Archive for the ‘Crooks & Liars’ Category

Yes, folks, there’s blood in the water, the sharks are circling, and there’s talk of IMPEACHMENT! Don’t ya know. High crimes and misdemeanors. All manner of gross malfeasance and treasonous machinations. A threat to our very Republic he is. So. Let’s take a look at: The Case Against Trump.

1) Trump Said Mean Things About Obama

According to PoliticsUSA, Pres. Trump may have committed an impeachable offense by claiming that Obama wire-tapped him. Apparently this violates some legal precept not actually named in the article, but clearly, making a “false” claim about a previous President is the next best thing to selling secrets to Wikileaks. Except…

As it turns out, Pres Obama didn’t have to order the surveillance of Donald Trump and his election team, because he knew it was already ongoing. So, as President, all the honorable Mr. Obama had to do was request the intercepts of illegal NSA spying on American citizens, and get anything that had “Trump” meta-tagged on it. So, yes, while technically correct that then Pres. Obama did not “order the wire-tapping” of the Trump transition team, it’s a simple, demonstrable fact that he acquired surveillance information on them. So, yes, please, let’s talk about the impeachability of impugning the reputation of a former President, while completely ignoring the fact that the NSA, operating under the Obama administration, conducted illegal surveillance on US citizens, and then “unmasked” said citizens names in violation of both precedent and federal law. NONE of which, but the way, was related to Russia.

Impeachment Score: Weeeeak.

2) Chinese Trademark Keffuffle

And again, our friends from across the pond, with their keen and insightful grasp of US Constitutional law, insist that, after a 10-year legal battle, the Chinese finally granting a contentious trademark decision to Trump, Inc. within days of Trump becoming President is impeachable. Like, totally, dude. As a side note, this same article suggests that being mean to the media is an impeachable offense because it violates the 1st Amendment. Or something. You know what, I’m not even going to talk about this ridiculous smear of yellow journalism anymore. Ptooie.

A slightly more credible source (no, seriously, read this article, it’s incredibly informative and well-balanced) highlights the fact that the this potential conflict of interest could potentially violate the Emoluments Clause which, “prohibits the federal government from granting titles of nobility, and restricts members of the government from receiving gifts, emoluments, offices or titles from foreign states without the consent of the United States Congress.(Wikipedia)”  HOWEVER!

This arguably deals with the practice of naming an US government official as an officer, noble, or other binding title to a foreign nation, thus engendering a conflicting loyalty or claim to a foreign power. The question then becomes, is the granting of a trademark equivalent to the awarding of a Duchy? Or perhaps more germane, was the granting of this trademark intended as a “gift” to the President? Was it intended as a bribe to curry favor? In order to make this an impeachable offense, one would, I suggest, have to provide compelling evidence of both the former and the latter. Neither of which has, to date, been presented.

The other question I would propose, in my role as a woefully uneducated layman, is what would Pres. Trump’s detractors have him do in this situation? Trump Enterprises is an ongoing concern. Management of this enterprise has been transferred to his son. Is it the expectation that if a business man becomes President for four years, he must divest himself of all business-related holdings acquired over a lifetime? Should Pres. Trump have rejected the Chinese government’s approval of the trademark after a ten year legal fight? How do you “not accept” a trademark decision like this in your favor? The simple reality is that while there may be a suggestion of impropriety here, it may also be completely circumstantial. If there was a compelling case to be made, would it not have already BEEN made? More importantly, can it be proven that Donald J. Trump used the influence of his Office to influence the Chinese in order to secure these trademarks? If so, such evidence has yet to surface. The fact that Trump turned right around and played nice with Taiwan thereby stretching and bending China’s long-standing “One China” policy suggests otherwise.

Impeachment Score: Really Weak.

3) President Trump’s “Travel Ban” Was Unconstitutional. Or something.

So, to state the painfully obvious, let’s at least get the terms and conditions straight here. It was not a Muslim ban. It was not a travel ban. It was 120-day moratorium on travel (Click it. No, really. Have you actually read the thing? Didn’t think so.) from seven specific countries that bleed jihadists like a hemophiliac Imam. So, to review: Ban = permanent, i.e. – a revocation. Moratorium = temporary, i.e. – a suspension. Any questions? No? Good.

Just a taste:

“In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles.  The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law.  In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including ‘honor’ killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.”(emphasis mine)

But wait. TRUMP MYSOGONIST RACIST HOMOPHOBE GURGLE CHOKE FROTH!! Right?!  Ooooops.

The chest beaters on this one imply that it was either, a) a violation of the First Amendment, to whit, the free exercise of religion (yes, it hurts my brain, too), or b) Pres. Trump “exceeded his Constitutional Authority (yes, it’s those UK Constitutional scholars again).  Well, for starters, the travel moratorium did not identify a specific religion. Because the restriction dealt with predominantly Muslim countries, it was heralded as a “Muslim Ban!11!!11!” Except that, there are upwards of 50 Muslim-majority countries, and this travel restriction deals with only…seven.

Immigration and travel restrictions are nothing new. And while it can certain be argued that Pres. Trump blocking existing green card holders was both ill-considered and incredibly poorly implemented, is it really outside the power of the President? Is it really a violation of the President’s Constitutional authority? No. While potentially distasteful, it is not illegal.

Newsflash folks: As a sovereign nation, we get to decide who can come in.

Impeachment Score: I can’t even.

4) Comey Over.

And, of course, mean ol’ D.J. fired FBI Director Comey right before he was ready to drop the hammer on the Trump administration with a full-blown investigation into collusion with Russian meddling in the election. So, let ring forth the calls for a Special Prosecutor to…uh…uh…find out some stuff!

The move to fire the sitting FBI Director during a contentious period where investigations into the Trump-Russia connection were actually underway, but had revealed no actual evidence of collusion, is seen as a “Constitutional crisis.” Except, (insert money quote):

But neither thinks that the Comey firing counts, since there’s absolutely no dispute over Trump’s legal authority to remove Comey from his position. “This is not (yet) a constitutional crisis, since there’s no doubt about his authority to fire Comey,” Levinson told Politico.

Oops. Would appear not to be impeachable. Damnit.

But wait! That paragon of objective journalism (trigger warning) Think Progress, lets us know that it can be both legal AND impeachable! Somehow.

“Constitutional law experts say that while President Donald Trump’s decision to fire Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey was legal, it appears to be an abuse of power that could constitute an impeachable offense.”

The problem I have with this approach is two-fold. One, Pres. Trump did not disband the FBI. He did not place a gag-order or any other restrictions on agents within the FBI from conducting or continuing any investigation into any potential “Russian Connection©.” Moreover, less than a year ago the same Democrats who are now calling for Trump’s head over Comey’s firing, were calling for Comey’s head over his release of Hillary Clinton emails just prior to election day. So, Director Comey effectively outed himself as both partisan and politicized. Despite his arguable competence, he had lost the confidence of those both within and without his organization as to his objectivity. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is a Very Bad Thing when it comes to the top law enforcement official in the land.

And, oh by the way, President William Jefferson Clinton fired FBI Director William Sessions in 1993 for what he felt to be “ethical lapses” in his conduct. So this is not “unprecedented.” Strangely, there were no cries for impeachment then.

All that said, the FBI Director is a political appointee, and serves, “at the pleasure of the President.” So, despite the long-standing precedent that the Director serves his 10-year terms, the President, legally, doesn’t need a reason at all to fire him.

Impeachment Score: Close, but no cigar.

In Conclusion:

Every bit of research  I made into this post was rife with hypotheticals and technicalities. A lot of “mights” and “coulds” and “feasiblies.” I searched news sites, blogs, academic analyses, wikis and archives. The simple fact is this: as much as you may want it to be true, as much as you NEED it to be true, President Donald J. Trump, however morally corrupt or bankrupt you find him, however distasteful you find his policies and politics, however much you long to see him strung up from the yardarm or boiled in oil, simply hasn’t done anything (yet) that’s truly impeachable. He’s walking a fine line, and we can only wonder what tomorrow will bring, but from what I can so, so far it’s a lot of reaching and innuendo without any prosecutable evidence.

Buy hey, keep trying. Never know, you might get lucky yet.

So, imagine if you will, the CEO of a top Fortune 500 company.  A long-standing leader in the industry, with satellite branches in other countries and significant influence across the globe. Thousands of employees, hundreds of divisions, involved in everything from pharmaceuticals to oil refineries to high-tech research and development.

Now, imagine that this company is plagued by scandals.  An overseas plant is caught using child labor.  Another facility is shown to have falsified safety reports.  Low-grade medicines being pawned off as premium quality with high prices.  The more the problems that come to light, the more people start digging, and things just keep getting worse.

Now, imagine that time and again the CEO’s response to each new revelation of wrong-doing, oversight, or unethical business practice is, “You can’t blame me, I only found out about this when I read about it in the Wall Street Journal!”  And even as his corporation begins to crumble around him, he continues to go on golf outings with his rich buddies, takes his extended family on numerous overseas vacations on the company dime, and continues to try and divert attention from his problems by pointing fingers at everyone else but himself.

Now imagine millions of customers and consumers of this corporation’s products — who might otherwise hate big business — turning a blind eye to evey misstep and instance of malfeasance on the part of the CEO…because he’s black.  And then attacking his critics as racist for daring to impugn the character of this fine, upstanding member of the community!

In the real world, just how long do you suppose that this CEO would remain the CEO?  How many more instances of incompetence, disconnectedness, and destructive business practices would the clientelle endure before the stockholders got fed up and had him fired?

Hypothetically speaking, of course.

So say, for example, that you take your car to a mechanic.  The car’s not running all that great, and you’d like to get it a tune-up.  Your mechanic takes on the job, and promises you that your trusty automobile will soon be running better than ever before.

You pick the car up later that day, and drive off, expecting great things.  Funny though, something isn’t quite right.  Now it’s got a clank and a shimmy it didn’t have before.  So you take it back the next day to have it looked at again.

Noooo problem, insists the mechanic.  We just need a little more time with it.  Soon it’ll be like new.  You’re somewhat skeptical, but the mechanic seems confident, competent, so you entrust your family wagon to him one more time.

Later you pick up your vehicle, accompanied by the smiles and assurances of the maintenance staff that all is well.  You drive off with a renewed sense of confidence and optimism.

Funny though, now not ONLY does it have a clank, and a shimmy, but the radio doesn’t work and it stalls at stop lights.  You’re a bit miffed, and limp it back to the dealership to demand that the mechanic set things aright.

The mechanic clucks and sighs, and shakes his head, and informs you that you just have to be patient with him.  These things are complicated, they take time.  It might even appear to get worse before it gets better, but really, he’s the mechanic and you’re just the driver, so you need to trust that he’s doing what’s best for you.

Properly humbled, you entrust your sole mode of transportation to this august, if slightly condescending professional and hope for the best.  Later, you pick your car back up, and the mechanic’s beaming smile assures you that all will be right, no really, this time he means it. 

But, as you go to pull out of the parking lot, the muffler falls off, the tires blow out, and the engine catches fire.  You bail out of the burning wreck of what was once a perfectly serviceable automobile, and storm up to demand an accounting from the so-called “mechanic” who trashed your car.

It’s not my fault, he insists.  As a matter a fact, it was the old mechanic you had that caused all the problems.  There was too much wrong with it to fix in the time you gave me.  You should blame him, not me.  As a matter of fact, wouldn’t it be better if you just rode the bus?

Now, at some point in this scenario, wouldn’t you figure out that this so-called mechanic had no real idea what he was doing, had no idea how to actually fix your car, and was really just pretending to repair things in order to soak you for the cash you kept paying him to “fix” these problems, many of which HE HIMSELF CAUSED?!

That said, WHY, oh WHY do we keep looking to Pres. Obama and his administration to somehow “fix” the economy?  Every time he’s tried, he’s given us back something worse that what we started with.  Why do we overlook behavior in a President that we wouldn’t stand for in a mechanic?

We really, really, REALLY need to find a new pit crew.

Imposing economic policies that force millions of people to lose their jobs and begin relying, perhaps for the first time in their lives, on welfare subsidies, then turn around and brag about how many people your social programs are helping!

See how effective our program is?  We are helping millions now, where before we were only helping a few thousand!  What a smashing success!

If you haven’t seen it already, the UK Sun does a great job of breaking down how much actual money is a “trillion” dollars:

72 years to print a trillion dollars

The US Bureau Of Engraving And Printing produces 38million notes a day, so printing one trillion new notes from scratch and working seven days a week would take just over 72 years.

If the world’s leaders spent the one trillion dollars at the rate of a dollar a second, they would still be spending it in 31,689 years. On the other hand, if they want to get through it all within ten years, they would need to spend 3,169 dollars a second.

It also costs 6.4 cents to print each note – so it’s a good job the massive sum will be passed on electronically.

Otherwise there would be a 64billion dollar black hole in the leaders’ historic bailout package, which would rather defeat the point.

Pretty disturbing, all in all.  How many tons of paper, gallons of ink?  In a way it’s too bad that most of these transactions take place electronically.  If Obama had to print it all off, the environmentalists never would have let the thing pass.  It would have killed too many trees!

UPDATE:

A trillion dollars in $1 bills would weigh approximately 1.1 Million TONS!

A Nimitz-class aircraft carrier weighs in at around 97 thousand tons.

So, doing the math, $1 Trillion dollars in $1 dollar bills would weigh more than 11 aircraft carriers!

Keep in mind that Obama’s Spendulous deficit is forecast to be as much as 7 TRILLION or higher.  So, 77 aircraft carriers stacked up.

That’s a helluva lot of money.

Or, how about this:

If we figure that 1 ton of uncoated virgin (non-recycled) printing and office paper uses 24 trees, and figuring that since money is printed on some pretty high-end paper that this is probably a fair equivalent, that means that, printing off 1 trillion dollars in $1 dollar bills would require 26,400,000 trees!

 Well, since the “Cap-n-Trade” Bill, code named H.R. 2454: American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, aka the Waxman-Markey contribution to national decline has passed into law, thanks quite literally to the eight Republicans who voted for it, Republicans who it will be shown, I’m sure, to have some sort of financial interest to gain, I thought it my duty to sully the shiny venier of this thing a bit by giving you some of the background of the philosophy behind this movement.

It’s called “Agenda 21.” As early as 1992, the UN passed a resolution called the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development.  This was the framework around which the much more detailed and ambitious “Agenda 21” was constructed.  Though it is the form of an “advisory” resolution, bearing no legal weight with non-signatories, its content and verbiage are clearly reflected in a great deal of the “green” legislation still being forced on American citizens over 15 years later.

Below are some of the “Principles” of the Agenda in which I think you might be interested (all emphasis mine):

Principle 2

    States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental and developmental policies, {{and here’s the “but”}}and the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or ontrol do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.

Which can, of course, be taken to mean almost anything, because under current definitions, any “greenhouse gas” emissions affect global climate, and so anything you “emit” affects “other states.  So this clause is in effect, self-nullifying.  You can can do whatever you want as a nation, as long as you can guarantee that your pollution won’t cross national boundaries. Right.

Principle 5

    All States and all people shall cooperate in the essential task of eradicating poverty as an indispensable requirement for sustainable development, in order to decrease the disparities in standards of living and better meet the needs of the majority of the people of the world.

Because the “disparities” in standard of living are somehow “unfair.”  What this fails to consider is that one absolutely essential elements of eradicating poverty is dragging people kicking and screaming into the 21st century, not returning us to the stone age through misguided and counterproductive environmental do-goodedness!  You notice it says, “decrease the disparities.”  I doesn’t mention which direction you should move to close the gap!  Make the poor rich by making the rich poorer, and we’ll meet somewhere in the middle.  Doesn’t this sound like Obama’s “spread the wealth around” idea? Gee, I wonder where he got it?

Principle 13

States shall develop national law regarding liability and compensation for the victims of pollution and other environmental damage.

Look at that for a sec.  We are encouraged/required to codify into national law procedures for compensating “victims of pollution.”  How delightfully vague!  So now we move beyong hate crimes, to environmental crimes.  Or maybe that’s now redundant, eh?

Principle 15

    In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities.  Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.

BINGO!  Lack of scientific certainty shouldn’t stand in the way of passing a whole boatload of environmental policies designed not so much to save the environment, as to generate cash for social programs and politicial agenda setting.  Is this sounding oh so vaguely familiar, when our POTUS appoints an “environmental” czar with no scientific training, but lots of financial experience?  With the “global warming” scare being debunked by more and more of the scientific community, and yet still being ramrodded into law by a compliant legislative branch?

Principle 21

    The creativity, ideals and courage of the youth of the world should be mobilized to forge a global partnership in order to achieve sustainable development and ensure a better future for all.

AmeriCorps anyone?  Mandatory service in exchange for tuition?  This ringing any bells?

Here’s a nice one:

4.22. They should also encourage the emergence of an informed consumer public and assist individuals and households to make environmentally informed choices by:

 (a) Providing information on the consequences of consumption choices and behaviour so as to encourage demand for environmentally sound products and use of products;

 (b) Making consumers aware of the health and environmental impact of products, through such means as consumer legislation and environmental labelling;

Think about how everything you hear these days is about “being green.”  It’s green construction, and green products, and green this and green that.   It’s not merely a reflection of a growing social consciousness about these issues, it is a carefully managed and orchestrated campaign to INSTILL this “consciousness” in society.  What, don’t you care about the environment?  Well, then, give up phosphates in your dishwashing detergent, hater!

In short, we are being brainwashed.  According to a plan, and a schedule.

The clincher is right here in paragragh 4.25, labelled “Moving towards environmentally sound pricing.”  And I quote:

4.25. Some progress has begun in the use of appropriate economic instruments to influence consumer behaviour. These instruments include environmental charges and taxes, deposit/refund systems, etc. This process should be encouraged in the light of country-specific conditions.

Cap & Trade, as billed and promised, is a mechanism whereby we force consumers to consume less by imposing “environmental charges & taxes” on both products and the means of production.  Obama wasn’t kidding around when he said, quite clearly, that he intended to destroy coal-based electricity in this country.  Captain Trade is certainly powerful enough to do it!

You owe it to yourself to read up on Agenda 21, and the other UN-“mandated” programs that are behind all this green mania.  If it doesn’t shock you, then you are one of “them.”

Bill Clinton tried to push through the Kyoto Protocol, but Congress was at least semi-conscious enough at the time to see what a nightmare that thing would have been economically for our country.  Now Pres. Obama has managed to push through the Waxman Cap & Trade nightmare, which will accomplish much the same thing.

If your realize nothing else from this post, realize that all that is being promoted under the auspices of “enviromentalism” has, at its core, the goal of compliance with global mandates designed to bring us more and more under the authority of organizations like the UN. 

Locally, as in, in this country, it’s also about using a mechanism against which they’ve already made it hard to argue, and nearly impossible to oppose, in order to generate new revenue streams for funding socialist welfare programs like the “health care plan” and all the other things rolled up in the stiumulous packages.

You were wondering how they were going to pay for all that?  Here ya go.

These people care far less about preserveing the environment than they do about getting their hands on your money.  What little they will leave you.

THIS IS NOT ACCIDENTAL.  This is a premeditated, long-running agenda.   And it is Euro-style marxist dialectic to its core.

To sum up:  It is the stated intention of the marxist environmental movement which is slowly ruining this country to pass legislation and impose fees and fines to the point where goods and services become so expensive that you are forced to use less.  The money made from all these extortion schemes will then be funnelled to the “poor” countries via mechanisms such as, you guessed it, the United Nations…the very organization pushing these agendas.  A rather suspicious conflict of interest, wouldn’t you say?

And all those companies poised to make millions trading in carbon offsets.

This is what a Democratically controlled congress gets you.

Cap and Trade in all it’s glory. Hello $5 a gallon for gas, and double or triple your electricity bill in the next 10 years.

Bastards.  We are so phuq’d.

In the run up to the second Iraq war, there came to light a document which came to be know as the “Downing Street Memo.”  The crux of this document is that it reflected the author’s concerns that the culture in the White House at the time was such that there was only one right answer, and that answer was war with Iraq. 

Intelligence estimates and analysis were feared to be colored by this culture, tuned and filtered or “cherry picked” to give the most damning possible indictments of Iraqi weapons programs, even if the evidence did not fully support such a view.  To quote, “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy“.

 Dissenting opinions were hushed up or buried, and the view seemed to be that since Pres. Bush had already decided in his mind to use military force, that the discussion was over, and efforts should cease to be about finding the truth, but rather, become oriented towards supporting the pre-established conclusion.

This document is often spoken of as a “smoking gun,” potential grounds for impeachment, and/or a clear revelation of the “rush to war,” demonstrating a resolve to take one certain course of action, regardless of what alternatives some naysayers might have suggested.   Sadly, a great deal of this seems to have been true.

The mindset, the policies, the actions reflected in the Downing Street Memo have been used by Pres. Bush’s many ardent critics and enemies as justification for their outrage, often bordering on hatred.  How COULD he just ignore evidence which didn’t support his view!?  How can we trust an administration that shows itself deaf and blind to any information save for that it wants to hear!?

Fast forward to 2009.

Many quite rational and sane voices on the “Right”, and now increasingly from all walks of scientific and political life, have become open sceptics about the “incontrovertible” nature of the “evidence” supporting global warming.   The science is weak, the evidence lacking, and the prophecies of doom and gloom wholly unsupportable.  Yet, despite the growing volume and number of protests, there still seems to be a prevailing culture of there being only “one right answer” in many circles.  There is a culture of implicit acceptance of all things global warming…as long as they paint a dark and terrible picture requiring immediate and expensive action.  More and more is seems that the available intelligence is being “cherry-picked” to support the pre-established conclusion, and that which doesn’t is ignored. To quote, “the intelligence and facts [are] being fixed around the policy“.

Now, via Michelle Malkin, I wonder if we are finally being provided with Global Warming’s version of the “Downing Street Memo?”

EPA plays hide and seek; suppressed report revealed

From Ms. Malkin’s article:

The free market-based Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington (where I served as a journalism fellow in 1995) obtained a set of internal e-mails exposing Team Obama’s willful and reckless disregard for data that undermine the illusion of “consensus.”

Sound familiar?

Later on, quoting senior supervisor Al McGartland of the Environmental Protection Agency with regards to a subordinate’s report that didn’t support the desired findings:

“The time for such discussion of fundamental issues has passed for this round. The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision… I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office.”

Read the rest.  It’s really quite disturbing.  For all the frothing fist-waving and chest-beating of the vocal left about the Evil that was BushCheneyRumsfeldSatanHitler, for all the demands for impeachment and talk of war crimes, for all the hearfelt insistence that Bush “lied us into war,” what, I wonder, will be the response by the Left to this EPA whitewashing of evidence countering their own carefully nurtured global warming hysteria?

How many millions and billions will we spend “fighting an unjust war” against global warming?  Is Barack Obama lying is into this war?  Is there only one right answer in the Obama administration with respect to global warming? 

The screaming Progs have long lamented the “irresponsible deficit” inflicted on the American people by Bush’s war for oil.

Yet, how many trillions of dollars are we being forced to swallow in Obama’s war AGAINST oil?

How many people will die of starvation because we are using 1/3 of our corn crop to produce ethanol rather than export as food for hungry nations?  What will happen to our economy when the cost of houses doubles as they must be built to new, and very expensive…”green” standards?  When our electricy costs triple because we have outlawed efficient coal-fired energy plants and refuse to embrace nuclear energy?  All in the name of “complying” with an ill-considered and unsupportable global warming policy?

Many would suggest that Iraq didn’t pose a threat to the US, and so our war was illegal and immoral.  I’d like to suggest that the “war on global warming” is even more unjustified, illegal, and immoral, and poses a great threat to our country than Iraq ever did, or that global warming itself ever will.

There’s a front-page report on the DHS report highlighting the dangers of “right-wing extremists” in today’s Stars & Stripes,  yet strangely I can find nothing about it on their web site.  I wonder if that was an editorial decision to bury the story?  You can’t unprint newspapers, but you can easily delete a link.

There was some speculation that this report was some sort of clever and complex hoax, but Michelle Malkin confirmed it, and the Stars & Stripes has it front page of their print edition, at least here in Germany.

I think this comes under the heading of “boiling the frog slowly.”  They don’t even mention any “credible threat” in the report.  Just a vague sort of “sense” that economic conditions and a black president “might” foment discord by disgruntled right-wingers and disaffected miliatary veterans.

In other words, there are dangerous points of view out there, against which we must be vigilant.   Viewpoints like, illegal immigration is bad, abortion is wrong, or that the President of the United States shouldn’t be running our civilian corporations or determining what content on the Internet is permissible.

What exactly is it that the Left is so afraid of?  So afraid that they have to villify, marginalize, even criminalize conservative viewpoints?  And more importantly, why are we letting them get away with it?

Found this quote over at Carin’s place:

 it is wrong to give them (ed. – that would be YOU) unilateral power to decide whether their taxpayer-subsidized donations should go to, say, well-heeled operas or lavish care of pets rather than to organizations that meet more pressing communal needs (my emphasis)

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is Liberal Political Theology in a nutshell.  It is WRONG to allow wage earners to be the sole determiners of how their income is spent, because at some point, some where, they utilized a government funded resource or utility in the earning of it, and thus they “owe” that “taxpayer-subsidized” money back to….someone.

And since you can’t be trusted to spend that money wisely, you know, like buying a pedicure for Fifi instead of shoes for a homeless guy, it is the responsibility, nay, the OBLIGATION of the government to step in and make those kinds of sticky decisions for you.

Because, you know, the Government is so much wiser, so much more altruistic, and so much more caring than you are.  Just remember that the next time you are waiting in line at the DMV.

This is the mindset against which we struggle:  That people can’t and shouldn’t be trusted with how to spend their own money, because they will inevitably make the “wrong” decisions, and so the more of that money that the Government takes, then the better off everyone will be.  Until, one glorious and liberating day, every freakin’ cent you make goes right into the government coffers to be wisely and graciously distributed as handled by the benificent Higher Beings knows as “Politicians” and “Civil Service Workers.”  You know, the ones running the Post Office and the IRS.  Can’t you just see the clouds parting and the light shining down now?  What a utopia, no?

You know what happens when you arbitrarily decide that as long as there are poor people, then discretionary spending on things like pedicures or facials, or latte’s or pinstriping on your car or a new TV in the game room is “irresponsible?” 

Pretty soon the pet salon and the latte stand and the electonics store and the auto detailing shop GO OUT OF #$%@&* BUSINESS!!!!

And TADA, now you’ve got more unemployed homeless people for the government busybodies to take care of.  Do people really not understand this?

These are the people who aren’t raising more of a stink about what Obama is doing, because they agree with what he is doing and how he’s going about it.  They genuinely want our economic system to fail and be completely retooled into textbook Marxist socialism.

Stupid, meddling bastards.

UPDATE:

RightWingSparkle has the proof in the puddin’.

And Patterico.

We all seem to understand the perils of this trend.  Those that don’t, fail to do so because they want it to happen, not based on any practical understanding of the issues or long term consequences, but rather, because they are operating out of emotive idealism liberally intermixed with a dash of retribution and “revenge thinking” promoted by the vocal, hard-left Alinsky-ites who seem to get most of the press time in this country lately.  The “hate the rich” meme that has become the social buzz, even among the Lefty rich!  Bizzarro world.