Two Wolves inside the Soul of America

A Cherokee Legend

An old Cherokee is teaching his grandson about leadership. "A fight is going on inside the leadership of this country" he said to the boy.


"It is a terrible fight and it is between two wolves. One Wolf has a hard heart - he is anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego." He continued, "The other is good - he is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion, and faith. The same fight is going on inside you, me, and inside every other person, even our President".

The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather, "Which wolf will win?"

The old Cherokee simply replied, "The one you feed."

When we ask ourselves if our President brings out the best in our spirit, that inate goodness that exists in the heart of all Americans or if he seeks out those weaknesses and emotions that divide us, we have to wonder, Do we have a President that in his heart of hearts really believes in the goodness and wisdom of the average American, or if he acknowledges it and then uses that good nature against us.

Which wolf have we been feeding?

Nancy Reagan's Seance answers Obama's call. Dutch Reagan is still watching over us. Thanks for asking

I was reading through a bunch of 5 year old articles professing the general theme that "Ronald Reagan is Dead once and for all, Finally". They all have a hilarious "Whistling past the graveyard" feel to them. One of them is almost pleading, "When will you just accept Reagan is Dead, ...Please!!!"






Here is one of the better ones:

And so, with a resounding, bone-rattling crash, the conservative era ends. Now the scattered and demoralized armies of the right will turn on each other with such ferocity it will make the brutal opening scene of Gladiator look like a slap fight at a slumber party. It's about to get mercenary in the woodshed.

Who lost conservatism? The first instinct among shell-shocked and infuriated partisans will be to blame anybody but their own faction for this historical repudiation.

I've been hearing these panicky liberals this week saying,"We promised America that Big government works, that we are smart enough to make it work and that it actually makes life better and costs less... and when people had their doubts, we said "scouts honor" ... just pass the bill and "Trust us". "This was our big show. Our Super Bowl. Obamacare was our showcase after half a century, we were going to prove to them that Liberalism works. We bet it all on one toss of the dice..."

Now this Albatross of Obamacare is proving Big Government solutions are inherently flawed. It's proving Obama's people are not as focused on being smart at government as they are at Chicago Way eliminitionist hit jobs. Obamacare is not making lives better it is tossing innocent Americans out on the street and endangering peoples lives. It is not lowering costs and in fact is a lead weight on the economy and more costly for all Americans today and into the future. And as far as trusting Obama and the Left to do what's right and be as transparent and honest as possible? Obama lied, he admits he lied and most of his allies admit he lied, because he was afraid we would not go along with his bonehead plan if he had been honest. In essence his entire Presidency from his first campaign promise to his recent non-apology has been a fraud based not on getting honest votes for honest promises, it has been lying to trick people in to voting for him based on lies about things he never intended to do. He is a fraud and a conman that wouldn't be in office if he had told the truth.

So everything Ronald Reagan told us about Liberals turned out to be true and the American people are looking for other times in our past history when a bumbling President was wallowing in a crappy economy and sending his envoys to Iran in hopes that more talk would fix it all up and make them play nice. Hmmm.

In 2008 in Obama's first press conference after the election he chose to make the widowed former First Lady Nancy Reagan the butt of a joke about seances and contacting the dead President. Five years later, Nancy Reagan called Barack Obama back today to let him know, Ronald Reagan received his call and wanted to leave the current President a message:

"Barack, This is Dutch Reagan. I'm not here right now, but just wanted you to know, my spirit is still watching over the American people and with your great example of failed big government boondoggles, like ObamaCare, Reaganism lives on forever and ever. George and Abe are up here with me watching you pray to get out of this mess and we all agree. Put your faith in the American people, the constitution, stop hatin' on people and remember, when you cheat at golf, you're only cheating yourself. Good luck with the whole Legacy thing."

So President Obama, next time you or Secretary Sebelius watch a computer screen go blank and say "The Obamacare System is not responding at this time" and it seems like there is a ghost in the machine, Listen carefully and you'll a warm voice say, "Well, There you go again".

Obamacare is Vaporware

It is hilarious watching the lefties use GOP 2009 accusations as if they designed them in to their calculus.

They said it wasn't a tax, then they argued before SCOTUS it was.

Ezra Klein et al now give us the "Its not a bug, its a feature" line about we need "Young indestructibles" to sign up for geriatric disease coverage in order to cover old and sick former hippies. It's a transfer payment, just admit it. For 40 years, I've heard people say, how can we pay for the baby boomers when the demographic bulge hits 70. Now we know. Young people will pay directly through what Chief Justice Roberts calls a tax, or they will pay indirectly by way of massive federal debt.

Obama claimed this was all about saving the lives of 40 million uninsured Americans who are dying to be covered, but can't afford it. The truth is, if you subtract the illegal aliens (God Bless em) that Joe Wilson got so agitated about (You lie, Mr President), then the millions who qualify but dont sign up for programs and so on, it comes down to about 8 million. Many of these are the young undestructibes who figured "we don't care, we'll take the risk". Ezra Klein and the gang are saying, "Don't care or not, we'll force you to pay for something you will almost certainly not use". They are admitting this as if it is clever. They are saying these sorry Gen X'rs that we conned in to voting for this are going to pay for the old folks who for the most part already had insurance, but we're going to get them better plans... and then when the old and sick start receiving life sustaining treatment in this transfer payment, we can jack them around every four years with terrifying ads of Paul Ryan pushing them off a cliff.

This was never about limiting the solution to helping the 8 million. It was about ripping the old system apart and building it in to a model that they control... and the control is about political control.

Again, they even admit this one too. Last week on the Sunday shows, the lefties were saying, "Let's face it, these bad plans had to go, and this was from the beginning a plan to wipe out the "Old system" of Health Care, because it didn't work".

Says Who? Apparently over 5 million have been kicked to the curb and are not happy about their little corner of the old system getting blown up. And when the business mandate comes around a majority of Americans are going to ask when the "Whole system needs to be nuked" philosophy came along. Isn't that the root of the Obama lie.

Another switcheroo is the idea that tens of thousands will die if we don't get the 8 million coverage, but now Obama and his staff argue that "It' only about 5% of the population that is getting cancelled right now". What if the GOP said, Its only 8 million back in 2009. 5% is over double the 8 million. "Not a bug, Its a feature..."

In the computer industry, which Obama likes to admit now, "I don't write code",... they have a term called "Vaporware". It has several meanings. One is when a company announces a software package that never actually gets built in order to freeze out competitors with the buzz that they are now the leader in this new area. It is meant to buy time and manipulate the market. There is also the practice of rolling out beta software that they know doesn't work 100%, because the first 95% of the code is easy, but the last 5% will cost more than initial development combined. Then they rely on complaints and reports of technical glitches from guinea pigs in the public to solve the last 5% and by then version 2 is on its way and the negative fallout was handled through press releases and clever public relations professionals. That is what Obama admitted in his response to Chuck Todd this week. This was Vaporware. He was asked if he lied and he said it would work for 98%, and the rest would work out based on the better deals available. He was admitting he knew millions would get screwed, but the rollout would continue, which is the important thing and public reations by a compliant media woud smooth it over and who cares anyway, I didn't come here to be loved by the haters. I'm on a mission to "Fundamentally" blah blah. Never mind that this is not about a PC locking up because of a glitch from Vaporware, it is people dying. Or that old grandma he wanted to give a painpill to, rather than an expensive lifesaving treatment. Glitch indeed.

It is amazing the delusion. Today Cynthia Parker and David Gregory were comparing this to Iraq, "Except Iraq was about Life and Death and this is not". Say what? With the all the due respect to our soldiers, there were 4000 dead over 5 years? As Klein estimates above 20k per year for lack of coverage and we haven't even gotten started with the detonation of this tower of Babel. People will die at a rate far higher than Iraq, but they will die in a less dramatic fashion in quiet neglected places thanks to Obama and David Gregory.

Another delusion was Bob Woodward on FNS saying this is not a scandal like Watergate or Lewinsky, because Obama meant well and was trying to do something good? Oh Really? You actually believe that Mr. Hard nosed journalist demigod?

At the worst what was Nixon trying to do if he even knew about the breakin? He wanted to win an election and was willing to deceive Americans and cover up wrong doing,.... Why? ... because he wanted to do so many good things, Mr. Woodward, right? Just like Obama he had benevolent plans for the next 4 years, If Nixon even knew about this in his first term.

On the other hand, Obama meant well? Really? He wanted to give coverage to the 8 million? No, we've already established that. He had a massive secret plan that he lied about and he lied to win an election, just as Nixon wanted to win. We have no proof Nixon was trying to conceal a Benghazi or "You can keep your policy" scam, but we have proof Obama was lying to win an election based on fraud.

When Obama was riding high last month after the end of the Shut Down he spiked the football and said, "If you want to do something in this town win an election!" This was his now familiar trash talking about "I won, so stick it". He has said many times, the people wanted this and the proof is my re-election, as if Obamacare was the pivotal issue. It was barely mentioned, because Romney ran away from it. Yet, Obama claimed it was a mandate on Obamacare? ..an Obamacare that was never meant to be, because we now know, he was lying about Obamacare. So, if 2012 was as he spikingly says was a stamp of approval on propelling him back in office, then the fact that he resides at 1600 Pennsylvania is a fraud based on a massive lie. His measuring stick, not ours.

When Rev. Wright said Obama is willing to lie to get elected, he was right. He lied to get in and he lied to stay in and he delayed the roll out until after re-election and nooowww....

"......America's Chickens.......have come home......to Roost!!"

The Circular Logic of Obama-ism

From the very beginning of Barack Obama's introduction to the American people, there have been weird responses and defenses to the usual responsible questions we use to vet our potential leaders. The strange thing is these strange circular responses continue now and when the responder is forced by logic to return to the beginning of the circle, they realize they are in an embarrassing box and their immediate reaction is an emotional attack from an undeserving victim.

Here are some examples.

Question: What experience and background does this man have to be the leader of the most powerful nation on earth at one of the most dangerous and consequential times in our history?

Response: He stands for hope and change. He represents new ideas. He understands how badly the worst President in the history of the world has damaged our country and everybody agrees its time for change.

Question:But what specifically does he have that makes him the best choice out of 300 million people.

Response: Well, he ran a historic campaign in the primaries and nobody expected him to win.

Question:Why historic?

Response: He was running against the establishment. He was smart enough to prove everybody wrong and overcome the ignorance and opposition. His book the Audacity of Hope says it all. It all comes down to his unique narrative.

What exactly does that mean? Ignorant opposition and his "Unique Narrative"? I don't fully understand your euphemisms.

Response: You just don't get it. Its a new world. Get with the program.

Question: Its just confusing. You seem to be saying he is qualified for an office he is running for, simply because he runs for that office better than the expectations of some imaginary group.

Response: Are you a racist or something?

I'm sorry. I'll be quiet now.

Here is another line of thought or shall I say circle.

Question: Why is Obama claiming opposition to his foreign policy is immoral.

Response: The Syrians have chemical weapons and they used them on their own people. Do you have no shame?

Question: How do you know this and why does that make ME immoral?

Response: You just have to trust the President on WMD, he has intelligence reports. It would be immoral not to get involved in the civil war if millions will die by WMD.

Question: He claims 1000 have died by WMD if you trust his intel, yet he proposes no action based on the 120,000 others that have died by conventional means. No one has mentioned millions.

Response: If we don't act there could be a domino based on our failure to stand up for justice. What do you mean trust his intel? He is not some Cowboy Bush. He recognizes the mistake in bombing people in the mideast for dumb reasons like sketchy claims that they have WMD or that they associate with terrorists. Middle Eastern civil wars are their problem. This is the main reason Bush is the worst President ever and Obama would never do that. You should trust Obama because he doesn't lie about surveilance programs that spy on Americans and mainly because he cares about people and Bush only cared about making he and his secret oil buddies rich off the oil.

Question: Bush lives in a modest Suburban home in North Dallas and is nowhere as rich as Barack Obama who earned millions of dollars in office. Bush never got rich on oil from Iraq. Is that the basis of your saying that Bush waged war not because he cared, but for his own personal gain, but you know Obama does not pursue policies for his own benefit? Obama could have acted on the Chemical warfare reports in 2012, during the campaign in 2012, but he did not. Was that for his own personal benefit or because he cared more than Bush? That crucial delay allowed Al Qaeda to move in and fill a leadership void in the rebel opposition. Now he wants us to give weapons to Al Qaeda? I'm sure Bush would have been criticized for that?

Response: Part of Obama's advantage over his Democrat opponents in 2008 is he opposed the Iraq war early on. We warned the GOP if they did not pull out before the Surge and just let nature take its course, they would lose the confidence of the American people. Obama drove that point home and it proved the immorality of their party and why we are the good guys. What you don't understand is Obama's drone policy and other security measures are not the problem, it was a matter of whether you could trust the man who carried out those policies. America could not trust Bush and found out he was a bad if not the worst President and now they realize Obama is the best ever.

Question: So Obama is the best of 44 Presidents, because he opposed his predecessors policies, but its OK if he mimics those policies, because the policies themselves are not bad, just the trustworthiness of the leadership that follows those policies, yet the trustworthiness is based on the policies themselves? Now you are asking us to follow Obama in to Syria merely on trust and yet he is rewarding Iran with one on one dialogue with no preconditions, but won't speak to his own House of Representatives because he says they are terrorists for asking for a delay in Obamacare based solely on the concept that only a crazy person would claim that Obamacare shoud be delayed, yet he asked for a corporate delay and now his own party asks for one. How does that make sense?

Response: The GOP are concern trolls. They don't care. Obama asked for a delay to fix problems created by the ignorant opposition. The GOP know Obamacare will work and want to delay it to destroy it. They don't really think it will fail on its own.

Question: Don't you feel uncomfortable that Obama lied?

Response: He didn't lie. It's only a lie if you know its a lie. He assumed the American people were not so dumb that they would want to keep a sub standard plan. When he said you could keep your plan if you like it, but he just hasn't had the chance to explain why the plan you are being forced in to is better and that you will like it. You can keep the plan that you like and when he is done with you, you will like it. So thats not a lie. There are a lot of bad people that want to sabotage this great program and they are trying to make it not work. Its no surprise. He is a good person and the very fact that he is being accused of lying is proof that his ignorant opposition doesn't appreciate his unique narrative.

There is that unique Narrative again. What does that mean

It means we need to spy on Tea Partiers, use the IRS to inimidate people that don't vote right, shut down companies that fund Obama's opponents, censor Fox News and talk radio, disarm the populace, nationalize Catholic schools and make them pay for abortions, hide our inner workings whenever possible, threaten the press if they get to close to the truth, manipulate voting practices to ensure people who vote correctly get a first and second crack at the polling places and Crush the ignorant opposition wherever possible in order to force permanent and fundamental change in America forever, whether you like it or not. .. Oh, and also... you are a racist

Is Obama a Liar or a Moron? The Liberal defense

From Jonah Goldberg in the LA Times today:

"All we've been hearing the last three years is if you like your policy you can keep it.... I'm infuriated because I was lied to," one woman told this newspaper, as part of a story on how some middle-class Californians have been stunned to learn the real costs of Obamacare.

And that lie looks like the biggest lie about domestic policy ever uttered by a U.S. president.

The most famous presidential lies have to do with misconduct (Richard Nixon's "I am not a crook" or Bill Clinton's "I did not have sexual relations") or war. Woodrow Wilson campaigned on the slogan "He kept us out of war" and then plunged us into a calamitous war. Franklin D. Roosevelt made a similar vow. "I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars."

The Great Debate of the Obama Era? Is he a liar or simply a moron?

Honestly...this is what they are using as a defense now. Yesterday on Hugh Hewitt's radio show, he asked Joe Scarborough what the buzz is amongst the liberal insiders and he responded by saying he asked friends in the Left Wing Media what the spin is and Scarborough said there is none. This is astonishing because on every conceivable failure imaginable, they have a hand wringing storyline of explanations that range from blaming Bush to executive privilege, but they have no line of B.S. to cover up this time. The experts of B.S. are speechless?

The latest question has been, "What did the President know and when did he know it?" After 5 years of work, Obama's supporters can not name a significant achievement except for Obamacare. Now that we are learning millions of Americans that want to keep their plan are being dumped from their plan because of Obamacare, people want to know if they were lied to, hoodwinked, stabbed in the back. So we have pundits insisting on prosecutorial certitude that Obama did or didn't knowingly lie otherwise they offer him presumed innocence. What they are demanding is a blue dress or a tape of Obama saying, "I know we said you can keep your plan and that premiums will go down, but once the bill is passed, we will modify it in to what ever we want and if it means lying to the American people, so be it". So when Jay Carney and others say, "He didn't know", the alternative view emerges that he must be disengaged and not in control of the massive government he swore would take care of us all.

The New York Times and others are calling him the "Bystander President":

As a practical matter, no president can be aware of everything going on in the sprawling government he theoretically manages. But as a matter of politics, Mr. Obama’s plea of ignorance may do less to deflect blame than to prompt new questions about just how much in charge he really is.

So in essence, you have two choices, Our President lied or he is a moron. And Obama's supporters think that the doubt that exists between these two options is somehow a defense. If critics can't be sure if he is a liar or a moron, then he enjoys presumed innocence.

Last night, Bill O'Reilly posited Obama must not have known about the millions that would be cancelled, because he would have wanted his signature plan to succeed. That idea may be giving Obama more credit than he deserves. It relies on a number of assumptions that he is compassionate to all Americans wants and needs and that he is very skilled. Let's consider the implications of his not knowing. This means there is a massive conspiracy of Democrats in his administration who knowing, as we all do, that his most famous selling point was, "If you like your plan, You keep it" was a promise Obama wanted to keep, that they decided to do the opposite. If let's say Sebelius decided to secretly do the opposite, she would have to give out orders to other Democrats on her staff to do so, and they would all immediately say, "But this will make the President a liar, does he know we are doing this? It will make him look like a fool. Its not what he wants. It might even be illegal to make up these rule changes without his approval". They would either have to be convinced by her to go along with the conspiracy or leak it to the press that there is a rogue element in the administration that is endangering his most cherished program and trying to countermand his most sincere promise. Is that believable? A conspiracy of Democrats taking control against his will to make Obamacare even more intrusive and restrictive? No administration in history is more aware of its own inner workings than this one. They created an elaborate sting operation in the West Wing to smoke out an NSA tweeter, for God's sake. His inner circle can't make a trip to the bathroom without discussing the political ramifications of it.

So there is the possibility that Obama knew, that he lied AND that he is a moron about how the reaction would be out of his control. They call that vanity.

The debate then on the other side has been if he did lie, is this just Politics as Obama sychophant Clarence Page has said. Everyone does it? This was Obama's no new taxes pledge. You make a bold promise, so big and so out there, that if you were to break it, it would mean the end of your career. In the case of George H. W. Bush, the Democrats talked him in to breaking it, then gleefully portrayed him as a liar and he lost. What kind of "Lie" was this? or broken promise? He made a pledge, but broke it at the behest of the Democrats in order to "compromise" (Remember when Presidents did that) in order to get spending caps that would reduce the deficit and stimulate the economy well in to his second term. But he lost, so Clinton was the one that was forced to live under those deficit reduction spending caps. Too bad for him, but good for conservatives that wanted a balanced budget. So Bush 41 sacrificed himself and his career to find middle ground with his opponents for the good of the American people. The Democrats used it to their advantage to gain power.

Clinton's biggest lie? "I did not have sex with that woman" It may not have been about his signature legislation, but it surely wasn't for the good of mankind,... it was for the good of his own personal benefit and at the expense of the American people.

George W. Bush was said to have lied over WMDs. Now that the fever swamp has chilled a bit, the evidence of his lying has been in doubt. In Bush's speeches in the weeks before the Iraq War, especially his speech to the nation, he laid out numerous reasons for military action not just WMD. But even if you assume the most stringent of standards, why would he lie and what was to be gained? The meme at the time was he wanted to get rich on oil revenues for his own personal benefit. It must not have worked, because he lives in a fairly modest suburban tract home in North Dallas. In reality, Bush believed Saddam had the capability, the motive and the will to threaten American lives on a massive scale. As the Duellfer report and all the others demonstrated, Saddam was fighting for survival everyday and going on offense was his way. As Tariq Aziz testified in the report, the key was the delivery vehicles acquired in opposition to the sanctions. Aziz described how with the illegal missiles, they could "cook" bio/chem cultures and have them ready for placement in warheads in 72 hours. Saddam never gave up and never would give up a trump card for Iranian invasion. Bush attacked Iraq for several reasons, but he did it for what he believed was for the best interest and security of the American people. One has to prove he knew the WMD rationale was false and that he knew he was misleading on WMDs in order to consider it a lie. Was it a mistake? Did he mis-underestimate the amount of significant WMD stockpiles in Iraq? WHo knows, but was that a lie? And who would have benefited from such a lie if he knowingly misled on the matter? Was it for his personal benefit? No.


Now consider Obama's lie. He claimed there was a crisis of 50 million suffering people who are dying without healthcare and government was the solution. In fact the number of uninsured who could not attain it because of financial status was about 8 million and of those, about half were what we call "Young Invincibles". We were told Obamacare would pay for its self because it would be so efficient and with the help of taxing the rich, we would make money. Now we are told if the young invincibles, who don't use the product, don't pay in, the system fails. So its a transfer payment. Young healthy people paying for aging hippies.

Obama made promises that he knew he would not keep. He tried to garner support from independents for Obama Care by portraying it as not as intrusive as he truly intended it to be. When he said you can keep your policy, what he was thinking was, "I really don't care what you want because you are stupid and I know best". We know that, because administration defenders are in essence saying so now. They claim that of the 16 million (and growing) that are being kicked off their policies, that they will be given better policies that do cost more, but are better and they will be given subsidies which will make them dependent on political whims for now and forever to powerful people they may not like. So the lie is you don't get what YOU want, but you are too dumb to know whats best for you. The other meme is your new policy is better and you won't realize it until you get sick and need it. You are too stupid. Obama he smart.

The promise was one product, the actual bill was not what you were told, the law after being passed was manipulated with exemptions, modifications and parts they just chose not to enforce. Now people are losing their insurance. And why the lie? He lied because the program he wanted was a program that he already knew could not pass and could not garner support of the majority of Americans. But he wanted it and that's all that mattered, not the will of the people. Polls have never supported Obamacare. He lied not just for personal gain, its worse than that. He lied to establish a self perpetuating power system that would deliver votes and slush funds in the future and provide a carrot and stick engine that could be used to manipulate the people to advance his leftist agenda. As he has portrayed the Tea Party as a small cadre of ideologically driven radicals trying to force the rest of America to live under its rules, he is just angry to have competition for his own small radical cadre. He likes to portray himself as the personifaction of the public's will, but with only a 41% approval rating and that one based on promises he never intended to keep, the image of what Obama convinced people would be a wonder world will always be more popular than the world he actually delivered. But what you think of Obama is not important to him unless it serves him. Whether he is a liar or a moron or both, his lie was not to save anybody or serve the American people, it was a moronic lie to perpetuate Tyranny.



Tyranny is so alien to most Americans that to witness its emergence is a black swan event. We are so unprepared for such a blatant betrayal, it is hard to comprehend. Obama's attitude at this point is I won't be running again, so they have to just take it. They have to take the bitch slap and deal with it and they'll get over it and the media is on my side anyway. We will see how far the American people will go and how much lying they'll tolerate. This lie is a major turning point. Will people call it what it is or just put some ice on it and rollover. We'll see.

Bomb somebody, anybody, we have to save face!

On January 10, 2007, President Bush made a speech to the nation, not unlike the format of Obama's tuesday speech. As commander in chief he declared the nature of his plan for the "Surge" and predicted that it would end the Iraq war on our terms and lead to our bringing the soldiers home. The response from the media and from Democrats, including Senator Obama, was shock, outrage and vituperation. Senator Obama, who had already begun working with his braintrust on his Presidential campaign strategy, wanted to be at the forefront of hobbling the commander in chief's war plans. He authored a bill that would take away Bush's war powers for escalating our presence in the region and would set in law the withdrawl of our military presence in the region.

On January 30, 2007, Senator Barack Obama introduced the Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007:

"Our troops have performed brilliantly in Iraq, but no amount of American soldiers can solve the political differences at the heart of somebody else's civil war," Obama said, alluding to Michael Scott Doran's essay "Somebody Else's Civil War" published in the Foreign Affairs journal in 2002. "That's why I have introduced a plan to not only stop the escalation of this war, but begin a phased redeployment that can pressure the Iraqis to finally reach a political settlement and reduce the violence."

Polls at the time showed the nation split almost evenly on whether Bush's Surge would result in victory. A few percentage points, within the margin of error, opposed the President's plan. Our founders were very clear on War Powers. Although majority rules predominate in a democracy, in our Republic the Executive is entrusted with broad powers so the whims of the majority would not create unstable or fluctuating commitments when troops are in the field. It was also meant to protect the commander in chief from having the political opposition attempt to use military strategy as a bludgeon to gain power at the expense of our fighting men or national interest. A key difference here is in Iraq, soldiers were at that moment in harm's way and could be fighting under increased peril if needless division hampered our ability to confront the enemy and break their will. In Syria we have yet to attack.

In this case, Bush ignored Obama's predictions that the Surge would result in a worsening of the Iraq war and a further destabilization in the region. Within a year combat deaths had dropped to the lowest monthly rate since the first year of the conflict. The war was essentially over and even military experts were shocked at how successful Bush's victory was and how devastatingly wrong Obama and his party had been. One of Obama's solutions in his bill was to attempt to,

"...create more regional diplomacy with key nations in the region to help achieve a political settlement among the Iraqi people and prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and regional conflict."

And who in particular did he want to act as a stabilizer in the region? Iran and Syria

Obama is now suddenly trumpeting his war powers and claims he doesn't need "Advise and consent" on foreign policy, doesn't need support from the UN, NATO or even the support of public opinion which recently was as low as single digits for his plans. I will not characterize his self important declarations of his abilities as megalomaniacal, but it is hard to find a President who claimed so much omnipotence on military powers, but had so little support from so few. The main reason is the utterly incomprehensible message he is offering and the absence of trust in his motives and abilities.

Let's consider his parties previous memes about conservative presidents and his own actions. In his Tuesday night speech he even presented an almost cartoonish characterization of the two parties in an attempt to shame critics in to falling in to submission to his superior intellect. The "Uniter in chief" said,

And so, to my friends on the right, I ask you to reconcile your commitment to America’s military might with a failure to act when a cause is so plainly just. To my friends on the left, I ask you to reconcile your belief in freedom and dignity for all people with those images of children writhing in pain, and going still on a cold hospital floor. For sometimes resolutions and statements of condemnation are simply not enough.

Indeed, I’d ask every member of Congress, and those of you watching at home tonight, to view those videos of the attack, and then ask: What kind of world will we live in if the United States of America sees a dictator brazenly violate international law with poison gas, and we choose to look the other way?

This is the man who in 2007 admitted he would tolerate genocide in Iraq if his plan for pullout resulted in a bloodbath. In his speech he tells of how Assad killed 100,000 people (As Obama stood silently) with conventional weapons and then allegedly killed a 1000 with Sarin gas. His so called Russian solution is if he surrenders the ability to kill another 1000 with Sarin, he can stay in power and merrily go on his way killing another 100,000. Yes, Mr. President What kind of a world, indeed?

The reason Ronald Reagan was so good about delivering a speech on American values and moral imperatives is because he had a deeply thought out and clear understanding of his inner moral compass and a heartfelt vision for the moral crusade of our nation. It was not his presentation that made his vision sound coherent, it was the clarity and coherence that made it an effective presentation. The needle on Obama's inner compass points not at the north star, but at Barack Obama.

The Left has for years characterized conservative presidents as:

1. Making reckless, blustering macho slogans and threats of war to toss "Red Meat" to voters in order to bolster a war like image amongst slow witted yokels in an effort to win elections.

Obama made the ill advised "Red Line" boast on WMDs against Assad in the midst of an election year. John McCain and other prominent Senators had been encouraging Obama to do something about the ongoing civil war in Syria and Obama's remarks were considered by some as a way to declare why he had not become involved, but express with certainty that there were circumstances, i.e. WMD for which "Enormous consequences" would be inflicted on Assad. In August of 2012, when he mentioned the Red Line on WMD, he also stated "Assad must go". Now he seems to be OK with Assad staying in power and "Enormous Consequences" have become "Unbelievably small" consequences.

2. Having made blustering threats to smaller weaker nations, the conservative feels he has to follow through on threats in order to save face. Protecting Americans has nothing to do with it.

If Obama thinks that his cruise missiles will save face in the international community, how do these two failed promises fit in to that calculus. Clearly this is to save face domestically. Like the President, the Left in the media are not aware of how stupid they sound as they attempt to parrot what they imagine is the parody of conservative peace through strength.

The New York Times said,

"The goal of the cruise missile strikes the United States is planning to carry out in Syria is to restore the smudged “red line” that President Obama drew a year ago against the use of poison gas. If carried out effectively, the strikes may also send a signal to Iran that the White House is prepared to back up its words, no small consideration for an administration that has proclaimed that the use of military force remains an option if the leadership in Iran insists on fielding a nuclear weapon. "

In essence, Obama screwed up by having said this in the first place, so regardless of the merits, he must follow through or he personally will look foolish. Then there was the 45 minute walk in the garden where he decided to take it to congress after he was humiliated by the British. Many conservatives wanted to compliment the President for showing constitutional respect for the balance of powers. To them this move was so uncharacteristic of his combative disdain for bipartisan communication and inclusion. Then within hours the truth came out. The President's aides and his friends in the media began saying how this was a politically savvy move intended to outmaneuver conservatives. "Be careful what you ask for GOP". "This is a case of the dog catching the car". "Obama is going to force them to put up or shut up on Syria and make them accountable for their words". I'm picturing two soldiers on a war ship in the Mediterranean waiting for the go ahead to put their lives in danger on Obama's say so,... and one asks the other, "Why are we risking our lives today" and the other one says, "no real national security reason,... the President was trying to screw his political opponents, he missed, and we need to blow some people up so he can save face".


3. The war loving conservative doesn't care about the young Americans who must sacrifice and risk their lives in order to make the conservative President feel big.

By the first autumn of Bush's second term, 2000 lives had been lost in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is now autumn in Obama's second term and 2000 lives have been lost under his watch. Where are the photos of returning coffins at Dover that he once thought was so important. Where is the nightly drumbeat and body count that opened each nightly news cast. Ted Koppel's 2004 controversial Nightline episode (in an election year) where they read all the lives lost up to that date included 750 names.


4. The War loving conservative tries to inflame passions about war as a way to distract from failed domestic policies and reward corporate friends.

Obamcare is in flames. Immigration is possible, but not in a way that can make the Republicans look foolish and the President look good, so also on the rocks. Any other initiatives on the schedule this year? Umm...Nope! Are we at that point in the second term where the media starts naval gazing about the "Search for a legacy". And corporate friends? No administration in modern history is more embroiled in crony capitalism than Obama's. A decade ago, the most mainstream media personalities repeated the blood for oil meme and how Bush was waging war to make his oil buddies rich. Either Mr. Bush is very generous towards an invisible group of friends and not so interested in living on a palatial estate or he botched this get rich quick scheme. He lives in a fairly modest (by Hollywood and Manhattan standards) suburban neighborhood in Dallas. His home price has risen to approximately $1 Million dollars since he moved in to the cul de sac, which would be considered a fixer upper in most of LA. Obama on the other hand makes more in one year ($6 Million) than the average annual 1040s of all the Presidents elected in his lifetime...combined!

5. The War loving conservative President claims he is deterring violence by threatening and use of force against smaller nations, when in fact American aggression is the cause of terror attacks on the US

Obama said this on March 8, 2008 about George Bush and his predecessors:

In the context of a blistering critique of U.S. policy in Iraq, Obama said: “It’s the same course that continues to divide and isolate America from the world by substituting bluster and bullying for direct diplomacy.”

He repeated on several occasions the Democrat meme that the reason the world hates us is because of our (Republican) tendency to recklessly use force when diplomacy would convince others to do as we say. This was always a strange argument that implies most nations we come in to contact with were either perpetually acting in some way other than their national interest at our behest or if Obama had his way, by the use of his charm, they will forgo that national interest "willingly" and do what Obama tells them to do. Either way, the implication is that Obama wants other nations to change and thinks his carrot is better than the conservative stick. Either way, the point remains, nations act in their national interest and we do too, as we should. In this particular case, Obama is the one having a difficult time verbalizing his concept of national interest. This usually means he is making it up as he goes and imagining that we are so stupid or the media loves him so much that if he just dresses it up enough, people will have to buy it. If they don't he will demonize them, which in the midst of the speech he was already doing. Strangely enough both Assad and Obama suffer from the same problem,... a confusion between what is national interest and what is good for the supreme leader.

Obama's speech was a muddled mass of hyperbolic contradictions. First, Obama claimed that he wants to bomb Assad. And anyone that opposes bombing Syria or wants to postpone it is immoral. Then he switched gears. He claimed he is so smart he has found a way to avoid bombing Syria. He implies that it is too difficult to explain the details of his diplomatic plan and you'll just have to trust him that his postponing of the bombing is the right path. He'll get back to us. This is plan is on a need to know basis. Like Benghazi.

Both Obama and Kerry keep claiming smaller and smaller amounts of force are going to be used, until they are "unimaginably small". I don't know. I can imagine a pretty small use of force and I've got a pretty good imagination.

And he wonders why America is having a difficult time swallowing this. If you like your present Aircraft carrier, you can keep it and your rates will not go up. Just join me and I'll respect you in the morning. I rarely hear "The Arab street" say "America should be forgiven for bullying that middle east country because they used a two day pinprick. I didn't feel a thing". Oh, I forgot the US military does not do pinpricks. No, they're Bullies according to Sen. Barack Obama and they "strafe innocent Women and children" according to Sen. Kerry. They keep telling us no one will be pissed off, but Assad will become the friendly latte drinking thug that Pelosi and Kerry once enjoyed dining with only a couple of years ago.

Everyone keeps telling us what they think the lessons of Iraq are. One lesson is that assuming that brandishing a weapon like Cagney and Lacy will cause even the craziest madmen of the world to drop everything and submit to our every desire is definitely a farcical Primetime assumption made by non-military individuals or Presidents who think they can bluff Putin or Assad the way they bluff Boehner and Cantor. Saddam flipped double middle fingers at the US as bombs fell all around him and when the bombs stopped, he was the hero of every nutjob in the Middle East. Clinton bombed Saddam in 1998 for 4 days to "degrade but not eliminate" his WMDs and his ability to remain in power. Did that scare Saddam?

6. The war loving conservative President doesn't really care who he's bombing as long as he is bombing someone.

In recent weeks, several "un-named" Democrats have asked, "Does Obama really know who he is siding with". In Egypt he compared the Brotherhood to Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr., then they began murdering Christians and taking on dictatorial powers. Members of their coalition representing the Blind Sheik's group Gamal Islamiya, the same group that bombed the World Trade Center in 1993 and are now members of Al Qaeda, arrived at the White House for a diplomatic discussion on how they could trade for the release of the Blind Sheik, Abdul Rahman. Regardless of how well that went for them, the very fact that they imagine our President is open to the idea is scary. Then the Brotherhood was toppled. Then Libya was the Arab Spring star of the moment. Kaddafi who gave up WMD after Bush convinced him to do so "through diplomacy" gets his show of weakness rewarded by getting sodomized with a rifle on youtube by Obama's chosen allies. If that's Obama's carrot, I'd hate to see his stick. Now Syria. And the very thought that Iran is doing anything but laugh at all this is ludicrous. How in gods name will Iran be scared or deterred by an "unimaginably small" strike after Obama promised Assad would be out of power and suffer "Enormous consequences". When Obama taunts conservatives to "reconcile your commitment to America’s military might with a failure to act when a cause is so plainly just", he is making the same type of remark Madeliene Albright made to Colin Powell when she said "What's the point of having this superb military that you're always talking about if we can't use it? " It assumes Cowboys are just waiting to pull out there six shooters and blow holes in the ceiling shouting "Yee-Haw" and that they can be counted on to support ANY military venture no matter how misguided or suicidal.

7. Bush the Cowboy should have focused on Osama Bin Laden at Tora Bora, but he took his eye off the ball and I would have supported this war in Afghanistan whole heartedly because of the idea of self defense, assuming Bush wasn't behind 911, but it has been run so poorly, we missed our opportunity in the beginning to get it right and even we liberals can't fix it now, so we should just quit and come home because we've made our point kind of I guess, whatever.

There are many Democrats that claimed they supported war against Iraq and Afghanistan, but it wasn't carried out in the perfect manner that a good President would have and since the time has past to do it right, we have no choice but to walk away, regardless of who suffers because of it. How does that not apply here in Syria?

The ideal time to attack Syria would have been about a decade ago or attack Iran for that matter. Had we known Assad would start using WMDs then, we should have had Nancy Pelosi bring her Burqa home and start with tanks on the Iraqi border. The massive anti-war movement, Truthers and small time state senators from Illinois trying to exploit the war for their own personal benefit obviously hampered George Bush's war powers and his ability to conduct foreign policy. If dealing with Syria then was not right then how about 2011 when the civil war started. McCain asked Obama to act, just as McCain asked him to act in Iran in 2009, but nothing. This was before Al Qaeda had answered the call from the rebels to help them, only after Obama turned his back on them. The next time to act was in an election year, 2012, when in August Obama laid down the red line. It was not until just days after Obama won re-election that Obama began to address reports that evidence of chemical weapons being active had been verified in the months prior to election day. Then Obama starts his second term with hope of new programs and domestic legislation, but his inability to even speak to the opposition frustrates his plans. And as more evidence of chemical use begins to make him look weak, he tells the boys in the situation room to get fired up.

The scariest thing about this whole fiasco is, he really doesn't know what he's doing and it shows. He honestly believes conservatives want their commander in chief to look stupid to the rest of the world. Right, nothing makes us happier than placing a giant "Kick me" sign around the neck of the greatest nation and the shining city on the hill. I think that must be Obama's projection.

In February, the New York Times reported that Secretary Clinton and former CIA Director David Petraeus had crafted a plan in the summer of 2012 to provide vetted rebel groups with lethal arms and training, but after a year of McCain, Graham and Lieberman hounding the President to act on Syria and in the midst of his re-election bid, Obama rejected the proposal. Defense Secretary Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Martin Dempsey then told a congressional panel that they agreed with the plan proposed by Clinton and Petraeus to provide arms to rebel groups.

John McCain was astonished after having prompted the response from the SecDef and the nation's highest ranking Military officer:

"What this means is that the president overruled the senior leaders of his own national security team, who were in unanimous agreement that America needs to take greater action to change the military balance of power in Syria,"

So Obama was on television on tuesday wagging his finger at the world as if only he has a heart and only he has the brains to understand the issues. So where was Obama a year ago?

Senate Republicans lead by McCain and Graham have pushed for Syria for two years. Defense minded Democrats like Lieberman, Menendez and Levin as well. Actually Lieberman was savagely ejected out of the Democrat Party by Obama and his buddies because he rightly believed the Surge would work. In May of 2012, his opponent Mitt Romney drew a clear difference between the two candidates by supporting action against Syria. Many of our allies supported action over a year ago, but Obama failed to use diplomatic persuasion to influence Russia and China who vetoed a Syria plan. This was about the time of his remark to Medvedyev that after he is re-elected he will be free to do what he wants. At the time that was interpreted to mean, I am forced to appear sensitive to the considerations of the majority in America for now, but after being re-elected, I can do whatever I want. Apparently not. Saving face is becoming a full time job for Obama.

Obama seems to imagine that showing up fashionably late to a party is only for VIPs like him, but when you show up and the party has moved on, its a lonely place. And screaming in to the dark won't make them come back. At least Bill Clinton apologized for standing by as Rwandans died. Don't hold your breath for Obama to apologize for the 100,000 Syrian dead, especially when his plan to jump ship and join the Russian's plan for Syria is to ensure Assad stays in power and kills more Syrians with conventional weapons. So much for a moral compass. The Presidential Limo should have a bumper sticker. "Don't follow me, I'm lost too."

Jesse and Obama, This is the best you got?

In recent days I have heard Jesse, Al and the other race hustlers compare Zimmerman to the murderers of Emmett Till and Florida as Apartheid, just to name a couple unbelievable comparisons. Tavis says America doesn't care about the life of a young black man. My question to these professional rabble rousers who claim we live under the worst oppression in the world and it is comparable to its worst era....

Question: Is this the best ya got? Is this case your best example to prove your point.

A decent man whose racial makeup is more black than Homer Plessy suffers a life threatening attack and defends himself resulting in the unfortunate death of a black man, his attacker. And this is the worst racial oppression on earth? If anything this proves the opposite. If the race peddlers, who constantly beg for an honest and open debate about race are so desperate for examples of the worst racial conditions in history, that they would settle for the Zimmerman case as the first high profile Black oppression case since OJ and Rodney King, two decades ago, then the age of Obama must be an era where Blacks have never been treated better by Whites anywhere on earth, ever.

Today our President, that is, the President of all Americans, of all races said this:

When Trayvon Martin was first shot, I said, This could've been my son. Another way of saying that is, Trayvon Martin could've been me 35 years ago. And when you think about why, in the African-American community, at least, there's a lot of pain around what happened here, I think it's important to recognize that the African-American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that doesn't go away.

That is a pretty fair characterization of "Hate" .. Racial Hate. A person ( Black Person) that witnesses or experiences something negative regarding another person of a particular race. They then make a generalization about that race and apply it to other if not all people in that race and although they might claim they wish that entire race were different, no matter what occurs in the future or how much time passes, the original animous remains, forever. That is Racial Hate.

I once heard someone describe anger as unresolved pain, hate as unresolvable pain and fear as the anticipation of pain or hurt. We would like to believe Obama's promise of 2008 that a vote for him was a transformational sacrament. We now learn from his very mouth that you will always be guilty as long as your skin is not the same color as his.


I've noticed even many legal pundits that consider the case against Zimmerman ridiculous are bending over backwards to at least consider the possibility that some of the accusations against Zimmerman might be true. I'd like to look at some of the key points that they posit and why I think they are weak.

Some, including the juror on CNN, have said Zimmerman was too overzealous or a wannabe cop. To bolster the latter point, they imply he has a macho complex or small man's complex that explains why he would carry a gun or stick his nose in others business. Unless you consider all neighborhood watch programs bogus for starters, I think this is a way for non gun owning narcissists to explain away the personality of a person who clearly cared about others, who regularly volunteered for others including black children and far from idolizing police, he challenged the Police Department over a forgotten black homeless man that he claimed was mistreated by officers. Where was Jesse then when there were no cameras around? It was in his nature to get involved and care for others and when his wife witnessed another woman victimized by criminals in their complex, he offered help and chose to join a neighborhood watch which was recommended by local Police and by most American Police departments. Get involved. Well, he did. Now the Yuppies who are too self absorbed to get involved take pot shots at Wannabe cops.

To the former point on over zealousness. Although this is supposed to buttress the wannabe cop who is just itching to murder someone like Dirty Harry, I don't see that either. The most oft cited example was the debate over "following". Two things to consider. The "four minutes" in Mark O'Meara's closing and the remark the juror made on CNN about the mixed message the operator gave Zimmerman.

The four minutes was the time from which Zimmerman told the dispatcher Martin ran from the curve on the driveway, then around the first apartment and off down the long breezeway, out of sight of Zimmerman until the first 911 call about two people fighting. It would take just seconds to run from the street 10 or 15 yards then to the right around the corner and out of zimmerman's sight. Had He hopped out at that moment, and pursued Martin, that would have been dangerous and overzealous. Yet he waited. The dispatcher first said, don't follow him,...but then asked is he still in sight?

The defense argued persuasively that Zimmerman had no intention of pursuing, following and confronting Trayvon. The dispatcher implied it would be helpful if Zimmerman had a vantage point to view Trayvon until the Police arrived. After several minutes, Zimmerman stepped out of his car, walked across the 10 or 15 yards of sidewalk to the place where the two walkways met so he could look down the long breezeway and see if he could spot the individual who we might all assume was four minutes away. Instead, Martin was just around that corner and that's when he approached Zimmerman, verbally threatened his life, and then attacked him. He either lied in wait until he heard the car door and foot steps or doubled back after having spotted Zimmerman exit the vehicle.

The other lingering characterization is the Giant white monster attacking the small innocent child. Trayvon has been listed at different proportions as has Zimmerman, but his own family listed him at 6'3". When you see the 7-11 surveillance video as he buys his Tea, he towers over the Hispanic man behind the register. Dwayne Wade of the Miami Heat is variously listed as 6'3". Zimmerman has been listed as 5'6" or 5'7" and at first as an incredible hulk of 260 pounds, which would make him about the size of actor Jack Black, but even heavier to the point of being clinically obese. In actuality he weighed about the same as Trayvon. The media's attempt to make him the child abusing giant seemed to backfire here.

I remember when I was in High School, there was a Senior from a cross town school that we knew as a tough guy that on a Saturday night with a few beers might pick a fight with someone. One summer night he had a road rage episode with a man nearly twice his age. The middle aged man driving his daughters home appeared to be a domestic and docile suburbanite. The two 17 year olds yelled at him chased him and eventually forced him off the road. When the older man got out with his hands raised, asking them to leave him alone, the 17 year old approached him threw a swing and the older man ducked and the punch missed, the second punch grazed the older man's shoulder. The older man then threw a single punch to the face that by some freak of nature killed the 17 year old instantly. Witnesses rushed over and attended to the situation and called the police. As the story passed around town, the general consensus was one, how tragic, two how random, and three, it served as a reminder to the other teenagers I knew,... Don't forget that picking a fight with someone, anyone, can end bad and sometimes be the final tragic mistake in a young life. Who could blame the middle aged father? I had sympathy for this family man that he was forced to carry this burden from that point on.

I feel sorry for Mr. Zimmerman that he was forced to carry this burden.

So in this case of George Zimmerman, you have an older, out of shape man with no intention of confronting this individual, who comes round the corner in the dark and is then faced with a rapidly approaching man the size of a large professional athlete, with the physical abilities of an athlete and although the battle to bring forth the evidence over a prosecution leaning Judge, he was proud of the many fights he had been in and won against other younger stronger opponents. In this case, Trayvon clearly believed this creepy ass cracker would not only fail to put up much of fight, he believed he could wail on him, crush his skull or worse as the whim of the moment struck him. Zimmerman didn't want to die though.

Zimmerman was asked in an interview if he would have acted any different had Trayvon not been black. It should be noted, Zimmerman's response to the dispatcher seemed uncertain, "He looks...um...black" in an uncertain voice. Had he been a vicious bigot, would he not have said triumphantly, "Oh Yeah, He is definitely a black man, we got one here!" But he didn't. But the question is ridiculous if you believe Zimmerman feared for his life as his skull repeatedly struck the cement and he let out those blood curdling screams for help. If you believe you are about to take leave of this world at the hands of an attacker, do you even for a split second ask yourself if that person is of one race or another, that you will just submit to your fate as a dead man.

I am not propping up George Zimmerman as man of the year, but his profile comes across as not only a thoroughly decent and giving man, but a man who volunteers to help people of all races, especially black people. He does not fit Eric Holder's desired profile no matter how hard Holder searched for just one witness who could say, "No, when he left the charity that helps black youths and went home, he tried to scrub himself white and donned a Klan hoodie and stood in his kitchen alone shining his illegal firearms".

So this little mixed race samaritan is Bull Conner? Can't these race hustlers do better than this. Jesse, Al Sharpton, Farakhan... all millionaires, driving fancy cars, with beautiful mistresses in the passenger seat on their way home to their mansions and very little time to behave like the members of the clergy they claim to be,... and yet their job is what? An endless search for the next Bull Connor to perpetuate the myth that a young black man's greatest challenge is to avoid the army of white attackers that want to kill them.

As Pat Buchannen pointed out today, the number of White on Black attacks is so small, it is statistically almost zero, when you consider the opposite is 40 times more likely.

When Holder delivered his 2009 “nation-of-cowards” speech blaming racism for racial separation, Manhattan Institute’s Heather Mac Donald suggested that our attorney general study his crime statistics.

In New York from January to June 2008, 83 percent of all gun assailants were black, according to witnesses and victims, though blacks were only 24 percent of the population. Blacks and Hispanics together accounted for 98 percent of all gun assailants. Forty-nine of every 50 muggings and murders in the Big Apple were the work of black or Hispanic criminals.

New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly confirms Mac Donald’s facts. Blacks and Hispanics commit 96 percent of all crimes in the city, he says, but only 85 percent of the stop-and-frisks are of blacks and Hispanics.

And these may involve the kind of pat-downs all of us have had at the airport.

Is stop-and-frisk the work of racist cops in New York, where the crime rate has been driven down to levels unseen in decades? ....

...What about interracial crime, white-on-black attacks and the reverse?

After researching the FBI numbers for “Suicide of a Superpower,” this writer concluded: “An analysis of ‘single offender victimization figures’ from the FBI for 2007 finds blacks committed 433,934 crimes against whites, eight times the 55,685 whites committed against blacks. Interracial rape is almost exclusively black on white — with 14,000 assaults on white women by African Americans in 2007. Not one case of a white sexual assault on a black female was found in the FBI study.”

Though blacks are outnumbered 5-to-1 in the population by whites, they commit eight times as many crimes against whites as the reverse. By those 2007 numbers, a black male was 40 times as likely to assault a white person as the reverse.

If interracial crime is the ugliest manifestation of racism, what does this tell us about where racism really resides — in America?

And if the FBI stats for 2007 represent an average year since the Tawana Brawley rape-hoax of 1987, over one-third of a million white women have been sexually assaulted by black males since 1987 — with no visible protest from the civil rights leadership.

Today, 73 percent of all black kids are born out of wedlock. Growing up, these kids drop out, use drugs, are unemployed, commit crimes and are incarcerated at many times the rate of Asians and whites — or Hispanics, who are taking the jobs that used to go to young black Americans.

Are white vigilantes or white cops really Black America’s problem?

Obama seems not to think so. The Rev. Sharpton notwithstanding, he is touting Ray Kelly as a possible chief of homeland security.

The vitriol and venom coming from Holder and the race hustlers is for one reason only,... they realize they made this case their biggest showcase in two decades and it flopped. In fact, it appears to prove the opposite and that is that White hate against blacks is probably the least biggest problem in their lives. Blaming their problems on George Bush would be a likely second choice, but the cat is out of the bag now. The age of Obama is possibly the worst thing to happen to Black race hustlers. Just as Watergate and the end of the Vietnam war forced many hippies to trade in their love beads for neck ties, Jesse and Al are looking increasingly out of place,... but unlike the hippies, this national farce of feigned Apartheid is not going away,... it just looks even stupider, if that is possible.

Remember, JFK said his Catholic faith would have no effect on his job and as Mitt Romney quoted him, He expected to act as President of all America.

Obama's claim that the American history of black mistreatment in the distant past, which by the way does not apply to a Kenyan professor or Holder's parents from Barbados, never goes away, means any claims that "a new dialogue" on race will make things better, or if whites stop being racial "cowards" that we will progress to a better America for all is not something he believes in. So next time you hear Obama or Jesse complaining about how we can't progress in America on Race, our President just told us there is nothing Whites can do to make things better for ALL Americans, but they can make things better for him and youths that look like they could be his son.

And that's what it all comes down to. Are the marches being organized this weekend about a universal theme of justice for all,... or is it a farcical tribal manipulation to keep a few "Reverends", Suburban "Gangsta" Rappers and "Community Organizers" at the top of the Political Bling Bling food chain while the people they claim to represent are dying in the streets of Chicago and Detroit.

What is the biggest threat to a young black man in the most prosperous nation on earth? That should be the question at today's rallies. Clue..look for the bullhorns.

Broke down, Lonely road, Blizzard, No Phone, NO Gun and Dorner is at your door

Last Thursday night, February 7, I saw an interesting news story that could have been an NRA ad if the KCBS local reporter had recognized the irony. The reporter was in Big Bear, CA, reporting on the first day of the Chris Dorner manhunt. I’ve been to Big Bear many times since I was a kid. It is an eclectic collection of mostly unoccupied vacation homes peopled by those that enjoy the country life as opposed to the city. That includes a fair share of gun owning outdoorsman living side by side with granola eating green college graduates from LA living rent free in Mom’s empty vacation cabin with their girlfriends.

The reporter was interviewing a couple who I would guess fall in to the latter category. A twenty something couple arm in arm in front of their cabin answering questions as the first flakes of snow signaled the impending Snow Storm that was bearing down on them.

The reporter asked how they felt being alone in their remote cabin with a crazed spree killer on the loose in the area and presumably searching for a cabin to invade.

The young man looked first into the eyes of his trusting girlfriend and he said, “Well, we’re kind of nervous. He’s already killed 3 people and shot or attacked 4 others. I wouldn’t want to be sleeping outdoors on a night like this, so I could see why he might break into some place”

The Reporter said, “Yes, we are expecting over a foot of snow and you told me before you don’t have many neighbors here because these are vacation homes”.

He said, “Thats right, so we will be kind of alone on this road throughout the storm”.

At this point I was thinking, if Dorner would have been watching TV, this guy might as well have held up a sign saying, “Please come and break into my house and kill my girlfriend and I and no one will now until the spring thaw”. The other thing that struck me is this guy’s voice began to tremble as he began to utter the words that he had only been thinking up to that point, and the sound of his predicament, even to him, sounded not only irresponsible and stupid, but like something from a Stephen King novel.

The Reporter asked, have you two thought about going back down the mountain to be safe. He apparently had, but it seems only when it was too late. He then said,

“I think we are going to be OK. Dorner has a lot of other cabins to choose from so hopefully he won’t break into ours. My truck is not working, the storm is coming and we have kind of spotty cell service here, so we’re kind of stuck. (Stammering and voice quivering)...Umm, I guess, um, if he did break in, I would send my girlfriend to the back of the house and then I could turn over the coffee table in the front room to hide behind and just hope for the best,...um,...because we don’t have any weapons, which I guess is kind of stupid, considering the circumstance”.

This young guy and his old lady could have been doing a Public Service announcement for the NRA. Just looking at him, you imagine he must have voted for Obama and probably a week before was a staunch supporter of gun control. Take guns away from those school shooters and spree killers before another child dies!

But now its his life in danger. And the bad guy is the predator and he is hunting in your area.... and your plan to save yourself and protect your girl who is clinging a little less tightly around your waist now, is to run away from the banging door and push her screaming in to the back bedroom, then to pick up the cell and feverishly dial 911, only to see an out of service area message.

Then throwing it to the ground as Dorner’s arm begins to reach through the crack groping for the door knob, you jump outside the back door and try to start the truck, but the engine just cranks over and won’t start. Then as you run back to the house, you look in all directions through the blinding blizzard hoping to see a light on in one of the other cabins, but there are none and no one will hear your screams and even if you did get out, you can’t run very far or very fast in the deep cold snow. So you go back inside where your girlfriend is now screaming and wondering why she ever trusted you to protect her, and you find the coffee table that you had planned to turn over and hide behind. So you lay it on its side and lay down as the door finally opens. You realize now, as you said before, this is pretty stupid, because Dorner walks in with an assault rifle that he purchased legally as a member of law enforcement, a 9MM Glock in his holster, body armor, and combat fatigues. He walks over to the coffee table, and then walks around it to find you cowering in the fetal position. He asks if anyone else is in the home and if you have any weapons. You say, no weapons and yes, you will find my girlfriend in bed in the back of the house. Sounds like a great plan Granola man. Use the coffee table to combat evil monsters.

Gun control advocates will say, how likely is the average American going to end up in a situation like this where they might need a gun for self defense? The couple that actually did get tied up for 3 days don’t care about the odds now and the response is much more likely than having a kindergartener shot in his classroom in Connecticut.

Like many Liberal issues, if the example that demonstrates the veracity of the conservative argument only occurs once in a generation, then the argument is met with, “That will never happen”. So Liberals say, War is never the answer unless maybe America is attacked, but we have Nuclear weapons, so that will never happen, or if it does, we will all be dead. Sounds simple. So when the Twin Towers come tumbling down, war suddenly sounds like the answer, but having just had 40 years of fried brain cells blown, you must have a narrative to get back to your previous upside down logic, so you invent Trutherism, and the world is at peace again. In your mind.

There is no guarantee the Granola man or the tied up couple would have been able to surprise Dorner with a shotgun blast to the face had they been armed and trained, but there is no guarantee the cops will save you and no one said you have to use your gun to put a bullet in the intruders head if you feel like that is the right choice. Maybe a warning shot would have caused Dorner to move on. No guarantees of anything, but it gives you some degree of control over your right to live.

When he uttered those words: “ ...because we don’t have any weapons, which I guess is kind of stupid, considering the circumstance”. We may have just witnessed the moment a gun control advocate considered the value of a first time visit to your friendly neighborhood gun store. He wasn’t a gullible victim of scare tactics by the notorious gun lobby. He just had a brush with reality.

One of the premises for gun control by elites that live in gated communities with armed guards is that if we are threatened with violence, we can rely on government to save us by calling 911.

In my lifetime, aside from blackouts, floods, storms and other situations where rescue is hampered, I have experienced two occurrences of mob action on such a large scale that the protective capabilities of the Law Enforcement community were so overloaded, that they became completely unavailable.

One of those occasions was the Watts riots along with a string of other riots that summer in the 1960s and the other was the Rodney King Riots in 1992. In both cases, Law Enforcement would not respond to emergency calls. In that case, a gun was the only thing that would available to keep you alive, if you were threatened.

During the Rodney King riots in 1992, our extended family gathered our weapons and took an inventory of our ammo and our arsenal, because when a family member did not come home that night, and many people didn’t have cell phones then, we had to develop a plan to keep everyone safe and make sure we were all accounted for. A plan that was more than a coffee table.

911, gave a busy signal that night and for 3 days. Government failed. The Korean store owners who took refuge on the second story roof of their strip mall were not exercising their rights to hunt for deer or shoot ducks. They had in many cases legal AR15 style home defense weapons. From the top of that roof, as they were taking fire from better armed criminals who wanted to get close enough to torch their business and incinerate them with their property, they would not survive if they had fired from that distance with a shotgun. Nor would a handgun be very effective at that range. The Bushmaster, AR15 or what the media calls an assault rifle was the only thing that kept them from burning up or getting shot. And it should be noted, when the shooting started the cops told the Koreans to defend themselves and then fled. If anything the LAPD was not forceful enough in their response.

For what its worth, when Rodney King’s name was introduced to the national lexicon in 1991, Christopher Dorner was 11, so after reading his manifesto and his obsession with the King Riots and his claim the LAPD hasn’t changed,...everything he knows as an adult about the riots is what he has been told by others, presumably by the leftwing media whom he clearly holds in high esteem, from CNN to Charlie Sheen.

We didn’t use the guns that night in 1992 after all. The family member that had gone missing escaped from the riot zone be weaving through blocked intersections and burning tires by circling around the worst areas and arriving home 7 hours late, at midnight.

Someone said that night as we loaded our guns, If I only need to load my gun for the protection of my life or someone in my family just once in 30 years, that’s 30 more years of life and it makes it worth being a gun owner. Its times like this you understand why our founders gave us that right.

I was stunned by that news story last Thursday and I thank god Dorner has been stopped, but I think that young unarmed man in that cabin has a new perspective on guns being used for protection and I imagine his girlfriend does too.