Drizzle, Drazzel, Drauzzel, Drone

The muslim brotherhood is behind the revolution in Tunisia. The muslim brotherhood is a major player in the Egyptian revolt. A muslim cleric who had been banned in the US and thrown out of Canada is caught sneaking across the Mexican/American boarder in the trunk of a car. The muslim brotherhood in Egypt says one of the first things that must be done when they take power is to tear up the agreement with Israel. The muslim brotherhood says they will overthrow all muslim leaders who are friends with the US. Venezuelan president hugo chavez has befriended Iranian leader mahmoud aquavelvajad and any other muslim leader who is anti US.

All of these fact statements can be verified through quick google searches. 

And yet, to listen to the MSM, leftist politicians, and liberal Hollywood elites, you would think the greatest threats to America are: a) the Second Amendment, b) Sarah Palin, c) the TEA Party, and d) Michelle Bachmann. 

What am I missing?

We have an unregulated southern boarder that seems to allow a near free flow of illegals of every strip to flow into our country. In Venezuela we have a self-proclaimed enemy who has allied himself with others who have called for the destruction of our nation. We have radical muslim groups calling for the destruction of America and Israel gaining momentum. These same groups are calling for sharia law throughout the world. A quasi-legal/religious system that would reduce women to the legal level of a pet, a system that would make alternate life styles punishable by death.  

And yet the majority of news sources are acting like these uprisings are a move for democracy in these middle eastern countries with no possible negative blowback on America. Their only concern seems to be in belittling the people who are interested in protecting America from those wishing us harm. They are worried about those of us who believe in the Second Amendment. They fear those who would speak up for America as a great independent country. They do everything they can to debase the TEA party because it believes in fiscal responsibility and the limiting of the power of the central government.

Did I fall through, as Dennis Miller would say, some cosmic bunny hole and land in the old Superman Comic Book world Bizzaro? The world where everything is backward. Where rust is sought after and gold is shunned. Where good is bad and bad is good.

I’m so confused! 

To paraphrase Tooter Turtle: “Help me Mister Wizard, I don’t want to be confused anymore!”

Rand Paul....An American Hero

I’m liking Rand Paul more and more. I wish he was one of my Senators!

I see where he has put forth a plan to slash the Federal budget by 500 billion dollars. Now there’s a step in the right direction. And where does he suggest the government stop spending our money? He suggests eliminating several programs altogether while shrinking others and folding them into other departments.

He suggests eliminating the departments of Education and Housing and Urban Development. Now I don’t really know that much about HUD so I will refrain from making any comments about it other than to say I don’t see where the Constitution enumerates a power for the federal government to be involved in this area. As far as the Department of Education is concerned, I can only see good things coming from it. Like HUD, there is no real Constitutional justification for it. The Department of Ed has proven to be a billy club the Federal Government has been able to use to force schools into conforming to their social engineering experiments. Without it, the Feds would have played holly hell in forcing such things as Title IX on our schools. Their threat to pull all Federal funds from schools if they didn’t comply was analogous to organized crime forcing protection monies out of store owners. But instead of making the schools pay them money, they forced the schools to have a women’s sport for every men’s sport. How many millions/billions of dollars were spent by school systems on programs that were lightly supported by their own communities just to protect the flow of Federal dollars that should never have been there in the first place? Leave education up to the states and local communities. Let them put the emphasis where they feel it is most appropriate.

Rand also suggests the elimination of funding for the National Endowment of the Arts and the Public Broadcasting Corporation. What a marvelous idea! I mean really, how much great art, as judged by the majority of the folks paying the freight, has come from publicly funded artists? A WHOLE lot of mediocre to plain old sucky art has come from it, but damned little good to great art. When you look back over time and see when art was funded by the artist’s ability to produce art that had a base willing to pay for it or a patron willing to spend their personal finances on it, a lot of great art was produced. This holds true from Michael Angelo to Fredrick Remington. Art that doesn’t have individuals who are willing to spend their personal wealth on it tends to degenerate into bull squeeze rather rapidly. And that’s exactly what the NEA tends to engender.

As far as the Public Broadcasting is concerned, if it were even handed in the way it presented information, I could see a value to it. But it doesn’t! Federally funded public broadcasting is taking its money from all of the American people in order proselytize for the beliefs of about 20% of the people. If it is going to be an advocate for only one segment of the population it should be forced to receive its funding from that group. It should not be able to take monies to operate from those who disagree with their positions.

Then there is the elimination of foreign aid. What a grand idea he has there. (I suppose I’m particularly fond of this one because I’ve advocated this for years.) Why in God’s name would we be giving billions of dollars away to other countries when we are having to borrow money to keep ourselves running? Couple that with the fact that the majority of this money seems to go to countries that don’t like us in the first place, it becomes more troubling still. And if that weren’t enough, some studies indicate that in many of these corrupt countries, less than 30% of it actually makes it to the folks it was meant to help. Corrupt politicians and bureaucrats stealing the rest. Then top it all off with the fact that in several cases our money is going to fund enemies of ours and our allies. What a colossal cluster schtoup foreign aid turns out to be.

Now don’t get me wrong, I fully believe that many of these places like Haiti or areas of Africa are deserving of assistance. But why not say, ok, if you ask for help from us, we will come in and do X, Y or Z. We will be the ones doing the work, thus assuring that what money we do spend actually goes to the issue we mean to address. Not some corrupt SOB’s personal luxury account. We will be there for a specified period of time to accomplish a specific task. We would not go there on some warm and fuzzy “improve the living conditions” type mission that would have no clear cut end point. This would also create jobs for Americans, to do this work.

Rand seems to have hit upon the key to solving our fiscal problem. He’s seen we’re in a hole so the first thing he wants us to do is stop digging!

Unintended Cosequences

I just read where traffic accidents resulting in pedestrian injuries and/or death have risen in Virginia over the past year. A governor’s council believes this is partially due to Michelle Obama’s efforts to get America moving by walking places rather than driving/riding. They feel that the increase in foot traffic has led to increased accidents.

So, do I “blame” Michelle and Big Government? Of course not! There are always unintended consequences from any action. Some of these are positive and some are negative. Unless the negative outcomes outweigh the positive outcomes, there is no reason to back away from your choice. 

While I haven’t seen any figures to be able to definitively say, but I’d be willing to bet that the number of people that have had their lives improved through increased exercise far out numbers those who have been injured. You don’t stop a good due to a miniscule amount of negatives. If this were the case there would be no aspirin because some people are aspirin sensitive. There would be no flu vaccines because some people have reactions. There would be no airplanes because sometimes they crash. Etc. Etc. Etc.

What gets me is how the liberals are very attuned to this concept and endorse it when it’s involving one of their pet projects. One where the balance may not be quite so obviously for the positive over the negative, say in the “Cap and Trade (Tax?)” carbon emissions area. Yes, this would reduce carbon in the environment and it might reduce the chance of the yet unsubstantiated global warming, but at what cost? The measures called for in this bill would increase the cost of energy, which would then increase the cost of virtually everything from heating and cooling your home to the food you eat. This would undoubtedly impact people more the lower they are on the income spectrum. The very people the liberals count on for their votes. And yet they push these ideas forward.

On the opposite side of the spectrum you hear the liberals squawk loudly for gun control or bans on guns anytime a gun is used by a criminal or a crazy. Yes, it is deplorable every time a criminal uses a gun to commit a crime. But they are INTENTIONALLY committing a crime. They have consciously made the decision to break the law and rob someone or kill someone. Do you really think that having a law against them having a gun will be a deterrent?

And what about the crazy person? There are already laws in place to keep weapons out of the hands of the mentally unstable, but accidents happen and sometimes they are able to acquire a weapon. But how many times does this really happen? I’ll be generous and say that this happens once a month in every state in the Union. That would be 600 people per year (way more than is the actual occurrence). Using a rough approximation of our population of 350 million people in this country, that means that .000171% of the population gets a weapon through an error in the system and commits a heinous crime. Is that a reason to outlaw gun ownership for all the sane, law abiding citizens who only wish to protect themselves? The liberal gun nuts will say yes! They will say one death is too many. And in theory I agree. Any death is to be lamented. However, to remove handguns from the general population makes everyone a better target for the criminal set. It has been proven time and again, where there is legal handgun ownership, violent crimes decrease. 

While seldom reported (unlike the cases of the mad gunman) private gun ownership saves lives and forestalls crime every day. If only the liberal gun nuts were to use the same math on all issues that they so readily try to apply to their questionable issues, we would be far better off.

Hey Simon, Mind Your Own Business!

The guardian.co.uk published an article yesterday calling for US free speech to be more tightly regulated. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jan/13/free-speech-us-politics-obama) In this article Simon Jenkins calls for more European style restrictions to free speech in the US. I gather that he would like to see the “hate speech” we’ve been hearing so much about outlawed. He calls for the reinstatement of the “fairness doctrine” over public airwaves.

Well, I guess my first response is, “Hey Simon, shut the F up and mind your own business. You don’t see us telling the Bits how to run their country so don’t tell us how to run ours!” 

Secondly, America has more than enough regulations on our speech as is. We don’t need more. If anything, we need less. We need for people to know they can express themselves and be heard. We don’t need them gaged. 

Laws and regulations like the Fairness Doctrine wind up giving equal weight to unequal opinions. Without such laws, positions are entered into the public forum and they are either accepted by the public or rejected. To force equal volumes of unequal ideas is ludicrous. That would be the equivalent to saying that for every room in your house that you have painted white you must have a room of equal size painted black. In a free society, you should be able to choose what you want, not be forced to endure something you disagree with. In a free market of ideas, the availability of a position will be determined by the publics call for it. Laws regulating it are merely one groups attempt to manipulate the public and try to push one position over another. 

This is equally bad for conservatives and liberals. As public opinion ebbs and flows, the minority position inevitably becomes the majority and vice versa. A position that you push for now to force the acceptance of your ideas today will bite you in the butt tomorrow when the roles have reversed, 

At the end of the day, if your idea isn’t gaining public acceptance you need to consider one of two things: a) you aren’t making your argument in a convincing enough manner. If this is the case, you will need to sharpen your thinking and make a better case for your position. You will need to explain just why it is that your position is superior to the other one you are arguing against.

Or b) your idea sucks. People have considered your position and have determined it to be unworthy, and thus have discarded your position. 

In the final analysis, people generally make the call on a “What’s In It For Me” basis. If you are advocating a position that is going to make someone’s life less desirable, they are probably not going to be inclined to choose that option. If you are telling somebody who has worked hard and made good decisions that you are going to take from them and give to someone who has done just the opposite, they are most likely going to tell you to go fly a kite. If on the other hand you ask them to help someone who, through no fault of their own, is experiencing hard times, they are quite likely to lend a helping hand. Most of us believe in, as Dennis Miller puts it, “Help the helpless and Forget the clueless.” 

Oops, I kind of rambled on that last paragraph. 

We don’t need rules and regulations on our free speech. We have slander and liable laws to keep people from telling lies and defaming our character. If someone tells an untruth about you, you have legal recourse. And just like them, you have access to the public forum. You can rebut them.

So, Simon, go suck an egg and mind your own country’s business. I think you’ve got enough issues to worry about without offering unsolicited advice to us.

J Eric Fuller, Leftist Hero

J. Eric Fuller, there’s a name you probably won’t here very often in the news. You are most likely asking yourself “Why in the world would Farmboy ask if I’ve heard of this guy?”

It’s really quite simple. J. Eric Fuller stood up in the middle of taping a news segment, held up a picture of a Republican on the panel and shouted “Your Dead”. After making other disparaging remarks concerning “Teabaggers” he was removed and taken for psychiatric evaluation. 

So far I’ve only found one reference to this incident. In the reference there is NO mention of the “left wing radical hate speech” causing this fellow to make such threatening comments. Nor is there any mention of the fact that this is not the first such outburst by this fellow. 

You see, this fellow was one of the shooting victims in Tucson this past weekend. Fuller went on the radio show Democracy NOW (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21hID0xXG1c) and blamed last Saturday’s shooting on Beck, Palin and others. I remember the media making a big deal out of this. Many giving him credence because he was a military veteran. 

Once again, the left tells only part of the story. Yes, Fuller is a veteran and I thank him for his service. He was discharged with a “non-physical disability” according to his own telling. I don’t think I’m going to far off the reservation to assume that a non-physical disability means he had some mental issues. Yet there they were holding this guy up as someone we should pay attention to. Was their failure to disclose this done through intent or accident it will be hard for us to tell. My guess would be intent. 

Mr. Fuller’s comments were well publicized when he made them, while narry a word was mentioned about the fact he was using the very same type of rhetoric he was railing against. He received praise from sources such as Soros operatives, Media Matters, Huffington Post and Chris Matthews. Now that he has made the public outburst  with the implied death threat to a Conservative, he has disappeared from the MSM faster than a hotdog at Coney Island on the 4th of July.

The hypocrisy of the left knows no bounds.

You Just Knew It Was Gonna Happen

You just knew it was going to happen! After Saturday’s tragedy where the Congresswoman from Arizona was shot, 6 others were killed and a total of 20 were injured the left is out howling about the “violent rhetoric of the right”. Yet again they are pushing for gun control if not the outright abolition of private gun ownership.

We are already hearing Sarah Palin being pilloried for her “targeting” of Democratic districts. Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and others are being called purveyors of “hate”. 

Here we see the Left’s fervent belief in “never letting a good crisis go to waste” swing into action as they try to limit or ban guns and muzzle talk radio. Their problem is there are several flies in their ointment.

The first, and to me the biggest, is the Left’s whole argument against weapons and large capacity magazines. The one you hear the most is “you don’t need handguns or large capacity magazines to go hunting”. Well, they are correct about the large capacity magazines and hunting. They are un-necessary….for hunting. Handguns, on the other hand are quite useful on a hunting trip; snakes, varmints, close range coup de grace to put an animal out misery, etc. But they are missing the point of the 2^nd Amendment, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” 

The Constitution and the first 10 Amendments was written shortly after we had overthrown the British Crown here in America. The framers of the Constitution recognized the peoples need to be armed so that they could defend themselves from an overbearing government. They felt so strongly about this that they included it in the foundational papers of our government. 

Pro Big Government Lefties realize that an armed citizenry is much harder to control and thus they try to limit our ability to resist at every turn! Any time you hear someone try to frame the argument against private gun ownership and/or the ability to bear arms in terms of “you don’t really need”, you can be sure of one of two things. They either don’t understand the Constitution and what it’s about, or they do understand it but disagree with the concept of limited government and individual rights and freedoms.

The next fly would be their immediate assumption that the shooter was incited to his acts by “Right Wing Talk Radio”. I listened to the heroic woman who helped subdue the shooter and she was throwing blame on Right Wing Rhetoric. I have read where several Democratic politicians have come out blaming Limbaugh, Beck, etc. Their problem is, it appears that the shooter was a far left individual. 

It is reported in the Phoenix New Times that a HS and college classmate who was also in a band with the shooter claims he was a “Left-wing pothead”. Oops! But ya know, I doubt much of that will ever make it to the MSM.

Despite the fact that this guy is quite likely a radical leftist, we can expect an all out assault on conservative talk radio. This will be done while totally overlooking the radical incitement of the far left. Such sources as MoveOn.org, The Daily Kos, Ed Shultz, etc. will never be brought up as they vilify the right. Neither will they bring up dangerous radicals such as The Weathermen, the killer of James Pouillon, or the New Black Panthers, all of whom advocate, or have used violence to further their leftist agendas.

I feel great sorrow for the six slain and 20 wounded individuals and their families in Tucson, to say nothing of Congresswoman Gifford and her family. That being said, don’t let the left get away with using these folks’ personal tragedy for their political gain.

Under Cover Vultures and Sharks

Are they really that stupid?!?

I just read this morning where Saudi Arabia has arrested a vulture as an Israeli spy! The vulture had been tagged by an Israeli university as part of a migratory study. The vulture was released and it flew into Saudi Arabian territory where it was captured (just how dumb is this vulture to be captured twice?) by Saudi authorities. They found the radio tracking device with Tel Aviv University on it and of course, concluded that the vulture was in the employ of Israel as a spy. The vulture is currently under detention.

Couple this with the Egyptian politician who last month suggested the shark that attacked and killed and or maimed several tourists may have been sent by the Mossad, and you are getting picture of the thought processes of our enemies. These people are either dumber than a box of hammers or they believe their subjects are and will believe any crap they tell them, or quite probably both.

For the moment, let’s return to the vulture. Let’s just say that it was possible to have a politically conscious vulture who has taken Israel’s side, or we have a material vulture who is just in it for the money. Why would such a sentient vulture agree to having a radio transmitter attached to it with Tel Aviv University boldly printed on it? Or let’s say, on the off chance that the vulture wasn’t a willing participant, that Israel was using the vulture as a spy against his will. Would Israel be so stupid as to label anything on the vulture as coming from Israel? I don’t think so. They have proven to be a little more clever than that. They would have mis-labeled it with something soothing to their arab brothers, something like “Property of Al Quid Athletic Department”. You know, something their enemies would not find suspicious.

And as far as the shark goes, come on now. That’s just plain crazy talk. 

Yes, I know Bugsy Siegel had some shark like qualities, but he wasn’t a real, honest to goodness shark. The last I checked, sharks weren’t capable of rational thought and didn’t show much discrimination within their choices of food categories. I don’t believe they could be taught to check for signs of circumcision before attacking someone frolicking at the beach. 

For this Egyptian politician to say that the shark attack need to be investigated as a Mossad attack with a straight face is amazing. 

Yes, I know there are muslims who are nuclear scientists, that doesn’t change the fact that the majority of those who are so easily convinced that America and Israel are the great satin and should be wiped from the face of the earth, are operating on a 5th century developmental level. I mean, really, who in their right mind arrests a vulture as a spy?????

So I guess, the next question comes, why do we try and use 21st century logic while dealing with people who believe vultures and sharks can be spies and agents?

Maybe we ought to forget all the 21st century nambi pambi crap and solve this problem the way problems were solved in the 5th century. 

Recess Appointment

President Obama has named Robert Ford as Syrian Ambassador in a recess appointment. This appointment is fully within his rights as President and I full support his  being able to do so. This was an appointment that couldn’t be made when congress was in session due to the questionable decision to reinstate an ambassador to Syria.

President Bush appointed John Bolton as the UN Ambassador in a recess appointment. This had to be done because Bolton is a staunch conservative and liberals controlled congress at the time. In my opinion, Bolton was an excellent choice for the position and it was a good move by President Bush.

The difference here being in Bolton’s case, the liberals were opposed to him because he was a conservative, they held the House and the Senate and thus held up the nomination. Bolton was merely filling an existing ambassadorial slot to the UN. It was making a conservative political statement, but it was one that supported conservative ideals such as opposition to terrorism, and individual countries rights.

Ford’s appointment is qualitatively different. Obama couldn’t get him appointed while liberals held near complete control of both the House and the Senate. That says something all by itself. Why was the Pres so determined to put this man in place when even his own party clearly didn’t think it was a good idea?

Was it because even a good number of liberal democrats knew that reinstating an ambassador to Syria was sending a message that Obama was a weak in the fight against islamic terrorists and not a supporter of Israel? Many democrats realize that we can’t forsake our friends, the Israelis. The one country outside of Great Britain and Australia that has stuck with us through thick and thin. The country that offered the PLO a homeland of their own, only to have them reject the plan and continue to rain terror attacks down on them. 

But the Pres has chosen to “engage” a country that we have already declared a state sponsor of terrorism! Here he is, again, showing support for a regime that has nothing but ill will for us and wishes total destruction of our good and strong ally Israel.

It just goes to show, when an election is won because folks vote for someone with NO real world experience, someone who’s only influences have been radical left wing university types and socialist organizers such as Saul Alinsky, we will have a President who works against the best interests of the nation. 

So, do I support the President’s right to make recess appointments? My answer is an unqualified “YES”. My problem is when we have an incompetent in the role of President. A man who’s allegiances to the United States of America are somewhat questionable, when viewed through the lens of his actions to date.

Elections have consequences! I hope we’ve learned our lesson and correct it before irreparable damage is done.