No Easy Day

5 Comments

I pre-ordered my Kindle copy of “No Easy Day” yesterday. This is the book written by a former Navy SEAL about his experience during the Osama bin Ladin raid that resulted in his much awaited (at least on my end) demise. I must admit, I’m a bit uneasy about this. My son ran into my room at 2300 that night and screamed at the top of his lungs that Osama bin Ladin was killed. The munchkin was happy. After all, bin Ladin orchestrated the terrorist attack on the United States that would forever mar my little boy’s birthday! The Redhead was ecstatic, to say the least! We all were. And now, a book comes out that contradicts everything we thought was true about this stupendous day – a book that may possibly (and hopefully unintentionally) reveal sensitive information, including TTPs (tactics, techniques and procedures) of the nation’s elite warriors.

Yeah. Uneasy.

But I want to read this book. I want to read it with every fiber of my being. I want a first-hand account of that bastard’s death without the politicians’ flourishes, without the President patting himself on the back, and without his acolytes’ hyping how he personally parachuted into the compound and eviscerated bin Ladin with his bare hands, while consoling his wives, personally gathering intel to be exploited later, and sipping a beer.

I want to know what happened from someone who was there.

Unfortunately, sometimes honesty comes with a price.

The Pentagon warned on Thursday that it was considering legal action against a former U.S. Navy SEAL for material breach of non-disclosure agreements with his first-hand account of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.

In a letter obtained by Reuters, and subsequently released by the Pentagon, the Pentagon’s top attorney said the Department of Defense was also considering legal action against anyone “acting in concert” with the author. It hinted that the book’s royalties might be subject to government claims.
No
The letter, addressed to “Mark Owen,” the pseudonym under which the book was written, identified two separate non-disclosure agreements he signed with the Navy that legally committed him to never divulge classified information, which is a crime.

The Pentagon is legally in the right here. The book was apparently never vetted to ensure no secrets were revealed. This is one of the first things you are briefed on when you sign on with the DoD. Any article, book or other piece of writing you may do about your job needs to be approved to ensure that classified information remains classified, and you sign legally-binding contracts to that effect. The author had to have known that! And yet, he went ahead and published this book anyway. He’s either extremely dedicated to telling the truth, or he’s stupid.

And while I’m not the paranoid type, I can’t imagine the former SEAL is stupid, and ergo there must be a story in there that needs to be told – a story vastly different from the official account!

I’m curious, though, how the pseudonym of Mark Owen became linked with the true identity of the author, former SEAL Matt Bissonnette. Who talked, and why?

Is Obama a Socialist?

2 Comments

I had an interesting discussion with a good friend last night about yesterday’s claim that Obama supporters are deluded and socialist. She took offense to this and said neither she nor Obama were socialist. Now, we bandy the word about quite a bit, but I decided it was time to examine the claim closer with as much of an objective eye as I can, and if he is socialist, what kind of socialist is he? She made the rightful point that she considered all Libertarians anarchists without looking at the various shades of libertarianism out there. Libertarianism is a big tent that encompasses a lot of ideologies. What they have in common is the desire for a smaller government. The differences in views are about how small should we make said government.

There are similar degrees of and shades to socialism. They range from libertarian socialism (which to me is an oxymoron), but is so named likely because it shuns government control of production and advocates worker control instead to authoritarian/state socialism, where the almighty state controls all.

I assess Barack Obama falls somewhere in the middle of the socialist spectrum, although there’s a lot of evidence that he trends toward the statist model, given his partial nationalization of America’s health care, auto industry and banking industry. But overall he’s more of a social democrat – someone who advocates increased social spending and redistribution. And given his constant yammering about paying “our fair share,” I doubt there’s any way you can say he’s NOT a socialist! His latest budget proposal increases the tax burden on the wealthiest Americans, who he claims just don’t pay enough.

Why? Because apparently they have more than the rest of us left over after the state is done raiding their wallets.

Never mind that the nation’s wealthiest people already pay the vast majority of the taxes! Never mind that more than half the revenue the government receives comes from just 3 percent of Americans!

Fair share? How is it fair to tax someone’s earnings as high as 42 percent merely because they happen to make $250,000?

How is charging the highest earners in the United States some of the highest tax rates in the world fair?

According to the IRS, the top 25 percent of earners in the United States paid 85 percent share of all federal income taxes in 2007. The bottom 50 percent of earners paid 3 percent. Who’s not paying their fair share?

And yet Obama wants to tax the top earners even more and redistribute that income to what he considers the “poor and middle class.”

But apparently they should pay more, because they HAVE more.

Socialism? You bet!

What about controlling the means of production?

I haven’t said that some safety standards and even environmental standards aren’t useful. But what we have in this country goes far beyond that!

Under the current administration the government bought a majority stake in GM, costing the taxpayers close to $100 billion. And while some whine that GM repaid it all, it only paid back the cash portion. The GM stock purchased with taxpayer dollars has stubbornly remained at about $20. According to a recent article in Reason, the taxpayers have lost quite a bit on the deal.

Last year, top auto analysts had expected GM’s stock prices right now to be around $43 per share. Even that price, I had notedat the time, would represent a $13 to $19 billion loss on the 500 million or so shares (26% of the company equity) that taxpayers still hold in the company.

But, as it turns out, that figure was too rosy! GM stock prices have been hovering around $20 lately – even though the market is at a recent high. This means the losses will be closer to $26 to $38 billion – and that’s not including the $15 billion in tax write offs that the administration illicitly handed GM during bankruptcy.

But OK, say the company was doing just fine, and the taxpayers actually got their money back! It’s still a government takeover of two large automotive companies – GM and Chrysler. And it’s a government takeover that pushed hundreds of auto dealers to close their doors under mandated timelines, losing thousands of jobs, while corrupt Congresscritters somehow managed to keep distribution centers and dealerships in their own districts open.

The government controlled who closed and when. How is this not government control of the means of production?

And what about the banking industry?

No one is denying there were some seriously flawed policies that caused the housing bubble and the banking crisis, but is the answer government regulation so vast that it gives the state control of the financial industry? How will altering bankruptcy rules to allow the government to take over a financial institution not socialist in nature?

Mortgage industry, student loans, health care… the list goes on and on.

This nation’s industries are overregulated to compensate for the uselessness and sometimes outright damage caused by prior regulation. The pattern seems to be “Here’s a regulation that either caused the industry to lose profits, or prevented it from operating in an optimal manner. Industry takes steps to circumvent said regulation, so the government passes more regulations to mitigate the effects of the old regulation.” The result is more regulation that increases employment for tax professionals utilized by large firms, but leaves smaller firms that can’t afford the staff to help them navigate the hellish regulatory and tax path out in the cold.

Meanwhile profits are demonized. Politicians, including Obama himself, hold up “unprecedented profits” as evidence that more regulation or taxation is needed. Production for profit becomes evil, to be replaced by production for use.

And how about some of the highest corporate tax rates in the world? Japan lowered its corporate tax rates this year, realizing that the nation was being harmed economically. That leaves the US with a 39.2 percent corporate tax rate – the highest among developed countries, putting us at a competitive disadvantage compared to our overseas partners.  Is it any wonder companies are trying to leave?

Socialism? You bet.

Is it the type of Soviet socialism that prohibited private ownership of business enterprises? No. But there are degrees of socialism, just like there are degrees of libertarianism. While this one is by far not the most odious, it’s still noxious by its very nature. It punishes achievement. It strives to force the so-called “haves” to work for the benefit of the “have nots.” It claims to strive to help the needy, but instead keeps them effectively chained to government handouts, while others work to support said handouts and pay more and more each year.

So yeah, I think the premise of the philosophy is evil. It’s anti-competition and anti-human. Do I think the people who support Obama are evil? On the whole, no. But many of them are misinformed and just plain wrong. Others are shameless and disgusting in their zeal to suck as much money out of others for themselves as possible.

Goodbye, GOP!

10 Comments

With their shenanigans on the Republican convention floor today, Johns Boehner and Sununu have guaranteed that the only thing the GOP will see from me this year is a big, middle finger.

Michelle Malkin reports on the establishment’s efforts to silence the voices of the grassroots, the voices of liberty and the voices of anyone who doesn’t toe the RINO line.

First, they voted to amend the party rules to allow future presidential candidates to have veto power over who can be delegates from any state. Not the people. The people can’t possibly be trusted to elect delegates to the convention! No, presidential candidates – the ones running to gain power – the ones with the money and the clout – NOT the people – will choose delegates. And you can be sure that the snotty upstart supporters of Ron Paul, those crotchety TEA Partiers and other grassroots conservatives who want to limit the power and scope of government aren’t going to be invited!

In a letter to the national rules committee, the Texas delegation said: “The only way a floor fight can be avoided is if the rule is stricken.”

An email to the party was not returned, but Munisteri said the thinking behind the proposal was to ensure delegates vote for the candidate they are supposed to support in the nomination process.

God forbid we, the people, who rejected Mittens the last time around and wound up with the shit sandwich that was McCain, actually reject him again! After all, it’s HIS turn!  Just like it was McCain’s turn in 2008 after he got his ass shredded by Dubya in 2000.  See a pattern?

FreedomWorks protested. So did the Republican Liberty Caucus.  So did a number of Romney delegates, including Georgia’s Julianne Thompson, who wrote an open letter to the RNC.

As a National Delegate to the 2012 RNC, I am extremely disappointed that a rule would be passed through committee that essentially strips the grassroots of all of it’s [sic.] representative power by ridding State Parties of their ability to choose whom they will send as delegates and alternates to represent their State to the Republican National Convention. The rules change would allow the Presidential nominee sweeping new power to override that process and choose their own National Delegates. The rule also allows the RNC (with only a 3/4 vote) the power to amend the party’s rules without a vote by the full Republican National Convention.

To no avail.

Instead, the establishment petty tyrants in three-piece suits reached a “deal.”

Under a compromise reached late Monday, Romney supporters and GOP leaders agreed to back down from a proposed rule change that effectively would have allowed presidential nominees to choose what delegates represent them at national conventions.

…Under the deal, delegates who are bound to a presidential candidate that hasn’t bowed out of the race or released them to vote for another contender are barred from casting a vote for a different person. During this convention, the change effectively would mean a delegate bound to Mitt Romney could not instead opt to throw his or her support behind Ron Paul, who has not freed his delegates.

Any vote for another candidate would be voided and the delegate would lose his or her position.

But under the compromise, states would still able to select individual delegates under their own laws and party rules. GOP leaders agreed to remove the rule change provision that would have allowed state-party-selected delegates to be disavowed.

Not sure the deal was any deal at all. Michelle Malkin wrote the following this morning:

…grass-roots activists revolted over Rule 15 (the delegate selection provision to be renumbered Rule 16) and Rule 12 (the power grab that would allow the RNC to make executive convention rule changes and rewrite the rules between conventions without any input/consultation with grass-roots, delegates, or state leadership on hand).

As long as the proposed Rule 12 remains in place, this “deal” or “compromise” must be a no-go. Don’t back down, activists!

The activists kept fighting, but so did Romney, who apparently feels he’s entitled to the candidacy one way or another.

The “deal” that was reached drew attention away from several more rule changes designed to ensure that the Establishment gets its way and the party line isn’t damaged.

The first rule would allow the RNC to change the rules between conventions with a 3/4 vote of the committee.  And if Romney wins, who’s going to tell their Republican president “no?”  And with this particular rule, who cares if they can’t get their delegate provision this year? Hell, they can do it anytime when the heat from this year’s election has settled down!

According to FreedomWorks:

The RNC is trying to pass an amendment to RNC Rule 12 that would allow the RNC Committee to amend the rules. In the future, if the grassroots is able to influence the convention process and RNC leadership is displeased, they will have a contingency plan where they can reconvene and with a three-fourths majority to rewrite the rules without the influence of any state party, grassroots organization or delegate.

Yeah, keep telling me how voting for the Republican, no matter how morally objectionable, is the right thing to do! I’ll tell you to shut right the fuck up!

The worst part of today was yet to come, however.

The neo-fascist assholes of the GOP weren’t done yet. They initiated a purge of those delegates who wouldn’t toe the party line.

I just got off the phone with a concerned Florida activist, Laura Noble, who informed me that both of Florida’s Rules Committee members, Peter Feaman and Kathleen King, have been removed from the Rules committee and replaced with Romney-appointed delegates.

Clearly anticipating a grassroots backlash against the “compromise” on Rule 15 and the changes on Rule 12 has caused the Romney camp to preemptively replace delegates to ensure they have support on the Rules Committee.

Now THOSE are Soviet tactics! THOSE are strongarm maneuvers from a political party whose supposed mission is to prevent the march toward a Soviet-style utopia we all want to avoid.

And this afternoon, the Rules Committee voted 78-14 to accept the deal, forcing  an effort to gather enough signatures to force a floor vote on the minority report. For it to have worked, 25 percent of committee members were needed. Reports at the scene said enough signatures were gathered and sent to the Rules Committee.

Apparently that was all for naught…

First, Maine delegates were replaced with Romney people. Then, rules chairman John Sununu and GOP Speaker of the House John Boehner stood on stage at the RNC to rule on the compromise rules report. No minority report was mentioned. When asked for yeas and nays on the report, the room seemed equally divided. Boehner forged ahead and approved the report over loud boos and calls of “point of order” from activists on the floor.

No vote on the minority report.

The noxious slimebags pushed through their little power play, with GOP Rep. Marsha Blackburn Goebbels declaring that “this has been a great exercise in grass-roots” and that GOP stands for “Great Opportunity Party.”

Opportunity to do what, exactly?

Cheat, and push through a candidate that stands for exactly nothing?

Impose their chosen boy on the rest of the country, giving us yet another shit sandwich and chuckling that the idiot populace will continue to reward them with their votes, merely because they have an “R” behind their name, regardless of the fact that he is a substandard candidate?

Silence conservative opposition?

Silence pro-liberty opposition?

Do they think this will win them the love of the electorate?

Whom am I kidding? Most Americans don’t get it, and don’t want to get it. It’s much easier to just vote straight party ticket and pretend they’re oh-so-civic minded.

You know what? At least Obama supporters, delusional and ignorant though they may be, stand for something. Granted, it’s a Marxist, redistributionary something. But they stand on their principles, warped and evil though they may be. Republicans merely roll over and scream at the tops of their lungs about their lofty ideals.

But in the end, they’re still the party of stupid.

I can only hope that more and more people realize what frauds you are, GOP. And here’s hoping they shun you for it.

When the country crumbles into shambles around us, the Democrats won’t be responsible. YOU WILL!

Go to hell!

 

 

Zero tolerance stupidity, part thee… oh hell, I don’t know!

1 Comment

So we’ve read about kids getting suspended and expelled from school for having butter knives, drawing guns, pointing fingers menacingly and wielding chicken fingers in a threatening manner.

But this is a first! A three-year-old deaf boy forced to change the way he signs his name, because his name is…

Hunter.

A deaf preschooler in Grand Island, Nebraska, has been prohibited from signing his own name because school administrators believe the gesture he uses looks too much like a gun.

“He’s deaf, and his name sign, they say, is a violation of their weapons policy,” Hunter Spanjer’s father Brian told Channel 10/11.

The layers of stupid in this story are thicker than Chris Christie’s waistline!

Unsurprisingly, the school has a “strict zero-tolerance sense policy.” They claim they’re working with the parents on a compromise.

A COMPROMISE???

They want to stop a deaf child from using Signing Exact English to give his own name, because someone somewhere in this braindead administration has decided his little, tiny hands resemble those evil gun things used by mean men who kill Bambi’s mom when he signs his name, and they’re talking COMPROMISE???

Here’s your compromise, douchenozzles: you shut the fuck up, let the child sign his name, and stop soiling your collective diapers over nothing. Then you go away and never darken the sight of anyone with a shred of common sense ever again!

How’s that?

I have no words

5 Comments

OK, maybe I do: stupid, worthless, no-good, goddamn, freeloading sonofabitch! Retarded, big-mouth, know-it-all, asshole jerk…

(Major points if you can name the movie!)

Seriously, though. They did threaten to do it, and now they have. The giant vulvae have invaded Tampa. No, they’re not vajayjays. Otherwise, the leftards from CodePink would be wearing large, pink tubes. Instead, displaying a shocking lack of anatomical awareness, they have invaded Tampa dressed as giant… well… vulvae.  Good lord, you daft bints! How can you stage an effective protest against supposed Republican invasion of your giblets, if you can’t even correctly identify the body part being invaded? Did they teach you nothing at school? Or are you morons really too busy trying to display your shockingly fluffy labia to bother being anatomically correct?

Several demonstrators from the feminist group Code Pink wore frilly pink costumes while others adorned with cardboard cutouts resembling the sexual organ were milling about Sunday looking for Republicans.

And if you ever wondered what a giant, walking set of external female bits looks like, behold the PinkTards on all their glory!

Some of them look a little like the Venus Flytrap in Little Shop of Horrors… the pink, frilly, stupid version!

Here you have a large representation of what looks like a woman dressed as a set of meat curtains.  And those lumps on the edge of the costume? Well, knowing the PinkTards, let your imagination run wild!

And yes, it does look like Audrey II!

 

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: