Archive for February 2013
President Obama proposed the soon to be enacted sequester, demanded it be part of the debt deal, signed it into law and angrily promised to veto the GOP efforts to repeal it. Now, like Dr. Frankenstein, he’s running from his own creation.
It is an intentional untruth to say sequester cuts must come from police officers and schools. It’s a tiny cut that barely moves the needle on federal spending. You can meet sequester targets by instead eliminating a small amount of waste. $84 Billion in spending can be cut without touching critical programs like police, schools and NASA.
House Republicans have passed two different bills to replace Obama’s plan to cut critical services. Senate Democrats refuse to hold a vote on it and Obama once vowed to veto any plans to stop his sequester. Republicans have provided alternative spending reductions, but Democrats have rejected them and seem committed to blind, across-the-board cuts to scare people. We need to “encourage” Democrats to support intelligent cuts.
Here are five simple spending cuts suggested by Rep. Steve Stockton which meet Obama’s sequester reduction targets without cuts to essential programs.
- Eliminate the government’s “free cell phone” plan that has ballooned into the ObamaPhone giveaway, 41 percent of which goes to people not even eligible (sorry but a cell phone is not essential to survival): $2.2 billion in savings
- Eliminate ObamaCare’s “Public Health Slush Fund,” which even Democrats want to eliminate: $10 billion in savings
- Require food stamp recipients, the numbers of which have exploded under Obama, to actually be eligible for food stamps: $26 billion in savings
- Eliminate overpayments for ObamaCare exchange subsidies: $44 billion in savings
- Eliminate Obama’s “renewable energy” fund in the Energy Department: $1.8 billion in savings
The “sky is falling” approach to the sequester the President and democrats have taken after THEY created it is the height of hypocrisy.
I say let the sky fall and watch as the sun rises in the morning.
- Will the Sequester Kill Us All? (rushlimbaugh.com)
- The Sequester: Absolutely everything you could possibly need to know, in one FAQ (washingtonpost.com)
- Dayton News
The gun control debate is accelerating.
On one side historical background, statistical evidence, and an amendment to the constitution of the United States.
On the other side raw emotion.
Evan Todd, a survivor of the Columbine school shooting in 1999, penned a letter to President Obama outlining in great detail his thoughts on gun control and how they were shaped by his experience. Todd was shot by one of the gunmen that day and watched as 12 of his fellow students and a teacher were murdered. His letter covers key aspects of the current gun control debate and why the arguments coming from the left are ineffective and dangerous to the rights of all American citizens.
Here is the letter. Don’t expect to read, see, or hear about it in any major news publication or network and don’t expect to see a reply from the President. This simply doesn’t comply with the narrative they have put forward about guns and gun control. It would derail their propaganda machine.
As a student who was shot and wounded during the Columbine massacre, I have a few thoughts on the current gun debate. In regards to your gun control initiatives:
Universal Background Checks
First, a universal background check will have many devastating effects. It will arguably have the opposite impact of what you propose. If adopted, criminals will know that they can not pass a background check legally, so they will resort to other avenues. With the conditions being set by this initiative, it will create a large black market for weapons and will support more criminal activity and funnel additional money into the hands of thugs, criminals, and people who will do harm to American citizens.
Second, universal background checks will create a huge bureaucracy that will cost an enormous amount of tax payers dollars and will straddle us with more debt. We cannot afford it now, let alone create another function of government that will have a huge monthly bill attached to it.
Third, is a universal background check system possible without universal gun registration? If so, please define it for us. Universal registration can easily be used for universal confiscation. I am not at all implying that you, sir, would try such a measure, but we do need to think about our actions through the lens of time.
It is not impossible to think that a tyrant, to the likes of Mao, Castro, Che, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and others, could possibly rise to power in America. It could be five, ten, twenty, or one hundred years from now — but future generations have the natural right to protect themselves from tyrannical government just as much as we currently do. It is safe to assume that this liberty that our forefathers secured has been a thorn in the side of would-be tyrants ever since the Second Amendment was adopted.
Ban on Military-Style Assault Weapons
The evidence is very clear pertaining to the inadequacies of the assault weapons ban. It had little to no effect when it was in place from 1994 until 2004. It was during this time that I personally witnessed two fellow students murder twelve of my classmates and one teacher. The assault weapons ban did not deter these two murderers, nor did the other thirty-something laws that they broke.
Gun ownership is at an all time high. And although tragedies like Columbine and Newtown are exploited by ideologues and special-interest lobbying groups, crime is at an all time low. The people have spoken. Gun store shelves have been emptied. Gun shows are breaking attendance records. Gun manufacturers are sold out and back ordered. Shortages on ammo and firearms are countrywide. The American people have spoken and are telling you that our Second Amendment shall not be infringed.
10-Round Limit for Magazines
Virginia Tech was the site of the deadliest school shooting in U.S. history. Seung-Hui Cho used two of the smallest caliber hand guns manufactured and a handful of ten round magazines. There are no substantial facts that prove that limited magazines would make any difference at all.
Second, this is just another law that endangers law-abiding citizens. I’ve heard you ask, “why does someone need 30 bullets to kill a deer?”
Let me ask you this: Why would you prefer criminals to have the ability to out-gun law-abiding citizens? Under this policy, criminals will still have their 30-round magazines, but the average American will not. Whose side are you on?
Lastly, when did they government get into the business of regulating “needs?” This is yet another example of government overreaching and straying from its intended purpose.
Selling to Criminals
Mr. President, these are your words: “And finally, Congress needs to help, rather than hinder, law enforcement as it does its job. We should get tougher on people who buy guns with the express purpose of turning around and selling them to criminals. And we should severely punish anybody who helps them do this.”
Why don’t we start with Eric Holder and thoroughly investigate the Fast and Furious program?
Furthermore, the vast majority of these mass murderers bought their weapons legally and jumped through all the hoops — because they were determined to murder. Adding more hoops and red tape will not stop these types of people. It doesn’t now — so what makes you think it will in the future? Criminals who cannot buy guns legally just resort to the black market.
Criminals and murderers will always find a way.
Mr. President, in theory, your initiatives and proposals sound warm and fuzzy — but in reality they are far from what we need. Your initiatives seem to punish law-abiding American citizens and enable the murderers, thugs, and other lowlifes who wish to do harm to others.
Let me be clear: These ideas are the worst possible initiatives if you seriously care about saving lives and also upholding your oath of office. There is no dictate, law, or regulation that will stop bad things from happening — and you know that. Yet you continue to push the rhetoric. Why?
You said, “If we can save just one person it is worth it.” Well here are a few ideas that will save more that one individual:
First, forget all of your current initiatives and 23 purposed executive orders. They will do nothing more than impede law-abiding citizens and breach the intent of the Constitution. Each initiative steals freedom, grants more power to an already-overreaching government, and empowers and enables criminals to run amok.
Second, press Congress to repeal the “Gun Free Zone Act.” Don’t allow America’s teachers and students to be endangered one-day more. These parents and teachers have the natural right to defend themselves and not be looked at as criminals. There is no reason teachers must disarm themselves to perform their jobs. There is also no reason a parent or volunteer should be disarmed when they cross the school line.
This is your chance to correct history and restore liberty. This simple act of restoring freedom will deter would-be murderers and for those who try, they will be met with resistance.
Mr. President, do the right thing, restore freedom, and save lives. Show the American people that you stand with them and not with thugs and criminals.
Severely Concerned Citizen, Evan M. Todd
- Columbine Survivor Pens Bold Open Letter to Obama Rejecting Gun Control: ‘Whose Side Are You On?’ (12160.info)
- Columbine Student Survivor to Obama: “Whose Side Are You On?” (grumpyelder.com)
- Columbine Survivor Pens Bold Open Letter To Obama Rejecting Gun Control:’Whose Side Are You On?’ (libertycrier.com)
A Louisville, Kentucky newspaper has lost its lone conservative voice.
Columnist John Dyche has resigned as a conservative contributor to the Louisville Courier-Journal, said to be Kentucky’s most influential newspaper, citing the paper’s refusal to publish his most recent opinion piece which suggested imbalanced reporting and apparent liberal bias at the Courier-Journal.
Dyche explained his decision to resign in an interview with The Daily Caller. He told The Daily Caller he had written columns for the Courier-Journal for 10 years without a single rejection, until last week. He got the news from the paper’s editorial page editor, Pam Platt, in a voice mail. Platt explained Dyche’s column would not be published because, “it goes sort of off of what your column is supposed to be.” To which Dyche replied, “Indeed, your refusal to run this column vividly illustrates the very issues about which I write!”
The newspaper apparently has a history and reputation of being decisively left leaning and has been accused of going after conservative political figures in Kentucky with more vigor and harshness than their liberal counterparts.
Below in bold italics is the full transcript of the rejected column. It makes you wonder what the Courier-Journal was so afraid of? It’s hardly a scathing indictment and seems to be more of a suggestion box for a balanced approach to news and editorials. Considering the plight of newspapers around the country and their dwindling readership, one of them might do well to consider Dyche’s ideas and see how the marketplace responds.
But that would require liberals to put their faith in the free market of ideas and put their ideas in jeopardy.
In an obvious oversight, The Courier-Journal’s new publisher, Wesley Jackson, has not contacted this columnist for suggestions on saving the newspaper from the fate of the New Orleans Times-Picayune (which produces a paper edition only thrice weekly) or worse. Jackson has implemented reforms related to financial viability rather than content, but the latter affects the former. So here, free of charge, are some ideas to promote this publication’s prosperity.
Balanced Opinion Pages. The Courier-Journal opinion pages are stridently liberal. Journalistic jihads against Kentucky’s Republican U. S. Senators, Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul, and crusades for gun control and higher taxes, are in full force and frequently fill almost the entire editorial and op-ed pages. Such one-sidedness neither works in the marketplace nor serves the public interest.
Make the current editorial page (i.e., the page on the left) into a “Left Page” and there continue presenting hopelessly liberal columns, cartoons, and letters. Convert the op-ed page (i.e., the page on the right) to a “Right Page” and present conservative/libertarian columns, cartoons, and letters now largely absent from Louisville media. Give each page equal resources, and let the competing philosophies battle it out in the marketplace of ideas. The community would benefit from real, vigorous debate, and subscribers who deserted the paper due to its liberal bias might return.
Disclose Editors’ and Reporters’ Politics. Like the rest of the press, The Courier-Journal claims to play an exalted role in public affairs. But while righteously demanding absolute openness and full disclosure from every other entity and person involved in government, the press does not apply the same standard to itself. Change that by disclosing the party registration and voting choices of all editors and reporters.
Journalists believe that they, unlike mere mortals, can transcend their personal opinions to be basically fair and objective in presenting the news. Perhaps, but readers should be the ones to judge. To do so, they need information about the personal political views of the editors and reporters who decide what gets reported, and how, when, and where it gets reported. If a Courier-Journal editor or reporter is a registered Democrat who has voted twice for Barack Obama and Steve Beshear, advise the readers of that fact and let them make their own evaluation about whether those political preferences are influencing the coverage.
Open Meetings and Records. The Courier-Journal not only demands, but often litigates to ensure, full and open public disclosure of meetings and records of government bodies. It should apply the same standard to itself given the prominent role the press proclaims for itself in the political process. So live stream the meetings of editors and reporters and post the written communications and directives between them regarding assignments, policies, and stories.
Let the public see how and by whom decisions are made as to what to cover, who should cover it, and what headlines, photographs, and placement it receives. For example, the recent confirmation hearing of secretary of defense nominee Chuck Hagel received only two sentences of coverage below the fold on A3 in The Courier-Journal. The paper presented no hint of the bumbling, confused, and altogether incompetent performance by the potential head of the Pentagon.
A three-sentence dispatch about a sacrificial skull mound in Mexico dating to 660 A.D. ran below the dispatch about the Hagel hearing! And a few days later a much longer article entitled “Pentagon to extend benefits to partners” appeared above the fold on A2. Peculiar priorities.
Newspapers indignantly proclaim that their editorial and news departments do not coordinate. Perhaps there is no explicit conspiracy, but the hand-in-glove relationship between such ideological soul mates is undeniable. Opening up the process might not prevent such slanted presentation of news in the service of liberal objectives, but it could deter and expose it.
Publish Value of In-Kind Contributions. The Courier-Journal decries the influence of corporate money in politics and demands better disclosure of political contributions. However, The Courier-Journal, Inc. and Gannett Company, Inc. are corporations that try to influence politics. Presumably their efforts have some value. The newspaper should therefore quantify and report how much its in-kind contributions in the form of editorials, endorsements, etc., would be worth if valued at the rate of comparably-sized advertisements.
Finally. Replace Fort Knox and Jump Start with Mark Trail and Mary Worth in the comics. These soap opera strips are much funnier, albeit unintentionally. And if you do nothing else recommended here, enlarge Peanuts so one can more easily read its often profound social commentary. Good grief!
- Struggling Leftist Louisville Courier-Journal Fires Longtime Conservative Columnist (breitbart.com)
- US columnist quits after paper refuses to publish his latest piece (guardian.co.uk)
When it comes to acts of violence, the mainstream media never hesitates to get the “full story” on what motivated the perpetrator — provided they can somehow link the criminal to a right-of-center cause. But when alleged murderer Christopher Dorner’s manifesto emerged earlier today, revealing his hard-Left political views, most members of the media did their damnedest to bury the truth. Because if there’s one rule by which the media must play, it’s this: never allow liberals to look bad.
The Major Media is pushing a narrative that Chris Dorner, the former LAPD cop who is accused of killing one police officer and wounding two others, was a Naval Reservist, but then forgets to mention he was a gun-control advocate and big Obama supporter. I find it interesting how the media pushes the political orientation of some but not others. The media claimed that Sarah Palin inspired Jared Loughner, the kook who shot Gaby Giffords, even though there was no truth to it. They got around this by invoking a foggy “toxic atmosphere”.
Now we learn that Floyd Corkins, the nut who killed a security guard during his attack on the Family Research Council, actually WAS inspired by the Southern Poverty Law Center’s “hate map” but the media has said nothing and pretend they don’t see the connection. Joseph Stack, the man who flew his Piper Dakota airplane into the Echelon Office Complex in Austin, Texas, where the IRS had offices, was first called a Tea Partier. When they found out he was a COMMUNIST, they called him “anti-government” misleading people into thinking he was part of the “anti-government” Tea Party. The Washington Post went so far as to delete the Pro-Communist message Stack had left in his suicide note. The Washington Post decided to ignore the facts and push a narrative.
Then we have ABC News Brian Ross who erroneously reported that James Holmes, the suspect in the Aurora movie theatre shootings, may have connections to the Tea Party. His source for this breaking news? A single web page that listed an “Aurora-based Jim Holmes” as a member of the Colorado Tea Party Patriots. Come to find out there was more than one James Holmes in Aurora and the one on the Tea Party website was a 52 year-old Hispanic conservative. Apparently political background is only important when reporting SOME shootings even when that reporting is dead wrong.
The hypocrisy is stifling.
President Barack Obama sent a strong video message of support for women’s right to make their own reproductive choices at a NARAL Pro-Choice America annual dinner Tuesday night.
“Tonight we celebrate the historic Roe v. Wade decision handed down 40 years ago, but we also gather to recommit ourselves to the decision’s guiding principle: that women should be able to make their own choices about their bodies and their health care,” but that’s an incomplete picture and ignores the consequence of those personal choices.
As a society we adamantly oppose the idea of one person’s choices trumping that of another. It goes against our sense of fairness and equity. We make laws to keep such things from happening and to punish the perpetrators when they do. But in the abortion debate the idea that an unborn child in the womb of its mother has no choice is ignored and irrelevant, because IT isn’t a person yet.
CNN host Erin Burnett covered the story of Heather Surovik, who’s car was hit by a 5 time drunk driver just days before she was to deliver her son Brady. She was returning from a prenatal check up when her car was smashed into.
Everyone in the car survived except her unborn son. In Colorado, the state where Surovik lives, an unborn fetus is not considered a person, therefore, the drunk driver could only be charged with DUI and destruction of property not with Brady’s death. Burnett exclaimed: “That baby was 8 pounds, 2 ounces. He was going to be born in a couple of days. How could you not define that as a person? That is a viable life.”
Good question Ms. Burnett.
Colorado and other states continue to quash all attempts to make fetal homicide a crime. Why? Because any governing body admitting in law that killing a baby while still in the mother’s womb was a criminal offense would put the abortion narrative and its dishonest cheerleaders in serious jeopardy nationwide.
- CNN’s Burnett: How could you not define that as a person? (breitbart.com)