What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

In 1989, I attended the U.S. Army Primary Leadership Development Course at Fort Hood, Texas, a requirement for newly-promoted sergeants.  PLDC equipped new E-5’s with the knowledge and skills needed to function at the squad leader level, like drill and ceremony (handling and marching a squad formation), inspections, uniform regulations, counseling and discipline and things like that, and the course included a one-week field training exercise that complemented and reinforced the classroom training.  One of the things I remember about the FTX (as it was called) was how I was ordered to carry the squad’s M60 machine gun on the last day of the exercise because one of the females whose turn it was complained that it was too heavy.  I can’t remember her name but I remember that she was a short young woman, perhaps 5’2”, and carrying a 23 lb. machine gun and 300 rounds of ammunition in the dusty Texas heat was undoubtedly a physical challenge for her, so ordering me to carry the weapon in her stead was on its face a wise decision.  But she was neither sick nor injured and in the post-modern military, women were supposed to be equal with men; gallantry and discretion were anachronisms, even insulting.  Yet there in May 1989, reality cast the deciding vote – a short woman didn’t want to carry a heavy load, and so she didn’t.

Women in the military has always been a touchy subject.  Women are indeed loyal, intelligent, dedicated, patriotic and brave (CPT Linda Bray of the 988^th MP Company led an assault on enemy forces during Operation Just Cause, probably the first woman to lead U.S. troops in combat, and CPL Leigh Ann Hester was awarded the Silver Star for her actions in Iraq in 2005, the first woman ever cited for valor in close quarters combat).  They have suffered indignity and abuse – even now, Congress is investigating a wide-ranging scandal at Lackland AFB in which dozens of Air Force instructors were sexually abusing their female trainees – yet they have also prostituted themselves, used their femininity to gain preferential treatment, joined the military to look for a husband and splintered unit morale.  Case in point: While I was a platoon sergeant in Korea, I had the unpleasant duty of escorting one of my female NCO’s to her apartment in Anjong-ni, the ville outside Camp Humphreys, to retrieve some of her belongings and to visit her son.  She had lived at the apartment with her husband and child until said husband, an NCO in another company on the base, had filed for divorce out of sheer audacity – he was engaged in a torrid affair with a female lieutenant in my own company and rather than wait to be divorced, he decided to file first, and for sole custody, to boot.  The respective company commanders, instead of busting a fellow officer for fraternizing with a married enlisted man and precipitating a divorce, ordered my female NCO to move into the barracks and to avoid the downtown apartment unless I escorted her on prearranged visits.  Unjust hardly captures this situation; a marriage was ruined and company morale disappeared because some little homewrecker couldn’t control herself.

Priest-King’s decision to allow women to serve in combat units is consistent with his goal of radically transforming America.  Having already overturned the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays in the military in 2011, having gutted the Pentagon budget by half a trillion dollars in 2012, having nominated an anti-military Chuck Hagel to be Secretary of Defense, he now lifts the restriction on women in combat such that by the end of his Presidency, the American military will be unrecognizable.  No longer the enclave of cigar-chomping, bemedalled he-men, bristling with bombers, aircraft carriers and tanks, the American military will be smaller, weaker and poorer, a military in which homosexuality is protected and women can serve in the artillery whether or not they’re qualified.  Yes, I said it: “whether or not they’re qualified.” As an honorably discharged veteran with twenty years under my belt, as a former Master Instructor at the U.S. Army Intelligence School,  I can tell you that if push comes to shove, the fighting services will lower their standards in order to recruit enough women in the combat arms.  It won’t matter that doing so will be dangerous, even disastrous to our national security.  The only thing that will matter is upholding Priest-King’s policy, and if you think I’m crazy, then explain what happened in Benghazi, or in Fast and Furious.

There are women who can run like the wind, who can jump clear over my head and who can lift a car.  There are men who are overweight, who can’t do one push-up and who wheeze walking up the stairs.  My guess is, though, that our military is going to suffer for Priest-King’s hubris, and then our country, and then it will be too late: I’m not carrying a machine gun for anyone, anymore.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Police_Corps_(United_States)

Source: http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2013/01/air-force-house-panel-sets-hearing-lackland-mti-sex-scandal-010813/

Colin Powell Loses His Mind

I used to respect Colin Powell.  I served in Desert Shield and Desert Storm and I thought his policy of overwhelming force was absolutely correct, and events bore him out.  If he had run for President, I would have voted for him, but now he’s off the cliff.  The guy who endorsed Priest-King not once but twice and who thinks GOP hater Chuck Hagel would be a “superb” Defense Secretary now calls the Republican Party “racist.” OK, here’s what he actually said on last Sunday's Meet the Press:

“There’s also a dark vein of intolerance in some parts of the party. What do I mean from that? What I mean by that is that they still sort of look down on minorities. How can I evidence that?

“When I see a former governor [Sarah Palin] say that the President is ‘shucking and jiving,’ ‘that’s a racial-era slave term. When I see another former governor after the President’s first debate, when he didn’t do very well, say that the President was ‘lazy.’ He didn’t say he was slow, he was tired, he didn’t do well. He said he was ‘lazy.’

“That may not mean anything to most Americans but to those of us who are African Americans, the second word is “shiftless” and then there’s a third word that goes along with it.”

“Birther, the whole Birther Movement…why do senior republican leaders tolerate this type of discussion in the party?

“A dark vein of intolerance”? Is he serious? I know that Lefty sycophants like David Gregory eat that stuff up but come on!  The party who won a civil war to liberate the slaves has “a dark vein of intolerance”? The GOP provided critical support to the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act and got them both passed in the teeth of bitter Democrat opposition yet we have “a dark vein of intolerance”? (A review of the votes by party reveals that at least eighty percent of Republicans in both the House and Senate voted for passage, overcoming resistance from Democrats like Richard Russell of Georgia and Emmanuel Celler of New York.)  Ronald Reagan nominated the first woman to the Supreme Court and appointed Powell himself as the first black National Security Advisor and yet we have “a dark vein of intolerance”?  George H. W. Bush nominated Powell as the first black Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and stood with Clarence Thomas through vicious Democrat attacks during his Senate confirmation hearings and we have “a dark vein of intolerance”? George W. Bush nominated Powell to be the first black Secretary of State, appointed Condoleeza Rice as the first black female National Security Advisor and then she succeeded Powell as SecState, Dubya nominated Alberto Gonzales as the first Hispanic Attorney General and yet we have “a dark vein of intolerance”? Michael Steele was the first black Chairman of the Republican National Committee (the first black to head either of the two major political parties), Tim Scott has just been appointed to replace Jim DeMint as U.S. Senator from South Carolina and yet the GOP has “a dark vein of intolerance”? Marco Rubio, Susana Martinez, Ted Cruz and Allan West are all rising stars in the GOP but we have “a dark vein of intolerance”?

If someone’s lazy, then they’re lazy.  The color of their skin doesn’t matter and it doesn’t matter if they’re President of the United States.  For example, Jimmy Carter was incompetent.  The fact that he occupied the White House was irrelevant: He was elected to a job that was too big for him and it showed.  And what does General Powell mean by “senior Republican leaders” tolerating birther discussion?  I agree that birthers are a little wacky but people have the right to be just as wacky as they want in this country – take a look at the Democrat Party, for example – and to say what they want, and nobody has the right to tell them to shut up, which is what the general meant: “You can’t say certain things because they offend me.”  Are you really serious?

Here’s what this boils down to: For Colin Powell and every other liberal, the only legitimate opinions are liberal opinions. Abortion, gay marriage, amnesty for illegals, colossal spending and public debt, a bloated and corrupt welfare state and preferential treatment for minorities are all good, and if you don’t agree, then you’re a racist/sexist/homophobe.  You simply can’t disagree with liberal policies on their merits, and if you do, then you’re a skinhead neo-Nazi KKK cross burner, and since General Powell can’t get his head out of the liberal drain, I refuse to listen to him anymore.  He’s been in the tank for the Priest-King since 2008, he’s repudiated his own Party (I have to wonder which job he’s angling for in the second Priest-King Administration) and I’m done with him.  Why in God’s Name would I want to be more like a Leftist kook?

Where was Powell when the Left was crucifying his boss for eight years?  George W. Bush was called a war criminal, a war monger, he hated women and Hispanics and Muslims and he wanted blacks to drown during Hurricane Katrina, he was a bumbling idiot and an evil genius at the same time.  The Left openly fantasized about assassinating him (remember Death of a President in 2006?) and where was Powell’s outrage then?  It was nowhere, that’s where it was, so for Colin Powell, General, U.S. Army (retired), I say go away and good riddance.  If the Left wants another RINO turncoat eager to lick Priest-King’s boots, then they can have him.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/onpolitics/2013/01/14/colin-powell-republican-party-criticism-intolerance/1832833/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/13/powell-say-hagel-uperbly-qualified-for-defense-secretary-criticizes-his/

A Window into the Soul



Repudiating the Word of the Lord is as serious as it gets, and Barack Hussein Obama, Priest-King of all he surveys, has decided to go there.  Reverend Louie Giglio, who had been selected to deliver the benediction at the inauguration ceremony, has been pressured to withdraw because he preached that homosexuality was not a lifestyle but a choice, and that homosexuality is a sin.  Them’s fightin’ words to the gay lobby and to our current Chief Executive and so Rev. Giglio was forced to back out while the Presidential Inaugural Committee replaces him with someone whose beliefs are as fashionable as theirs.  Here’s what they said: "We were not aware of Pastor Giglio's past comments at the time of his selection and they don't reflect our desire to celebrate the strength and diversity of our country at this Inaugural.  As we now work to select someone to deliver the benediction, we will ensure their beliefs reflect this administration's vision of inclusion and acceptance for all Americans." Apparently, the Lefties who run the country weren’t aware that a Christian pastor would agree with the Holy Scriptures – somewhat understandable given Priest-King’s previous experience with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright (“God damn America”) and the Reverend Joseph Lowery who delivered the benediction at his first inauguration in 2009 (“…deliver us from the exploitation of the poor, of the least of these, and from favoritism toward the rich, the elite of these…we have sown the seeds of greed -- the wind of greed and corruption…we ask you to help us work for that day when…white will embrace what is right.”).  Yet kicking Rev. Giglio to the curb is a milestone in the history of our country and a terrible one at that, because Priest-King is officially signaling that as far as the President of the United States is concerned, Bible-based Christianity is not welcome.  Coming on the heels of his endorsement of gay marriage and his insistence (through Obamacare) that faith-based institutions must provide free birth control to their employees even if doing so conflicts with their religious beliefs, Priest-King’s sacking of the good Reverend confirms that he is openly rejecting the Word of God, casting off God’s blessings and His protection, and this is dangerous ground.  Anyone who has truly accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Saviour will not deny Him, so for Barack Hussein Obama, I have a message that he would do well to heed: “But whosoeuer shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heauen.”

Mr. Obama: Are you absolutely sure that you want to do this?

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/10/pastor-withdraws-from-obama-inauguration-after-sermon-on-homosexuality-surfaces/

Source: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/inauguration-watch/2009/01/transcript_of_rev_lowerys_inau.html

Source: http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-10-33/

One Week Later...

It’s been a week since Sandy Hook and the facts are settling into place.  Here’s what I know so far:

• Adam Lanza, 20, murdered his mother in her sleep with her own gun.  Adam had been diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome but had no previous record of violence, was a good student and his mother had lavished love and attention on him.

• Adam then drove to Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, where he shot his way into the building, killed six teachers and staff who tried to stop him and then systematically murdered twenty first-grade children before killing himself as police were entering the school. All the weapons and ammunition he used to commit these murders had been stolen from his mother’s house, and based on the multitude of weapons and ammo recovered at the scene, it is very likely that massacring the youngest children was only the first stage of a plan to wipe out the entire student population. 

This was an unspeakably brutal crime.  Nobody disputes that.  Murdering helpless children revolts us, as it should, and we can only imagine the horror those poor children experienced as they were gunned down by a homicidal maniac.  Their families and friends are devastated, their lives are ruined, they will probably never recover from this horrible tragedy.  It is human nature to want to do something to prevent something like this from ever happening again, but I recall the words of Rahm Emanuel, former Congressman, former Chief of Staff to Priest-King, current Mayor of Chicago and bare-knuckle politician extraordinaire: “You don’t ever want a crisis to go to waste; it’s an opportunity to do important things that you would otherwise avoid,” and I instinctively put up my guard.

1) Mrs. Lanza bought, registered and used her firearms legally.  She taught her son how to handle firearms not only because it was the responsible thing to do but because it involved him in an activity they could do together.  If Adam stole her guns and killed people with them, then those are crimes for which laws already exist.

2) Adam was diagnosed with a mental illness and laws also already exist to prevent the mentally-ill from buying or owning guns.  Passing more laws will only waste more paper and criminals will ignore those laws as well as the laws already on the books.

3) If all private firearms in the country were gone tomorrow, criminals would just resort to other means to commit mass murder.  Building home-made bombs is illegal but that didn’t stop Ramzi Youssef and his co-conspirators from trying to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993, and it didn’t stop Timothy McVeigh from blowing up the Federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995.  IED’s have been employed in the thousands in Iraq and Afghanistan so if people want to build a bomb themselves and kills dozens of people with it, they can do it pretty easily.

4) Should we outlaw 3D printers?  Those devices have already been used to manufacture workable firearms that have no serial number, aren’t registered and are untraceable.  How far do we take this?

5) While it was good TV to see Priest-King wiping his eyes during his speech last week, I have to wonder exactly why he was upset.  After all, he has vigorously advanced the right to kill fetuses even after they somehow survive a botched abortion, so I guess the question hinges on when an innocent child is killed, not if.  (Two hundred babies were aborted on 14 December for every child that Adam Lanza shot, and two hundred more every day since then.)

6) Adam Lanza, like so many of these mass shooters, chose Sandy Hook Elementary School at least in part because it was a soft target.  Nobody was going to stop him.  He didn’t attack a police station or an Army base or NRA headquarters because doing so would get him killed, and he wanted to kill as many unarmed people as possible.  If he had started shooting his way into the school and the Principal had shot him with her own gun, then we’d be talking about something else today.

7) As much as the Left hates the Second Amendment, the Founding Fathers had very good reason for including it in our basic law.  They didn't want a large standing army because of their experience under British occupation; instead they wanted a small, well-trained militia to defend against foreign invasion or Indian attack.  Since the people would constitute such a militia, it was imperative that each able-bodied citizen have his own firearms and be trained in their use, and thus the people themselves would reduce the threat to liberty posed by a standing army commanded by a tyrant.  Alexander Hamilton said as much in Federalist No. 29: "...if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

8) Hearing the Left object to armed guards being assigned to every school puts me in a twist.  They claim that doing so would be too expensive and that it wouldn’t actually increase security, both complaints of course being total hogwash.  (Chris Christie continues to dig himself deeper and deeper as he joins forces with the liberals.  If he thinks he’s ingratiating himself with ordinary Republicans, he’s out of his mind.) They’ve got to be kidding – we borrow $108.3 billion every month so we can send welfare checks to illegals but they draw the line at really securing our schools?  Second, have they not walked through an airport in the last eleven years?  Have they not noticed the armed guards patrolling the terminal with MP-5’s and dogs?  There’s a deterrence factor there. True, there was the JFK Airport plot in June 2007 and we’ve had thugs like Richard Reid and the Underwear Bomber on Christmas Day 2009 attempt to blow up airplanes, but overall, airport security has improved, not least because would-be terrorists can see the retribution right there on the scene waiting for them: They might want to die a martyr but being chewed by a dog and then riddled with submachine gun fire ain’t the way they want to go.  What about the shooting at the U.S. Capitol in 1998? Unfortunately, two Capitol Police officers were killed but they stopped a wacko from getting inside the building and killing even more people, and then there’s the shooting at the U.S. Holocaust Museum in 2009, where a private security guard was killed but stopped a lunatic from getting inside and doing the same thing.  (It so happened that a group of school children were touring the museum when the incident occurred.)  Armed guards have indeed prevented massacres like Sandy Hook, so why the opposition?

This all comes down to the Left having a fundamental philosophical objection to privately-owned firearms.  Rather than counter a potential threat with real, practical and effective means, they’d rather disarm everyone – everyone, that is, except the criminals. I mourn the children of Sandy Hook Elementary and I’m sorry that Adam Lanza isn’t alive to face our justice, but I’m not handing over my firearms just because Michael Bloomberg says so.  A government that fears its own people will seek to disarm them, and if our firearms are gone, with what are we left but tyranny?

Source: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_29.html

The New Villeins

Besides savagely persecuting the Christians, Emperor Diocletian is known for decreeing that the peasant farmers who worked the land and grew the crops during his rule were legally tied to the manor – the villa rustica in Latin – or the noble who owned it.  This decree sought to remedy the decline in food production from peasants quitting the land en masse to escape disease, barbarian invasion or the aforesaid persecution, and like so many executive decisions, it had unintended consequences.  Forcing some peasant farmers to remain on the land seemed like a straightforward Roman way of fixing a problem (while ignoring the reasons why the farmers were fleeing in the first place) but it also created a new social class between freemen and slaves : the villeins.  Villeins were required to register themselves to a specific township and once registered, they could never leave it unless they were delivering a message or going to war, thus they were doomed to a lifetime of misery, filth and backbreaking labor.  Over the course of the next 1200 years, the term villain came to denote an ugly, dirty, foul-tempered scoundrel, and no wonder: With no relief from their wretched state, no hope, all their labor going to feed someone else, their only escape the sweet release of death, the villeins were only one step above the animals they tended and usually slept with.  In essence, they were slaves – serfs derives from the Latin servus, meaning slave.

As the year of our Lord 2012 comes to a close, His Serene Loftiness Barack Hussein Obama, Emperor of the Americas, Priest-King, Generalissimo and Supreme Leader of the People’s Revolution, seeks to return us to the glory days of fourth century Europe but with an interesting twist: The peasants become the lords and the lords become the peasants.  You see, socialist dogma demands that the industrial proletariat own the means of production and divide the wealth produced thereby equally, but that doesn’t mean that the proletariat can invent the means of production, secure the financing required to start it up, or take the risks and have the talent needed to keep it running – the proletariat just want to own the means and enjoy the profits as their medieval predecessors did. Conversely, the robber barons of the modern industrial age – meaning you and I – will be relegated to serfdom, chained to the estate in perpetuity, forced to plan and work and sacrifice so the proletariat can fatten themselves in their castles, so to speak.  We cannot change jobs, we cannot retrain into some other profession, we cannot retire, we certainly cannot leave.  We can only work ourselves to death for the comfort of others less able than ourselves.  We are the new villeins.

When Ronald Reagan left office in 1989, the top Federal income tax rate stood at 25%.  Twenty million jobs had been created, GDP averaged 4.1% annual growth, industrial production increased 28.5% and Federal revenue increased 28% in constant dollars during his administration, refuting the revisionist claim about depleting the Treasury.  (The problem, as always, was runaway spending, which increased over 35% in constant dollars over that period.  Although defense spending increased by over 50% during the period 1980-1989, the boogeyman frequently cited by Leftist politicians, it declined 15% during George H.W. Bush’s Presidency as the Cold War had been won and the so-called “peace dividend” appeared.  However, means-tested entitlement spending shot up 102% over the Reagan-Bush 41 administrations, not including Social Security and Medicare, and has been climbing ever since.)  In 2011, total Federal revenue was $2.3035 trillion, a staggering sum of money, but that staggering sum of money was dwarfed by $3.6031 trillion of Federal spending, a deficit of $1.2996 trillion or about $108.3 billion of new debt for every month of the year.  And as colossal as this level of debt may be, the real threat is the interest that is accumulating and must be paid.  The interest on the Federal debt represents about 3% of United States GDP and has been spiking during Priest-King’s administration.  With a stagnant economy (2.63% GDP growth or less) and high unemployment (7.7%, above 8% from January 2009-September 2012), there isn’t enough private wealth being generated to pay down the interest on the debt, let alone start paying down the debt itself, and since Priest-King continues to spend titanic amounts of money, there is the very real possibility that interest on the Federal debt will reach 12%, an unsustainable level, and trigger a U.S. Government default.  Priest-King would then blithely observe the disaster from his Presidential Library in Chicago, write his memoirs and blame George W. Bush for it all.

Socialism absolutely depends on a large group of talented, educated, hard-working people generating wealth so that wealth can be redistributed as the government sees fit.  If this group of industrious people should shrink or move away or die or do anything but grind away forever, then the whole scheme collapses into the dust.  (See Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece and a host of cities and towns in this country.  See California itself, where a bloated welfare system has attracted millions of low-wage, high-consumption illegals and driven 3.4 million more people out of the state than those who moved to California since 1990.) Subtract the incentive to work hard, subtract the profit motive, and human nature takes over.  Priest-King’s absolute refusal to throttle runaway entitlement spending represents the triumph of ideology over good sense, and it is the same triumph enjoyed by the Soviet commissars before their country disintegrated.  Yes, he’s upset that despite draconian taxes and stratospheric spending, the rich are still rich and the poor are still poor, he can’t admit that his approach, his political philosophy are failures, but if he cares one whit about the country le leads, he’ll make the compromises necessary to prevent the bankruptcy and depression that will surely come.  Is the only acceptable answer the permanent enslavement of ten percent of the population so the other ninety percent can cash their welfare checks?  If it is, and his answer fails, who will he enslave then?

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villein_(feudal)

Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/moneybuilder/2011/09/30/2012-federal-income-tax-brackets-irs-tax-rates/

Source: http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/yearrev2011_0.html

Source: http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/debt_deficit_history

Source: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2001/03/the-real-reagan-economic-record

 

Car Fever

After having lost the Presidency for the fourth time in the last six elections, after losing seats in the Senate and barely hanging onto a weakened majority in the House, the GOP is now under tremendous pressure to submit to Priest-King's demands for higher taxes and more spending in order to avoid the "fiscal cliff" looming on January 1. But before buying a car you don't want because a pushy salesman won't get out of your face, you walk away, and I would urge my Republican colleagues to do the same:

1) One of the core principles of conservatism is that taxes should be as low as possible. Low taxes allow the people to keep more of their own money and the people make better decisions with their money than government bureaucrats do. Low taxes put a brake on spending and thus the size and scope of government, and low taxes result in higher employment, higher GDP, a higher standard of living and higher government revenues, all good things. So given the top ten percent of wage earners already pay seventy percent of all Federal income taxes and given the economy is sputtering along at 1.7% GDP growth, we know that raising income taxes on anyone would be bad, so the GOP should not agree to anything that includes higher tax rates.

2) If the GOP caves and gives Priest-King the tax rate increase he wants, would that solve the problem? No, not even close. Raising the top individual income tax rate to 39.6% would result in about $80 billion in increased Federal revenue, or about enough to offset the Federal deficit for about three weeks, so for Priest-King, it's clearly not about the money but about the principle. (Note: Increasing income tax rates on the highest earners will also result in a decline in revenue after the first year, since those individuals and corporations will shift their assets elsewhere, a fact the Left never seems to learn.) Priest-King harbors a deep-seated animosity toward some of the wealthy (Warren Buffett, George Soros and other lefty tycoons get a pass), believing in his soul that they lied, cheated, defrauded and stole their way to wealth, so they must be punished. Their ill-gotten gains should be seized and redistributed to more deserving people, people who just happened to vote Democrat in the last election, and forcing the GOP to surrender on higher taxes will a) take the GOP's signature issue off the table for a generation or more; b) trigger a Republican civil war that will collapse the Party and thence resistance to his hard-Left agenda; and c) demonstrate his absolute political supremacy for his second term, during which he intends to complete the transformation of America into the grand socialist collective of his dreams. Republicans should resist higher taxes with their dying breath for these reasons alone.

3) Republicans will be viciously blamed no matter what happens, so if the legacy media will never love them, why agree to something they know is wrong? If the GOP agrees to higher taxes without major entitlement spending reform, they'll be blamed for exploding the deficit. If they agree to higher taxes and get major entitlement spending cuts in return, they'll be blamed for starving the poor and the elderly. If they cannot agree with Priest-King on anything and we go over the fiscal cliff, they'll be blamed for gutting the Defense Department (which Priest-King wants to do anyway but the blame for which he will gladly shift to the hapless Republicans), hundreds of thousands of new unemployed, the aforementioned starving poor and elderly and for higher taxes on the sainted middle class. So given they will be excoriated no matter what they do, how should the Republicans proceed? In my view, it comes down to answering this question: Do they act in their own self-interest or in the best interest of the country? If they're more concerned with their own political future, they'll make a hellish bargain with Priest-King that will bankrupt us all. (Bear in mind that Obamacare in its full horror will be implemented alongside any deal the GOP might make, including its own massive taxes.) However, if they act in the best interest of the country, they'll walk away from the negotiating table and let us go over the cliff. Sequestration would indeed take effect but simultaneous with cuts to the Democrats' precious social programs. The Bush tax cuts would expire for everyone, not just the top wage
earners, forcing those who currently pay very little or nothing for the welfare spending they consume to ante up. Priest-King's second term agenda would be upset, at least temporarily, costing him time and political capital, and perhaps the 2014 midterm elections - occurring as the full cost of Obamacare and his colossal deficits bite - would result in Shellacking Part II. Bottom line: No agreement is better than a bad agreement. You didn't want that car anyway.

Moocher Nation

"I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today."
J. Wellington Wimpy


I'm stunned, to state the obvious. Numb. The gravity of this defeat will take some time to register but
initially I feel disbelief. With an economy in shambles, soaring debt, 23 million people either unemployed or underemployed, a government that hasn't passed a budget in three years and borrows $4 billion a day, dead Americans in Benghazi, dead Mexicans and a dead Border Patrol agent because of Fast and Furious, Iraq and Afghanistan unraveling, Iran only months away from enough enriched uranium to make a nuclear weapon and the largest tax increase in American history looming on January 1, the American people deliberately choose more of the same. It's irrational.

Everything I predicted in 2008 has come true and we have no reason to doubt that our perilous situation will continue for another four years. Barack Obama is hell-bent on reshaping America into a Soviet collective in which fetuses may be killed inside and outside the womb, homosexuals are free to defile the institution of marriage, illegal immigrants enjoy benefits that American citizens are denied, college students can welch on their loans, the coal industry is killed, the prosperous are enslaved to the deadbeats and our enemies no longer fear us. Since so many millions of my fellow citizens are enraptured with this vision, my impulse is to say to Hell with them and to Hell with my country but then I think of my grandson and the country he'll have to face as he grows up and I can't do that. Not to him. So, slowly, I determine that continuing to fight for traditional conservative values -lower taxes, smaller government, free enterprise, individual freedom, a strong national defense, the right to life, traditional marriage - is the only thing to do, even if it means losing more elections. You can either go down fighting or you can surrender, and I spit on surrendering.

Mitt Romney was a good candidate. He raised tons of money, he hit Obama hard on the economy, he slapped him silly in the first debate, he tried to make the election a referendum on Obama's record and about big issues, and he lost. Paul Ryan would've made a terrific Vice President and he clearly articulated the fiscal danger we face. They had a great organization, they had the best Republicans in the country helping them, they left no stone unturned and they were rejected. Commentators who blame Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are wrong and they're missing the point: The problem isn't with the candidates we supported, it's with our country.

Eighty years of social engineering have produced a population with their hands out. Losing four of the last six Presidential elections (and nearly a fifth - Bush/Gore in 2000) proves that. Taking charity from the government isn't as noble and rewarding as working for a living but it's sure easier. Aborting an innocent fetus is ugly and repugnant but it's easier than raising the child. Allowing homosexuals to ape marriage is abhorrent but it's easier than telling them no, you're a degenerate. Legalizing marijuana will rot our society but it's easier than fighting it. Spending money we don't have will bankrupt us but it's easier than standing up to the AARP. And in 2016, when everything has crashed and the full consequences of Obama's grand vision are plainly evident, the people will wonder how it happened, they'll blame the Republicans for the disaster, the media will glorify Obama's accomplishments and nothing will change. God help us.