Monday, January 28, 2013

Obama Skeet Shooting


Photobucket

"They are my people, I am their sovereign. I love them"

"PULL!!!"

Avid skeet shooter Barack Obama reveals his favorite clay pigeon recipe...




Bluegrass Pundit ^ | Monday, January 28, 2013 | Bluegrass Pundit

Me: So, Mr. President you shoot skeet. Do you eat them afterwards?
BO: Why yes. There is nothing more satisfying than killing and dressing your on inanimate object for dinner. My favorite recipe for clay pigeons is Braised Pigeons in Chocolate Sauce .
Me: Is there a secret to preparation?
BO: I like to soak them overnight in salt water and boil them for a long time to make them tender.
Me: Does the rest of the family eat them?
BO: Michelle loves them. She says they are good for her hips.
Me: What about the girls?
BO: Well. they are picky eaters and I usually fly in a pizza from Chicago when we have clay pigeon.
Me: Isn't that extravagant?
BO: No this is Washington DC. We deserve it.
Me: Don't you think that could cause some resentment in fly-over country?
BO: Those bitter clingers in fly-over country need to get with the plan. They should get fired from their jobs, sign up for 99 weeks of unemployment, food stamps, Medicaid, and a free Obamacphone. They would have plenty of money then.
Me: Thank you Mr. President.
Me: ....In other news CNN's Piers Morgan suffered grievous knee injuries in an exclusive gun control interview with President Obama.

San Diego Police Chief: We Can Disarm Americans Within a Generation!

Breitbart ^ | 1/28/13 | AWR Hawkins

San Diego Police Chief William Lansdowne is fully supportive of the Obama/Feinstein gun grab, and says if lawmakers play it right Americans can be completely disarmed within "a generation."
Lansdowne has gone on record saying: "I could not be more supportive of the president for taking the position he has. I think it's courageous with the politics involved in this process. [And] I think it's going to eventually make the country safer."
He made it clear that it may take "a generation," but new laws could eventually take all guns off the streets.
This is quite a departure from other law enforcement personnel we've seen around the country--particularly Sheriffs--who've come out firmly against any infringement on the 2nd Amendment. We've cheered those officials for standing with the people, and now Lansdowne has taken a position completely opposite them.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...

Why Romney Lost

American Thinker ^ | January 28, 2013 | Dr. Charles T. Kenny

Conservatives instinctively ground all of their ideas and policies in time-tested philosophies of man and of government. Most successful Republican candidates also paint a picture of what they can do and how their ideas are better than their opponents. This is why people evoke the memory of Ronald Reagan so often; because he is the last Republican candidate for president to conduct his campaign explicitly and consistently within this framework.
During the presidential campaign, Romney did talk about what he could do and what he would do as president, but he never presented his ideas and policies in the context of conservative principles. Nor did he paint a picture of how his ideas and policies would work better than what Obama has done and will do.
Secondly, he almost never drew a conclusion about how his ideas and policies would make a difference in voters' lives. Much the same as a carpenter needs to take a punch and set the nail into the wood so it will sink below the surface, a speaker must set his point in granite by drawing a conclusion that matters to the listeners and to their lives and connects with them clearly and explicitly on an emotional level.
For example, Romney repeatedly promised that he would repeal ObamaCare, but he did not say WHY he would do so. He did not talk about what is wrong with what Obama and the Democrats did when they passed the bill, nor did he explain how the voters' lives would be better with ObamaCare repealed.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...

Obama Complains About Media Bias!


By

At what point does the ridiculous become absurd? When is it okay to call President Obama out on his complete and total foolishness? Since I am the one writing this post, this is my opinion. We are far past the point where Obama should be called on the carpet for the foolish statements he makes. His latest published gripe about the media really makes me wonder just how out-of-touch the President really is. Is he so naive that he believes the trite nonsense he is spouting? If we are to believe what he says, the media is biased, but it is against him and his friends in the liberal Democrat Party. Chew on this for a moment or two.
(New Republic) One of the biggest factors is going to be how the media shapes debates. If a Republican member of Congress is not punished on Fox News or by Rush Limbaugh for working with a Democrat on a bill of common interest, then you’ll see more of them doing it.
I think John Boehner genuinely wanted to get a deal done, but it was hard to do in part because his caucus is more conservative probably than most Republican leaders are, and partly because he is vulnerable to attack for compromising Republican principles and working with Obama.
The same dynamic happens on the Democratic side. I think the difference is just that the more left-leaning media outlets recognize that compromise is not a dirty word. And I think at least leaders like myself—and I include Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi in this—are willing to buck the more absolutist-wing elements in our party to try to get stuff done.
Excuse me while I gag on the last bit of that quote. He thinks Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are willing to buck the more radical elements of their party to get things done? Seriously, they are the more radical elements of their party. How are the going to buck themselves? The answer to that is simple. They will no more buck the radicals than they will stop breathing.
To the main point that I wanted to highlight, it seems President Obama seriously believes the media is biased against him and his agenda. How any sane person could reach that conclusion is beyond me, but here is what he had to say about that.
President ObamaWell, no, let me be clear. There’s not a—there’s no equivalence there. In fact, that’s one of the biggest problems we’ve got in how folks report about Washington right now, because I think journalists rightly value the appearance of impartiality and objectivity. And so the default position for reporting is to say, “A plague on both their houses.” On almost every issue, it’s, “Well, Democrats and Republicans can’t agree”—as opposed to looking at why is it that they can’t agree. Who exactly is preventing us from agreeing?
And I want to be very clear here that Democrats, we’ve got a lot of warts, and some of the bad habits here in Washington when it comes to lobbyists and money and access really goes to the political system generally. It’s not unique to one party. But when it comes to certain positions on issues, when it comes to trying to do what’s best for the country, when it comes to really trying to make decisions based on fact as opposed to ideology, when it comes to being willing to compromise, the Democrats, not just here in this White House, but I would say in Congress also, have shown themselves consistently to be willing to do tough things even when it’s not convenient, because it’s the right thing to do. And we haven’t seen that same kind of attitude on the other side.
Until Republicans feel that there’s a real price to pay for them just saying no and being obstructionist, you’ll probably see at least a number of them arguing that we should keep on doing it. It worked for them in the 2010 election cycle, and I think there are those who believe that it can work again. I disagree with them, and I think the cost to the country has been enormous.
You should go and read the rest of the transcript of the interview, especially the part right below the last quote. You may find it humorous to know Obama still claims the more conservative part of the Republican Party is to blame for the failure to reach a deal on the fiscal cliff. This, coming from the man who told John Boehner that America doesn’t have a spending problem. Total unreality is what that is.
So, in his perfect world, President Obama would want the media to lay most of the blame for the gridlock in Washington at the feet of the Republicans. At the risk of sounding completely sarcastic, I thought that’s what they were already doing. The President must be listening to a different media talking heads than we see. Maybe he has his own private channels he watches?
This is where it becomes unbelievable to me. Does President Obama really believe the media should be placing even more blame on the Republicans, or is he just blowing smoke? I find it hard to believe he does and tend to think we are seeing more smoke and mirrors. You have to give Obama credit, he does know how to get his point across. Maybe this is what he is doing, giving instructions to his friends in the media on how he wants them to cover his second term as President.

Miami Heat to visit White House, Obama on Monday [Local Media Drools Over Thugs Visiting Thug]

Sun Sentinel ^ | 1/23/13 | Ira Winderman

The Miami Heat's upcoming four-game trip will feature a welcomed detour.

The White House announced Wednesday the team will meet Monday with President Obama at the White House to commemorate the franchise's 2012 NBA championship.

According to a memo from the White House press office, "President Obama will welcome the NBA Champion Miami Heat to the White House to honor the team and their 2012 NBA Championship victory. The President will also recognize the Heat’s ongoing support to the men and women who serve in our military and their families, continuing the tradition begun by President Obama of honoring sports teams for their efforts on and off the court. While in Washington, the Heat will also meet with wounded warriors."

The Heat made a similar White House visit with President Bush following their 2006 NBA championship.

(Excerpt) Read more at articles.sun-sentinel.com ...

“America is a Christian Nation.”


Founder's BibleOn the morning of Obama’s 2nd inauguration, January 21, 2013, Barack and Michelle received a powerful message of TRUTH from Pastor Jonathan Cahn, one that must have infuriated both of them greatly.

This courageous pastor delivered a Presidential inaugural message that directly refuted the Black Liberation Theology of hate professed by Obama’s “Reverend” of 20 years, Mr. Jeremiah Wright. Pastor Cahn’s inspired message effectively repudiated Obama’s entire world view, his leadership style and his political priorities. He strongly “called out” the President, and all who seek to remove God’s teachings from our nation.

As anyone paying attention knows, almost every word spoken by Obama is a calculated deception, one designed to insult Believers, agitate conservatives, denigrate Americans with a traditional sense of morality, and/or pit one group of Americans against the other. Obama does not now, nor has he ever viewed America as a “Shining City on a Hill”. Instead, he sees America as a “stolen land” designed by racist slaveholders that engineered “white privilege” and a corrupt form of colonialism into a flawed constitution. As masterfully detailed in the movie, 2016: Obama’s America, Dr. Dinesh D’Souza, President of The King’s College in New York, outlined how Obama was mentored throughout his entire life to believe America became strong and prosperous by globally stealing the natural resources and labor from poor, third world nations and exploiting people of colour from around the world. Obama’s perverted view of America has long fueled his desire to “fundamentally transform” our nation, deconstruct our Constitution and redistribute our “ill-gotten” wealth around the world in a way deemed “fair” by him, and him alone. Change indeed. Obama’s most dangerous goals are to dramatically weaken our military and eliminate each citizen’s right to keep and bear arms. In his eyes, these last two priorities are essential for him and his fellow traveler’s to end America’s role as the world’s leading super power.
This clear, bold and inspiring message of truth should be heard and then shared throughout the world. Few could be more important.

Watta ya mean?



"....watta ya mean we ran out of cheese, my Obamaphone won't work,and all I can use my EBT card for is breaking into my neighbors apartment when their down at the soup kitchen"

Stubborn Stupidity of The Obama Voter Delivers Us to the Dictator while They Wallow in a Dream-World!

Reaganite Republican ^ | 28 January 2013 | Reaganite Republican



According to pollster Rasmussen, last week 42% of registered voters gave the President 'positive marks' on job creation- huh?

Barack Obama has created ZERO net jobs- hello!

The current unemployment rate -identical to when he first took office- SHOULD have been a hint, no?

And would you imagine that 62% of voters now favor smaller government -with fewer services/lower taxes- here just a couple months past an election in which Americans returned a far-left Cloward-Pivenist for another 4 years of fiscal mayhem...?

Perhaps some supporters were genuinely surprised by Obama's Big Government, rabble-rousing, class-warfare coronation speech last week -even disturbed/disappointed- but you would think anybody who hasn't been living in a North Korean cave for the last 4 years would know that this reckless, spendthrift regime has nothing to do with fiscal restraint in any way, shape, or form-

Tragically, 51% of America's 130M voters went for Obama last November, meaning OVER 14 MILLION PEOPLE (11% of the electorate) who NOW say they want 'smaller government' and 'less taxes' actually went out on election day and pulled a lever for the Bolshevik Boy Wonder... which begs the question: WHY?

How anybody could be so intellectually lazy is a mystery for sure -obviously out there voting for some other motivation other than intelligent, reasoned input into the direction of the country-
all I know is I'd like to wring each-and-every one of their necks personally.

A full 64% of voters also told Rasmussen that 'too many people' are dependent on government financial aid these days...
so where were they with this attitude on election day, pray tell?

Any sense of responsibility from you people re. the country and all our children's futures?

Or has voting devolved into little more than a hollow fashion-statement/cultural tantrum/reality show for self-absorbed types who seem to like flaunting their ignorance right in-your-face?


Rasmussen also found that almost half (45%) of American voters say it would be a good idea to replace federal income taxes with a national VAT-style sales tax, presumably because they think it would be more 'fair' (yet don't see the wet blanket that would throw over the feeble manufacturing/distribution/retail sectors in this country).

The other thing they don't get is that a sales tax of this sort is highly regressive and disproportionately affects the poor while killing the economy in general. Alas, 'green' types LOVE a European-style VAT (value-added tax) because it -yes- constrains consumption, 'saving the environment' while preventing people from living the kind of lifestyles that liberals find irksome. This kind of thinking lies behind me having to pay $8.00 a gallon for gas in Europe last year, or consumers in the EU being bled for 22% VAT on a new refrigerator or car.

Since America's free-market capitalists largely understand the considerable negatives inherent in adopting a national sales tax -and major new tax initiatives only seem to spew from the progs- it looks like loser Obama voters are shooting themselves in the foot yet again- and dragging the rest of the country right-down the hole with them:

Video/more at Reaganite Republican

OBAMA SECRETLY PLEDGES TO DIVIDE JERUSALEM. Will press Israel into new so-called land-for-peace!

Klein on Line ^ | 1/28/13 | Aaron Klein

TEL AVIV – Now that he has secured his second term, President Barack Obama has already secretly pledged to the Palestinians he will press Israel into a new round of so-called land-for-peace negotiations, a top Palestinian Authority negotiator told KleinOnline.
The negotiator said top members of the Obama administration told the Palestinians the U.S. president will renew talks aimed at creating a Palestinian state in the so-called 1967 borders – meaning in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and, notably, eastern Jerusalem.
The negotiator further revealed when it comes to dividing Jerusalem, Obama wants to rehash what is known as the Clinton parameters.
That formula, pushed by Bill Clinton during the Camp David talks in 2000, called for Jewish areas of Jerusalem to remain Israeli while the Palestinians will get sovereignty over neighborhoods that are largely Arab.
KleinOnline previously reported how Palestinians are building illegally in Jewish-owned areas of Jerusalem, changing facts on the ground and resulting in Arab majorities on certain neighborhoods.
This is not the first time the Palestinians are claiming Obama will push for new talks during a second term.
(Excerpt) Read more at kleinonline.wnd.com ...

Barack Obama To Shut Down Southern Air Defense Systems

Market Daily News ^ | January 23rd, 2013 | Mack Slavo

As the U.S. government continues to expand surveillance and monitoring systems to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars within the borders of the United States, a recent announcement regarding the country’s southern air defense systems is raising eyebrows.
Our southern border is, in part, protected by the Tethered Aerostat Radar System (TARS), which utilizes moored balloons hovering at about 15,000 feet to identify low flying aircraft and missiles that may penetrate the border and cross into U.S. airspace.
The system is utilized by the U.S. Air Force, North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), and U.S. Customs and Border Protection for a number of missions including detection of drug smuggling and preservation of the air sovereignty of the continental United States.
According to Exelis Systems Corporation, the company that built and jointly maintains TARS with the U.S. Air Force, the government has ordered a complete shutdown of Aerostat flight operations:
The government also indicated its intent that aerostat flight operations will cease on March 15, 2013, and that the remainder of the fiscal year will be used to deflate aerostats, disposition equipment, and prepare sites for permanent closure. We are currently reviewing all the details of the RfP and evaluating the possible impacts on the program and our workforce. We continue to communicate with the government on this matter, and we will have more information in the coming days and weeks.
An Exelis employee close to the TARS project had this to say about the closure of the sites:
“Not only will this closure mean hundreds of people will be out of jobs, but it also means our borders will not be safe, especially along the remote U.S. Mexico Border like in Texas.
These defense radars detect low flying aircraft infiltrating our borders.
Without these defense radars, low flying aircraft will go undetected.
It will be open season for any drug/gun/slave smugglers, terrorists flying in with nukes, low altitude missiles, or even a full scale low elevation invasion/attack against America.”
With China actively and openly deploying Russian-made low altitude strategic bombers, designing EMP weapons capable of disabling the country’s power grid infrastructure, and establishing economic zones within the United States, it’s difficult to imagine the motivation behind the move to further weaken U.S. air defenses on the southern border.
If September 11, 2001 was any indication of our air defense capabilities, and considering that any ground invasion of the United States would originate on our southern border, then wouldn’t we want as many early warning systems as possible to be actively protecting our country in these specific areas?
The U.S. government has chosen to shutdown this outward facing surveillance system, and has instead turned the surveillance inward, on the American people.

An Encounter with a Low-Info Voter (A clear demonstration of the severe problem facing our country)

American Thinker ^ | 01/28/2013 | Howard J. Warner

I was engaged in a conversation regarding the future of health care in America when a third person (W) gave her opinion that she was happy with ObamaCare since her son could now get insurance. In New York State the cooperatives will not begin until Oct 1, 2013 for those without any other options. However, her son does not live in New York, where the state has provided Healthy New York insurance to those who qualify. We then had a conversation which I will relate. It demonstrates the severe problem facing our country resulting from the poor educational system we have underwritten for generations:

I: Why do you like the federal system Obama helped create?
W: My brother could not believe that I voted for Obama. He is a conservative Republican living in California. I am a registered Republican but we needed to do something for those without insurance. After all, Obama cares. What do you expect, I am a social worker and I care and must be liberal.
I: Do you mean that the Republicans don't care?
W: Well I don't know. They supported those greedy people in the health industry.
I: do you think it is greedy to ask for a raise?
W: What?
I: Did you ever get a raise at work?
W: I am not working anymore, since the summer.
I: Do you think it is fair to get a raise?
W: Yes, I deserved a raise when I worked. I was not greedy.
I: Do you think that the hospitals, doctors, nurses and other personnel working in health care are greedy if they get a raise? Do I deserve a raise?
W: Yes, I would say so. But the insurance companies are greedy.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...

You Know You Live in a Country Run by Idiots if....


 by illiac

You know you live in a Country run by idiots if... You can get arrested for expired tags on your car but not for being in the country illegally.
You know you live in a Country run by idiots if... You have to have your parents signature to go on a school field trip but not to get an abortion.
You know you live in a Country run by idiots if... An 80 year old woman can be stripped searched by the TSA but a Muslim woman in a burka is only subject to having her neck and head searched.
You know if you live in a Country run by idiots if...
Your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more of our money.
You know you live in a Country run by idiots if...
A seven year old boy can be thrown out of school for calling his teacher "cute" but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class in grade school is perfectly acceptable.
You know you live in a Country run by idiots if...
The Supreme Court of the United States can rule that lower courts cannot display the 10 Commandments in their courtroom, while sitting in front of a display of the 10 Commandments.
You know you live in a Country run by idiots if...
Children are forcibly removed from parents who appropriately discipline them while children of "underprivileged" drug addicts are left to rot in filth infested cesspools of a "home".
You know you live in a Country run by idiots if...
Hard work and success are rewarded with higher taxes and government intrusion, while some slothful, lazy behavior is rewarded with EBT cards, WIC checks, Medicaid, subsidized housing, and free cell phones.
You know you live in a Country run by idiots if...
The government's plan for getting people back to work is to provide 99 weeks of unemployment checks (to not work).
You know you live in a Country run by idiots if...
Being self-sufficient is considered a threat to the government.
You know you live in a Country run by idiots if... Politicians think that stripping away the amendments to the constitution is really protecting the rights of the people.
You know you live in a Country run by idiots if... The rights of the Government come before the rights of the individual.
You know you live in a Country run by idiots if...
You pay your mortgage faithfully, denying yourself the newest big screen TV while your neighbor defaults on his mortgage (while buying iPhones, TV's and new cars) and the government forgives his debt and reduces his mortgage (with your tax dollars).
You know you live in a Country run by idiots if...
Being stripped of the ability to defend yourself makes you "safe".
You know you live in a Country run by idiots if...
You can write a post like this just by reading the news headlines.

The Inherent Violence of the Welfare State!

Illinois Review ^ | January 28, 2013 A.D. | John F. Di Leo

Chicago, home of one of the nation's most stringent gun bans for fifty years, has also been the source of many frightening statistics. The city of Chicago - not the greater metropolitan area, just Chicago proper - surpassed 500 homicides in 2012 all by itself. If gun bans are the solution, the problem must be something other than a murder epidemic, because this gun ban sure isn't solving that one.
It's not people from outside Chicago committing the crimes, either. An easy out for the gun banners, if it were true, would be to simply prove that the villains are visitors from one of those "gun states." But are Texans, Louisianans, and Oklahomans driving into Chicago to mug old ladies and rape young ones, to rob homes and kill shopkeepers, to start street fights and then finish them for good? I think not.
No, by an incredible majority, these are Chicagoans killing Chicagoans. Many of them are people who never even venture out of Chicago, people who stay within a few miles of home for most or even all of their lives. They live in Chicago's government housing. They walk to Chicago's government schools as children, and may eat two or even three meals there before returning home, or perhaps they're bused to and fro in a government bus. Many don't even notice the high cost of fuel that cripples the finances of the rest of us, because they don't own cars; they ride a government-operated "city bus," and don't understand when fuel and manpower costs require the ticket prices of public transportation to go up.
They eat food purchased on a government credit card that's delivered once a month by a government employee with a big satchel (we used to call what he delivered a "welfare check," or "food stamps," but now it's just another piece of plastic). One of the few things they do that isn't government-run is the rare occasion when they present that welfare card at a privately-owned grocery store or neighborhood convenience store. They often are born in a government hospital, live in public housing from birth to death, and are buried from the government morgue when the end finally comes, sometimes much too soon.
This is of course a generalization; it would not be true to say that this describes all of the vicious villains and sad victims who contribute to the murder statistics in Chicago or any city. But it isn't that far off, either. Government plays such a great role in the lives of Chicagoans, we cannot look at any individual statistics in a vacuum; we must look at the larger picture. Why five hundred successful homicides in a single year, on top of countless thousands of unsuccessful homicides, in which the victim lived, probably to be victimized again? And perhaps most importantly, why would anyone stay there?
A FAMILY MAKES THE NEWS:
On the weekend of January 26, 2013, a sad story made the news: a woman mourned the loss of her fourth and last child to a killer's bullet. The Associated Press reports that she once had four children; her first son was shot to death by a high school classmate in 1995. Five years later, another son and a daughter were murdered in separate shootings on the same street, both times by teenagers. The mother and her one remaining son, now 34, still lived in the same neighborhood, until early Saturday morning, when he and a friend were shot while sitting in a car, leaving the mother all alone.
Consistent with the required spin of the modern American MainStream Media, the AP article was titled "Mother mourns loss of fourth child to gun violence."
It could be said that this headline is true. But numerous other titles would be equally true, if less political. "Mother loses four children to failed criminal justice system." "Mother loses four children to Chicago's dangerous neighborhoods." Or the least judgmental of all: "Chicago mother sees her last child join first three as murder victims."
A headline doesn't have to assign blame in the title, but when it does, it's a conscious editorial decision. The AP chose to file this one as a proof of "gun violence" for a reason.
We aren't told whether gang activity was involved, or drugs, or theft (though the mother does say her son "was trying to change," even as he sat in a car with a friend at 2:30 AM on a Friday night, which may be a hint). The odds are that at least a couple of her children's killings were related to gang activity, even if her children were themselves innocent. Gangs rule many of Chicago's streets; the drug trade and prostitution trade being the commerce of a welfare world in which legitimate jobs cost you your government checks, so you turn to an off-the-books world free of the danger of Washington and Springfield cutting you off, but with a different danger all its own.
Agree to deal and screw up, and you're killed. Agree to turn tricks but dissatisfy the wrong john, and you're killed. Or refuse the offer of such a job, because you want to stay honest, and they may kill you even faster. Raised in a world that subsists entirely on the confiscated earnings of others, morality has a different meaning, a weaker hold.
The Left will blame the guns, and look no further. If their killers had no guns, they wouldn't have been shot, they reason. As if people who obey no other law would choose to obey that one. As if people who mug old ladies, rape young joggers, rob homes and knock over convenience stores will obey a law that says you can't possess a handgun and some ammunition. The lack of reasoning on that side of the aisle never ceases to amaze.
WHY DO THEY STAY?
One of the great old films of the early 1960s, during Rex Harrison's ride at the top of the entertainment world, concerned a "Yellow Rolls Royce." As a wealthy British noble, Harrison buys the yellow Phantom for his wife, then later sees the car in a parking lot (at the races, if memory serves), his wife in the car, dallying with another man. As the example of classic gentlemanly British restraint we expect from Harrison, he holds in his anger, and simply directs an aide to "Sell the Rolls. It no longer pleases me."
Just as he couldn't bear to see the car again, a car that he would forever identify with the scar of being cuckolded, we all know of people who avoid a spot where bad things have happened to them. The place where your lover dumped you, the place where you were injured in a fall, the hospital or nursing home where a loved one passed away. Many of us avoid a spot to avoid the memories, no matter whether it's really fair to blame the spot for the tragedy or not.
It's another matter entirely, however, when the spot really does share legitimate blame. The poor mother of today's story saw children killed by students in a high school, still she stayed to put her other children through that same school system. She saw her own children murdered by neighbors, in the neighborhood in which they lived, still she never moved away from that neighborhood. Thirteen years after her third child was killed on Chicago's near South Side, she still lived there with her fourth. Thirteen years they remained in the neighborhood, ready to be a statistic again.
The question faced by the reader must be Why? Why on earth would anyone stay in so obviously dangerous a neighborhood that three of her children were murdered in three separate events in five years? Why stay, keeping her remaining son, and herself, at risk for another thirteen, until the odds finally, tragically, caught up with the fourth one as well?
There is only one reason. Only one thing can cause a person to act against his better judgment in such a manner: if the person has been raised with all decisions made for him, if he is literally unaware that there even is a choice in the matter. If he is incapable of making intelligent decisions at all.
A WORLD OF OPPORTUNITY:
For thousands of years of human history, man’s destiny in life was settled by the circumstances of his birth. The son of a farmer became a farmer; the daughter of a farmer became the wife of another farmer, and the mother of the farmers of the future. So too for the children of fishermen, the children of blacksmiths, the children of servants.
This cultural stagnation gained a name in the middle ages, as feudalism. There might be departures from the norm; the second boy might become a soldier, the third might become a cleric. Still, those who had children would likely see them remain in the profession of their ancestors; it was all they knew.
The United States was to be a wonderful change to this historical stagnation. Alexander Hamilton was born into poverty but became a lawyer, politician and soldier. Henry Knox was born the son of a shipbuilder, became a bookseller and then a soldier, a general, and a government minister. Gouverneur Morris was born into an agricultural family, but became a lawyer, financier, investor, and politician.
The American Dream was to build a nation in which a child could grow up into a career of his own choosing. Yes, it might be easy for the son of a lawyer or doctor to follow in his father’s footsteps, the son of a worker at an auto factory or foundry to get his first job there as well, but it would no longer be automatic; it would no longer be the norm.
We spend our teen years thinking about careers, learning about our options. We study biology, chemistry, physics, algebra, calculus, history, composition, psychology, art and shop in high school, not because any career will utilize all those skills, but because exposure to them all can give a youth an appreciation of the countless paths open to him.
We discuss it with our children or grandchildren from an early age. What do you want to be when you grow up? A schoolteacher or professor? An astronaut or soldier? A writer like Mom? An accountant like Dad? A restauranteur like Uncle Mike, a director like Aunt Nina? We may change our minds twenty times during our teen years, and that’s fine. It just hammers home the fact that we have countless options in this country.
Somewhere along the way, however, little enclaves of the country never got the memo. First we told black slaves they could never be more than a slave, then American Indians they could never leave their reservations. As we started to fix those problems – first with a war and an Emancipation Proclamation, then with a 14th Amendment – new errors came along, quietly, under the guise of charity, to lock people into their circumstances again.
First, a prospering country had the money to fund charities, homeless shelters and soup kitchens. Then a nation in depression imagined for the first time a national obligation to feed and house the unemployed, then the unemployable, then the very young and very old, and eventually almost anyone who wanted it.
WELCOME TO THE WELFARE STATE:
Ghettos were once ethnic enclaves of newly arrived immigrants, who would work three jobs to get out of them. New ghettos arose, ghettos run by the government, with odd rules – if you have income, your checks will dwindle, if you have more kids for whom you cannot provide, your checks will increase. If you have a husband, your check shrinks or ends; if you have children while unmarried, your checks will grow.
Whatever the genuine need “in the now” – and this is not to say that there is no genuine need, of course there is – the societal cost of such ever-growing programs was not considered beyond the financial cost. The Right would shout “It’s wrong, it’s dangerous, it’s fatal!” and the Left would accuse the Right of just being cheap. The Right would shout “It’s not just about the money!” and the Left would demonize them for being tightwads. But the Right, as usual, was right. From New Deal to Great Society and beyond, the American Left has built enclaves – little welfare state communities, from the big cities to the Appellation hill towns – in which the American Dream is not considered because its very worldview simply does not exist.
A child can’t decide whether to follow in his dad’s footsteps if he doesn’t know who his dad was, or if he didn’t know what his dad’s footsteps were… or even, if his dad – and mom too – never left any footsteps at all.
We now have generations of welfare dependence, generations of children raised by non-workers. There are neighborhoods in which people have been born and raised, fed and dressed, schooled and bused, by their government, with no real decision-makers in the family as their guides.
Most Americans can still see Dad or Mom in their memories, sitting at the kitchen table or the homework desk, checkbook in one hand, stack of mail in the other, as they pay the month’s bills, trying to stretch a salary over the complex finances of a modern family. We grow up with memories of dinner table discussions with our parents – can we afford a new car yet, or should we wait another year? Can we afford a new house yet, and if so, where? Can we look at the north shore, should we stay in the northwest suburbs, what would that move do to our commutes? How are the schools there, does the park district have a good theater program, or soccer, or dance, or art? Which high school, which college, can we afford for you to go away or will you have to commute?
Our parents may have made the final decisions, but they included us in the early discussions, teaching us, slowly and surely, how to weigh the pluses and minuses, how to come to rational conclusions as we plan our lives.
For most readers of this page, this isn’t even worth pointing out. It goes without saying; why hammer the point to death?
But for those in our welfare state enclaves – the public-housing funded neighborhoods of our cities in particular – the above experience is utterly foreign to them. The apartment is just provided; the food stamp debit card pays until it runs out. School is free, lunches are free if you sign a form… the bus is free if you qualify (and they all do). This isn’t about color – there are blacks, whites, Hispanics, and more in these circumstances. But it is about a type of people: the denizens of a welfare state, raised without experience in making decisions.
They go to the kindergarten, grammar schools, and high school assigned to their geographic location. They take the classes assigned to them, join the sports that the gym teacher tells them they’ll be good at, and focus much of their effort on not being beaten up. They even eat what’s chosen for them in the cafeteria. If they eat pizza on Monday, burger on Tuesday, stew on Wednesday, sandwich on Thursday and tacos on Friday, it’s not because they’ve made those choices themselves; it’s because that’s what the cafeteria served that day.
This isn’t to say there are no decisions at all; there’s always What to watch on TV, What to play on the game console, What to wear… and of course the most pressing question: Whether to give in to the gangs or to try to resist.
These are decisions, and children raised the right way might be able to make these decisions, and others, well. But if you didn’t grow up with your dad and mom agonizing over their careers, their choice of house and school, which bills to pay and which projects to put off another year, you might be completely lost when it comes to the decisions that require thoughtfulness.
Remember, we are now talking about two or three generations of people raised without an environment of day-to-day decision-making. So when regular Americans might say “time to go get a job”, they wait for a job to just show up, which doesn’t happen often, other than the jobs offered by drug dealers and pimps.
When regular Americans might say “time to fix the wiring,” they let it go – they don’t own this apartment, after all – until it starts an electrical fire and the government moves them somewhere else.
And when regular Americans might say “time to move out of this neighborhood,” they don’t think of it; they don’t realize that it’s an option, or they don’t know how to go about doing it.
THE VICIOUS CYCLE:
Back to the weekend’s news story. A woman sees her child killed by a classmate outside his school. She stays in the neighborhood. Five years later, another is killed, and then another. And after thirteen more years go by, her last one is killed.
Readers of this news story – subscribers to the paper, people reading it online, people hearing about it on the TV or radio news – all ask “Why did you stay? Why didn’t you move?” We talk to ourselves as we read the story in disbelief; we know there are jobs elsewhere, there are free schools elsewhere, government food stamps elsewhere. She could have moved to public housing a few miles away, or a state away, for that matter. Fill out some forms, get on a list, hire a moving truck; and just go. It’s not that hard.
But what we don’t realize is, it’s not that hard for us. We could do it in a second. A few calls to set up the electric, the cable, the phone and the gas, another call to book the moving truck, and it’s done. Easier than most things we do at our jobs every day.
But the Great Society has raised the denizens of the welfare state to be utterly insulated from the world of decisions. Some escape, sure. Some make it into professional sports, or the entertainment business, until they get in trouble with the law, or with a girl, or with the credit cards, because they were never taught how to make decisions, so they just weren’t ready for it when all of a sudden the American Dream was presented to them at age 21 or 23 or 25, and it turned out to be too much.
Again, it’s not a color thing, or a geographical thing… it’s a welfare thing. The Left has created these subcultures, these awful and inescapable worlds in which everything miserable is provided, all decisions are made for them. Any normal American would leave, but we have engineered these poor wretches to be other than “any normal American.”
The Left calls this compassion. The left wants only their votes, and once that is certain, they perpetuate the scheme. The welfare ghettos of America are the worst of vote farms, worse than any of the animal farms that their animal-rights extremists protest about.
Baby calves are kept in cages, to harvest veal. Geese are forcefed through a tube, to produce liver for pate. Chickens may be raised in an indoor farm, fattened to be plucked and frozen. And all these processes, when done to animals, horrify and sicken the activists of America’s Left, awakening in them a fire for demonstrations and boycotts, a self-righteous anger that screams out for justice.
But so too are poor folks – black and white, Hispanic and Native American – kept in public housing and reservations and ghettos, fed with little WIC cards and kept just barely alive, just enough so they can pull a lever on Election Day.
If they die too soon, in the streets and schoolyards that run red with blood, the Left uses them again, as no more than a talking point for their gun grabs, or their calls for ever higher taxes and ever greater welfare spending.
The Right calls for an end to the welfare state, an end to this practice of imprisoning human beings in a culture of dependency. The Right calls for mandatory sentences to lock up the killers so they can’t kill again; the Right calls for an end to the public housing and lifetime food cards that trap people in a half-life of worthlessness and nihilism.
In the final analysis, the Left cares more about the calf in a cage than their voter in his ghetto. Why should it be otherwise? In their system, especially in Chicago, they can harvest the votes, whether the voters themselves are living or dead.
Copyright 2013 John F. Di Leo
John F. Di Leo is a Customs broker and international trade lecturer. Once president of the Ethnic American Council in the 1980s, and Milwaukee County Republican Party Chairman in the 1990s, he has now been a recovering politician for 15 years. His columns appear weekly in Illinois Review.
Permission is hereby granted to forward freely, provided it is uncut and the byline and IR URL are included. Follow John F. Di Leo on Facebook or LinkedIn, or on Twitter at @johnfdileo.

Obama’s gun plan takes shape

Flopping Aces | 01-27-13 | DrJohn

whats the matter with you
In an interview with the New Republic Barack Obama hinted at his gun control plans. Part of the plan is to undermine Republicans from the start.

President Obama is suggesting that House Republicans on the issue of gun control appear neither willing to work with him nor listen to the American public on the issue. “The House Republican majority is made up mostly of members who are in sharply gerrymandered districts that are very safely Republican and may not feel compelled to pay attention to broad-based public opinion, because what they're really concerned about is the opinions of their specific Republican constituencies,” the president said in an interview with The New Republic.
Obama also said he can get 50 percent of public support for many of his upcoming initiatives, but “I can't get enough votes out of the House of Representatives to actually get something passed. … I think there is still shock on the part of some in the party that I won re-election.”
But here is the key portion

The president said he has a profound respect for the traditions of hunting that date back for generations. He said that moving forward on the topic means understanding that the realities of guns in urban areas are very different from the realities of guns in rural areas.
He said it's understandable that people are protective of their family traditions when it comes to hunting so “gun-control advocates also need to do “a little more listening than they do sometimes” in the debate.
In Obamaworld owning guns is about hunting- and nothing more. If you own a gun not made for hunting it means you want to kill someone. If you own a gun and don't hunt you are a danger. A threat to national security.
Fox News and Rush Limbaugh are to blame.

“If a Republican member of Congress is not punished on Fox News or by Rush Limbaugh for working with a Democrat on a bill of common interest, then you’ll see more of them doing it,” he said. “I think John Boehner genuinely wanted to get a deal done, but it was hard to do in part because his caucus is more conservative probably than most Republican leaders are, and partly because he is vulnerable to attack for compromising Republican principles and working with Obama.”
democrats, naturally, are entirely reasonable:

The president argued that “the more left-leaning media outlets recognize that compromise is not a dirty word” and that party leaders, including Senate Majority Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, are “willing to buck the more absolutist-wing elements in our party to try to get stuff done.”
But will Reid "get stuff done"? Reid suggested he would allow a Senate vote on the assault weapon ban:

WASHINGTON — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, signaled Tuesday that despite earlier indications to the contrary, he may allow a vote on a possible ban on assault weapons. Reid, a longtime gun-rights advocate from Nevada, recently indicated he would not permit a vote because the Republican-led House of Representatives likely wouldn't go along with such a prohibition.
Powerful gun-rights groups oppose a ban on assault weapons and could seek to unseat any lawmaker who backs it, as they have tried to do in the past.
But after a weekly meeting Tuesday with fellow Senate Democrats, Reid told reporters he expects "to have a free amendment process" on gun legislation.
That process could result in other Democrats proposing a possible resurrection of a 10-year ban on semi-automatic assault weapons that expired in 2004.
But GOP Sen. John Barrasso doesn't think an assault weapons ban can pass the Senate and Reid won't bring it to the floor:
(excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...

Hillary Clinton was not a great secretary of state!

The Washington Examiner ^ | January 24, 2013 | Examiner Editorial Staff

f there was one constant through Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's appearances before congressional committees Wednesday, it was that lawmakers fell all over themselves heaping praise on her for the job she has done. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., was typical, saying: "Madame Secretary, you have represented us with tremendous strength and poise. You have won us friends." (snip)

What on Earth are they referring to? American foreign policy under Secretary Clinton has been one disaster after another. She may not deserve blame for all of them -- or even most of them -- but it defies common sense to call her tenure a success.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...

Why Work? Household Welfare Spending $168 Per Day, Higher Than Median Income!

Independent Journal Review ^ | December 10, 2012 | Kyle Becker


Those who work for a living might want to put away shoes, hammers, and other hard objects to keep from throwing them through the computer. 

A new study shows that on average the government spends $168 per household on various assistance programs, one-fifth more than the median income of $137.
As the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee reported (after all, who else in government is going to do it?), welfare spending per hour per household in poverty is $30.60, which is higher than the $25.03 median income per hour.
The Weekly Standard points out that direct welfare payments are not taxed:
"After accounting for federal taxes, the median hourly wage drops to between $21.50 and $23.45, depending on a household’s deductions and filing status. State and local taxes further reduce the median household’s hourly earnings. By contrast, welfare benefits are not taxed.”
Welfare recipients never had it so good. This is not to say that poor people are rich, or that life is easy for everyone on food stamps or on some other form of government assistance. It’s just that conservatives would rather poor people be working, rather than paying their way through life on other people’s dime (which at this point, is their children’s dime). Work is not only more economically productive, but it offers more opportunity for people to improve their own lot — not to mention that working people are more likely to feel dignity and self-importance.
If welfare is inherently compassionate, then there is a Pavlovian ego-stroke for Congress passing even unsustainable spending programs. On the other hand, conservatives get demonized for suggesting there is so such thing as a budget, and that you can’t keep looting the private sector without negative consequences — like systemically high unemployment...
(Excerpt) Read more at ijreview.com ...

The Original Assault Rifle

Posted Image

Benghazi Bob!

Posted Image

Safe Cities?

Posted Image

A Miracle!

Posted Image

Where's Mali?

Posted Image

You have no right...

Posted Image

Imagine...

Posted Image

Gland Condition!

Posted Image

It takes a child...

Posted Image

The Difference

Posted Image

OK

Posted Image

Secretary of Peace

Posted Image

Life

Posted Image

Rats...Foiled again!

Posted Image

Obamanomics

Posted Image