The Obama campaign is running a television commercial praising President Obama for authorizing the mission that killed Osama bin Laden.  The implication is that this was an act of great personal courage.  This doesn’t pass the giggle test.  That had to have been one of the easiest decisions in the history of the U.S. Presidency.  As Mitt Romney pointed out, even the weak and pathetic Jimmy Carter would have authorized that mission. 

The more we learn about this mission, the more obvious that Obama was weak and indecisive.  In the commercial, Clinton describes how brave Obama was because he risked damage to himself politically if the mission failed.  There is no mention of the risk to the participants.  There is no discussion of risk to our national security.  There is no mention of concern regarding a potential for the loss of innocent lives.  The only concern mentioned is the political risk for President Obama.  There is a word for people who have no problem putting other people in jeopardy, but are terrified at the slightest personal risk.  The word is coward.

It should be obvious to everyone that the Clintons despise Obama.  Bill Clinton is a lot smarter than Barack Obama.  Perhaps, just perhaps, he chose the wording very carefully, to give the illusion of praising Obama, while instead exposing him as a totally self-centered leader.  Whether Clinton did this deliberately, or not, the result is the same. 

I doubt that anyone will be convinced that Obama is a great Commander-in-Chief because of this piece of fluff.  I think even fewer people will be convinced that Mitt Romney would have been afraid to give the order.  If this election is about which candidate is stronger on national security, Mitt Romney wins in a walk.  The only people who will buy this nonsense are already solidly in Obama’s camp.

Regardless of how this plays out politically, President Obama has revealed himself as a self-serving opportunistic coward.  That should be apparent to anyone paying attention. 

TDM

This was so predictable.  There is new anti-profiling legislation, co-sponsored by Senator Dick Durbin that would expand federal law enforcement guidelines against profiling and mandate training on racial profiling at all federal law enforcement agencies:

http://www.salon.com/2012/04/18/long_time_coming_trayvons_law/singleton/

It is another example of a solution in desperate search of a problem.  This is all based on a monstrous and deliberate distortion of the facts in the Trayvon Martin case.  The following paragraph is typical of how this is portrayed by the liberal left:

“He was profiled, followed, chased, and murdered,” said Federica Wilson, the cowboy hat-wearing congresswoman from Miami where Trayvon lived with his father. “This case has captured international attention and will go down in history as a textbook example of racial profiling.”

So far, there is zero evidence that Trayvon Martin was profiled; in fact, it is not entirely clear that George Zimmerman committed any crime at all.  He may be guilty of nothing more than self-defense.  The most recent picture, released in court today, shows a bloodied George Zimmerman with significant injuries on the back of his head.  These pictures were taken within 3 minutes after the policy arrived at the scene.

The following article from PJ Media shows just how bad this has become:

http://pjmedia.com/blog/walking-papers-the-incredibly-thin-speculative-zimmerman-affidavit/

One has to ask why the liberal left jumped in with both feet on this case.  I think it is because there is an embarrassing lack of racial profiling abuses.  This is the same reason they hyperventilated about that Harvard professor.  It is also why the Duke Lacrosse team was pillared in the media.  As demonstrated by Dick Durbin, the liberal left has all this neat anti-profiling legislation burning a hole in their pocket, and they are desperately in need of a high profile incident.

The indictment against Zimmerman is not only bad, it is laughably bad.  But this is not funny.  It certainly isn’t funny to George Zimmerman who literally has a bounty on his head from the New Black Panthers.  But it also isn’t funny because liberals are now trying to use this gross misrepresentation of facts to pass irresponsible legislation.  The proposed legislation is not just wrong, it is dangerously wrong.  If police cannot profile against those who are most likely to be a threat, they must treat everyone as a threat.  It is precisely this kind of logic that resulted in a 95-year-old grandmother humiliated into removing her soiled adult diaper so some TSA agent could be sure she was not a threat:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=44467

I am unaware of the TSA stopping a single terrorist attack.  There are certainly people who have been caught with weapons, but most of them are celebrities who leave handguns in their carry-on luggage.  The real terrorists, such as the shoe bomber and the diaper bomber, managed to get on planes rather easily and were only stopped by outraged fellow passengers.  Perhaps the terrorists were so intimidated by the mere presence of the TSA that they didn’t even try, but I suspect not.  I think terrorists now know that fellow passengers are on the alert, and they won’t hesitate to fight back.  The 9-11 hijackers only succeeded because official policy, up until then, was to cooperate with hijackers.  Now that aircrews and passengers understand what is at stake, it is going to take more than a box knife to take over an airliner.  I strongly suspect as long as we use good metal detectors and look for handguns and hand grenades, we will be pretty safe.

In addition, there is a shortage of people stupid enough to try and bring down an airliner by blowing their balls off midflight yet smart enough to pull it off.  People that stupid can fool the TSA, but they are unlikely to fool their fellow passengers.  In the meantime, the liberal left wants police to treat everyone as a potential criminal so we won’t risk offending those who actually are criminals.  Of course, if we are talking about white Christians, then profiling is not only acceptable, it is required. 

In 1770, John Adams was the defense attorney for the British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre.  He took the job because none of the “Tory” lawyers were willing.  The following is from his defense argument:

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.

If we are right about the facts, liberals are doomed to defeat.  If we are wrong, they deserve to win.  Those who ignore the facts are incapable of governing effectively.  That is why liberal governments are always voted out of office.  It is only a matter of time.  Eventually, all those strategies based on false assumptions are doomed to failure.  That’s just the way it is.

TDM

Roger Clemens is about to be tried, again, for perjury.  It is really quite simple.  Clemens denies ever using performance-enhancing drugs.  There is a fair amount of evidence that he is lying:

http://www.search.yahoo.com/?fr=w3i&type=W3i_SP,204,0_0,StartPage,20120102,16898,0,8,0

The last time the government tried this, the judge declared a mistrial.  The problem is that Andy Pettitte told congressional investigations that Clemens confessed in 1999 (or 2000) that he used human growth hormones.  Apparently, Pettitte told his wife Laura about the conversation.  The judge ruled that her testimony was inadmissible because she didn’t hear Roger Clemens directly.  The prosecutors showed a video of Representative Elijah Cummings, D-MD, questioning Clemens where he referred to Pettitte’s conversation with his wife.  That ended the trial because the jury was exposed to inadmissible evidence:

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/6768625/roger-clemens-trial-judge-declares-mistrial

Frankly, this whole thing seems like a gigantic waste of time.  Why did congress need to get involved at all?  Only a naïve fool didn’t realize that baseball players were using steroids.  This was hardly limited to Roger Clemens or Barry Bonds.  This should have been dealt with by Major League Baseball.  There was a problem, but the involvement of the government accomplished nothing.  The government indicted Barry Bonds for perjury.  They convicted him only of giving an evasive answer.  They couldn’t convict Bonds of lying.  He was sentenced to 30 days house arrest and he is even appealing that conviction.  Now the DOJ is back, trying to salvage its pride by getting a conviction of Roger Clemens.  What this would accomplish is beyond me.  I suspect that Roger Clemens, like a lot of other baseball players at the time, was using human growth hormones or steroids.  His denials do not pass the smell test.  But neither does the decision to waste valuable time and money prosecuting him.  Both Eric Holder and Janet Napolitano appear to have also committed perjury, with regard to a far more serious subject

In 2000, the Independent Counsel investigating the White House Post Office scandal (Travelgate) stated there is “substantial evidence” first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton lied under oath in denying that she played a role in the 1993 White House travel-office firing:

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20000623&slug=4028256

The media yawned, apparently because it was hardly a surprise to learn that Hillary Clinton told a lie.  If Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder or Janet Napolitano happen to say something, under oath,  “inconsistent with the facts” that is not perjury, that is politics.  But if Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens say they didn’t use performance-enhancing drugs, and someone disagrees, that is perjury.

I think it is extremely unlikely that Roger Clemens will go to jail.  Regardless of the facts, I wouldn’t be surprised by an acquittal.  But in the meantime, the DOJ will have spent a fortune prosecuting this case, and they will probably succeed in causing great financial hardship to Roger Clemens.

Senator Ted Stevens was convicted of failing to properly report gifts.  He was convicted on October 27, 2008.  He was convicted of “making false statements.”  As a result, he was defeated in the election by Mark Begich.  Mark Begich arrived in the Senate just in time to cast the deciding vote for Obamacare.  I should point out that this was in addition to the Louisiana Purchase, the Cornhusker Kickback and the re-writing of Massachusetts law to allow the Governor to appoint a Democrat to replace Ted Kennedy.   By April of 2009, it was so obvious that the conviction was improper that Eric Holder directed the justice department to “Set Aside the Verdict and Dismiss the Indictment with Prejudice.”

At what point, even to the lame stream media, does it become obvious that there’s a serious disconnect here?

TDM

The liberal left tried to use the Trayvon Martin murder as evidence that innocent black teenagers were at risk of being murdered by angry white men.  They also tried to paint a strong anti-gun message.  But, they may have been wrong on both accounts.

African Americans are twice as likely to be murdered as white Americans.  However, they are not being killed by angry white people.  The stark reality is that 94% of the time when an African American is murdered, it is another African American doing the dirty deed.  African Americans have a right to be outraged, they are just wrong about the color of the people doing the damage. 

As of 2008, approximately 79.9% of Americans were considered white.  African Americans were estimated at 12.84% of the population.  Yet over half of the murders in this country are committed by African Americans, and they usually kill other African Americans.  The media would have us believe that Trayvon Martin was singled out and killed because he was black.  So far, there is little hard evidence of that.  But in reality, the Trayvon Martins of this world have a lot more to fear from other African Americans than they do from angry white men.  Most murders are intra-racial.  When a white person is murdered, there is about an 86% chance that they were murdered by another white person.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States

(Note:  I verified the data in this article with the source documents.  There is a significant dispute with regard to the analysis in the Wikipedia article, but the statistics appear to be accurate.)

Prior to the civil rights movement, the treatment of African Americans in the United States was intolerable, particularly in the South.  It is easy to understand why African Americans are so sensitive to any hint of racism.  It is probably impossible for those of us who are white to fully understand this.  Immediately after the Civil War, African Americans were given their freedom and the right to vote. But we all know that this was hardly the end of the struggle.  Things didn’t really change until the civil rights movement forced change.  People who experienced this type of racism in the past can hardly be blamed for fearing racism today.

But, at least in this case, there does not appear to be much evidence of racism.  George Zimmerman may or may not be guilty of a crime.  That does not necessarily make him racist.  So far, the only evidence of racism is in the knee jerk response by the main stream media.  At least some of the so-called evidence of racism has been discredited.  After further review, CNN had to admit that George Zimmerman probably didn’t utter a racist slur.  NBC deliberately altered the audio to make Zimmerman look racist.  When NBC played the entire 9-1-1 tape, it was obvious George Zimmerman only mentioned that Trayvon Martin was black when the dispatcher asked him to describe the “suspect.”  It also turns out that Zimmerman has a lot of black friends. 

There is a lot about the Zimmerman-Martin case that we do not know, but we do know that the main stream media reported a lot of it wrong.  The whole point of the civil rights movement was to get away from judging people by the color of their skin.  Neither George Zimmerman nor Trayvon Martin should be judged because of their race, they should be judge based on the facts.

It is quite possible that if George Zimmerman had not been armed, he would have been seriously injured and possibly killed.  There are at least some reports that it was Trayvon Martin who attacked Zimmerman.  If that had happened, and it was Zimmerman who was killed or injured, no one in the main stream media would care very much.  It is easy to understand why.  Every day we hear stories of people, who are not armed, getting killed by criminals.  However, it is rare to hear of an unarmed criminal being shot by a licensed gun holder.

Every year, there are about 2.5 million people who use a legallyl purchased handgun to protect themselves.  Rarely is anyone shot.  That is the whole point. 

http://www.rense.com/general76/univ.htm

Since the FBI concentrates on reporting crimes, after they have been committed, we do not have totally accurate information on this subject.  However, there clearly are a lot more cases where legal handguns prevent crimes than reported in the mainstream media.

With regard to gun control laws, liberals are concerned about the wrong people having access to firearms.  They ignore the obvious fact that criminals seldom bother to purchase a gun legally.  The only people who obey gun laws are law abiding citizens.  Liberals also shudder at the thought of untrained and irrational people being armed.  I agree.  We should have laws that restrict access to guns by people who tend to be angry and irrational.  How about some legislation preventing liberals from owning firearms?  Problem solved.

TDM

One of my favorite moments in television was when Geraldo Rivera did a show called
The Mystery of Al Capone’s Vault.  Everyone was so excited that he managed to syndicate a special.  On live television they did the excavation, which took several hours, as his team penetrated the vault.  There was even a medical examiner on scene in case they found some bodies.  Finally the great moment arrived and they opened the vault to find nothing other than some broken bottles.  It was hysterically bad.

Recently, we saw the Presidential version of the empty vault.  For years we have been hearing about the brilliant Barack Obama, the former President of the Harvard Law Review and constitutional scholar.  There has actually been zero evidence supporting this myth, but Obama is a far left liberal, and the main stream media just assumed brilliance.  After all, he agrees with them on just about every issue.  But now Obama gave a very public statement about the Supreme Court’s review of Obamacare and personally destroyed the myth of his brilliant legal mind.  No second-year law student would say something as stupid as claiming the Supreme Court overturning a law passed by congress would be unprecedented.  That has only been happening for about 200 years.  That is the whole point of the Supreme Court!  This is so pathetic that even the fawning main stream media pounced on it.  They absolutely hammered his Press Secretary and Obama himself has resorted to stammering incoherent attempts to try and spin this away.  The following article, from Reuters of all places, is typical:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/04/usa-court-obama-idUSL2E8F4B8N20120404

The real problem is that Obama’s blunder absolutely shatters the myth of Obama the brilliant legal scholar.  The only other possible explanation is that Obama doesn’t care about the traditional rule of the judiciary in the U.S. legal system.  That may be true, but stupidity would be a better defense than that!  The courts were not amused.  A three-judge panel from the Fifth District court ordered the Justice Department to explain, by Thursday, whether the administration believes judges have the power to strike down a federal law.  It was a slap in the face and a shot across the bow.  No one, and I mean no one, is taking Obama’s side on this.  The DOJ attorney on the case, Dana Lydia Kaersvang quickly wilted under a blistering verbal assault from Federal Judge Jerry Smith.  Even Attorney General Holder genuflected and said the DOJ would respond to the demand.  This is the same Holder who earned his name by holding on to documents in spite of repeated subpoenas from congress.  He folded on this one like a cheap umbrella.

No one, even in the Obama administration, is even pretending that Obama got this right.  They are just trying to defend his blunder by claiming he was speaking only of a law passed by congress on an economic issue, such as health care.  That didn’t even pass the giggle factor with the folks from MSNBC.  They aren’t reporting on this, mind you, they are just ignoring it.  But even MSNBC isn’t trying to defend Obama’s position.  The other networks, including CNN, are reporting it and no one is agreeing with Obama.

This is a worse mistake than the brain freeze on national television by Rick Perry during a Presidential debate.  Perry never recovered from that.  Obama has been permanently damaged because the illusion of the brilliant legal scholar has been shattered.  The genie is out of the bottle and no one is going to be able to put it back.  They finally opened the secret vault containing the brilliant Obama and found nothing. 

TDM