose not to run for re-election.

Romney might have us believe that he could have won a second term if he had wanted it, but by the time Massachusetts voters had picked Romney's Democratic replacement in November of 2006, Romney's approval ratings were down to the low 30s and his disapproval ratings were as high as 65 percent!

Among all of the governors in the 50 states, Mitt was ranked #48 in popularity.

Why is Mitt Romney considered a safe choice for the GOP nomination?

"Employees attempted to hold back the scrum of shoppers and pick up merchandise even as customers trampled the video games strewn on the floor"

By the Left Coast Rebel

Los Angeles is America's finest conglomeration of third world-esque urban sprawl, liberal sentimentality and insanity, filthy neighborhoods resembling Tijuana, Mexico; crime and dangerous roadways... that nevertheless aren't apparently nearly as dangerous as L.A. WalMarts on Black Friday.

Funny thing is, to be perfectly honest, when I read about pepper spraying, violence and mayhem, I thought, "I don't see rape in the headline" and the Occupoo movement automatically came to mind.

CBS News:

PORTER RANCH, Calif. - Twenty people, including children, were injured when a woman at a San Fernando Valley Walmart store used mace against other customers in what authorities referred to as a "competitive shopping" incident.

The Los Angeles Times reports that a scuffle broke out shortly before 10 p.m. Thursday night, just before shopping was to begin, among customers waiting to buy Xbox gaming consoles and Wii video games.

If you live in middle America, please read this article at the L.A. Times for an eye-opening glimpse into the third-world Los Angeles underworld.

Via Memeorandum.

Frank Miller on the Occupy Movement

By the Left Coast Rebel

This lazy yet highly caffeinated post-Thanksgiving Friday morning I happened upon an incredible, cognitively-dissonant, circullarly-reasoned pro-Occupoo, insane moonbat-leftist opinion piece at The Guardian wherein some Brit spells out what he sees as a vast Hollyweird "cryptofascist" right-wing conspiracy.

The author's premise is simple: There's-a brainwashing going on in Tinseltown! and them-thar fascist right-winger action movie types are-ah brainwashing yer yung'uns for the war against the poor!

I don't know about you but any time the wife and I have plunked down $30 + for a movie + popcorn + soda, I've always come away feeling proselytized with the far-left liberal worldview. Corporations... bad! Businessmen... ooh, evil! Government... ah, benevolent! The script for most Hollywood garbage these days fits perfectly within the left's frame of mind. It's nothing if not completely predictable.

There's too many insanities to excerpt everything from the article but the essay's opening gets the point across:

Perhaps you have had this thought before. Perhaps you have had it often. I can remember politics dawning on me while watching a Steven Seagal vehicle, Under Siege, in 1992. I was in my early 30s. The film was without redeeming merit – there's no other way to put it – and it was about a "ruthless enemy" and the reimposition of the American social order through violence and rugged individualism. Why had I paid hard-earned money for it? Good question. Before Under Siege, I had a tendency to think action films were funny. I had a sort of Brechtian relationship to their awfulness. And I was amused when films themselves recognised the level to which they stooped, as Under Siege assuredly did.

Steven Seagal the rugged-individualist crytpo-fascist propagandist?

Ok, you get the point. Read the rest. But who's this Frank Miller (pictured left) fella that has this socialist-Brit's panties in such a bunch?

Answer: Miller is the comic artist behind "Batman," "X-Men," "Sin City" and if you are old enough to have seen it: "Robocop." That's not all he's done, check out all of his previous comic works here.

Miller's unforgivable sin lies in a screed he published at his site wherein he rips the Occupoo (thanks for the brilliantly descriptive term, J0hn and Ken) movement to toilet-paper shreds:

Everybody’s been too damn polite about this nonsense.

The “Occupy” movement, whether displaying itself on Wall Street or in the streets of Oakland (which has, with unspeakable cowardice, embraced it) is anything but an exercise of our blessed First Amendment. “Occupy” is nothing but a pack of louts, thieves, and rapists, an unruly mob, fed by Woodstock-era nostalgia and putrid false righteousness. These clowns can do nothing but harm America.

“Occupy” is nothing short of a clumsy, poorly-expressed attempt at anarchy, to the extent that the “movement” – HAH! Some “movement”, except if the word “bowel” is attached - is anything more than an ugly fashion statement by a bunch of iPhone, iPad wielding spoiled brats who should stop getting in the way of working people and find jobs for themselves.

Good for you saying it like it is, Frank Miller.

Via Memeorandum. Image via. TheCompleteWorksofFrankMiller.com.

The Confusion of Classical Liberalism -vs- Conservatism

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny

Thomas Jefferson, arguably one of America's foremost "Classical Liberals." Given the reality that many, if not most today haven't a clue what the term Classical Liberalism actually means in the historical reference the following is an apt definition and explanation of the term.

{Ludwig von Mises} 1. Liberalism

The philosophers, sociologists, and economists of the eighteenth and the early part of the nineteenth century formulated a political program that served as a guide to social policy first in England and the United States, then on the European continent, and finally in the other parts of the inhabited world as well. Nowhere was this program ever completely carried out. Even in England, which has been called the homeland of liberalism and the model liberal country, the proponents of liberal policies never succeeded in winning all their demands. In the rest of the world only parts of the liberal program were adopted, while others, no less important, were either rejected from the very first or discarded after a short time. Only with some exaggeration can one say that the world once lived through a liberal era. Liberalism was never permitted to come to full fruition.

Nevertheless, brief and all too limited as the supremacy of liberal ideas was, it sufficed to change the face of the earth. A magnificent economic development took place. The release of man's productive powers multiplied the means of subsistence many times over. On the eve of the World War (which was itself the result of a long and bitter struggle against the liberal spirit and which ushered in a period of still more bitter attacks on liberal principles), the world was incomparably more densely populated than it had ever been, and each inhabitant could live incomparably better than had been possible in earlier centuries. The prosperity that liberalism had created reduced considerably infant mortality, which had been the pitiless scourge of earlier ages, and, as a result of the improvement in living conditions, lengthened the average span of life.

Nor did this prosperity flow only to a select class of privileged persons. On the eve of the World War the worker in the industrial nations of Europe, in the United States, and in the overseas dominions of England lived better and more graciously than the nobleman of not too long before. Not only could he eat and drink according to his desire; he could give his children a better education; he could, if he wished, take part in the intellectual and cultural life of his nation; and, if he possessed enough talent and energy, he could, without difficulty, raise his social position. It was precisely in the countries that had gone the farthest in adopting the liberal program that the top of the social pyramid was composed, in the main, not of those who had, from their very birth, enjoyed a privileged position by virtue of the wealth or high rank of their parents, but of those who, under favorable conditions, had worked their way up from straitened circumstances by their own power. The barriers that had in earlier ages separated lords and serfs had fallen. Now there were only citizens with equal rights. No one was handicapped or persecuted on account of his nationality, his opinions, or his faith. Domestic Political and religious persecutions had ceased, and international wars began to become less frequent. Optimists were already hailing the dawn of the age of eternal peace.

But events have turned out otherwise. In the nineteenth century strong and violent opponents of liberalism sprang up who succeeded in wiping out a great part of what had been gained by the liberals. The world today wants to hear no more of liberalism. Outside England the term "liberalism" is frankly proscribed. In England, there are, to be sure, still "liberals," but most of them are so in name only. In fact, they are rather moderate socialists. Everywhere today political power is in the hands of the antiliberal parties. The program of antiliberalism unleashed the forces that gave rise to the great World War and, by virtue of import and export quotas, tariffs, migration barriers, and similar measures, has brought the nations of the world to the point of mutual isolation. Within each nation it has led to socialist experiments whose result has been a reduction in the productivity of labor and a concomitant increase in want and misery. Whoever does not deliberately close his eyes to the facts must recognize everywhere the signs of an approaching catastrophe in world economy. Antiliberalism is heading toward a general collapse of civilization.

If one wants to know what liberalism is and what it aims at, one cannot simply turn to history for the information and inquire what the liberal politicians stood for and what they accomplished. For liberalism nowhere succeeded in carrying out its program as it had intended. {Read More}

If you continue reading the entire work your understanding of classical liberalism, and how it, more than anything the modern conservative movement represents {post Barry Goldwater to offer a reference)is the real champion of limited government and maximum individual liberty. Especially as pertains to property rights.

Interestingly enough the man to your immediate left represents classical liberalism more than any individual politician in either the republican party or the democratic party today. It is no surprise that both the democratic and republican party marginalize the man. He stands against almost everything the power base in both party's stand for. Which in a nutshell is larger and more intrusive government control over the life of the individual. In other words the trend backwards towards the belief the individual, or people in general serve the state. Which is, in a nutshell what the American colonies specifically and classical liberalism rebelled against.

Oh how history tends to repeat itself.

Via: Memeorandum

The Super- Committee's Failure... Politics as Usual... And the MIC

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs -Tyranny

Supreme Commander, Allied Forces WW II. President of the United States of America 1953 - 1961. A man of reason by choice. A man of war by necessity. Ultimately a leader with vision.

Fast forward to today. It seems our nation continually finds itself involved in conflict across the globe. Conflicts that in the final analysis have largely been by choice.

The United States spends more on the "defense" of our nation than the the total of the next seventeen nations who follow us in military spending.

The eighteen countries with the largest military budgets. See table below for actual dollar amounts.

It is clear that the United States has willingly assumed the role of "world policeman" and "protector of those in need of support." The cost to our nation has been staggering. Now to the point of this post.

The "Supercommitte" that was given the responsibility of finding 1.2 trillion in federal spending reductions over the next 10 years has failed. Automatic spending reductions, 50% defense and 50% domestic will occur beginning in 2013.

Does this really surprise anyone given the "state of war" that currently exists in our national political reality?

I have decided to accept the inevitably of the "draconian" cuts in projected defense spending.

(Reuters) - Automatic spending cuts that could result from a special congressional committee's failure to reach a deficit-reduction agreement could "tear a seam" in defense, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said on Monday.

The so-called super committee's failure on Monday to agree on $1.2 trillion in deficit-cutting measures triggers up to $600 billion in additional defense cuts over 10 years beginning in 2013.

"If Congress fails to act over the next year, the Department of Defense will face devastating, automatic, across-the-board cuts that will tear a seam in the nation's defense," Panetta said in a statement.

"The half-trillion in additional cuts demanded by sequester would lead to a hollow force incapable of sustaining the missions it is assigned." {Read More}

Brace yourselves for the onslaught of propaganda as to what the automatic "cuts" will allegedly engender. The case will be made that we are gutting our national defense and that military personnel will suffer in their efforts to accomplish the "mission."

As I said earlier I have resigned myself to the fact that the automatic reductions are going to occur. Our leadership is totally incapable at this point of doing the right thing because they have little to no integrity or logic.

So I did a bit of research, made some assumptions, and actually think maybe the trigger may not be such a bad thing. The numbers...

2010 United States total defense spending = $698.3 billion. Using this as a baseline, and assuming projected outlays were to stay relatively the same, the $60 billion reduction in projected spending in 2013 amounts to 8.633% of $698.3 billion. Given the winding down of the Iraq and Afghanistan engagements our cost should be significantly less. That is of course unless the next "engagement" is already on the table.

"Slashing" 8.633% from our military budget should be very doable. It is sensible, it is prudent, it is essential, and it won't hurt our ability to defend our nation one damn bit. But for those who seek to be the worlds policeman and the arbiter of influence and global power it is seen as devastating.

What say you?

Via: Memeorandum

Ron Paul - Neoliberal?

By Proof

Neoliberal is a term I don't remember having heard before. When Jeffrey Lord was quoted by Doug Ross as saying...

The Ron Paul campaign is really about re-educating America to what can only be called Neoliberalism. Which, based on the evidence and writings of its supporters, appears to be a thin gruel of free markets and non-interventionism seasoned heavily with anti-Semitism, morally obtuse Neo-Confederates, and an outspoken contempt for both conservatism and conservative leaders past and present.

...it resonated with something I had been contemplating for the last week or so, namely, how fervent Paul supporters are nearly indistinguishable from liberals when they visit conservative websites. Liberals and Paulbots are about the only two groups in the nation that lump all conservatives indiscriminately under the same label, as "Neocons", a term which they use (inaccurately) with great derision. Aside from the fact that I doubt more than a mere fraction of them actually know what a "neoconservative" is, they think using it makes them sound more intelligent. It doesn't.

Secondly, liberals and Paulbots, after they have insulted us liberally (pun intended), go on to tell us how crappy all of our candidates are. Now, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. And in the marketplace of ideas, if some people choose to insult their opponents in lieu of actual arguments, that's their choice.

I have long thought it odd, however, just how insulting Paul supporters have been towards conservatives, rather than trying to convince them to join their cause. More flies with honey than vinegar, don'tcha know?

But, divide and conquer is as old as mankind. If say, a George Soros type wanted to fund a fringe candidate, and encourage him to run whether or not he received the nomination of his party. And let's say you send out your followers to attempt to split the conservative vote, but not by supporting anyone who actually has a prayer of a chance of beating your liberal candidate next November,how exactly would that look any different from the campaign Paul is running now?

Now, I'll throw in the following disclaimer. I am in no way saying that there is a conspiracy or that the Ron Paul campaign is a wholly owned subsidiary of George Soros, I'm just asking if it was, how would you tell the difference?


Cross posted at Proof Positive

Mitt Rewrites The History of RomneyCare

If you like this video please share it on Facebook, Twitter, your blog or via email:

Mitt Romney hasn't been compelled to defend his record on health care. Now is the time to make that happen. Voters will be going to the primaries and the caucuses in just a few weeks.

If you learned something from this video, help me get the word out!

*Learn more about RomneyCare here, every fact presented in the video (and much more) is addressed in detail with numerous links: http://is.gd/RomneyCare

RELATED: Only about 30% of Republican voters say they know enough about RomneyCare to have an opinion.

UPDATE: Linked by Smitty at The Other McCain! Thank you.

UPDATE II: Linked by Pundit and Pundette! Thanks.

UPDATE III: Linked at Rational Nation USA. Thanks!

UPDATE IV: Video posted at American Power. Thank you!

UPDATE V: Tweeted by Legal Insurrection, Ryan WN Garcia, Monica G, Yun Sun Cho, Ric and Richard McEnroe. Thanks!

UPDATE VI: Video posted at BBCW and Dueling Barstools, thanks Clay and Ryan!

UPDATE VII: Posted (with pithy commentary) at The Humble Libertarian. Thanks, Wes.

UPDATE VIII: Posted at NotMittRomney.com. Thanks, Ali!

Produced by RightKlik

A Liberal Dose of Viagra

By Grant Davies

It seems the legs of the liberal activists who masquerade as journalists don't tingle as much as they used to. At least not Chris Matthews' leg.

The disillusioned liberal mouthpiece on America's least viewed political spin network whined recently to another liberal who was interviewing him that he was disheartened by the failure of his onetime man-crush (Obama) to issue marching orders to his followers or give them something to rally around in the form of bigger government programs and ideological aspirations. The video below shows the whole pathetic spectacle in excruciating detail.

As encouraging as that might be to "anyone but Obama" cheerleaders, they would be well advised to never underestimate the Republican Party's ineptitude when it comes to exploiting the propensity of modern day Democrats to implode under the pressure of their failed policies and leaders.

So I was thinking that maybe we could somehow put the evil drug companies to work inventing a political Viagra just for people like Matthews whose Obama erection went limp once reality turned the light on in their hope filled bedrooms. Harsh light has a way of diminishing even the most passionate affairs. It's the reason that politicians keep the lights dim for their also largely dim followers.

Scorned lovers tend be pretty lazy about going to the polls so Obama has one more thing to worry about in 2012.

The Obama team seems to have missed an opportunity to funnel some more taxpayer money to his cronies in businesses who love government regulation and maybe create jobs in the drug industry that stimulate more than just the economy. I guess these guys just aren't that creative anymore or maybe they are just as lazy as Obama claims the American people are.

If Obama needs "firmer" support, a new invention like political Viagra might be just the tonic to re-energize the love affair.

Judd Greg Nails it on What Ails our Nation

By the Left Coast Rebel

The resounding failure of the so-called "super committee" to reach an "agreement" comes as anything but a surprise to anyone that has a pulse and a clue about where our nation is currently heading.

But something has been teasing my inner psyche recently and it is this: what in the hell does Obama think bringing on the fiscal collapse of this nation will bring?

And: Just where in the hell is Teh Messiah as even the most minimal of proposals (cutting a bit over 1 trillion from the RATE of federal growth in the next 10 years as the federal government spends 44 TRILLION) sputters, crashes and burns?

I mean, he was sold to us as the Chosen One, the man that would cure every ill that America faces, heal the oceans...

But the chief executive of our nation can't even broker (or at least nudge or even affect in any way) an almost meaningless deal?

As they say, the proof is in the (socialist) pudding. Obama and Team don't want to "fix" our budget mess at all.

On this note, former New Hampshire senator (and Obama admin. commerce secretary) Judd Greg puts his neck out there, connecting the White House dots on our budgetary disaster.

Excerpts:

There is no great concern at the White House that our government is getting too large. They look at Europe — where governments routinely absorb 30 percent to 40 percent of the economy — and believe we can certainly have the same, especially considering that higher taxes will inevitably follow such a growth, maybe even a value-added tax. As far as the White House is concerned, the taxing potential of our nation has miles to go.

So why would you wish to rein in the growth of the federal government — and power that comes with that growth — if you wish to pursue social justice agendas?

This idea of expanded government meshes perfectly with the message of class warfare that has been chosen as the course to reelection for Obama and his minions in Congress. After all, the only effective way to deal with class envy and create a truly divided nation is to take from those who are deemed to have too much and redistribute that take. And who better to choose how to redistribute than the elite of the left, who have flocked to the battlements of expanding government, demanding permission to choose the winners and losers in our society?

It might be an old and tired idea that has not done much to create general prosperity, but it has always done a lot to empower the few to tell the many how to live their lives. It concentrates power, which is, of course, what growing government is mostly about.

Read the rest.

Via Memeorandum.

The UC Davis Pepper Spray incident: police brutality or lawful escalation of force?

By the Full Metal Patriot

Is this police brutality? Or lawful escalation of force?

Much hay has been made on the Internet over this past weekend following the now-infamous pepper-spray incident between Occupy protesters and police on the UC Davis campus. It didn't take long for the gratuitous (and sometimes humorous) Photoshops mocking what was assumed to be police brutality.

C'mon, really?

But did the police engage in police brutality by pepper-spraying these “peaceful” protesters? Rather than watching the popular video which starts when the pepper spraying begins, let's take a look at the longer video which shows the events leading up to that point.

A large group of protesters had gathered on the quad and formed a ring around police officers.

• 0:58 — An officer walks up to the line of students who are blocking the sidewalk with their arms linked and asks one of them to move. The student refuses. And they they all laugh at the officer and then continue chanting, “Our university!” and “Power of the students!”
• Several officers can be seen conversing on their radios (presumably communicating with headquarters or a commanding officer).
• 4:00 — The officer informs the protesters that if they do not move, they will be shot with pepper spray. Again, the students refuse to move and instead chant, “Don't shoot students!”
• 5:00 — Officers can be seen retrieving pepper spray canisters from their belts and shaking them up. Still no movement from the ring of students surrounding the officers.
• 5:30 — Standing students begin to scream to their seated fellows to “Protect your eyes!” But nobody moves. In fact, several standing students hand cloths to the seated resisters so that they can cover their faces. Everyone here knows what is about to happen, and they're bracing for it. But not moving.
• 6:20 — Officers on the outside of the ring of students tell them to move out of the way and off the sidewalk. The seated students still won't budge.
• 6:36 — One officer from inside the ring steps over the line of students, turns and begins to spray the seated students with pepper spray.
• 7:00 — The seated students begin to feel the effects of the pepper spray and unlink their arms. At that point, officers move in and begin to arrest them.

A cursory search for "legal escalation of force” brings up an article from policechiefmagazine.org entitled, “Force Continuums: Three Questions.”

The actual law on the degree of allowable force is quite broad and very much in favor of officers. Legal standards…take numerous factors into account that continuums do not. For example, many continuums depict only the relationship between the subject's current behavior ("actively resisting," for example) and the officer's force response.
…The U.S. Department of Justice has weighed in, too. Its Civil Rights Division urges agencies adopt a progressive force con­tinuum and train all officers in it. Consent de­crees and technical letters of assistance some­times require agencies to do so. According to the Department of Justice, a force continuum should include all types of force used by an agency, including firearms, pepper spray, batons, and canines.

The students who refused a legal order from law enforcement to unblock the sidewalk were actively resisting a lawful order to disperse. The University of California’s Universitywide Police Policies and Administrative Procedures has this to say about the use of pepper spray:

“Chemical agents are weapons used to minimize the potential for injury to officers, offenders, or other persons. They should only be used in situations where such force reasonably appears justified and necessary.”

If students are actively resisting a lawful order from law enforcement, what is the officer to do? If a student chooses to take a peaceful and lawful protest and escalate it by refusing a lawful order, the protest may indeed be peaceful but it has ceased to be lawful. According to the UC Davis’ Student Responsibilities and Conduct Standards:

102.16 Failure to Comply with Directions of Official, or Resisting or Obstructing Official. Failure to identify oneself to, or comply with the directions of, a University official or other public official acting in the performance of his/her duties while on University property or at official University functions; or resisting or obstructing such officials in the performance of or the attempt to perform their duties.

Whether the officers were acting in a “reasonable” manner is a matter that will now likely be decided in court. According to the University's policies, it appears that the police were acting within their guidelines while the students were violating theirs (it also appears that by refusing to unblock the sidewalk, the students may have been in violation of 102.13 Obstruction or Disruption and 102.15 Disturbing the Peace).

Sorry, no sympathy here.
---
Cross-posted at Full Metal Patriot

Time for Hillary in 2012?

By Proof

A couple of Democratic pollsters, one for Jimmy Carter and one for Bill Clinton have an interesting editorial in the Wall St. Journal. Here's a taste:

When Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson accepted the reality that they could not effectively govern the nation if they sought re-election to the White House, both men took the moral high ground and decided against running for a new term as president. President Obama is facing a similar reality—and he must reach the same conclusion.

He should abandon his candidacy for re-election in favor of a clear alternative, one capable not only of saving the Democratic Party, but more important, of governing effectively and in a way that preserves the most important of the president's accomplishments. He should step aside for the one candidate who would become, by acclamation, the nominee of the Democratic Party: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Frequent leaders of this blog will note that a Hillary candidacy has been expected, even if she has to be reluctantly dragged to the nomination. (Depends on what your definition of "reluctantly" is.) Caddell and Schoen provide the rationale for a Hillary draft.

Never before has there been such an obvious potential successor—one who has been a loyal and effective member of the president's administration, who has the stature to take on the office, and who is the only leader capable of uniting the country around a bipartisan economic and foreign policy.

It's the three AM phone call all over again!

Certainly, Mr. Obama could still win re-election in 2012. Even with his all-time low job approval ratings (and even worse ratings on handling the economy) the president could eke out a victory in November. But the kind of campaign required for the president's political survival would make it almost impossible for him to govern—not only during the campaign, but throughout a second term.

Put simply, it seems that the White House has concluded that if the president cannot run on his record, he will need to wage the most negative campaign in history to stand any chance. With his job approval ratings below 45% overall and below 40% on the economy, the president cannot affirmatively make the case that voters are better off now than they were four years ago. He—like everyone else—knows that they are worse off.

In essence, they are saying that even if Obama manages to get himself re-elected, he will continue to damage the party beyond repair. And they're right. Whether Obama wins the nomination or goes on to win next November, it will be a Pyrrhic victory for Democrats.

Hillary is by no means a lock on the White House, but either way, she damages Democrats (and the country) less.

Read the rest here.

H/T Memeorandum

Cross posted at Proof Positive

‘The Chicago Guys Would Not Let Me Do It’

By Frank Hill

A very high-level and important person that you may know personally or have heard of said that this is the answer President Obama gave when he was asked why he did not introduce the Bowles-Simpson (let’s call it ‘BS’ for brevity’s sake) recommendations as a bill in the US Congress.

'The Chicago Guys would not let me do it'.

Just who is the President here and who are the minions serving whom?

President Obama might have had the best of intentions when he officially signed the document creating the BS Commission by Executive Order 13531. We’ll give him credit for that at least, although at the time, we speculated on January 29, 2010 that this commission would fail just like the other 18 before it. (see 'Graveyard')

But when the BS Commission failed to pass the recommendations by the required 14 votes out of the 18 members present in late 2010, President Obama still had it within his power to be the Chief Executive of this great nation of ours and ask the Democrat Majority in the Senate to introduce the BS recommendations and force a vote on the floor of the US Senate and then the US House.

It could have been one of the great debates of our time. A full-blown debate on what the proper size of our federal government should be; arguments about who should pay more taxes and who should not and an exposition of the grave dangers we are now facing should we fail to arrest the debt accumulation monster that is still multiplying and helps make this period of time one of the top 5 ‘financial follies’ of the past 800 years according to Harvard Professor of economic history, Kenneth Rogoff. (you need to read his book: ‘This Time Is Different’. Right. Now.)

Alas, President Obama blinked. And blinked again and again and again over this past year. He has blinked so many times at taking real action to reduce this deficit that you really have to wonder if he is up to it at all.

The so-called ‘Gang of Six’ in the US Senate tried to take basic elements of the BS Bill and get them passed to no avail in 2011 as well.

Democratic Senator Mark Warner deserves special commendation for his courage to advance this approach. We wonder if it is because he is a businessman that he actually ‘understands’ the gravity of our current debt situation and trend lines whereas perhaps the other incumbents who are trial lawyers or not business-oriented simply can not fathom or grasp anything it seems.

But we now have it on good sources and corroborated by two people we respect and trust that President Barack Obama actually said the following words, in some fashion or another, when asked why he didn’t just get someone to introduce the BS Bill regardless of whether the Commission passed it or not with the requisite number of votes:

‘The Chicago guys (meaning his political advisor David Axelrod, among others) told me that if I did that (introduced the BS Bill), I would not win re-election in 2012.’

Honest to God Above. Our current sitting US President, the highest office and honor in the land, admitted that he lacked the courage to help save our Republic because his ‘Chicago guys’ told him not to touch it with a 10-foot pole.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury: That is exactly what we elect our Presidents to do! And if they don’t lead, why keep them in the office? Why is he listening more to David Axelrod and David Plouffe than to what he must know is the 'right thing' to do in his heart which is to reduce these enormous deficits?

Ronald Reagan came into office as a ‘small government, lower tax, strong national defense’ President. He achieved 2 out of 3. (Guess which one he fell short on)

But when he was forced to make a decision, he ‘led’. He got bills introduced. He negotiated with Congress. He sent his congressional liaison teams to Capitol Hill to lobby for his position. He called reluctant Congressmen and Senators to urge them to 'do the right thing for the country'. He signed bills that raised taxes 11 different times over his two terms in the Oval Office. Each time, he told Senate Majority Leader or Republican Leader Bob Michel in the House to ‘get 75-80% of what we want, maybe 65%, and then I’ll sign the bill and we will come back next year to get more of what we want.’

That is the way our democratic republic is supposed to work. A President and Congress can raise taxes….and then come back to repeal them the next year. They can raise spending…and then come back to repeal and reduce that spending the next session of Congress.

It is a fluid process. But it needs a strong President in the White House working with all sides in both the House and the Senate who is actually taking risks to ‘lead’ the entire nation to economic health, prosperity and freedom.

Today, in the news, we learned that President Obama has basically taken a complete 'hands-off' approach and said: 'This is Congress' problem. Call me when you get something done...but not when I am on vacation or playing golf somewhere nice and sunny'.

By openly admitting that he failed to do so because his ‘Chicago Guys’ told him not to, President Barack Obama has demonstrated he is unfit to run this great nation of ours, in our humble opinion.

Nothing personal. He actually seems like a nice guy to have a beer with or shoot some hoops with and we hope his daughters grow up to be wonderful mature women who do honor to their examples as young women growing up in the public glare.

But this is the tough job we elected him to in 2008. He has succumbed to political advisor pressure when all he had to do was look at the portraits of Lincoln, Washington and Jefferson around him in the White House and realize that he had a chance to do something important and wonderful and marvelous to help save this great Republic of ours.

He blinked. And now, we need to find someone else to take his place who will not ‘blink’ and who will take action.

Erskine Bowles ran for the US Senate twice and lost from the Great State of North Carolina. But he, as well as Alan Simpson have shown tremendous courage and stamina in this whole BS process.

How about this: ‘Erskine Bowles. For President. Of The United States of America. 2012.’

Democrats: There is your man to run against the Republican candidate whoever he might be. At least we will know that 2 people running for President in 2012 will be serious about solving our deficit/debt dilemma.

Instead of only 1.

(Editor's Note: Frank Hill's resumé includes working as chief of staff for Senator Elizabeth Dole and Congressman Alex McMillan, serving on the House Budget Committee and serving on the Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform. He takes on politics from a fiercely independent perspective at the blog Telemachus).

Should Mitt Romney Switch Parties?

The one-term wonder from the People's Republic of Massachusetts doesn't like to, uh, win -- at least not when it comes to beating Democrats:

Gee, Mitt, are you worried that "victory" over Democrats evokes the notion of Jimmy Carter surrendering the White House to Ronald Reagan in 1980? I know you don't want to emulate Reagan, but how far will you go with that attitude?

Folks, the weak-kneed Romney we see today is the toughest Romney we'll ever know. After he wins the GOP nomination, he'll be back at the campfire singing Kumbaya with Democrats faster than you can say "ObamaCare."

If the GOP wants a man in the White House who will compromise with Democrats even before the negotiating begins, Romney is the one.

Hat tip: Legal Insurrection

UPDATE: Linked at Eye of Polyphemus. Thanks!

The Middle Class

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny

OWS got me thinking today about the great American middle class. That group of hard working and intelligent people that propelled this nation forward to become the greatest {super} power the world has ever known. Those millions of individuals that worked diligently to secure their own as well as their nation's rational self interest.

Today we have a growing economic oligarchy. Then there is OWS. The dissonance, if not resolved has the capcity to destroy our nation.

(Middle Class) A nation’s productive—and moral, and intellectual—top is the middle class. It is a broad reservoir of energy, it is a country’s motor and lifeblood, which feeds the rest. The common denominator of its members, on their various levels of ability, is: independence. The upper classes are merely a nation’s past; the middle class is its future.

The middle class is the heart, the lifeblood, the energy source of a free, industrial economy, i.e., of capitalism; it did not and cannot exist under any other system; it is the product of upward mobility, incompatible with frozen social castes. Do not ask, therefore, for whom the bell of inflation is tolling; it tolls for you. It is not at the destruction of a handful of the rich that inflation is aimed (the rich are mostly in the vanguard of the destroyers), but at the middle class.

I'm wondering... Just what is today's modern liberals take on the above, as well as today's modern {so called} conservatives? It should prove interesting.

Via: Memeorandum

Rommey Not Walking Away From RomneyCare of Massachusetts

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny

Mitt Romney has said rather decisively he is not waking away from ObamaCare's model, RomneyCare of Massachusetts. While admitting that his healthcare hasn't worked out perfectly he still believes it was the right thing for the Bay State. There are many who disagree and for good reason.

Even given RomneyCare there seems to be a growing consensus among conservative pundits that Romney is going to be the GOP standard bearer in 2012. With his liberal Rockefeller style politics it is hard to get ones arms around just why his nomination is becoming almost a forgone conclusion.

From his recent interview with Neil Cavuto.

(National Review Online) Don’t expect Mitt Romney to backtrack on his Massachusetts health-care plan at any point this election cycle.

“I am sure there are many people who have calculated, and perhaps correctly, that the healthcare plan I put in place in Massachusetts is not good for me politically, and if I want to encourage my political future, I should say it was a mistake and walk away from it,” Romney told Fox News host Neil Cavuto in an interview set to air later tonight.

“You have seen a lot of candidates look at their biggest vulnerability, call it a mistake, and ask for forgiveness,” Romney continued. “In my case that wouldn’t be honest.”

He affirmed that he believes the health-care program was the “right thing” for Massachusetts then, although he conceded that it hasn’t “worked perfectly.”

“If it hurts me politically, it’s a consequence of the truth,” Romney added. “I am not going to walk away from that. It’s right for states to come up with their own solutions. I doubt other people are going try and follow the one we put together. Maybe learn from our experience. Maybe come up with something better. But the wrong course is to have the federal government impose its will on the entire nation.”

Asked if Elena Kagan should recuse herself from the Obamacare case, Romney said he was unsure at this point.

“I will take a look at her involvement,” he responded. “Typically a justice must recuse themselves if they have a conflict of interest; I don’t know what her conflict might be. My view is this is a pretty clear cut case, where the federal government has intruded on the rights of states.”

On the one hand you have to respect the man for his candor. Even if you disagree with his position.

On the other hand his position that it is not the federal governments role to mandate healthcare to the citizens of all fifty states is based on the sound classical liberal principle of states rights.

In summation, we have a presidential hopeful that passed a health reform plan that Obama modeled his own plan after. He believes it was the right thing for Massachusetts when he introduced it, and apparently still does... Even given Massachusetts has among the highest health care costs in the nation.

Assuming that if he were elected he would hold true to his statement, repeated many times that he would repeal ObamaCare it is easy to understand why he has as much support as he does.

On the other hand {again} given what we know, can you really believe and trust in this man?

What say you?

Via: Memeorandum

It's Okay... Nobody Got Hit With Spittle

Remember the Tea Party's racist Spittle-gate controversy?

Well, things have gotten almost as bad with the "Occupy" movement.  An OWS protester sprayed the White House with bullets (allegedly):

In a nearly thousand-word article written about the arrest and capture of 21-year-old Oscar Ramiro Ortega-Hernandez, a man suspected of shooting at the White House, you’ll have to read through at least six paragraphs before you get to what should be the most explosive part:

Late on Friday, the police had searched the Occupy DC protest camp, on McPherson Square just blocks from the White House, after reports that the suspect might have spent time there. Protesters there said on Wednesday that the police had been through their encampment several times since then, showing around a photograph of Mr. Ortega.

Yes, that’s right, our suspected shooter apparently spent time with Occupy.

In the suspect's defense, no one witnessed any saliva, and the shooter probably doesn't know there's a black man in the White House. Please don't let guilt-by-association tarnish the image of an otherwise peaceful, all-American protest movement.


UPDATE:

A man at Occupy Chicago  was arrested for child pornography. (But witnesses saw no spittle. Relax. It's okay. These things happen.)


*SARCASM ALERT*

Coming to Grips With Grim Reality

My thoughts on the grim reality of the 2012 elections, as initiated in an online discussion:

Yes, we're in trouble. When we elected Obama, I almost gave up hope. That Obama's approval numbers still aren't in the low teens concerns me greatly.  And I get no comfort from the current state of the GOP.  The Republican party is unprincipled and rotten to the core.

Republicans haven't learned the hard lessons of 2006 and 2008 because they don't want to learn them.  They LOVE watered-down statism. And they present themselves as little more than a semi-competent alternative to the socialist buffoonery of the Democrat party.

I don't know what the current crop of Republicans will do for us...except maybe they'll slow down the rate of destruction just a little bit.

So here we are, probably stuck with Mitt, Perry, Cain or Newt.

As far as I'm concerned, Mitt's a moderate Democrat. Where I live, Democrats are often more conservative than he is.  What's the point in replacing a Dem with a Dem?

Same analysis for Al Gore's old buddy, Rick Perry. He'd make a fine Democrat governor in my state.  With hair so pretty, Rick Perry is simply a poor man's Mitt Romney with W's southern drawl.

What about the Hermanator?

Cain is Cain. WYSIWYG. His heart seems to be in the right place most of the time. But I'm no longer willing to try to believe that he's "in it to win it," as he so often tells himself.

I'm convinced that Cain is as at least as intelligent and competent as Barack Obama -- and he can communicate at least as well off tele-prompter -- but unless he develops the communication skills of a Ronald Reagan and a mastery of the issues comparable to that of Newt Gingrich, there's no way the Obama MSM won't annihilate him on the way to the White House.  There's just too much at stake.  If the Democrat party stands to lose even 25% of the black vote, Whig-esque oblivion will be just around the corner.

That brings us to Gingrich, the "not Romney" du jour.

Gingrich is a big-government moderate with some conservative tendencies.  He can be an idiot, but at least he always knows what he's talking about. And I think a conservative Republican congress could keep him in check.  That might not be easy, but it's probably doable.

My biggest worry with Newt is that he seems to yearn for approval from the wrong people.  So he'll be too easily influenced by the Journolist MSM.  But I've been slightly reassured by his willingness to attack the media lately.  We'll see how long that lasts.

Anyway, I think the smart money is on Romney or Newt at this point. My apologies to anyone who has their heart set on other candidates, but I don't think any of them will make it.  I'll eat my hat if they do. Mark my words. 

Having said all that, and having gone on record as being adamantly opposed to Mitt the centrist socialist, I'm beginning to lean to Newt at this point.  Yes, he sucks lemons -- and he's only modestly better than Romney -- but I'll take what I can get. Mike Pence and Nikki Haley aren't running this year.

What do you think?