Friday, April 23, 2010

Arizona Grows a Pair.

Much wailing, wringing of hands, and rending of clothes by the special interest media and the left in general today as Arizona has picked up and run with the illegal immigration ball our federal government has dro... nay refused to even heft. Much of the hubbub among the scourges of our national integrity has been predicated on a lie that is typified as follows in WaPo...
As an immigration bill that nationally embarrasses Arizona becomes bad law, our best hope in my hometown is that the rest of America doesn't do to Arizona what Senate Bill 1070 requires our police officers to do to people with brown skin: "profile" them based on stereotypes and insufficient information.

Bullshit! All one has to do is read the law to know better. I did, and frankly I'm mystified how they came to that opinion... nah, nah, nah, just joking. Obviously the special interest media fabulists didn't come to that opinion by reading the fucking law, instead they did what they always do, they read each other.
The law says as follows:
A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. WITHOUT A WARRANT. MAY ARREST A PERSON IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.

How in the name of Pablo Escobar is a lawman compelled by those words "to do to people with brown skin: "profile" them based on stereotypes and insufficient information"?
The answer friends is axiomatic, those parameters come from the leftist psyche and their media echo-chamber.

UPDATE: 5/14/10


UPDATE: 5/20/10

Monday, April 12, 2010

Gnarlyblog Joins The Tea Party


Well you can't really join the Tea Party, cause it isn't a political party per se, which is a really good thing because:
A) I dislike political parties
B) If the Tea Party did indeed become a political party it would disunify believers in limited government to the extent it would guarantee more demokrat leftist tyranny, and...
C) I'm not much of a joiner.

Perhaps some of you in my fantastical readership will have noticed a more strident tone to my entries since I've returned to blogging. The spelling of demokrat in the Germanic fashion for instance. This comes as a natural reaction to the rapidly gathering clouds of leftist oppression I've been watching o'er the last several months, and a desire to cast my genteel conservative instincts aside and fight fire with fire, hammer and tongs for our liberty against the pinko totalitarian rabble.

To that end I will be compiling a new lexicon to more accurately describe our foe. For my second entry into that lexicon (right behind demokrat) I shall hereon refer to the elite popular media, (old media if will) as the special interest media, the reason for that should be obvious.

Fight the powah brothers and sisters.

Friday, April 9, 2010

Glenn Beck & Al Sharpton

Just caught part of Becks show wherein Al Sharpton was guest; it was pathetic. Why give that race-hustling fuck air time if you aren't prepared to demonstrate what a miserable piece of shit he is?

Hope Beck can avoid jumping the shark till after November.

Tuesday, April 6, 2010

The Tyranny That Dares Not Speak Its Own Name

Anyone seen this shit?



Wow, just wow. Whether it's for Smith's obsequiousness, or Obama's galling mendacity, this crap deserves a little parsing:
SMITH: I've been spending time out and about listening to talk radio. The kindest of terms you're sometimes referred to out in America is a socialist. The worst of which I've heard is called a Nazi. Are you aware of the level of enmity that crosses the airwaves and that people have made their daily conversation about you?

Does anyone who actually listens to talk radio believe for one second that Harry's telling the truth? I've heard Obama referred to as a fascist or a socialist both of which by varying definitions are true, but Nazi? Never. Nor for that matter have I heard any real enmity from the hosts of these various broadcasts. Sure you'll hear some hate from the occasional caller but usually that is directed at the hosts, the haters being deranged lefties.
OBAMA: When you listen to Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck --

SMITH: It's beyond that.

OBAMA: It's pretty apparent and it's troublesome. But keep in mind that there have been periods in American history where this kind of vitriol comes out. It happens often when you've got an economy that is making people more anxious and people are feeling as if there's a lot of change that needs to take place. But that's not the vast majority of Americans...

True, the "vast majority" of American's have their heads up their asses. But what's not true is the vitriol aimed at the President is any greater now than it was during the last administration when the economy was going gangbusters. In fact, I'd say "(that) kind of vitriol" was much greater then. Also, if Obama is to be believed about the feelings folks harbor for change, then obviously Obama isn't giving them the change they'd hoped for.
...The truth is some of these comments when you actually ask well, this is based on what this notion that Obama is a socialist for example nobody can really (laughs) give a good answer...

Bullshit. For anyone whose paid any attention to Obama's past the question to ask is when did Obama become anything other than a socialist? I've found no evidence that he's come to any other realization than that dictated by being marinated in leftist radicalism since birth.
...much less when they...

SMITH: Right

OBAMA: you know make...

SMITH: They would say mandating that people have to buy health insurance or something like that

OBAMA: the uh, uh, sort of plan proposed by current Republican nominee mitt Romney

SMITH: (nodding)

Okay, besides this being a total tu quoque fallacy, if one bothers to recall Obama's druthers, he didn't want the sort of health care reform Harry and he are suggesting. Obama wanted a (so called) single payer plan, that's what everyone used to call socialized medicine; not that the Obama regimes Trojan Horse isn't close enough.
Obama: Yeah, so it doesn't make too much sense...

(CBS edit)

...it used to be that somebody who said something crazy they might be saying it to their next door neighbor or it might be on some late night AM station at the very end of the radio dial...

So folks who criticize Obama for his well documented socialist pedigree, or whenever his Chicago cum Chavez style totalitarian predilections materialize are crazy? That's called demonization, keep that in mind when Obama says the following...
(CBS edit)

SMITH: Very last question does it bother you a little bit?

OBAMA: Uh you know I eh you end up getting a pretty thick skin on this job, and obviously when you've gone through a presidential campaign there are a lot of things said that thicken your skin. Um I, I am concerned about a political climate in which the other side is demonized. I'm concerned about it when Democrats do it,

My ass
I'm concerned about it when Republicans do it, I do think that there is a tone, and tenor, that needs to change, where we can disagree without being disagreeable, or making wild accusations about the other side, uh and I think that's what most Americans would like to see as well.

What this American would like to see is less sanctimony and more truth from this asshole, and the truth is the public discourse is no harsher then it has ever been, tyrants just can't abide criticism.

I said most Americans have their heads up the their asses, but not so far that they are deaf to certain easily identifiable concepts to which they are viscerally anathematic, one of these is the term socialist. That's why Obama and his minions dare not identify with the name they would otherwise embrace. The fact that their regime is so replete with agendas and aspects that are easily identifiable as socialist, or totalitarian, have given substance to the term it wouldn't have as a mere pejorative when aimed at less radical administrations. These identifiers are not a matter of opinion, they are a matter of public record.
Next time you see Chris Matthews, Bob Beckel, or any one of a number of the Dear Leaders panjandrums, commisars, thugs, toadies, or boot-lickers, raging cause he and his regime are being identified as socialists, be mindful of the 411.

Friday, April 2, 2010

Demokrats and Candor

Doesn't happen very often, but when it does it's astounding. Most recently...







Old favorites:



Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Response to a Humbug

I've never responded to a letter to the editor, but for some reason the libelous little humbug titled Republicans in yesterdays Honolulu Advertiser has gotten under my skin.

I don't know if it's the writers blind and incurious acceptance of the narrative which has reverberated in the leftist echo chamber since Paul Krugman penned this smug bit of sophistry in last Thursdays NY Times, or the Advertiser's lack of judgment in publishing the letter writers lies. Whatever it is my response will probably not make it to the Advertiser's letters section, and if by some miracle it does will most likely be incomprehensible due to lack of context and the constraints of the Advertiser's character limit which caused me to eviscerate my original response.

At any rate, I offer my original letter here in context with that of the liberal pea-brain from Lahaina as the cartharsis I will doubtlessly not receive from 'Hawai'i's complete source'

The Offending Letter:
Republicans

Palin is accessory to acts of violence

On her Facebook page, Sarah Palin stated we need to "reload," and "take aim" at a list of Democrats after the health care bill was passed. Then she put cross hairs on Democratic candidates.

As a result, law enforcement authorities investigated the discovery of a cut propane gas line at the Virginia home of Rep. Tom Perriello's (D-Va.) brother.

A tea party organizer published what he thought was the freshman member's home address on a blog, in case any readers "want to drop by" and provide a "personal touch" to their views.

Republicans like Palin are becoming an accessory to the unlawful actions against Democrats.

An accessory charge is a for person who, though not present during the commission of a felony, is guilty of having aided and abetted another, who committed the felony.

If Sarah Palin didn't mean to encourage unlawful behavior then she would have come out and apologized for not being impeccable with her word — but she didn't.

Sarah Palin should be prosecuted on accessory charges to any crime directed toward the list of Democrats she laid out with cross hairs. This Republican strategy is deeply disturbing!
Justin Hughley
Lahaina, Maui

My Response:
I'm wondering who Justin Hughley is quoting in his March, 30th letter condemning Sarah Palin, Tea Partiers, and Republicans, but whoever it is, it 's definitely not Palin.

A simple visit to the Facebook entry in question belies the writers assertions. There was indeed a placement of cross hairs in that entry, but they were not "on Democratic candidates" as the writer describes, but rather on a map of Congressional districts where as Mrs. Palin writes:

"We’ll aim for these races and many others. This is just the first salvo in a fight to elect people across the nation who will bring common sense to Washington."

It is therefore difficult to understand Mr. Hughley's contention that the cutting of a gas line at the Virginia home of Rep. Tom Perriello's (D-Va.) brother occurred "as a result", especially since the act took place before Palin's blog entry

By the writer's logic it's not difficult to imagine who might be liable for accessory charges in last week's throwing of bricks through GOP office windows in Charlottesville, or the firing of bullets through Rep. Eric Cantor's (R-Va) Richmond office window, and the on-line death threats made to Cantor and his family by the alleged shooter.

Needless to say if I'd had the space I could go on to admonish Mr. Hughley about his ignorance of the law, his typical leftist intolerance of free speech, or that demokrats have manufactured this issue to avoid an argument of their insidious health care bill which they can't win on merit.
But what I'd really like to do here is call attention to this blog post on Verum Serum (hat tip to Daniel Foster at NRO's The Corner) which should cause Paul Krugman to eat his words.

Monday, March 29, 2010

Nutaree Indictment

Federal indictment of Hutaree members

In what little I know of these sorts of investigations the investigating authorities often spend months, years even following these conspiracies in order to amass a wealth of charges so that incarceration of the guilty parties is certain. What have we here, five charges? The offenders arrested on the pretext that they were about to commit a reconnaissance? Why is interrupting a mere reconnaissance reasonable grounds for terminating an investigation? From what I've read investigators like to observe these kinds of things while building their case. Firearms possession illegal? Teaching explosives making illegal? When did homemade bombs all of a sudden become WMDs?

I don't know what the testimony was before the grand jury, but upon perusal of this indictment I get the impression that these charges seems pretty thin, and I intuit that thinness is due to a certain haste in bringing them. I have more than a nagging suspicion that haste is due to an administration more intent on the timing of creating political narratives and Machiavellian obfuscations, then seeing these seemingly dangerous religious nutbags ever convicted. If the Nutaree go free because of a hastily brought prosecution we'll know where the true national threat lies....

...as if we already don't.

Sunday, March 28, 2010

A Disconcerting Confluence of Events

It's been a week since the jackboot of Demokrat totalitarianism finally forced itself completely through the front door of our erstwhile Constitutional abode, and while we wrestle for the latch chain Obama's dementors seek to fog our minds with lurid tales of racist Tea Partier malevolence.

A Troubling Inconsistency

Never mind the fact that whether it's Black Panthers seeking to intimidate white voters, or Harry Reid's brownshirts acting up in Searchlight just this last weekend, decades of documentation show violence and thuggery to be almost exclusively attributes of the left, and while leftist duplicity is no surprise to most right thinking individuals, what's really worrying to me is today's news that there have been several raids of Christian militia groups across the mid-west this weekend by FBI, ATF, The Department of Homeland Security and the Joint Terrorism Task Force.

Coincidence? Maybe so, but why is Homeland security and the Joint Terrorism Task Force involved when there are some 35 Islamist training camps operating with impunity inside our borders, and have been for years? Security researcher Ryan Mauro was asked in a Front Page Magazine interview last year

"FP: Why doesn’t the government shut down these compounds?
Mauro: There are a few reasons. The first is that Jamaat ul-Fuqra is not designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the State Department, and the second is that the law enforcement authorities do not have the tools they need to search these compounds yet. Right now, members involved in terrorist and criminal activity are being treated as if they are isolated incidents; rogue followers of an otherwise innocent cult."

Jamaat ul-Fuqra is not designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, but Hutaree is? Moreover, the tools to search such compounds seemed to be abundantly in evidence this weekend.

Here's more on those Islamist Camps.



Update 3/31/10: American Thinkers analysis of the Capitol steps race mummery

Sunday, August 16, 2009

Gnarlyblog Birther Free Zone

I don't know if Obama was born a US Citizen or not, and while it seems to me that Birthers are far more credible than the Truthers to which they are often compared, the mere fact that a comparison can be made should be enough to dissuade smart Obama critics from going there; that is a tar-baby the haters should have all to themselves.

Frankly if I were Obama I wouldn't release my (original) birth certificate either, just so I could keep in good supply a (seemingly) unhinged coterie of hyperventilating antagonists at which to aim my supplicant media.

Not that I think Obama's that smart, but just sayin'.

The irony is that this President brings with him a cornucopia of genuine Chicago machine baggage, unsavory perhaps criminal connections, a past steeped in leftist radicalism, and a naked predilection to act on that agenda, all of which needs to be attacked.

With that in mind a Birther hill is not the one I choose to die (or lose credibility) on, and thus I declare Gnarlyblog a Birther free zone.

Saturday, August 15, 2009

Typical Just Typical

Came across this video yesterday on Breitbart wherein a foam flecked Lawrence O'Donnell is hectoring Republican US Rep. John Culberson of Texas over his bonifides as a 'Jeffersonian'. Whatever context the discussion was in is not apparent as almost the entire video consists of O'Donnell badgering Culberson on whether or not he would have voted for Medicare or Social Security, and Culberson trying (and failing) to squirm out from under the question. Too bad.


Normally there is nothing to be learned from these showbiz style interviews, but I find myself in this instance being more alienated by the Republicans equivocation than by O'Donnell's antics, and therein lies the lesson. Most of us conservative folk are fed up, nay disgusted with Republicans laying claim to a mantle of conservatism (or 'Jeffersonianism') yet embrace all manner of socialized foolishness if they glean some sort of political advantage from it. If Republicans haven't yet learned principle from these last elections (as apparently they haven't) their party is toast.

The correct answer Mr. Culberson should have been an unequivocal no, you would not have voted for Social Security or Medicare or any manner of Federal overreach. You would have gotten more respect and backing from your constituency in Texas than the handful of self-interested old codgers you may have alienated.

Take that from someone who's on the brink of codgerdom himself.

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

Horse d'œuvre's In Miami?

When I first heard this story of horses in Miami being slaughtered for their meat, I was a bit baffled. I'd heard reported that horse meat was going for north of $40 a pound. Why the sudden price jump for a commodity I'd always understood as being a cheap alternative to beef?


Having never sought out horse meat as a comestible I was in the dark regarding the legality of the consumption of horse flesh, but I had assumed it was entirely legal. That's why both Mrs. Gnarly and I simultaneously sat up in bed and proclaimed 'aha!' this morning when we heard it reported on Fox News that sales of horse meat had been illegal since '07. Everyone knows (or rather everyone should know) that once a desirable commodity is made illegal it instantly gains value and creates a criminal enterprise. Furthermore, if the commodity in question is already endangered or in short supply the skyrocketing price will exacerbate the problem inevitably leading towards exhaustion or extinction. John Stossel did a pretty good feature exploring the phenomenon a few months ago called 'How To Save Endangered Tigers: Kill Them?'

Upon doing a little net research of my own, it turns out that the Fox News report was wrong, and sale, trade, and consumption of horse meat is technically legal in Florida (laws differ state by state with horse meat indeed being illegal in many). I say technically legal because any horse flesh consumed by humans must be USDA inspected. The last three abattoirs in the country which slaughtered horses were closed in '07, ergo no USDA inspection, so it can be said that trade in horse meat for human consumption is de facto illegal in this country.

So why despite the unintended consequences of good intentions are we seeing this black market in horse meat only now? Apparently our national obsession with importing people with exotic tastes and bizarre cultural prerogatives who refuse to assimilate, reinforcing their predilections not to do so, and then concentrating them in glorious cultural salad bowls like Miami creates certain markets which would otherwise never have materialized in our erstwhile homogeneous culture.

There are in this case but two solutions to the plight of horse owners in South Florida and perhaps soon the nation. Either free up markets, or clamp down on our borders and insist the 'wretched refuse' assimilates. Preferably both.

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

The Mother Of All Bad Analogies

Here's what happens when the chosen one strays from his teleprompter:

In the courts they would call this an admission against interest

Monday, August 10, 2009

Sunday, August 9, 2009

Fools Rush In

Last week When I first read of the bold folk who were turning themselves in as an act of defiance to the Obama regime's appeal for informants I was a little queasy.

Six months ago I would have discounted the solicitation as perhaps the bumbling of an overeager young staffer, or something like that.

Tonight on a whim I decided to check Whitehouse.govs website fully expecting amidst the storm of criticism (from the right) that the page would have been taken down in embarrassment.

Guess what:

It's still up!

Now I'm really queasy.

Friday, August 7, 2009

Yes Dan, The Worlds Best Healthcare.

Just as Congressional lefties have failed to hastily ram socialized medicine down the throats of an unwilling majority, Dan Boylan has foisted upon us his latest Midweek failure:
"The Worlds Best Healthcare?"

Prof. Boylan begins his 'lecture' with this pedantic flourish:
"Now, class, move your desks forward and listen up while I offer a short lecture on what you get for your healthcare dollar in the United States of America."

Good thinking Dan, everyone loves to be condescended to.
"First, you get “the finest healthcare system in the world.” For weeks, months, years and decades, you’ve heard our congressional ladies and gentlemen call it that - “the finest healthcare system in the world.”

They are demonstrating their gratitude. In the 2008 congressional elections, they collectively received $167 million in campaign contributions from healthcare industries.

Our congressional ladies and gentlemen also are demonstrating that they’re fast learners. In 2008, they listened to $484 million worth of lobbying by America’s healthcare industry - lobbying that invariably included the assertion that ours is the finest health-care system in the world.

Well professor, I've heard lots of people describe our healthcare system as the finest in the world, not just Congress folk. Are they all in cahoots with the healthcare industry as well? Funny, all I've heard from a majority of this Congress is how bad our healthcare system sucks. I don't take that as ungratefulness on their part, but rather delusion on yours.
Second, you get a health-care system that costs an enormous amount of money, much of which is spent on administration. According to Physicians for a National Health Program, “administration consumes at least 31 percent of healthcare spending” in the United States. How enormous are those costs? Administration of the the nation’s government-run Medicare system for old folks like me stands at 3 percent.

Put another way (in a 2007 Commonwealth Fund report), “U.S. health insurance costs as a share of total health spending are 30-70 percent higher than countries with mixed private/public insurance systems, and three times higher than in countries with the lowest rates.”

So when you pay your monthly healthcare premium - or the co-payment - remember all those lovely people you are helping to support who are neither doctors nor nurses nor anyone else who can fashion a splint for your broken leg or diagnose your ills."

From Cato.org
Advocates of socialized medicine, such as Physicians for a National Health Program, love to argue that America’s health care sector is less efficient than socialized systems because private insurers appear to have higher administrative costs. In yesterday’s New York Times, Tyler Cowen reveals the flaw in that logic:

The monitoring, marketing and overhead costs of private insurance are what allow more expensive medical treatments through the door. It is precisely because competing insurance companies spend money evaluating the appropriateness of claims that they are willing to pay for so many heart bypasses, extra tests, private hospital rooms and CT scans.

If European health care systems appear to have lower administrative costs, it is because, rather than scrutinizing claims, they limit the overall amount they will spend on medical services. Of course, that just means they shift costs to patients who either must pay for medical services themselves, or deal with the costs of waiting.

If the U.S. Medicare program appears to have lower administrative costs, it is because, rather than scrutinizing claims, Medicare just shovels money out the door. That merely shifts those costs onto taxpayers by driving up Medicare spending and taxes.

In Medicare Meets Mephistopheles, Cato adjunct David Hyman delights in the irony that medicine-socializers praise one of Medicare’s greatest failings (inadequate oversight of claims payment) as if it were a virtue.

Damn straight.
"Third, you get a healthcare system that is, indeed, No.1 - numero uno, ichiban, no ka oi - in three important categories: total healthcare expenditures per capita, total health expenditures as a share of gross domestic product, and rate of growth in total healthcare expenditures as a share of GDP over the past quarter century.

Aren’t you proud? We’re No. 1. Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom all trail us.

Let’s hear a loud, collegiate cheer: USA! USA! USA!

Half of the countries listed above spend less than half per capita on healthcare than the United States does. The rest spend about roughly 55 percent to 65 percent as much."

Not sure if comparative GDP expenditures elicits a fair comparison of who has the best healthcare system, (for instance, whoever spends the most money on a car usually has the best vehicle) but I find it fascinating that Mr. Boylan is obsessed almost exclusively on cost in this debate, as indeed most lefties are. I mean after all, don't lefties pride themselves on being the least materialist of the competing ideologies?
Be that as it may, there are many desirable factors to be considered which drive up US healthcare costs as compared to other countries, as per Wiki:
"revenues generated from these high healthcare costs have encouraged substantial investment: the United States is the leader in biotechnology, spending three times more per-capita in research and development than its nearest competitor, Europe.[7][8][9] In addition, the U.S. produces more new pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and affiliated biotechnology than any other country, or the Western European nations combined.[7][8][9][10]"

Nationalize healthcare and most of that goes away, socialism smothers innovation. Face it, you get what you pay for, in common parlance the chumps on the left are being penny wise and pound foolish.
"But our healthcare system leads in other categories as well. For example, we lead in the number of people who do not have healthcare coverage: 46 million and growing. By the reckoning of the Commonwealth Fund, we should be using the number 75 million - which represents the uninsured and the underinsured. Either way, we lead.

Those other countries don’t even compete. They provide healthcare coverage, usually “single-payer” (also called by many of our congressional ladies and gentlemen “socialized medicine") to all of their citizens."

Under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act everyone who is sick in America (whether they belong here or not) gets treated, not that I think they should be.
"And the list goes on. But I’ll mention just one more accomplishment we’ve achieved with our healthcare dollars. The United States can claim a higher infant mortality rate than all the countries I mentioned earlier: 6.26 deaths per 1,000 live births. Canada, with its system of socialized medicine, only has 5.04 per 1,000; France, yet another one of those countries that practices socialized medicine, just 3.33."

Wow, a double fallacy! A classic cum hoc ergo propter hoc and an appeal to emotion! Again, from Wiki:
While the United States reports every case of infant mortality, it has been suggested that some other developed countries do not. A 2006 article in U.S. News & World Report claims that "First, it's shaky ground to compare U.S. infant mortality with reports from other countries. The United States counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size. This includes what many other countries report as stillbirths. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) to count as a live birth; in other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless.[5] And some countries don't reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth. Thus, the United States is sure to report higher infant mortality rates. For this very reason, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which collects the European numbers, warns of head-to-head comparisons by country."[6]

Professor Boylan concludes by asking:
"Aren’t you proud?"

Yes Dan, very!
"Class dismissed."

Now wait a minute professor! Amidst all your hand wringing about cost you never mentioned the uniquely American burden of litigiousness which also drives up healthcare, could that be because all your lefty pals are in the hind pocket of the ABA? Furthermore your suggestion that socialized healthcare will reduce administration is laughable. If anything it will bloat administration with an army of new bureaucrats, take Britain's NHS for example:
"The 1.4 million employees of the British National Health Service make the NHS the world's third-largest single employer, behind only the Chinese army and the Indian Railways. Yet the majority of those 1.4 million, Mr. Hannan said, are "managers," not medical personnel."

What about the Constitution? According to my understanding it was written to limit Federal power. Once you surrender your health care to the state you have given them carte blanche to dictate and delve into every aspect of your life (in the name of savings), and that after all is what this is all about, a cynical exercise in the aggregation of power and control by the left. If you truly think that healthcare should be a right, then do it the proper way and write a Constitutional Amendment, or if you want to do government-run health care that's perfectly Constitutional as it's written, do it at the state or local level; foolish but Constitutional. Multi-trillion dollar 'free' medicine simply cannot be a function of the Federal Govt. under our Constitution (as if anybody pays any attention to that dusty impedimenta anymore).

Oh yeah and one more thing, save the pedagoguery for the classroom Dan.

So Much For The Greatest Form of Patriotism

For the last eight years (up to last October) the lefts favorite cliché was a quote (wrongly) attributed to Jefferson that 'dissent is the greatest form of patriotism'.



Turns out that glittering little gem of sophistry aint as popular as it once was amongst lefty crazies now that they are in charge. In fact, they have become very thin skinned when dissent is expressed at their potentates and cherished socialist prescriptions. Some Congressional Democrats have evoked Godwins Law likening the malcontents to Hitlers Brownshirts

Brownshirts? A bunch of pissed off blue hairs are now Brownshirts? How's this for Brownshirts:



What You're seeing is purveyor of Gadsden Flags Kenneth Gladney having the crap kicked out of him by SEIU thugs in the name of Obamacare; now there's your Brownshirts.

El Presidenté was so taken aback at the effrontery of the hoi polloi for taking exception to his edicts he has slipped into reactionary scolding:



Never mind the fact that the folks who created the mess were Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, his fellow travelers in the criminal conspiracy at Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac (wonder what's happened to that investigation hmmm?), Jimmy Carter for signing the Community Reinvestment Act into law, Bill Clinton for expanding it, and Obama himself:

Finally, on the matter of deregulation and the financial crisis, Sen. Obama should consider his own complicity in the failure of Congress to adopt legislation that might have prevented the subprime meltdown.

In the summer of 2005, a bill emerged from the Senate Banking Committee that considerably tightened regulations on Fannie and Freddie, including controls over their capital and their ability to hold portfolios of mortgages or mortgage-backed securities. All the Republicans voted for the bill in committee; all the Democrats voted against it. To get the bill to a vote in the Senate, a few Democratic votes were necessary to limit debate. This was a time for the leadership Sen. Obama says he can offer, but neither he nor any other Democrat stepped forward.

Instead, by his own account, Mr. Obama wrote a letter to the Treasury Secretary, allegedly putting himself on record that subprime loans were dangerous and had to be dealt with. This is revealing; if true, it indicates Sen. Obama knew there was a problem with subprime lending -- but was unwilling to confront his own party by pressing for legislation to control it. As a demonstration of character and leadership capacity, it bears a strong resemblance to something else in Sen. Obama's past: voting present.

But I digress; Obama has not been content to just bad mouth those bold enough to confront his commissars, he wants the skinny on anyone putting out the word he doesn't like via creation of a network of informants. After all, you can't choke off free speech and dissent unless you can get your hands around its neck.

Friday, July 10, 2009

Thursday, July 9, 2009

How Muttonheads Delude Themselves

Dan Boylan has favored us with a glimpse inside the oh-so-marvelous Independence Day festivities as practiced by the left with this improbably titled piece from his Midweek column:
"How Liberals Celebrate 4th Of July"

First off, Professor Boylan is not a liberal, and I suspect that neither are his friends. Dan Boylan is a Leftist Progressive, same philosophy which has metastasized our federal government over the last century. There is another word for folks who have chosen to follow convention like Dan and his friends, people who favor the status quo, that word is conservative. To avoid confusion I just call them lefties.

I on the other hand am a Liberal, a true Liberal or a 'Classical Liberal' as we're called these days. To put it succinctly, we Liberals espouse the same revolutionary ideals as our founding fathers, while Prof. Boylan and his comrades clearly do not, hence if Mr. Boylan wants a credible accounting of how Liberals celebrate Independence day, he should be interviewing me instead of posing.

With that now sorted out Prof. Boylan writes...
"The Boylans spent the glorious Fourth of July on a Hoolauae Street lanai in Aiea, where we’ve spent if for three decades or so. The lanai belongs to Ned and Kamaile Shultz. The crowd includes various Wongs, Oyamas, Takesonos, Golds, Claffeys and assorted others."

Ah yes, Dan rejoices in the wonderful multi-cultured, multi-ethnic, multi-racial rainbow that can only be found in the gatherings of the politically enlightened.
Yes Dan message received, overbearing as it is.

"The menu consists of hot dogs, burgers, potato salad and watermelon; and the singing of patriotic songs and watching of fireworks displays from far away Ala Moana Park, Hickam Air Force Base and Pearl Harbor provide the entertainment.

The Hoolauae crowd leans decidedly to the left in its politics. Still, its Fourth of July celebrations reek of chauvinistic nationalism..."

I get it. On the 4th left-wingers like to wrap themselves in the trappings of patriotism, and perfume themselves with the "reek of chauvinistic nationalism"

Now some might think that a bunch of lefties reveling in concepts which judging by Boylan's own words are anathema to them is rank hypocrisy; I don't think so, I kind of do the same thing at Christmas, I'm not a Christian, in fact I embrace no religion at all, but I still join in on all the Christmas fun and tradition.
I suspect that lefties enjoy July 4th celebrations in the same way one might a costume party, or as I do Christmas.
"...So much so, that a few years ago a lonely conservative Republican in our midst - after hearing a second or third drunken rendition of The Battle Hymn of the Republic - said, “I didn’t know liberals were so patriotic.”

We came close to tossing the deluded muttonhead off the lanai."

Yup, nothing lends itself to left-wing patriotic fervor like alcohol, and the tossing of hapless dissidents from lofty places.

Boylan continues...
"No, we’ve sung through the gawdawful Reagan and Bush the elder years and through the gawdawfuller Bush the younger and dumber years. Our patriotism never faltered; the nation’s leadership in those years merely, to put it delicately, sucked.

But I must admit, we sang with more gusto this past Saturday night for a number of reasons. The first, of course, was that the nation’s leadership - for the moment at least - does not suck..."

I disagree. The Obama regime does suck, it sucks mightily, in fact its suction is without precedent, it sucks as no administration has ever sucked before, it sucks in great heaping gobs of freedom and expels regulation, control, and nascent tyranny. But more to the point, Boylan doesn't realize that his 'admission' belies any separation his kind places between governance and love of country. I don't do much singing on July 4th, but I can say unequivocally that no administration has ever affected my celebration of the holiday in any way.

"Barack Obama has brought erudition, enormous charisma and sweet reason to every issue he has confronted thus far in his administration."

Charisma doesn't count for much in my book, from what I understand Hitler had it in spades, and while a Harvard law degree and the ability to quote Saul Alinsky backwards may pass for erudition in Boylan's crowd, I don't think it counts much for the office of US President either, certainly not more than say... an MBA from Harvard.
One can only imagine what passes for 'sweet reason' amongst the tortured psyches and twisted rationales of the left. Oh wait a second, we already know; stuff like raising taxes during a recession, or nationalizing the greatest most innovative health care system on the planet.

"Have his stimulus package, his energy legislation, his healthcare reform proposals and his diplomatic initiatives cured all of our nation’s ills? Of course not. But there are intelligent, pragmatic people working on all those issues and many more left unattended for all these ideologically laden years. And President Obama demonstrates almost daily via speech, press conference or interview that he is the most intelligent and pragmatic of the lot."

Uh, make that "pumped" (Helen Thomas's words not mine) press conference's and interviews, not that I see in Obama any signs of exceptional intelligence or pragmatism, and certainly less if the lot is to include Reagan or Clinton. Good of Boylan to point out though that none of Obama's agenda has so far "cured all of our nation’s ills", but if he was truly honest he might point out that nothing Obama and the Democrat majority have done has cured anything. In fact clear-minded intelligent people think Obama and the lefts radical agenda most likely has done, or will do, irreparable harm to our country.

The rest of Prof. Boylan's piece was nothing more than a pitch for Abercrombie's Governor bid, you can read it for yourselve's if you've the stomach.

Tuesday, July 7, 2009

Obama Has Gotten One Thing Right; Sort Of, Maybe.

I realize that the impression some might get from reading this blog is that I am an Obama hater. Frankly, what I hate is that the Federal Govt. has taken such a large role in our daily lives that I feel compelled to blog about it, and its malefactors.

I want the limited Federal Govt. our founders intended and our Constitution mandates, I don't hate Obama, I hate how he governs.

That isn't to say that he's always wrong. As you may recall our president stated on the campaign trail that he wants college football playoffs, so do I.
So also does Orrin Hatch who was the only Senator to sit through the entire Senate’s Antitrust Subcommittee hearing on college football’s Bowl Championship Series today.

Therein lies the problem. Once again a Republican Senator thinks it's the business of Federal Govt. to be involved in matters for which he (or she) has an overweening personal interest. I expect this kind of behavior from democrats, and I'll hazard a guess that Obama is probably out of pure instinct on the same page with Orrin.

That's why I say 'sort of, maybe.

Update:

Awreet! Something else Jug-ears and I can apparently agree on; stopping farm subsidies.

Still, I have a nagging suspicion it may be that farm folk just offend Obama's urban sensibilities.

Fish Dream

I have had these recurring dreams for decades where fish (either my own, or wild) are swimming lazily through the air, sometimes in my house sometimes outside, but they are always reef fish.

Wonder what that means?

In my ripper days I'd dream about surfing... lots. I still dream about surfing, but not as much, now it's the damn fish dream.