High Cost of Liberalism

Liberals can be disarming. In fact, they are for disarming anybody who can be disarmed, whether domestically or internationally.

Unfortunately, the people who are the easiest to disarm are the ones who are the most peaceful — and disarming them makes them vulnerable to those who are the least peaceful.

We are currently getting a painful demonstration of that in Ukraine. When Ukraine became an independent nation, it gave up all the nuclear missiles that were on its territory from the days when it had been part of the Soviet Union.

At that time, Ukraine had the third largest arsenal of nuclear weapons in the world. Do you think Putin would have attacked Ukraine if it still had those nuclear weapons? Or do you think it is just a coincidence that nations with nuclear weapons don’t get invaded?

Among those who urged Ukraine to reduce even its conventional, non-nuclear weapons as well, was a new United States Senator named Barack Obama. He was all for disarmament then, and apparently even now as President of the United States. He has refused Ukraine’s request for weapons with which to defend itself.

As with so many things that liberals do, the disarmament crusade is judged by its good intentions, not by its actual consequences.

Indeed, many liberals seem unaware that the consequences could be anything other than what they hope for. That is why disarmament advocates are called “the peace movement.”

Whether disarmament has in fact led to peace, more often than military deterrence has, is something that could be argued on the basis of the facts of history — but it seldom is.

Liberals almost never talk about disarmament in terms of evidence of its consequences, whether they are discussing gun control at home or international disarmament agreements.

International disarmament agreements flourished between the two World Wars. Just a few years after the end of the First World War there were the Washington Naval Agreements of 1921-1922 that led to the United States actually sinking some of its own warships. Then there was the celebrated Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928, in which nations renounced war, with France’s Foreign Minister Aristide Briand declaring, “Away with rifles, machine guns, and cannon!” The “international community” loved it.

In Britain, the Labour Party repeatedly voted against military armaments during most of the decade of the 1930s. A popular argument of the time was that Britain should disarm “as an example to others.”

Unfortunately, Hitler did not follow that example. He was busy building the most powerful military machine on the continent of Europe.

Nor did Germany or Japan allow the Washington Naval Agreements to cramp their style. The fact that Britain and America limited the size of their battleships simply meant that Germany and Japan had larger battleships when World War II began.

What is happening in Ukraine today is just a continuation of the old story about nations that disarm increasing the chances of being attacked by nations that do not disarm.

Any number of empirical studies about domestic gun control laws tell much the same story. Gun control advocates seldom, if ever, present hard evidence that gun crimes in general, or murder rates in particular, go down after gun control laws are passed or tightened.

That is the crucial question about gun control laws. But liberals settle that question by assumption. Then they can turn their attention to denouncing the National Rifle Association.

But neither the National Rifle Association nor the Second Amendment is the crucial issue. If the hard facts show that gun control laws actually reduce the murder rate, we can repeal the Second Amendment, as other Amendments have been repealed.

If in fact tighter gun control laws reduced the murder rate, that would be the liberals’ ace of trumps. Why then do the liberals not play their ace of trumps, by showing us such hard facts? Because they don’t have any such hard facts. So they give us lofty rhetoric and outraged indignation instead. (Thomas Sowell)

Feigned, faked, and phony as a Liberal “deficit reduction”. 🙂

So we get more fear tactics, because that’s their main weapon.

No one expects the Gun Inquisition…

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

 Political Cartoons by Steve Breen
And it’s Still “No!” 🙂
Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

The Mauling

delayMr “red line in the sand” has done it again.

That deadline to sign up for ObamaCare or else the IRS Stasi was going to start visiting  you next year after you voted the Democrats back into power has slipped it’s ropes again.

Like a vicious dog that kept being tied up with butcher’s twine it has escaped again after it has mauled more people with policy cancellations and extreme premiums. I’m sure only to be captured, corralled, and given psychotherapy.

Think I’m kidding?

PHOENIX (AP) Municipal Court Judge Deborah Griffin ruled Tuesday that the dog named Mickey must be neutered, defanged and microchipped. She declared the dog vicious earlier in the day and could have ordered euthanasia.

The Feb. 20 attack left 4-year-old Kevin Vicente with a broken eye socket and jaw. An adult who was at the scene asked that the dog be euthanized.

Thousands of animal lovers took to social media to support Mickey, placing blame with the dog’s owners and child’s baby sitter. Supporters wore T-shirts to court that bore a paw print and said “Save Mickey.”

An animal advocate in court started to cry when hearing the dog would live.

Mind you Mickey will be sent to a doggy rehab facility (if the “trustees” can find one) but it will never leave because you can’t trust it to not maul again.

Just like Obamacare

The dog will remain in it’s county club prison for eternity. And we’ll be stuck in ObamaCare hell and sent to our eternity by government Death Panels and financial ruin.

After all the 4-Year old tried to take the bone away from the dog. Much like trying to get ObamaCare away from Democrats. They’ll snarl, growl, claw, and then attack and maul you.

Then blame you for it. It WAS your fault.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) said the fault of struggling to sign up on the Obamacare exchanges didn’t lie with the faulty website, but with the people who weren’t “educated on how to use the Internet.”

So it your own dam fault. You’re just too stupid! and we all know you’re a bunch of Liars too! 🙂

I guess The “Beware of Dog” sign and the open gate was analogous to “You have to pass it before you can find out what’s in it.

Animal advocates hit back, saying both the dog and boy are victims and the baby sitter watching the child was negligent in letting him play near the animal. They also argued the owner was fostering aggression by keeping the dog chained up.

“We were not here to put a dog above Kevin,” Lee said. “We were just here to make sure justice was served.”

Social Justice anyone? 🙂

The mauled 4-year’s mother  (like insurance policyholders) I’m sure is very happy that the dog will live to maul again! That’s Justice.

The Mauled 4 year old will be scared for life, much like the Health Care system in this country.

But at least the ObamaCare Dog Lives!

“This is not Kevin versus Mickey,” attorney John Schill, one of three attorneys representing the dog, has said. “Having Mickey killed is not going to take away Kevin’s pain or injuries. The only thing this is going to do is kill a poor, innocent dog.”

The DOG has an Attorney! How’s he going to pay this schister, in Doggy Biscuits?? Maybe the Lawyer should take the “innocent” dog home to his kids, much Like Congress should be subject to ObamaCare. 🙂

Look how fast Congress got rid of that, and gave all it’s closest friends waivers and now keeps putting off the mandates they created because it might inflict too much pain on it’s victims and they may maul the Democrats in November.

We can’t have that now can we…:)

P.s wanna know how hard core the Dog’s Lawyer is?

It’s called the Lexus Project and in their “About us” tab is this quote:

First they came for the Jews and I did not
speak out – because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the communists and I did not
speak out – because I was not a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not
speak out – because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me and by then there was
no one left to speak out for me.
(Martin Niemöller)

And it’s about a Dog. “because all dogs deserve a voice and a chance to live and be loved and cared for.”

Even if they maul you, you should just love them and they will love you back.

Until they maul you again, that is…

Just Like ObamaCare. 🙂

Consider it your “Shared Responsibility Payment”. 🙂

Or was that Vladimir Putin…or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad…. It’s gets so confusing…. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

 

 

Death Kneal

Ezekiel Emanuel, one of the architects behind Obamacare, is now claiming that “insurance companies as we know them are about to die.” Critics of President Barack Obama’s signature health care law have long alleged that one of the real goals of the law was to put private insurance companies out of business.

I’ve been saying that since 2009!

You have the Federal government with Trillions in slush money and no accountability because they can also just get more where that came from VS a private business who can’t just print money. Which one is going to survive?

Sept 2009: “The more the American people hear about the public option, the more they like it,” said Democratic Sen Charles Schumer after the vote.

Sound familiar? 🙂

My blog Sept 27,2009:

So what is the real motive then?

It’s the control, stupid. :)

The control over who lives and who dies.

The control over your life.

You can’t be trusted.

You’re too fat.

You drink soda…coffee…sugary snacks. You smoke. They are all bad for you.

You pollute.

You drive an old, out of date car.

You’re an energy hog.

Or as the Energy Secretary called you “a teenager”

You need a Parent to guide you.

To raise you and your children.

You need Mama Government and Her Big Brother, The President.

So we are going to have to tax you for these too. It’s for your own good. You’re a higher risk to your fellow citizens. Because you won’t fall in line.

You must do this, because we say so.

When we say jump, you don’t even ask “How high?” you just jump, and keep jumping until we say stop.

Period.

“The good news is you won’t have insurance companies to kick around much longer. The system is changing,” Emanuel writes in an op-ed on New Republic. “As a result, insurance companies as they are now will be going away. Indeed, they are already evolving. For the next few years insurance companies will both continue to provide services to employers and, increasingly, compete against each other in the health insurance exchanges.”

Due to Obamacare, “new actors will force insurance companies to evolve or become extinct,” he continues. Instead, new groups called “accountable care organizations” (ACOs) must start competing directly in the health care exchanges for exclusive contracts with employers.

The ACOs will have “standardized, guideline-driven care plans for most major conditions and procedures to increase efficiency,” says Emanuel, the brother of Obama’s former chief of staff and current Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel.

Any read that as , “Death Panels” and “F*ck you Panels?”

“They will have figured out how to harness their electronic medical records to better identify patients who will become sick and how to intervene early as well as how to care for the well-identified chronically ill so as to reduce costs,” he notes.

More from the New Republic op-ed:

The key skill these ACOs and hospital systems lack—the skill insurance companies specialize in—is the actuarial capacity to predict and manage financial risk. But over the next decade this is something they will develop—or purchase. After all, actuarial science is not rocket science, even if it involves a lot of mathematical equations. And with that skill, ACOs and hospital systems will become integrated delivery systems like Kaiser or Group Health of Puget Sound. Then they will cut out the insurance company middle man—and keep the insurance company profits for themselves. Therefore, increasingly these ACOs and hospital systems will transform themselves into integrated delivery systems, entering insurance exchanges and negotiating with employers, in direct competition with insurance companies.
As the ACOs become more established, Emanuel claims contracts between the health systems and employers will become more common, thus “cutting out the insurance companies.”

Once the health systems “make the jump to offering coverage in the exchanges, the health insurance companies will only have a few options if they want to survive, according to Emanuel.

“First, they can refuse to change, in which case they will eventually go out of business,” he writes. “Second, they can shift their business to focus on offering services they have expertise in, particularly analytics, actuarial modeling, risk management, and other management services.”

Finally, the “third evolutionary path is that health insurance companies may transform themselves into integrated delivery systems.”

“So be prepared to kiss your insurance company good-bye forever,” Emanuel concludes.

Obama: “You can keep your America if you like your America” 🙂

Peters’ lawyers on Feb. 20 sent letters to Michigan television stations airing the original AFP ad, threatening their licenses if they did not ensure the claims in the ad were backed up.

Aka, back him up. After all, they are supposed to be on his side because the truth doesn’t matter, or at least it’s not supposed to. 🙂

 

Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

Political Cartoons by Gary McCoy

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

 Political Cartoons by Eric Allie
Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

 

 

The Bear Trap

“One does not sharpen the axes after the right time; after the time they are needed.” — Russian Proverb

The late Ukrainian violinist Mischa Elman is considered one of the greatest of all time, but he has nothing on Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has played the Obama administration better than any musician. (Cal Thomas)

A murderous enemy of democratic freedom such as Vladimir Putin gets a New York Times platform to lecture Americans. Why not? He just proved he has more international clout than our own president.

After all:

Ed Asner didn’t mince words when he told the Hollywood Reporter that celebrities won’t be mobilizing against any Obama wars: “A lot of people don’t want to feel anti-black by being opposed to Obama.” People in Tinseltown watch a little too much MSNBC.

Asner sounded very cynical. “It will be a done deal before Hollywood is mobilized. This country will either bomb the hell out of Syria or not before Hollywood gets off its ass.” He doesn’t even think clogging the town square in protest accomplishes anything any more: “We had a million people in the streets, for Christ’s sake, protesting Iraq, which was about as illegal as you could find. Did it matter? Is George Bush being tried in the high courts of justice?”

Even hard core kiss-ass Liberals aren’t happy with the Amateur hour displayed by Mr. Lead from Behind Community Organizer:

I Think Vladimir Took It, Barack
I Think Vladimir Took It, Barack

While many in the media are actually crediting Barack Obama for Russian President Vladimir Putin’s proposed Syrian chemical weapons “solution,” TIME magazine’s Joe Klein isn’t one of them.

Far from it, Klein penned a scathing rebuke of Obama’s handling of Syria Wednesday calling it “one of the more stunning and inexplicable displays of presidential incompetence that I’ve ever witnessed…The consequences of Obama’s amateur display ripple out across the world.”

“He willingly jumped into a bear trap of his own creation. In the process, he has damaged his presidency and weakened the nation’s standing in the world,” Klein wrote.

“As it stands,” he continued, “no one will be surprised if [Putin’s] offer is a ruse, but the Administration is now trapped into seeing it through and gambling that it will be easier to get a congressional vote if it fails.”

Klein addressed changes in the Middle East that will continue to occur in the coming decades including “the formation of new countries, like Kurdistan, along ethnic and sectarian lines, and the process will undoubtedly be bloody.”

But our involvement in such matters in the recent past has proven unsuccessful in Klein’s view, and Obama’s buggling has left America in a weaker position to have any positive impact on world events.

“He has now damaged his ability to get his way with the Chinese, the Iranians and even the Israelis.”

“The question now is whether Obama’s inability to make his military threat in Syria real—and the American people’s clear distaste for more military action—will empower the hard-liners in the [Iranian] Revolutionary Guards Corps to give no quarter in the negotiations,” Klein wrote.

“The Chinese, who have been covetous of the South China Sea oil fields, may not be as restrained as they have been in the past,” he continued. “The Japanese may feel the need to revive their military, or even go nuclear, now that the promise of American protection seems less reliable. The consequences of Obama’s amateur display ripple out across the world.”

But Obama’s incompetence doesn’t just have an international impact in Klein’s view. There are domestic consequences as well.

“[A]fter Syria,” Klein warned, “it will be difficult for any member of Congress to believe that this President will stick to his guns or provide protection.”

I’m not sure Syria was the straw that broke the camel’s back for Republicans, but if a liberal such as Klein has these kinds of concerns, that certainly might be the case for Democrats. (NB)

By my count he used the words “I,” “me” and “my” 30 times in his 15-minute address. He personalizes everything, but delivers little, except uncertainty in his foreign policy. The world is becoming increasingly dangerous because we have a president who either does not know how to lead, or doesn’t want to lead in foreign affairs.

That House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi would credit the president with a diplomatic triumph because of a pledge from two men whose promises aren’t worth the paper on which they have yet to be written, is funnier than the monologues of late-night comedians.

Shortly after Putin’s “diplomatic triumph,” which might have been expected given Syria’s puppet status with Russia, ABC News Online reported that Putin plans to meet Friday with Iranian President Hassan Rowhani to renew Russia’s offer of S-300 air defense missiles to Iran. Putin knows how to stir the pot to America’s detriment.

Iran, with or without its proxy war in Syria and its arming of Hezbollah, remains the major threat in the region. President Obama, who once said he would consider negotiating with Iran because America had become too “arrogant,” shows that, too, was a meaningless policy proposal. You can’t negotiate with evil. Evil must be defeated.

By assuming the role of a bad character on the world stage, Russia is a threat to peace.

During last year’s presidential campaign, Mitt Romney said Russia is “our number one geopolitical foe; they fight for every cause for the world’s worst actors.”

Who sounds more presidential: a tentative Barack Obama, who speaks loudly and too often, but carries a small stick, or Mitt Romney, who clearly understood that for threats to be diminished or deterred a president must have credibility? (Cal Thomas)

Oh, right, I’m just an ignorant “bagger” and I can’t possibly be critical of The Annoited One who’s so far above me in everything that I am but a knat… 🙂

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Obama’s Secret Wars

Jumping right in, our first headline is from November of last year, from CNS News:

null

Fast forwarding to yesterday morning we find this headline from Business Insider:

null

Al Qaeda is on the run so much that they’re apparently a real threat again just from running around so much, not that the threat ever actually diminished. (Drudge)

There were more drone strikes in Pakistan last month than any month since January. Three missile strikes were carried out in Yemen in the last week alone.

You don’t frighten us, English pig dogs. Go and boil your bottoms, you sons of a silly person. I blow my nose at you….You don’t frighten us with your silly knees-bent running around advancing behavior! 🙂

Pop quiz. With whom is the U.S. presently at war?

At any other time in our nation’s history most Americans could have readily answered that question. Great Britain. Mexico. Spain. Germany. North Korea. North Vietnam. Iraq. Even college students who couldn’t name the vice president or their state’s governor would know who their non-college-material buddies were being sent overseas to kill or be killed by. These days the world is a bit more complicated.

There are the easy answers: the Taliban. Al Qaeda. Then the waters get a bit murky. One might justifiably ask if America is at war with Syria, or at least the Syrian government. Despite the fact that a majority of Americans oppose meddling in the Syrian civil war, Congress recently approved arming “vetted elements” of the Syrian opposition. Which vetted elements the Obama Administration intends to arm is anybody’s guess, as is how we intend to keep those arms out of the hands of non-vetted elements.

Are we at war with Iran? A cold war, certainly. What is America’s involvement in Syria’s civil war if not John McCain and Lindsey Graham’s attempt to poke a stick in the eye of Syria’s foremost ally?

What of America’s covert wars? Most experts agree that the U.S. is involved in at least three drone wars against Islamist “elements” in Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia.

If you ask President Obama who the U.S. is at war with he will usually say “Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and their associated forces.” So who are these associated forces? And just how broad is this war we are fighting?

It is not just the American people who are in the dark. Even the U.S. Congress is unsure who America is at war with, Pro Publica’s Cora Currier revealed last week. A clueless Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) recently asked Obama’s Defense Department to provide him with a list of those associated forces. Levin, at length, received the Authorization for Use of Military Force list, but then refused to share it with the press and the American people. Apparently who we are at war with is a state secret.

A Pentagon spokesman later said that the government didn’t want to give those associated forces credibility by naming them. “We cannot afford to inflate these organizations that rely on violent extremist ideology to strengthen their ranks,” a spokesman said. That assumes the Islamists who might be expected to join these “associated forces” haven’t heard of these groups either. Or did not find them credible until they made the DOD’s enemies’ list. Jack Goldsmith of the Hoover Institution’s Task Force on National Security and Law recently wondered why the U.S. government can acknowledge some enemy groups (al Qaeda and AQAP and elements of al Shabaab) without unduly inflating them, and not others. 

IS IT POSSIBLE that the Obama Administration doesn’t even know all the groups America is at war with? Last May, Michael Sheehan, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict, told the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee that he was “not sure there is a list per se,” notes Currier, and added that it is best to leave who the associated forces are to the experts.

All this secrecy comes at a time when it has been learned — thanks to Edward Snowden — that the NSA has been secretly compiling calling records from cell phone users. The records include who called who, where they were, how long the call lasted — for millions of people, both Americans and foreigners. According to the Atlantic, “this ‘metadata’ allows the government to track the movements of everyone during that period, and [to] build a detailed picture of who talks to whom. It’s exactly the same data the Justice Department collected about AP journalists.”

Americans have accepted the obsolescence of fighting an old fashioned war on a traditional battlefield against uniformed armies. Now we are asked to go to war without even knowing who the enemy is. (Kinda like that gun-running Benghazi story– was that the Syrians or someone else?) One would think it hard to support (or object to) a war against unknown enemies. But then perhaps that is the point. “The secrecy … deflects painful scrutiny that [the Department of Defense] would rather avoid,” writes Goldsmith. Perhaps the real question we should be asking is, if Americans are not permitted to know who we are at war with, what else aren’t we allowed to know? (Spectator)

 

135346 600 Obamacare Data Hub cartoons