Southern Fried Ridiculousness Part II: The Stupiding

OK, I’m getting sick of this.  There’s a ton of people passing around the following picture that are about to get a slappin’ by ye olde Annoyed Elephant:

Seriously…   what’s wrong with you people?  Christians are among the most generous people on the planet.  They give and give and give to food banks, homeless shelters, and individuals in need on a near-constant basis, giving billions of dollars every year out of their own pockets to combat poverty and hunger, not only in America, but around the world.  On top of that, Chick-Fil-A mandates that its franchises also give to local charities and people in need.

And yet, socially-minded folks are lining up to point out how evil some Christians were for spending $7 at Chick-Fil-A to support a man who shares their family values.  As if it’s an either-or scenario where we either help the poor or support Chick-Fil-A, and ne’er the twain shall meet.  As if, somehow, because of all the people who ate at Chick-Fil-A on Wednesday to support Truett Cathy’s freedom of conscience regarding his Biblical morals will somehow erase decades of “success” in the war on poverty.

Get off your high horse, people.  Eat your damned chicken sandwich.

Read Full Post »

Southern-Fried Ridiculousness

If a business does something I don’t approve of, I simply stop shopping there.  For instance, Citgo is owned by Hugo Chavez, communist dictator of Venezuela, and because I consider Hugo to be a gigantic douche, I don’t get gas as Ctigo.  Ever.  If my friends ask me, I’ll tell them why I avoid Citgo.  They may agree and stop shopping there, they may not.  It’s all good because we’re all individuals capable of making adult decisions and I don’t pick my friends and colleagues based on politics – and those friends I have who do disagree with me tend to be adult enough to realize this.

So, this leads to the question: why the war on Chick-Fil-A?

First, let’s get this clear: Chick-Fil-A the company was founded by a Christian man whose values have driven his business model.  The employees are typically extremely friendly to customers, the restaurants are very considerate towards families in both design and menu offerings, and they’re closed on Sunday (a point which has annoyed me often when I’ve had a mis-timed craving).  The founder of Chick-Fil-A, S. Truett Cathy, continues to promote his personal values.  So what’s the problem?

I’m shocked! Shocked, I tell you!

Well, shockingly to some, this man – who’s fostered over 200 kids, attends church every Sunday, and continues to teach Sunday School classes in his 90′s, doesn’t like gay marriage.  His business doesn’t discriminate against gays, they don’t refuse to serve gay people, they don’t put pictures of the Chick-Fil-A cows holding signs that say “God Hats Homoos” on their marquees.  It’s simply that Truett doesn’t think gay behavior is right and doesn’t support gay marriage.  Now, what would an adult do about this shocking revelation?

• Option 1: Realize that we’re talking about a 91 year old Christian man and get on with life, applauding his works you agree with, and occasionally stopping by Chick-Fil-A for their delicious sandwiches.
• Option 2: Disagree with Mr. Cathy and send the company a letter expressing your discontent with his position, but accepting the fact that Chick-Fil-A probably isn’t going to be putting out an Anti-Gay Kids Meal any time soon.
• Option 3: Perform a personal boycott of Mr. Cathy’s businesses.  Be content in your personal sacrifice, but sad that you’re missing out on their delicious chicken.
• Option 4: Perform same boycott, but mention to friends that they may want to join you.   Send a letter to the company stating your reasons for boycotting.
• Option 5: Demonize a 91-year-old man whose values you never agreed with and use the force of government to exert the force of your will, not only upon the business whose founder has beliefs you don’t agree with, but on the potential employees of said business.  Plus, hold gay kiss-in events at Chick-Fil-A so that the people who eat their lunch there will feel totally weird about it and not eat there, forcing Chick-Fil-A to serve people who held their kiss-ins, except that they already totally do serve gay people at Chick-Fil-A, which means you’re just doing it for show.  Besides, people who don’t agree with your political views don’t deserve the same freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment that good progressives do.

Normal people would choose 1-4.  Sadly, a ton of retards are choosing 5, getting the likes of Boston Mayor Thomas Menino and Chicago Mayor and Obama associate Rahm Emanuel to try to push Chick-Fil-A out of their respective cities, a fascistic move that’s even set off the free expression alarm at the incredibly liberal Boston Globe, Chicago Sun-Times, and NPR.

The ultimate in irony is that while Rahm Emanuel was pushing against Chick-Fil-A for Cathy’s support of traditional marriage, he was also welcoming Louis Farrakhan to Chicago, who not only opposes gay marriage, but also openly and proudly hates Jewish people like…  Rahm Emanuel.

The pro-family groups have organized today, August 1, as a Chick-Fil-A appreciation day, and have encouraged people to go by and grab a sammich.  Personally, I disagree with this.  I think that a better approach is simply to eat mor chikin.  Don’t limit it to a single day – go support the businesses who support your values on a regular basis.  Show them your support by becoming a regular customer.  Go buy a sammich today…  and then another tomorrow…  and then another a few days from now.  Sure, you’ll get fat, but it’ll be delicious and you’ll be giving your support to a business whose values are the same values found in Scripture.

That’s my take.

Read Full Post »

Gun Week: Reasonable Restrictions?

We’ve gone over why we should own guns and the various gun law issues.  So the question arises: is the 2^nd Amendment absolute?  Should we be allowed to have nuclear weapons, RPG’s, and other instruments of death that are restricted to the military?  How far should these restrictions extend?

There are extremists on both sides.  One side, of course, denies that the 2^nd Amendment means what it clearly says.  These people should be ignored and mocked.  The other side, of course, says that no citizen should be denied a weapon that the government can’t get its hands on.  These people…   are actually pretty close to the original intent of the 2^nd Amendment: namely, the right to defend yourself against government tyranny.

Exercising My 2nd Amendment Rights

Having said that…  there are reasonable restrictions on guns that reasonable people should agree with.  In deference to the gun supporters, no, I don’t think that citizens have a right to carry an RPG around in public.  While we have the right to repel government tyranny, there has to be a reasonable limit on what a potentially untrained citizen can do with weapons that do more than put a bullet in a bad guy.  During the revolution, there were limited numbers of citizens who owned such devices, but they were limited mostly to rich people who needed to protect goods.   However, I doubt the framers ever considered the concept of a private citizen owning a nuclear weapon that could destroy a city.  Frankly, it was just too foreign of an idea to consider.

And that leads us to restrictions.  Over time, the legislatures and courts around this land have worked to define exactly which “arms” are protected under the 2^nd Amendment.  Recently, the Supreme Court (in DC v. Heller) agreed that handguns are protected as “arms” under that Amendment and that Federal enclaves like DC (later extended to states in McDonald v. Chicago).  However, the SCOTUS has also ruled that there are reasonable restrictions that the government can apply to gun ownership in the interest of public safety.  While traditional purposes for guns like self-defense and hunting are protected, weapons that kill indiscriminately (like RPGs and nukes) are not protected – and this is an example of a reasonable restriction.

So…  what about restricting the places guns can exist?  Is it a reasonable restriction, for instance, to restrict guns on school campuses?  Well, it may be reasonable to restrict access to guns by children, but it’s also a big, fat joke.  “Gun Free Zones” are some of the most dangerous places to be in America because if I’m a criminal who wants to kill a bunch of people, I’m not going to go somewhere where people can shoot back.  Think about it this way: some of the deadliest shootings in American history have occurred at places that were “gun-free zones”.

• Virginia Tech Massacre, VA: Walking Evil walks onto campus armed to the teeth and systematically murders 32 people and injures 17 before putting a bullet in his own head.
• Luby’s Cafeteria, TX: during a time when you couldn’t legally carry a gun in public in Texas, a jerkwad of a human being walked into a cafeteria and killed 23 people and injured 20 before killing himself.
• Columbine High School, CO: 2 douchebag high school students illegally acquire weapons and illegally enter their gun-free high school where they kill 13 and injure 21 before finally finishing themselves off.

All gun-free zones.  All used as target galleries by people who didn’t care about the law.  The Luby’s Cafeteria shooting was interesting because one of the results of that event was that one of the survivors ended up running for the Texas Legislature and worked to get concealed carry laws passed in Texas, meaning that the next time some asshat walks into a restaurant in the Lone Star State and pulls a gun, he’s likely to be facing down a dozen citizens ready to return the favor.

OK, since gun-free zones are a joke, are there other reasonable restrictions?  Surely no one needs clips that hold 30 rounds, do they?  Or automatic weapons?  Or what about those “cop-killer” bullets?  Those are all scary things and normal people wouldn’t ever want those, would they?

Well…   see, that’s just window dressing.  Restricting the number of bullets in clips didn’t keep the Columbine shooters from doing their evil, did they?  It just means that if you want to fire off a bunch of rounds, you need to buy more clips.  Cop-killer bullets?  Any bullet can kill.  The idea that one bullet is more special than another bullet is an absolute joke.  Over the years, gun control advocates have waged war against magic bullets that could supposedly pierce cops’ body armor or could somehow do so much damage that the world would somehow come to an end.  The actual studies on these bullets showed that the fears were unfounded.

Automatic weapons?  Let’s be honest: most people have no idea what an automatic weapon is.  Heck – even the cheesy little NRA video that I had to watch to get my CCW license used “automatic” and “semi-automatic” interchangeably.  Honestly, tho, when it comes to fully automatic weapons, I’m ambivalent.  I can understand the allure and the usefulness of these weapons under the Founders’ standards, but can also understand how dangerous they can be in the wrong hands.  Maybe requiring an additional level of training would be in order.

And this leads me to the one big area that I support that I’m not sure others will: I believe in training.  I believe that good training makes for good gun owners, so much so that I believe that every gun owner should be required to undergo training in matters of use and law before they’re allowed to carry their guns.  HOWEVER…  once they’re trained, I fully believe that everyone who’s not a violent felon or adjudicated mentally unfit should have the right to carry open or concealed without restriction.  And if you think this will lead to a “Wild West” scenario, then you’ve been watching too much TV and not paying attention to places that have looser gun laws where crime rates go down when these freedoms are enacted.

So what kind of weapon should you carry?  Well… we’re going to cover that tomorrow.

Read Full Post »

Gun Week: Gun Laws – A Few Basic Facts

First – I updated yesterday’s post because I forgot one big point about why you should own a gun: hunting.

Now, on to guns!  Or more accurately: gun laws.

If there’s anything that the Trayvon Marin case has taught us, it’s that the average citizen – and occasionally, gun owner – knows about as much about gun laws as they do about quantum physics.  On the one hand, you have puppet masters and their marionettes screaming about the evils of “stand your ground” laws.

I’ve already covered the Trayvon case before, but there are some things that bear repeating.  For instance, everything Massad Ayoob says here:

Again, as The Great Ayoob says in the above video, you have a right to defend yourself with deadly force in the United States.  No state in the union can take that right away from you.  They can, however, restrict that right using laws like the “duty to retreat” and “concealed carry”.  We’ll talk about reasonable restrictions tomorrow, but for today, let’s reiterate some basic points.

First, let’s talk basic self defense.  Again, you have the right to defend your life and the lives of those around you if you, as a reasonable person, believe that you are presented with a real and present danger to your life, serious bodily injury, or serious sexual assault.  If a bad guy is coming after you with a knife, you have the right to pull a gun to defend yourself.

Where you live, however, defines how you can use that gun.  A few states require you to at least attempt to retreat, even in your own home (“officer, he was coming to kill me and I tried to get away, but couldn’t”).  Other states have a castle doctrine or stand-your-ground law that removes this duty to retreat, so long as you are in your home or, depending on the state, in your car or your place of business.  Other states have a variety of the stand-your-ground law, where you have no duty to retreat at any time in any situation, and you have a near-absolute right to defend your life without retreating an inch.

As I’ve said before, I am not a lawyer.  You should consult your state’s laws if you have any questions.

Posted Here for Totally Non-Gratuitous Reasons

Second, let’s talk about carrying your gun.  Again, this depends on where you live (hence why you should call on your Senators to back the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act, which will protect your rights to carry your weapons if you cross state lines into any state that allows you to carry your weapons (Illinois and DC being the only notable anti-freedom locales in the US).  The House has already passed the bill, and now it’s in the hands of Harry Reid’s Senate.

God help us all.

It’s important to know how you can carry your gun.  Most states have some sort of concealed carry license that requires you to receive some level of training and maybe do a background check so that you can carry your gun in a way that it can’t be easily seen by the public – and that shares that rights to some degree with other states.  Some states allow you to carry your gun on your hip in full view of the public.  Some of those states have restrictions on open carry that are, well….  Interesting.  North Carolina, for instance, protects the right to open carry in the state constitution, but the right is whittled down by a restriction that doesn’t allow you to cause terror to the public.  In other words, you have a constitutional right to carry your sidearm in a holster in full public view…  right up until someone gets nervous.  As soon as that happens, you may be found to be “armed to the terror of the populace” and you may find yourself in trouble.  Again, check your state’s laws (and the laws of states you visit) for more information.

Having said that – I’ve got some opinions here.  Surprise, surprise.  My take is this: if you haven’t been convicted of a violent felony or adjudicated by the courts to be mentally deficient or found to have an intelligence quotient that would qualify you as mentally disabled (below 80), you should have the right to open or concealed carry without a license.  If you’ve been convicted of a non-violent felony or a misdemeanor,  you’ve served your full time including probation and parole, and you’ve gone 10 years without having another conviction, then I believe your full gun rights should be restored.

While I’m dreaming, I’d also like a pony and 100 bajillion dollars.

I guess the simplest point to all of the law questions is: be educated.  20 years ago, it was more difficult and sometimes you could slide on simply not knowing things.  Heck, 20 years ago, a woman carrying a gun in her purse often wouldn’t have a moment’s worth of trouble from the police who figured that an armed woman was better than a dead one.  Now the laws have changed, concealed carry is a state law (meaning that the state has a financially vested interest in you following the law that criminals aren’t going to follow anyway), and the cops presume that you’ve Googled all state laws regarding weapons carrying.  There’s a bit more freedom, but far less leeway.  Hunting laws are similar: there’s much less flexibility in their enforcement than there was in previous times, so you need to keep up to date on the laws, limits, and licensing.

Stay informed.  Stay frosty.

Read Full Post »

Gun Week: What the 2nd Amendment Really Means

Today, we open up Gun Week here at PachydermsBlog, and we’re going to do so with a doozy.  We’re going to talk about the 2^nd Amendment, that controversial piece of legislation that keeps Americans armed and Gun Control advocates frightened and scrambling to redefine exactly what the Constitution clearly says.

So, I’m going to let Penn Jillette explain it to you:

He explains it masterfully, much more quickly than I’m about to.  First, he takes the text of the amendment, which reads thusly:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

For years, the debate has raged over the exact interpretation of this amendment.  Gun rights groups have tended to focus on the 2^nd half (shall not be infringed) while gun control groups have focused on the first half (a well-regulated militia).  The typical GC interpretation of this amendment is that since there’s a qualifier in the passage about a militia, then the 2^nd Amendment only applies to the states’ right to call up a militia, and since the national guard has replaced the militia, there is no need for common citizens to bear arms.

Jillette, however, disagrees – as do gun rights groups.  Their claim is that the qualifier in the Amendment was never designed to restrict access to guns, but instead provides historical context as to why the right of the people should not be infringed.  They argue that since the state has the right to arm itself, the people should be able to preserve the right to rebellion by taking up arms against it.

So…  the truth?  Honestly – a little bit of both.

First – the early nation did rely on the state-risen militia for regional defense.  It didn’t have the money to fully fund a full-time military and so the people, as they had under the English crown, could expect, at times, to be called up to serve as a part of their state’s militia, to act as a supplement to the national military.  However, we also have to understand the historical context as well.  The people writing this amendment had just fought a war for freedom against the British Empire using citizen soldiers and militia.

It’s also important to understand that the early legal theorists who studied the amendment shortly after its inception did so in direct contrast to the English Bill of Rights that allowed the right to bear arms on one hand, and then restricted that right to the very wealthy on the other, by allowing Parliament to pass laws that restricted gun ownership under the guise of protection of wild game.  At the same time, they also recognized that the right to bear arms was conditional: that there were circumstances where the government had the right to restrict the bearing of arms – however, they were very clear in their belief that the ultimate purpose of the second amendment was to allow the people a path to rebellion against tyranny.  And what’s the best way to repel tyranny enforced by military might?  Guns.

Keep in mind: fighting tyranny is exactly what the Bill of Rights is about.  James Madison stated that he supported the idea that “the people have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform or change their government, whenever it be found adverse or inadequate to the purposes of its institution.”  The first 10 Amendments are built around this concept: protecting the citizenry and restricting Congress (1^st, 9^th, 10^th, and the later 27^th  – along with the unratified Congressional Apportionment Amendment), the military (2^nd, 3^rd), and the courts (4^th-8^th).  None of these amendments are designed, in any way, to restrict the right of the people.

In fact, as Jillette and Teller point out in the video above, the idea that there’s some sort of “breath” in the amendment doesn’t jive with the simple statement that the 2^nd half of the amendment clearly states: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Usually this is where the discussion turns to the gun control advocates crying like children about how if the 2^nd Amendment allows guns, then it should allow common citizens to carry nuclear weapons, and common sense would dictate that this is a bad idea, right?  RIGHT?

Well, we’ll get to that later this week.  In the meantime, be calm and content with the fact that the framers distrusted the human greed for power enough to stick an amendment in the Constitution that forces the government to remember that its citizens are armed.

Read Full Post »

Go Jim Go!

DeMint.  DeMan.

First – DeMint challenged the Constitutionality of Reid’s supermajority clause in the Government Run Health Insurance Monstrosity.

Now, he and John Ensign are challenging the Constitutionality of the Health Insurance Mandate.

Ensign, DeMint to Force Vote on Health Care Bill Unconstitutionality

December 22, 2009 – WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senators Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) and John Ensign (R-Nevada), raised a Constitutional Point of Order on the Senate floor against the Democrat health care takeover bill on behalf of the Steering Committee, a caucus of conservative senators. The Senate will vote tomorrow on the bill’s constitutionality. “I am incredibly concerned that the Democrats’ proposed individual mandate provision takes away too much freedom and choice from Americans across the country,” said Senator Ensign. “As an American, I felt the obligation to stand up for the individual freedom of every citizen to make their own decision on this issue. I don’t believe Congress has the legal authority to force this mandate on its citizens.” “Forcing every American to purchase a product is absolutely inconsistent with our Constitution and the freedoms our Founding Fathers hoped to protect,” said Senator DeMint. “This is not at all like car insurance, you can choose not to drive but Americans will have no choice whether to buy government-approved insurance. This is nothing more than a bailout and takeover of insurance companies. We’re forcing Americans to buy insurance under penalty of law and then Washington bureaucrats will then dictate what these companies can sell to Americans. This is not liberty, it is tyranny of good intentions by elites in Washington who think they can plan our lives better than we can.” Americans who fail to buy health insurance, according to the Democrats’ bill, would be subject to financial penalties. The senators believe the bill is unconstitutional because the insurance mandate is not authorized by any of the limited enumerated powers granted to the federal government. The individual mandate also likely violates the “takings” clause of the 5th Amendment. The Democrats’ healthcare reform bill requires Americans to buy health insurance “whether or not they ever visit a doctor, get a prescription or have an operation.” If an American chooses not to buy health insurance coverage, they will face rapidly increasing taxes that will rise to $750 or 2% of their taxable income, whichever is greater. The Congressional Budget Office once stated “A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.” A legal study by scholars at the nonpartisan Heritage Foundation concluded: “An individual mandate to enter into a contract with or buy a particular product from a private party, with tax penalties to enforce it, is unprecedented– not just in scope but in kind–and unconstitutional as a matter of first principles and under any reasonable reading of judicial precedents.”

Democrats: Constitution?  What Constitution?

Now, I don’t have a whole lot of respect for John Ensign, but DeMint has been a model of Conservative Civility and has helped to remind us all of what Mike and I said yesterday: this battle is not over.

Read Full Post »

Posterior Teeth

I’m working on a post on the new Amnesty Bill, but then Bernie Sanders (Independent Socialist – Vermont) introduced an amendment to the health care bill.  Remember the post I did about keeping things in focus?  Remember all the bellyaching over whether the Dems would keep the public option, abortion, etc.?  Well…  it’s all B.S.  And here comes their brother in arms, Der Kommisar to act as a proxy for the far-left wing of the Divided Donkey Party.  It’s an amendment to basically extend Medicare to everyone (because Medicare is such a well-run bureaucracy that isn’t likely to bankrupt, say, in the next week or two).

On it.

Fortunately, people are paying attention.  Michelle Malkin is reporting that Sen. Coburn  (Pachyderm-OK) was all over it like a diabetic on a cheesecake.  He’s having the Clerk of the Senate read the amendment…  all 767 pages of it.  The Dems, because they’re obviously not socialists, are trying like mad to stop the reading, but now Jim DeMint (Pachy-SC) has joined in his concern that Senators might not fully understand what they’re voting on, making it necessary that the bill be read aloud in public.

Snicker.  Keep up the good work, fellers.

Read Full Post »

Poll Numbers, or How Obama Can Be a Successful President

OK, kids…  time for a little eduction.  I seriously want this to be as unbiased as possible, so if the Obamanauts will refrain from blaming everything on Bush, Rush, Beck, or Sarahcuda, I’ll refrain from calling Barack Hussein Obama “Our Special-Needs-Student-In-Chief”.

Wheeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!

This, kids, is an approval rating tracker, courtesy of the good folks over at USA Today.  I’ve shamelessly pimped this thing before, as my only real criticism is that it only contains data from Gallup (which isn’t overly unreasonable, since Gallup’s been in the game longer than anyone, although today, I prefer Zogby and Rasmussen, as their numbers tend to be more accurate).

There are three lines on this chart.  I could have selected a lot more, but these, I think, tell the story better than any of the others.

First, I want you to look closely at the bluey-purpley line that goes all the way across the image.  That one, gents, is the approval rating of one James Earl Carter, widely thought to be the worst President of the 20th Century (although he occasionally comes in 2nd to Warren G. “Teapot Dome Scandal” Harding).  To this day, most people can only think of one or two things to say positive about Carter’s Presidency – usually the Camp David accords, and most are content to say “he’s a nice guy”, which I believe he is.  I also happen to think he’s a doddering fruitcake who’s showing signs of dementia, but this is supposed to be all unbiased and everything….

Now look at the other 2.  The red one is none other than George W. Bush – again, widely agreed to be a failure by people from both sides of the tent – and usually for completely opposite reasons.  I happen to think that history will smile on GWB in a way that’s similar to his dad, but it’ll take time.  Heck – I don’t even smile on him right now.  But the one thing that united the country behind him was the big, sharp uptick in his approval.  Prior to this, ol’ George was lookin’ like a coin flip for being a 1-termer.  His approval was below Carter’s, but the linear regression wasn’t as steep.  Had there been no 9/11 or no Iraq War, I think GWB would have sunk to the high 40′s and been a 1-term President (and I don’t think Kerry would’ve been the nominee – a lack of war would’ve made for a very different Democrat field, and I think we would’ve seen a much more moderate Clintonite-style nominee than the mid-to-far-left Kerry).

But he didn’t.  9/11 gave Bush the highest approval rating of any President and even the Iraq War bumped him up a bit.

Now look at that short blue line.  That belongs to Barack H. Obama, current President, and not only is it running in parallel with Carter (albeit about 3-5 points lower), but there’s more parallels than I believe Mr. Obama is comfortable with:

1.  Both Obama and Carter are far-left statists.  They may not be hard-and-true communists, but they’re as close as we get in the US (with the possible exception of the Wilson administration).

2.  They were both elected after the end of a highly controversial administration.  Obama was elected at the end of Bush’s Presidency.  Carter came after the Nixon administration (as run by Gerald Ford for 2 years).  Both Bush and Nixon started popular and then waned in popularity as scandal and mismangement took hold.  This leads to my usual point that says “The American people did not elect Obama because of the bill of goods he sold them – they elected him because they didn’t want another 4 years of George Bush.  2008 was a referendum on the Bush Presidency, and Obama merely benefitted from that referendum.

3.  Both Carter and Obama come into the Presidency facing “the worst economy since the great depression”.  Our current economy sucks.  So did the economy of the 1970′s, from about 1975 on to about 1983.  Eight years.  The Great Depression?   Lasted about…  8 years before recovery started kicking in.  The current economy?  We’re about 2 1/2 to 3 years in.

4.  Both Carter and Obama come in after the conclusion of an unpopular war, and both are facing Islamic radicals who are trying to use terror to influence the US into isolationism.  The pullout from Iraq was OKed in October of 08, prior to the election.  Carter faced off against Iran (among others) and failed miserably.  Obama’s not doing much better in Afghanistan.

5.  Korea.  Obama gets to deal with The Poof.  Carter had to deal with a coup, student uprising, and military Presidency in South Korea.

So what does this all mean?  Well…

Obama’s in trouble, approval-wise.  No President has ever been re-elected with an approval rating of less than 53%, and Obama’s right now – according to Gallup – is at 48%.  According to Rasmussen, it’s at 44%, with 55% disapproving – and it’s trending downwards.  Into the septic tank.

Worse yet, rather than uniting the nation behind him (as Bush did with 9/11), Obama has exposed an electorate that is more divided than ever.  Most Presidents have a 5-10 point “flex” between their approval and disapproval – Obama has little.  See…   and this is why I like Rasmussen… most of the approval polls are polls of “Adults” or “Registered Voters”.  Rasmussen is “Likely Voters” – people more likely to go into a voting booth and tick their favorite candidate…   and right now, Obama’s running 44-55.

Worse yet for him, Rasmussen’s numbers include “strong” and “weak” approval and disapproval…   and that’s even worse.  While his approval numbers are typical, with 24/44 saying “strongly approve” and 20/44 saying “approve”, the disapprove numbers are VERY atypical.  42/55 say “Strongly Disapprove” with only 13/55 saying a mere “disapprove”.

Them’s some bad numbers for Bamy, because it shows that there is a solidified base against Obama.  Back in the election, the “strong disapprove” was closer to 30, and the inauguration saw strong numbers dip into the 15′s.  They were in the steady 20′s and low 30′s right after the stimulus, but didn’t move sharply up until the health care bill became a focus.  THEN, his negative numbers flew up – with those who were mere “disapprove” moving into the “strong” column, only to be replaced with middle-ground and former supporters.

And that’s bad for him.

Is it great news for conservatives?  Maybe.  I’ve said for a while that if Healthzilla gets passed, it’ll be a bloodbath in the 2010 elections for the Democrats, and I stand by it.  The American people do NOT want government-run health care – 56% to 40%.  They want “reform”, but not what the Democrats are pushing.  If it gets passed, I’m guessing that there will be a changeover of at least one house of Congress and that Obama’s 2nd term chances will sink to about nil.

So…   what can he do?  Well, Barry, I’m glad you asked…

1.  Humble yourself.  Obama needs to do something he’s been incapable of doing to date: he needs to meet the conservatives halfway.  The one thing he’s never figured out is that in the American system of Government, the President is NOT the king – is NOT the emperor.  He is, in many ways, a negotiator for both parties in the legislature.  A successful President will work both sides to everyone’s advantage.  Reagan mastered this.  Clinton figured it out after 1994 (and then forgot again after 1998).  Bush nailed it for the 1st 2-3 years and then became the capitulator in chief.  No one likes a Capitulator.

2.  Shut up.  There is an inverse correlation between the gap between Barry’s top and bottom teeth and his approval rating.  As good of a public teleprompter reader as you may be, Barry…  you suck at actually saying stuff.

3.  Remember why you were elected…  it wasn’t because you had great ideas or great plans…  it was because you weren’t George W. Bush with a 24% approval rating.  But you can be.

4.  Americans like it when their leaders present their country as a strong nation, internationally.  Even if you’re not threatening to nuke North Korea, you can still project strength.  You can’t project strength when you’re trying to touch your toes with your ample forehead.

5.  Stop accusing Americans who disagree with you of being evil, stupid, clueless, mean, etc.  It only serves to make you look like a total hole.  There’s millions upon millions of Americans who think you’re an amateur who couldn’t manage your way out of a wet paper sack.  The reason for this is because you can’t.  Instead, try listening to what they say and then provide reasonable arguments as to why your ideas are better.  At least if you tried to meet them halfway, you wouldn’t look like a oligarch…   but calling them names just makes you seem like the snotty little kid with the new toy that won’t share, and this only makes the American people think you’re an arrogant a-hole.

6.  Stop cooking your numbers.  Americans may not like the fact that you blew a ton of cash on stupid programs.  They’ll like that you’re lying about it even less.  Be a man, come out and say, “We screwed up”.  Then, stop spending.

7.  Resign.  Seriously, this is probably the one thing you could do that would be the best, most successful way to actually save America from your stupidity.  See if you can convince Biden, Pelosi, Reid, and a few other idiots to go along with you.

Read Full Post »

Infamy

Mr. Vice President, Mr. Speaker, members of the Senate and the House of Representatives: Yesterday, December 7th, 1941 — a date which will live in infamy — the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.

The United States was at peace with that nation, and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its Government and its Emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific. Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in the American island of Oahu, the Japanese Ambassador to the United States and his colleague delivered to our Secretary of State a formal reply to a recent American message. And while this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or of armed attack.

It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago. During the intervening time the Japanese Government has deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.

The attack yesterday on the Hawaiian Islands has caused severe damage to American naval and military forces. I regret to tell you that very many American lives have been lost. In addition American ships have been reported torpedoed on the high seas between San Francisco and Honolulu.

Yesterday the Japanese Government also launched an attack against Malaya.

Last night Japanese forces attacked Hong Kong.

Last night Japanese forces attacked Guam.

Last night Japanese forces attacked the Philippine Islands.

Last night the Japanese attacked Wake Island.

And this morning the Japanese attacked Midway Island.

Japan has, therefore, undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the Pacific area. The facts of yesterday and today speak for themselves. The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our nation.

As Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense.

But always will our whole nation remember the character of the onslaught against us. No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.

I believe that I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us.

Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory and our interests are in grave danger.

With confidence in our armed forces—with the unbounding determination of our people—we will gain the inevitable triumph—so help us God.

I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7th, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire.

We will never forget.

Read Full Post »

11 Months Later and 10,000 Troops Lighter

Well, it took long enough.

This Soundtrack was Totally Recorded for Barack H. Obama

Barack H. Obama, filling his triple role as President of the United States, Commander in Chief of the US Military, and Savior of the Universe (even better than Flash!  Ah-ahhhhh!) has decreed after much deliberation, a whole lot more waiting, and a couple of quick phone calls to his general in charge of what he called a “war of necessity” that the general actually does need more troops…  just not as many as he requested.  In a self-referential ego-tastic speech, General Zero announced a surge of 30,000 troops nearly 3 months after his delayed response on Afghanistan and refusal to meet with his general until the cameras were on became international news.

What a genius!  He told us all during the election how necessary the war in Afghanistan was and how Bush (and by extension, John McCain) were so stupid and evil for focusing their attention on that eeeeeeeevil war in Iraq.  Why, when he became President, there’d be some CHANGE in Washington DC!  Things would get done!  That’s how BHO rolls!

And then he took nearly a year to make a decision on what to do in Afghanistan.

OK – to be fair, Obama decided back in February to send an extra 17,000 troops – eventually – to the region.  In fact, let’s take a step back and look at that particular decision, shall we?

As a part of the “War of Necessity”, the General in charge of operations in Afghanistan, David D. McKiernan, came to Obama, begging for 30,000 troops to fight the war to victory.  Obama’s response?  12,000 troops immediately, 5,000 troops eventually, and the dismissal of McKiernan 3 months later.

And now, he’s again granted the General in charge a fraction of the troops he needs.  OK.  Fine.  We’re still getting a surge and General McChrystal is reacting with grace and confidence.

But then, General Zero announced the bombshell.  Those troops?  It’d take a year to get them there (which is 3 months past the “we need them in a year or the war is lost” request from General McChrystal 3 months ago), and then he’ll start withdrawing troops a year later, with a full withdrawal from Afghanistan by 2012.

As opposed to, say, fighting the war to victory.

Attention Terrorists: If you’re patient, you can have Afghanistan back.  Just wait three years.  If you send in the maximum amount in campaign contributions, Mr. Obama may leave a ribbon or bow on Afghanistan on the way out.

Seriously, Barry – just go back to bowing to foreign leaders and winning awards you don’t deserve.  Leave the hard decisions to people who actually know what the hell they’re doing.

Worst.  President.  Ever.  November 2012 can’t come soon enough.

UPDATE: At least we know what side the media is on.  Meat the Press:

Read Full Post »