Wednesday, September 22, 2010

GQ Hit Piece On Rand Paul

How can you tell when you are on the right track politically? When both sides want to defeat you.

That seems to be the general consensus of KY Senate hopeful Rand Paul in the latest hit piece on him, this time by GQ. Evidently Paul gets no love from the left because he believes in the ideals of the Constitution that the founders had and scares the power brokers on the right because he won't play the game. And that is the slant of the article, to turn the loyal, party line Republican against Rand.

GQ even takes a further swipe at him by showing a less than flattering picture of him relaxing either before or after interview, that would only be from the waist up, wearing a jacket and tie along with shorts and sneakers. Memo to GQ, this isn't uncommon seeing as how hot a TV studio can be. It's done all the time.

Maybe Jason Zengerle doesn't get it, this is what we want from politicians. Real people who believe in what this country was founded on and stand up for their beliefs, not playing the politics-as-usual-say-the-right-things game to stay in power. And so what if Dr Paul goes to great lengths to avoid coming across as the smartest guy in the room even when he is. That is a big departure from the current crop of idiots in DC who seem to believe they are smarter than the rest of us. Frankly it's quite refreshing.

So let the GOP establishment fret over the threat to their hold on power. Their time is just about up anyway. It's not about the party, it's about the country and candidates like Rand Paul are what we need to get this country back on track.

Please support Rand Paul at Rand Paul 2010 if you value fiscal responsibility, liberty and the Constitution.

GQ
All of this has left Republicans in a state of high anxiety about which positions Paul will maintain—and which ones he's willing to bend on—once he enters the Senate. "After the primary, there's been a split and a debate," a Republican strategist involved in efforts to derail Paul this past spring tells me. "Half of us think Paul is far more ambitious than his father—he doesn't just want to prove a point, he wants to be a player—and that his ambition will outweigh his ideology." According to this view, Paul's success will ensure his obedience. "I think he'll be laundered by the Senate a little bit," another prominent conservative predicts. "He'll still sometimes be a pain in the neck for the leadership, but I'd expect him to get Senate-ized over time."

But not everyone is so sure. Says the Republican strategist, "There's the other half who think he really is his father's kid, he's kind of a schmuck, and he may well lose a seat we should otherwise win—and frankly, we aren't terribly upset about it."
Via Memeorandum

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Obama's Auntie Zeituni - "You Have The Obligation To Make Me A Citizen"

That's right, entitlement runs in the family. In an interview with Bostons WBZ-TV, Auntie Zeituni blames the system while taking full advantage of it, getting disability payments and living in public housing. Not bad for someone who hasn't paid into that system.

I just have to ask, if it's such a nightmare, why did she fight so hard to stay?



Via WBZ-TV

Gun Ownership Up, Violent Crime Down

Yeah I know, it's just a coincidence.

Gun Ownership Rises to All-Time High, Violent Crime Falls to 35-Year Low

Coinciding with a surge in gun purchases that began shortly before the 2008 elections, violent crime decreased six percent between 2008 and 2009, including an eight percent decrease in murder and a nine percent decrease in robbery. Since 1991, when violent crime peaked, it has decreased 43 percent to a 35-year low. Murder has fallen 49 percent to a 45-year low. At the same time, the number of guns that Americans own has risen by about 90 million. Predictions by gun control supporters, that increasing the number of guns, particularly handguns and so-called “assault weapons,” would cause crime to increase, have been proven profoundly lacking in clairvoyance.


Crimes per 100,000 population
Year
Total Violent Crime
Murder
Rape
Robbery
Aggravated Assault
1991
758.1
9.8
42.3
272.7
433.3
2008
457.5
5.4
29.7
145.7
276.7
2009
429.4
5.0
28.7
133.0
262.8
Trend, 2008-2009
-6%
-8%
-4%
-9%
-5%
Trend, 1991-2009
-43%
-49%
-32%
-51%
-39%

More Guns: There are well over 250 million privately-owned firearms in the U.S., including nearly 100 million handguns and tens of millions of “assault weapons” – the types of firearms that gun control supporters have tried the hardest to get banned – and the number of firearms typically rises about 4 million per year. Annual numbers of new AR-15s, the most popular semi-automatic rifle that gun control supporters call an “assault weapon,” are soaring. In 2008, there were more than 337,000 new AR-15s configured for home defense, competition, training, recreational target practice and hunting. NRA-supported Instant Check firearm transactions have increased over 10 percent annually since 2006.

Less Gun Control: Over the last quarter-century, many federal, state and local gun control laws have been eliminated or made less restrictive. The federal “assault weapon” ban, upon which gun control supporters claimed public safety hinged, expired in 2004 and the murder rate has since dropped 10 percent. The federal handgun waiting period, for years the centerpiece of gun control supporters’ agenda, expired in 1998, in favor of the NRA-supported national Instant Check, and the murder rate has since dropped 21 percent. Accordingly, some states have eliminated obsolete waiting periods and purchase permit requirements. There are now 40 Right-to-Carry states, an all-time high, up from 10 in 1987. All states have hunter protection laws, 48 have range protection laws, 48 prohibit local gun laws more restrictive than state law, 44 protect the right to arms in their constitutions, 33 have “castle doctrine” laws protecting the right to use guns in self-defense, and Congress and 33 states prohibit frivolous lawsuits against the firearm industry. Studies for Congress, the Congressional Research Service, the Library of Congress, the National Institutes of Justice, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found no evidence that gun control reduces crime. The FBI doesn’t list gun control as one of the many factors that determine the type and level of crime from place to place.


Via LewRockwell.com

Sunday, September 19, 2010

Are We Due For A Bout Of Hyperinflation?

The Treasury has been burning the midnight oil for some time now, keeping the printing presses churning, with the hopes of creating currency out of thin air in order to prop up our failing economy but to what end? Unemployment is still hovering around 10%, businesses and banks are holding on to their money and consumer confidence is low signaling another possible dip in the already sputtering economy.

All the Fed seems to care about is the dreaded D word, deflation, because in their opinion, while lower prices are good for the consumer, they are bad for businesses. But now here is the irony, true deflation is caused by a decrease in the money supply, so how come we are not seeing higher inflation with all the extra money being pumped out? Because the Fed is sopping up all the excess liquidity and propping up Treasury bonds, that's why.

In this great series of articles, Gonzalo Lira delves into the Treasury bond bubble and why we are headed towards hyperinflation. And while it may seem like the end of the world as we know it, this could be the correction that our economy needs to get healthy again, but it is going to hurt like hell for a while.

How Hyperinflation Will Happen
Hyperinflation, Part II: What It Will Look Like
A Termite-Riddled House: Treasury Bonds
Was Stagflation in ‘79 Really Hyperinflation?

Sarah Palin’s Gentle Shade of Purple In A Cobalt Blue State by The Left Coast Rebel

By the Left Coast Rebel

A good friend of MTOF Tim Daniel, aka Left Coast Rebel, has scored his first article at PajamasMedia highlighting the good and bad of Sarah Palin's endorsement of Carly Fiorina for the California Senate seat currently held by Democrat Barbara Boxer.

Congratulations Tim and a job well done.

Sarah Palin’s Gentle Shade of Purple in a Cobalt Blue State
Observers from astute political junkies to sideline neophytes may recall Sarah Palin’s enthusiastic May 2010 endorsement of California’s Grand Old Party Senate nominee Carly Fiorina. The event was just one of many aspects of the race and politics in a state thought to be the most dysfunctional in the nation.

The face-off between three term incumbent Democrat Barbara Boxer and the former Hewlett Packard chief executive officer hits a government-funded California theater near you on November 2.

Long before Palin’s endorsement, Fiorina was seen as the far less purist-conservative candidate in the tea party age. The endorsement went directly against the grassroots current for Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, the failed primary candidate. Many DeVore fans and tea party activists expressed their dissatisfaction with Palin’s Fiorina-boost.

But something beyond boiled-over tea party activist discontent was brewing.
Palin’s endorsement motive was dubbed “feminist over tea partier.” This  introduced a new dynamic into the race — an extension of Palin’s pink-elephant effort to mobilize the election success of conservative women across America. Riding the tea party wave, Palin sought challengers to the traditional liberal female office seeker.
The “mama grizzly” movement is based on the female nurturing/caring instinct and matronly fear for the future of America. From local Republican office victories to the notable primary wins of Sharron Angle in Nevada and Nikki Haley in South Carolina, mama grizzly roared east and west of the Rockies.

Many may find the mama grizzly phenomenon to be a new ideological facet of gender politics in California, but the state is not new to the feminist electoral role. California Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein ran for Congress’s higher chamber for the first time in 1992. That year was dubbed the “year of the woman,” and Boxer and Feinstein became California’s first two female senators elected, also joining three female senatorial winners nationwide.

In 1896, Californians overwhelmingly voted against women’s suffrage. Ironically, according to Taming the Elephant: Politics, Government and Law in Pioneer California by John F. Burns and Richard J. Orsi, the key deciding voting districts were none other than today’s progressive strongholds — San Francisco and Oakland.

Men of that day voted nay on the basis that allowing women into the voting booth would also have ushered in alcohol prohibition in the state. It’s interesting to think that Palin-era mama grizzlies are unified in motherly instincts, whereas the turn-of-the-century female figures desired voting rights to keep men away from booze.

For a bird’s-eye-view of the California Senate race action, I set out on foot in my hometown of Carlsbad, California.
Read the rest here

Sunday, September 12, 2010

I'm Still Alive

Pardon my disappearance over the past 10 days and don't worry, I didn't get hit by a bus or anything (although it feels like it) but had to go out of town unexpectedly on business but I'm back now. Blogging on the road is a bitch since my company laptop blocks blogger and it is a hassle to remote into my home PC to do it. Besides, it's not like I had any time to follow current events anyway.

So give me a day or three to catch up on the news, and sleep, and I'll be back to the ole bloggin'.
Related Posts with Thumbnails