Gay Patriot Header Image

Neglecting the Basics of Government

If you ever wondered why places that are one-party Democrat fiefdoms (most rust-belt cities, for example) are so dysfunctional and miserable, John di Leo offers an explanation, that I think is in part on point, but misses another part. It’s a long article, but I’ll try and excerpt the main point.

In today’s case, we see the Left react to a very real problem – the downgrading of a city’s bond rating, which means that all new borrowing will become much more costly for the city than it was before – by identifying other very real problems – a plethora of empty buildings – without any hint that he knows why they’re empty or what steps are needed to fill them, without recognizing that these are all just more symptoms of other, deeper problems.

It is indeed the chicken-or-egg problem, on the grand scale.  Chicago has lost about two-sevenths of its population since its high-water mark in the 1950s.  Rather than seeming to care why the city is bleeding residents, it just looks on it as yet another challenge, not as a symptom of something else.

Ask the very same question of a conservative, and you would receive a very different answer.

Why was our bond rating downgraded again; what does this mean to us?

“That’s a softball question,” a conservative would reply. “it was downgraded because a city that’s been bleeding both population and jobs for generations, plagued with high crime, a greedy leviathan, and a welfare state population locked in stasis, is simply unsustainable. The idea that there’s enough duct tape in America to keep this wreck together indefinitely is obviously fiction.”

“But if you want a hardball question,” the conservative would continue, “ask how to solve it.”

Di Leo correctly identifies a symptom — the refusal of Democrats to govern in accordance with common sense principles of economics and the role of Government in providing basic services. But he doesn’t get into why Democrats govern that way.

Certainly, some of it is because politicians generally and Democrat politicians especially are corrupt. But even the ones who aren’t in it for the graft have motivations that are at odds with good governance. It’s not simply that they don’t grasp basic economics or the basic role of Government,  it’s that theygo into Government with the goal of imposing a Utopian Ideology on everyone else, and being lauded for it by their peers in the media.

While Democrats go on endless crusades to “Fight Climate Change,” outlaw the private ownership of firearms, and ensure transgender bathroom equality… they neglect the necessary and unglamorous work of Government.  I guess because People and Esquire don’t do fawning profiles of politicians who balance the budgets, fix the streets, and clean the deadweight out of state and municipal bureaucracies.

By the way, the Illinois “Human Rights Commission” has fined a Christian business owner $80,000 for declining to participate in a gay wedding.  Freedom of speech and freedom of religious conscience are apparently not Human Rights, as far as the state of Illinois is concerned.

Hillary deceives, too few notice.

Surely we’ve all known since the 1990s that when a Clinton speaks, one must parse the precise words assiduously and meticulously.

Two days ago, the former Secretary of State appeared on CBS’s “Face The Nation” where host John Dickerson interviewed her about a range of issues. At about the 13-minute mark (sorry, in my browser, the time-scroll thingy doesn’t show where you are, so you may have to suffer through some asshole going on about how great he is for the first part), Dickerson asks about Brian Pagliano which introduces the email topic. At about 13:30, in response to his question about the classification of emails on her server, in toto she says the following (my emphasis added):

I also know that there were reports today about the hundreds of officials and the thousands of emails that they were sending back and forth that have been been looked at and classified retroactively. This really raises serious questions about this whole process I think. Colin Powell summed it up well when he was told that some of his emails from more than 10 years ago were going to be retroactively classified; he called it an absurdity. So I’m hoping that we’ll get through this and then everybody can take a hard look at the inter-agency disputes and the arguments over retroactive classification. Remember I’m the one who asked that all of my emails be made public. I’ve been more transparent than anybody I can think of in public life. But it’s also true that when something is made public everybody from across the government gets to weigh in, and that’s what’s happening here, and we need to get it sorted out and then take action from there.

Dickerson then moves on to Libya and doesn’t return to the topic of the emails.

Notice what she’s not saying. She’s not saying that the information was retroactively classified, but that the emails were retroactively classified. If you’re paying close attention, you’ll note that this is a meaningless tautology. Of course the emails weren’t classified until after the fact… Who would have classified them when they were sent?

As background, when sending email via the secured systems used to house classified information (at least in the DoD, with which I’m familiar, but I’m betting State has a similar system), every time you hit send, you’re prompted to select a classification for the email. Is it Top Secret? Secret? Confidential? Is it SCI? Or is it Unclass? If so, is it FOUO? Does it contain PII (personally identifiable information, such as social security numbers, etc.)? Depending on which box you tick (and you can’t send without ticking a box… the message will remain in your Outbox), markings are automatically affixed to the message, i.e., ‘the email gets marked classified‘. Naturally if you’re sending emails from an unsecured system, these procedure doesn’t exist, and at that time, the email isn’t designated as ‘classified’.

If, say, four years later, as a result of a FOIA request, someone who knows about classification goes through and reads this “unclassified” email, guess what he’s going to do: “Holy shit! This email should be classified!” Suddenly, he’s ‘retroactively’ classifying emails. Emails containing information, by the way, that was quite likely classified at the time it was sent, but that wasn’t marked as such because the careless individual who chose to send it via unclassified (and therefore unregulated) means didn’t slap a classification on it Herself. But then, why would she do that, and raise the obvious issues at the time?

To suggest that all this was just someone going back (overzealously, and likely with malice of course) and slapping classified markings over stuff that was completely innocuous at the time it was sent is completely insincere and meant (as so much Madame Secretary and her husband says) to throw the credulous off her track.

It’s like Bill Cosby saying, ‘Yea sure. She complains now that she’s woken up. But she didn’t say anything about it at the time!’

Parse the words… remember, we were told that none of the info was classified.. Then it wasn’t marked classified. This is just the next step in the evolution.

The arrogance is astounding, but only persists because there’s a history of getting away with it.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)

The Dumb Leftist Fear Meme

Apparently, the Talking Point has gone out to all organs of the left to promote the “Republicans are running on FEAR” meme.

This ‘Fear’ rhetoric is a back-handed way for the left — people so frightened by words that they require Speech Codes and Safe Spaces — to call Republicans cowards, and portray themselves as brave for standing strong in their politically correct Groupthink. The meme is summed up by this has-been, washed-up blogger desperately trying to suck up to the Democrat Left:

“Fear is what the Republican Party’s selling this election. Well, every election to be precise, but this time around it’s pretty much taken over all the messaging: fear of immigrants, fear of refugees, fear of liberals, fear of Hillary Clinton, fear of socialism and communism and all kinds of imaginary stuff that goes bump in the Republican night. And above all, fear of Muslims. Since fear’s closest cousin is hatred, we’ll be getting a serving of that, too, but it’s really just a thin layer on top of a rich base of pure fear.”

The thesis that all of the “fears” raised by Republicans are illegitimate would only be (somewhat) valid if there had been no Islamist terror attacks under Obama, that there were no Islamist terror organizations threatening future terror attacks against Americans, and is there were no possible way that terrorists would enter the USA (or France) under a refugee, visa, or immigration program.

Look, just because I fasten my seatbelt when I drive, does that mean I’m “living in fear” of other drivers? Does the fact that I wash my hands after handling raw chicken mean that I’ve “given into fear” of Salmonella? No, it means I am taking common sense measures to protect myself against tangible dangers.

Securing the border, making sure the people we let into the country aren’t going to murder Americans… these aren’t crazy, fear-driven ideas. They are utterly rational and common sense. And so is Donald Trump’s idea of suspending immigration from hotbeds of Islamist terror until we get a better handle on how to manage it.

Irrational fear would be something like, oh I don’t know, suspending Constitutional Rights to deny law-abiding Americans the right to own a gun.


Democrats More Hostile to Due Process More Than Terrorism

Posted by V the K at 8:07 pm - December 15, 2015.
Filed under: Dishonest Democrats,Gun Control

The GOP generated a bill that would have prevented suspected terrorists from buying guns while protecting the Constitutional Right of Due Process.

Under Republican legislation sponsored by Senator John Cornyn, the federal government may delay the sale of a firearm to someone on the watch list for up to 72 hours. During that time, if the government can show a judge there’s “probable cause”–the same legal standard used to obtain a search warrant–that the individual is plotting terrorism, then the gun sale is denied outright.

It was blocked by Senate Democrats, because they really want this issue on the table television to distract their idiot voters from Obama’s failed terrorism policies.

Also, this is what happened when Republican Congressman Trey Gowdy asked an Obamacrat Apparatchik about Due Process protections and the “No Fly” list.

“What process is afforded a U.S. citizen, not someone who’s overstayed a visa, not someone who crossed a border without permission, but an American citizen—what process is currently afforded an American citizen before they go on that list?” Gowdy asked DHS secretary Kelli Ann Burriesci at a House Oversight Committee hearing.

“I’m sorry, um, there’s not a process afforded the citizen prior to getting on the list,” Burriesci said.

Nor do Democratics want there to be.

Democrat Left Narratives on Terror Always Turn Out to be False

Posted by V the K at 8:08 am - December 10, 2015.
Filed under: Dishonest Democrats

The Democrat Left initiatlly denied that the Benghazi terror attack was a terror attack. The Narrative was that it was a protest over an obscure YouTube video that got out of hand. The Democrat Left stuck with this Narrative even though they knew it was false until it became untenable.

Prior to the Paris attacks, the Democrat Left scoffed at the idea that ISIS and other terror groups would use the “Refugee Crisis” as a Trojan horse to spread terrorism. “Terrorism is what these people are running away from,” they claimed. But we now know that the ringleaders of the Paris attacks recruited a team from “refugees” in Hungary. So much for that narrative.

After San Bernadino, the first narrative pushed by Democrat Media Operatives (f.k.a journalists) was that this could have been an incident of “workplace violence,” exactly like when Nadal Hasan shot up an Army based and killed 13 people while shouting “Allahu Akhbar.” Nothing to do with Islam, just a disgruntled employee offended by a Christmas Party. But then it turned out his wife was a secret jihadi who had somehow slipped through the Obama Administration’s rigorous terror screening despite providing a false address. So, then the DMO’s pushed the narrative that he had become “radicalized” through her. As though the real enemy wasn’t Radical Islam (a term Democrats refuse to utter) but heterosexual marriage. But now it turns out even that narrative is false because Syed Farook was reaching out to jihadist organizations before he married, and his mother belongs to a radical jihadi outfit. So, in a desperate Hail Mary pass, the Democrats are trying to make this into a gun control issue by spinning yet another false narrative about the No Fly list.

The response of the Democrat Left and their Media Operatives, after every terrorist attack, has been to spin a narrative that minimizes the connection of the attack to Islam and their preferred policy of mass Islamic immigration. The actual facts of each incident never turn out to align with reality. How, then, can we trust that the rest of the Democrat Left Terror Narrative (DLTN) is true? How can we trust them when they see “Islam has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism,” or “only the tiniest sliver of Muslims support terrorism,” or “the solution to terror is to give more Muslims jobs.” Are these facts, or is this just wish-casting in service of a false narrative? Are these good faith errors of analysis, or is this all part of a scheme to create a narrative more conducive to passing the agenda Democrats want to advance?

One of the factors behind Donald Trump’s popularity is the impression that he is telling the truth, or at least, saying things that are closer to the truth than the politically correct pablum coming from the Democrats and their Media Operatives.


A Cupid Stunt in Missouri

Posted by V the K at 5:44 pm - December 7, 2015.
Filed under: Dishonest Democrats

Democrats may not have any practical solutions to offer our country’s challenges, but they excel at snark and divisive political stunts.  A dingbat Missouri legislator has decided to propose a law that she says will make getting a gun as difficult as getting an abortion. And, no, she does not mean that minors will be able to buy guns without parental consent at taxpayer expense.

“Since restrictive policies regarding a constitutionally protected medical procedure are the GOP’s legislative priority each year, it makes sense that their same restrictions apply to those who may commit gun violence. Our city mayors and law enforcement drastically need help in saving lives,” Newman said in a statement to St. Louis magazine.

[Pulls out Constitution. Finds nothing in it about Medical procedures.]

I wonder if someone will filibuster her bill, and then run for governor.

I’d say she should stick to making sandwiches, but I bet she sucks at that, too.

The Obamacrats’ Desperate Hand-Waving Is a Distraction from Their Failures

Not even six months have passed since the left warned us that the ‘Terror Watch List’ was a dangerously arbitrary list with almost no safeguards. The Government has no duty to inform people they are on the list, there was no due process, and appeals are long and costly. No fewer that 280,000 people are on the secret Terror Watch List who have no known ties to any terrorist group.

But then something happened; Mohammedan terrorists including a woman who had breezed through the Obama Regime’s vaunted “Screening Process” for immigrants and refugees from Muslim lands, murdered 14 people. An administration (and party) prone to fits of desperate hand-waving to take attention away from their spectacular failures decided to change the debate from “How were these dangerous people allowed to commit terror?” to “How can we take advantage of this ‘Wonderful Opportunity‘ (as Obama’s Attorney General Loretta “My Last Name Is My Life” Lynch described the terror-murder of 14 people) to push for the Gun Control we wanted to do anyway.”

And, Voila, the Democrat Party (and some Democrats In All But Label Only {DIABLO}) have decided that a Secret List of “Suspected Terrorists” with no due process and no safeguards is the ideal vehicle for stopping people from owning guns. Never mind that Syed Farook and his lovely burlap sack of a wife would not have been on such a list because he was a respectable public employee and SEIU member (probably), and apparently acquired their weapons through a straw purchaser anyway… which was already illegal.

The Democrats don’t really care about the flaws in the list because their real goal isn’t to stop terrorists from getting guns, but to stop people from acquiring guns generally. The use of the Terror Watch List is just another incremental step in that direction.

But suppose… just suppose… there were such a list of people who could be barred from purchasing weapons. Such a list would have to meet the following criteria:

1. It would have to be completely open; the Government would have to inform you immediately if you were put on it and why

2. It would have to have strict criteria for inclusion such as a provable affiliation to a terror group. And you might add in severe chronic mental illness (not minor issues like insomnia or depression which have led to gun-confiscation in New York and California), and/or a felony conviction.

3. It would have to have safeguards. Most importantly, it would have to have Due Process such as requiring a court order for you to be included on the list.

4. It would have to have a rapid and cost-free appeals process; ideally, limit the Government to ten days to prove you’re a threat and if they fail, you have to be removed.

The Obama Administration’s “No Fly” and “Terrorist Watch” lists meet exactly none of these criteria, and is not a valid tool for depriving law-abiding Americans from their Constitutional and Human Right of Self-Defense.



The ’300 Mass Shootings’ Myth – Busted

Posted by V the K at 12:39 pm - December 4, 2015.
Filed under: Dishonest Democrats,Gun Control

The Pro-Criminal, Anti-Self-Defense Left has been distributing a talking point that there have been over 300 mass shootings in the last year. Much like the claim that 40% of gun sales proceed without a background check, or that there have been 75 school shootings since Sandy Hook…. it’s complete horsesh-t.

Using 2013, the most recent year for which federal data is available, the Congressional Research Service found 25 mass shooting incidents — far less than the 363 counted by Mass Shooting Tracker.” The Congressional Research Service defines a mass shooting more narrowly as a gun violence incident in public in which 4 or more people are killed in a single event and excludes incidents in which the violence is a “means to an end such as robbery.

PolitiFact’s Amy Sherman added, “Mass Shooting Tracker showed 294 mass shootings [in 2015] as of Oct. 1. About 122 of those incidents — or about 42 percent — involved zero fatalities.

Considering that the left lies so shamelessly in their effort to push “common sense gun laws,” how can we possibly trust them when they claim gun confiscation is not the eventual objective?

In the real world that leftists stubbornly refuse to acknowledge, gun violence has been declining and is continuing to decline; most markedly in places with reasonable gun laws like Shall-Issue concealed carry permits and open carry laws.  The only places where it is increasing are Democrat-run cities with strict anti-gun laws.

Also, note two places where there have never been mass shooting incidents; gun ranges and NRA Conventions.


Lying: A Proven Technique for Advancing the Left-Wing Agenda

Posted by V the K at 10:11 am - October 27, 2015.
Filed under: Dishonest Democrats,Gun Control

To counter Bernie Sanders with the Democrat Left (which is the entire party, pretty much), Hillary tells some lies about gun control.

At an October 7 forum in Iowa, she wrongly claimed, “They are the only business in America that is wholly protected from any kind of liability. They can sell a gun to someone they know they shouldn’t, and they won’t be sued. There will be no consequences.”

According to Politifact, “Clinton said the gun industry is ‘the only business in America that is wholly protected from any kind of liability.’ Clinton is talking about a law that says the gun industry is protected from liability in certain instances, but the law also specifies several situations in which the gun industry is susceptible to lawsuits. Further, Congress has passed a number of laws that protect a variety of business sectors from lawsuits in certain situations, so the situation is not unique to the gun industry.” That’s why Politifact determined her rhetoric about the law to be entirely false.

The bill expressly allows suits based on knowing violations of federal or state law related to gun sales or on traditional grounds including negligent entrustment or breach of contract. The bill also allows product liability cases involving actual injuries caused by a defective firearm.

So why is Hillary lying about it? Because this is how the left advances its agenda. It creates a false narrative and then develops policies based on that false narrative. The false narrative here is “Gun dealers can sell to anybody without a background check and there’s no liability, and if only we could pass universal background checks, gun registrations, and let gun companies be sued, no one will be shot to death ever again.” The Narrative is advanced through the Democrat-controlled news and entertainment media and embeds in the minds of millions of people.

The Law in question,the Protection in Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, was passed in 2005 (with a bipartisan majority) specifically in response to an explicit leftist agenda to sue gun dealers and gun manufacturers out of business.

Mr. Coale, one of the Castano Group of lawyers who were active in suing the tobacco industry — the group is named for a friend of several of them who died of a tobacco-related disease — estimated that the cigarette companies had spent $600 million a year defending themselves against the states. ”The gun companies simply can’t afford it,” he said, since they are so much smaller and sales of guns have been flat or declining for a decade.
”So if you get too many cities and states suing,” Mr. Coale said, ”the manufacturers will go into bankruptcy protection. And the day that happens, the suits stop and it is lose-lose for everybody.”

The real agenda behind this — opening the gun companies to all manner of lawsuits — is to put gun companies out of business. Then, the left can say, “You still have your silly right to bear arms but… oh, gosh, there’s no longer anybody making guns or ammo.”

Clinton Shill Thinks You’re an Idiot (file under: What Else Is New?)

See Elijah Cummings on Face the Nation today? Ha ha.. either he’s a complete moron, or he’s hoping we all are:

DICKERSON: The Republicans would say — you mentioned the e-mails had nothing to do with Benghazi, but they would say you can’t get to the information about Benghazi unless you know what the key person…

(CROSSTALK) [...was writing in her emails, which, naturally she's stonewalled against the Congress's right to see in its oversight capacity.]*

CUMMINGS: Well, keep in mind, keep in mind that Hillary Clinton has turned in tens of thousands of pages of e-mails, more than any other secretary in the history of our country, secretary of state in the history of country.

And keep in mind Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice have not turned in one page. So, we have a microscope over her entire tenure as secretary of state. It’s going to be interesting.

DICKERSON: It is indeed. Mr. Cummings, thank you so much for being with us.

The “microscope” line is particularly rich considering the emails in question (in fact, all emails the Congress and the public has ever been able to see from the former leader of one of our government’s most influential and impactful departments) are only known of and available after they’d been pried from her cold, dead server thanks to FOIA requests and, ahem, an FBI investigation. But anyway…

Point is though, why stop shy of criticizing Powell and Rice (mentions of either of whom, by the way, is a non sequitur)? Come to think of it, Mr. Cummings, that Lawrence Eagleburger musta had something pretty shady to hide considering we’ve never seen even one of his emails. Yea, and that Thomas Jefferson… probably got a lot of stuff stashed away on that server too.

Sheesh… the ends Hillary’s shills won’t go to in order to protect her.

Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)

*Who the hell knows if John Dickerson was trying to ask that… But if there existed actual reporters today and fewer shills for Hillary Clinton, that’d be a pretty logical thing to ask and we’d have heard it and had it answered a long time ago.

The Democrats Come Out of the Socialist Closet

“Last night the Democrats presented themselves an an openly left-wing party, to whose base Bernie’s honeymoon in the Soviet Union appears far less eccentric than Jim Webb doing his Scoop Jackson routine 40 years too late. Bernie thinks we should be more like Denmark, Sweden and Norway – just debt-ridden and with more race riots. As far as I can recall, the most pressing priority for the Democrats is free parental leave for illegal immigrants if they happen to have an anchor baby while enjoying their free college tuition. Insofar as foreign policy raised its head, it was something to be avoided at all costs. While crazy right-wing nutjobs worry about footling peripheral trifles like Isis, Putin, and Iranian nukes, smart Democrats are focused on the real global threat of “climate change”, which is why they’re committed to investing in wind-driven fax machines for all Obamacare sign-ups by 2020.” – Mark Steyn on the Democrat Debate.

The Democrat debate on Tuesday demonstrated conclusively that the Democrat Party is now openly socialist and Bernie Sanders represents its center. The Democrat debate essentially became a “Coming Out Party” for Socialists who had just been waiting in the dark among the coats and boats, afraid to express their true selves for fear of how society might react. However, now they are out and proud and ready to march at the front of the May Day parade.

It also demonstrated my axiom that the value proposition of the Democrat Party is “We will take money from other people and buy you stuff with it.” Among the FSFTG that the Democrats promised were:

  • Free College Tuition
  • (By implication) Free College for Illegal Immigrants
  • Obamacare for Illegal Immigrants
  • Paid Family Leave
  • More Social Security benefits

But don’t worry about the debt because “the rich” are going to pay for all of it.

Buying votes with other people’s money, as per usual, while also promising to tear down (what’s left of) the capitalist system that created the wealth they now want to distribute. Hillary is commonly considered the winner of the debate because of her well-rehearsed soundbite answers and enthusiasm for the New Socialism (same as the Old Socialism).  As  Mark Steyn points out, she was an alpha female among beta males (which describes the Demographic make-up of the Democrat Party quite well).

More from Mr. Steyn below, beginning at about 4 minutes in:


The Democrats Really Are a Party of Mindless Borg Drones

By astonishing coincidence, every Democrat had exactly the same reaction to Hillary’s Meet the Press Interview.



Harry Reid’s Democrat Ethics

Harry Reid admits that he lied on the floor of the Senate about Mitt Romney not paying his taxes, but says it’s okay because it helped Romney lose. (He also lied that his 2010 Republican Opponent was “pro-rape.”)

BASH (on camera): So no regrets about Mitt Romney, about the Koch brothers? Because some people have even called it McCarthy-ite.
REID: Well, they can call it whatever they want. Romney didn’t win, did he?

Harry Reid claims to be a member of the LDS Church. The 13th Article of Faith of the LDS Church reads as follows:

We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men.

Every two years, Harry Reid, as a member of the church, must be interviewed by his local Bishop and asked if he is constant and true in his devotion to the beliefs and principles of his church.

I understand why it’s more important to Harry Reid to embrace the “Lie, cheat, steal, and win at any cost” ethos of the Democrat Party than to be faithful to his church. At his core, he’s just plain greedy; a man who has never worked outside “public service” and yet has amassed a great fortune. Alleged Roman Catholic Nancy Pelosi is no different in her rejection of Catholic teachings on abortion; because her true god is power.

I am disappointed that the LDS Church has never taken him to task for his un-Christian behavior.

That Awkward Moment When You Can’t Admit That a Nominee’s Sole Qualification Is Donating Loads of Money to Obama

Posted by V the K at 10:37 am - December 3, 2014.
Filed under: Dishonest Democrats

ABC’s Jonathan Karl asks if Obama’s nominated Ambassador to Hungary has any qualifications other than donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to Obama’s re-election campaign. White House spokesman Josh Earnest awkwardly tries to avoid admitting the obvious.

YouTube Preview Image

But where was Hillary in all this?

Leon Panetta, former top Clinton staffer and Obama CIA director, is out there serving the Clintons by taking shots at President Obama…errrr, excuse me, out there promoting his new book:

For Bill Clinton, history will remember that he “always kept fighting back” to get things done…“Whether it was Democrats or Republicans, you know, he found a way to be able to do some things, to be able to accomplish some things that were important.”

He makes a similar observation about Hillary Clinton, saying she would be a “great” president. “One thing about the Clintons is, they want to get it done,” he says, in words that draw an implicit contrast with Obama…

And Barack Obama’s legacy?

“We are at a point where I think the jury is still out,” Panetta says. “For the first four years, and the time I spent there, I thought he was a strong leader on security issues. … But these last two years I think he kind of lost his way.

“These last two years” – translation, since the indispensable, brilliant Hillary left – so no, nothing happening now is her fault.

But let’s get down to specifics, Mr. Panetta. How has Obama lost his way? From Politico:

Panetta’s criticisms of the Obama administration are similar to the criticisms former Defense Secretary Robert Gates laid out in his own memoir: that those inside the White House sometimes put politics first on matters of war and peace.

Panetta describes efforts to reach a deal with Iraq to allow U.S. troops to remain in the country in the runup to the December 2011 expiration of the status-of-forces agreement — a deal Obama has said he couldn’t achieve because Iraqi leaders wanted U.S. troops gone. “Privately, the various leadership factions in Iraq all confided that they wanted some U.S. forces to remain as a bulwark against sectarian violence,” Panetta writes…

“I privately and publicly advocated for a residual force that could provide training and security for Iraq’s military…But the president’s team at the White House pushed back…”

2011…isn’t that more like three years ago?

So, let’s see. Panetta, Gates, and the Joint Chiefs all pushed in 2011 for a residual U.S. force in Iraq, that would have prevented today’s crisis with ISIS. (Sorry for the rhyme.) They even did so publicly. Did Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton? Perhaps a little, but not very much. From Jennifer Rubin in June 2014:

Clinton’s failure to impress upon the president the importance of a significant force and to negotiate a deal with Iraq under whatever circumstances existed represents a key failure – one that has directly contributed to the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and the collapse of the Iraqi military.

So for “PBS NewsHour” Clinton tried out a new tale: “Certainly when President Obama had to make the decision about what to do, he was deciding based on what the Bush administration had already determined, because they were the ones who said troops have to be out by the end of 2011.”

This is patently untrue. The Bush team had always intended that there be a follow-up to the SOFA [Status of Forces Agreement]…The game plan for the Bush team and the Obama team was to conclude a deal [to leave a residual force]; Clinton and her boss failed to do so.

For Hillary to claim that the Bushies planned on having all troops out by 2011 is itself a potshot at Obama. If true, it would mean that Obama hardly did anything to “end the war” – he only followed a Bush plan.

But what does all of this add up to? Well, Clinton Central has evidently decided that the way to get elected in 2016 is:

  1. Keep playing the “Blame Bush” card when possible. And if it isn’t possible,
  2. Blame Obama.

As always, we should expect the Clintons to tell a mixture of truth and falsehoods to get what they want, which is: Power.

On Kajieme Powell, and Injustice in America

We here at GayPatriot care deeply about justice. In contrast to the political Left, we happen to care about real justice; rather than posturing and claims of “social justice” that are usually unjust and illegitimate. We know that 90-95% of the time, when the political Left is shrieking about “social justice”, it’s exaggeration – or often baloney.

Accordingly, we tend to favor law and order. But the law-enforcement system must be subject to constitutional limits. And it’s made of human beings like anything else, beings who can make mistakes or go wrong. There are times when law enforcement should be criticized, if not condemned, for doing something horribly unjust.

Kajieme Powell’s death is one of those times. If you haven’t seen this video already, WARNING – it’s tragic and not for the faint of heart:

YouTube Preview Image
(Via Zero Hedge; edited video is also at HotAir.)

At the risk of being obvious, I’d like to state what was so unjust in the police killing of Powell. First and obviously, it was out of proportion to anything Powell did. He allegedly stole food items from a convenience store. And he reportedly waved a knife while resisting police arrest. And for those bad things, he should have been knocked to the ground (to get the knife away from him), or tased, or (at the very most) shot in the leg. Not riddled with a stream of bullets.

Second – and perhaps less obviously; some Democrats may need to have this spelled out for them – it was far out of proportion to what others have done. Others like, for example, DEMOCRAT Jon Corzine who, to this day, still has not been charged for stealing on a scale so vast that poor Kajieme Powell couldn’t begin to dream of it.

An America where Powell is riddled with bullets over a few food items while DEMOCRAT Jon Corzine never faces charges, is not a place of justice.

This is what our society has come to. And I don’t think it’s about race per se, as much as it is about political status & connections. Remember, Corzine’s key political connection was President Barack Obama. Powell probably had no connections.

P.S. I apologize for my tardiness in getting to the Powell matter. Without going into detailed excuses, let’s just say that (1) writing posts is time-consuming work, the way I go about it; (2) I had a busy summer; and so (3) I simply wasn’t writing in August when this happened, and I’m only now getting caught up.

Science Same-Sex Couples Say Kids Are Better Off When Raised by Same-Sex Couples

The media are hyping a “scientific study” that claimed that children raised in same-sex couples were healthier, smarter, and more well-adjusted than kids raised in heteronormative families. An examination of the methodology of the study both debunks it and determines it to be bunk.

The so-called study does not use random sampling — the gold standard of any type of research — but rather self-selected subjects who knew the purpose of the study beforehand! Furthermore, the same-sex parents in the study self-reported all the information, including the answers to how their children were faring — in other words, the children themselves were not consulted.

In other words, the “scientific study” was about as realistic as taking a poll on Obama’s job performance in the MSNBC cafeteria at lunchtime.

But one can be sure that ignorant people will glom onto this “scientific study” the same way they glom onto the myth that Hobby Lobby makes it illegal for their employees to purchase contraceptives. Unfortunately, lying has so far proven to be a highly-effective means of advancing an agenda, especially when backed up by the mainstream media.

A Fool and His Money

What happens when a billionaire gives $100 Million to a corrupt, self-serving bureaucracy? Answer: Bureaucrats and their buddies in the consulting business got to buy vacation homes.

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg made a splash by announcing his plan to give $100million to help turn around Newark, New Jersey’s public schools in an appearance on Oprah in 2010. 

But nearly four years later, Zuckerberg’s money has run out, having been spent mostly on labor contracts and consulting fees with no noticeable improvement in student performance, a report in the New Yorker reveals.

Zuckerberg’s money has mostly gone into the early stages of overhaul, paying consultants upwards of $1,000 a day to find solutions to Newark public schools’ problems.

According to the report, between 2010 and 2012 ‘more than twenty million dollars of Zuckerberg’s gift and matching donations went to consulting firms and various specialities: public relations, human resources, communications, data analysis, [and] teacher evaluations.’

The bureaucrats and consultants got richer; and the kids got nada.

My utter lack of faith in Government, vindicated once again.

No, Lefty Knicker-Twisters, Glenn Beck Did Not Say That Hillary Was a Lesbian

Posted by V the K at 9:05 pm - May 12, 2014.
Filed under: Dishonest Democrats,Media Bias

At the urging of the Gay Left, the MFM got their knickers in a gigantic twist by taking a comment from Glenn Beck out of context.

Anyone curious about how the media works? If you take a short clip from Glenn’s show and a provocative headline, then blast it out to a bunch of blogs looking to get easy traffic – they will usually write it up without really looking for the context. That’s what happened the other day when progressive group Right Wing Watch sent out a clip of Glenn with the headline Beck: ‘Hillary Clinton Will Be Having Sex With A Woman On The White House Desk If It Becomes Popular’Lots of websites ran with it, but they didn’t really look into any of the context. Stu decided to award media outlets like MSNBC, Wonkette, Daily Kos, and The Daily Beast for their terrible, terrible reporting skills on The Wonderful World of Stu.

Watch Viddy at the link. It’s long, but reasonably amusing.

“Only the Little People Pay Taxes, Dahling…”

Q. Why do Democrats think business is corrupt and rich people don’t pay taxes?
A. Because rich Democrats are corrupt and don’t pay taxes.

The family bicycle business of Wisconsin Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mary Burke (“I believe people should pay their fair share” – Ed.) has not paid state income taxes for more than three decades.

Trek, which claims its bicycles can “combat climate change,” has sales of roughly $900 million. However, according to records from the Wisconsin Department of Revenue obtained by Fox 6 in Milwaukee, Trek Bicycle has not paid net income taxes since at least 1982.

And wait, it gets better.

The company also received an $875,000 loan funded by Wisconsin taxpayers, while Burke was serving as Secretary of Commerce for the state.

Trek used the loan to build a new facility, and $392,300 of that loan was forgiven, according to Bjorling.

If they weren’t protected by judges and prosecutors just as corrupt as they are, the Democrats would be prosecuted under organized crime and racketeering laws.