It discourages me to hear conservatives brag about how they love our drones.  They think it is wonderful that these neat little drones are really good at killing all those nasty terrorists.  There is no doubt that these guys had it coming.  It feels so good to eliminate the problem painlessly.  Granted a few innocent civilians are also getting killed, but one must expect some collateral damage.  It’s doesn’t matter where they are, because our drones are really good.  We don’t even bother getting permission from the host country, or anyone else.  They can’t stop us anyway.  We just spot the target on the neat little camera and bombs away.  This is so exciting that the Obama administration tried to create a new combat medal for drone operators, to show their appreciation.  Liberals were describing this as the new, modern, better form of warfare.  What could possibly go wrong?

Unfortunately, we may have unleashed a serious problem.  One obvious problem is that our government may have been seriously considering the use of drones against us.  Every day there are more reports of drones being used in the U.S.  Currently, these drones aren’t armed they are just used for surveillance.  But originally drones in places like Afghanistan and Iraq weren’t armed either.  Then someone figured out that just attaching a little missile here and there was really cool.  One day a drone spotted a terrorist, a button was pushed and: instant results.  What a great new concept.  We can now kill people almost anywhere without risking any of our own people.  At first we only used them on the battlefield.  Then we started using them in Pakistan.  Now we are using them in places like Yemen and the Sudan.  If it wasn’t for Rand Paul, they might even have been used here. 

This reminds me of the nuclear bomb.  It was a great option for Harry S. Truman.  He dropped a couple of bombs, two cities were eliminated and World War II was over.  But within a short period of time, the Soviet Union also got a bomb.  Suddenly nuclear bombs weren’t all that great any more.  A nuclear bomb looks a lot less attractive when you are a potential target too.

I predict the same thing will happen with drones.  It won’t be long before our enemies have drones too.  According to the following article from National Journal, Iran may already have one:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/when-the-whole-world-has-drones-20130321

Even if they don’t have them yet, they will have them, probably sooner rather than later.  And as least one of them will feel no moral restrain in launching one against us.  Why would they?  We’re the ones who set the standard.

For whom the drone roams.  It roams for you and me.

TDM

The United States Supreme Court is hearing arguments on one of the most important cases in our nation’s history.  It should not be a close call, but with the recent Obama appointees on the court this is very likely to be another 5-4 decision.  Arizona has a law requiring people to prove they are U.S. citizens before registering to vote.  They want things like birth certificates.  Currently in Arizona you can use the federal form, which is a joke: 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/19/us/politics/supreme-court-justices-appear-divided-on-arizona-voting-law.html?_r=0

The question for the justices was whether that state law conflicted with the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, which allows voters to register using a federal form that asks, “Are you a citizen of the United States?” Prospective voters must check a box yes or no, and they must sign the form, swearing that they are citizens under penalty of perjury

The bottom line here is that Democrats passed a federal law saying all you need to do to vote in an election is “say you are a U.S. Citizen.”  No wonder they still don’t consider Barack Obama’s birth certificate to be an important issue.  When you combine this with millions of illegal aliens in the United States and the Democratic Party openly soliciting their votes the danger is obvious.  The worst outcome here would be for the Supreme Court to just overturn the Arizona law.  If that happens, it may be impossible for Republicans to ever win another election.  The best outcome is probably if the Court determines that the federal standard is inadequate and demand the federal government set up a reasonable system to verify the citizenship of all voters.  A middle outcome would be to uphold the Arizona law or at least parts of the Arizona law.  At least then a lot of states would almost immediately adopt standards consistent with the Supreme Court ruling.

If we lose this one, I don’t see any hope of recovery.  I still suspect that if voting in the last election had been limited to legally registered, living voters, only allowed to vote once, that the results might have been quite different.  We will never know, because we have no way of verifying this.  If we don’t change this now; future elections will be determined by which party is more skilled at stealing votes.

TDM

President Obama is well on his way to becoming the lamest of all lame duck Presidents.  He has botched things big time, his popularity is dropping like a stone and even Democrats are starting to turn on him.  Today John Podesta took a major shot at Obama:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/13/john-podesta-obama_n_2868904.html

John Podesta was the Chief of Staff for Bill Clinton.  He was also co-chairman of the Obama-Biden Transition Project.  This is a Democrat’s Democrat.   I remember when Lyndon Johnson said that if he had lost Cronkite he had lost the country.  Well, if Obama has lost Podesta, he has lost the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.  The second term of the Obama administration is less than two months old and it is already looking like a Quacker Factory.

Have you noticed that Republicans have started to go more than a little silent lately?  The reason is that when your opponent is self-destructing, you just get out of the way.  Quack, quack!

TDM

Up until now, Barack Obama has never had to learn the meaning of the word no.  Whatever he wanted, he got, usually with little or no real effort.  The most consistent pattern to his life has been unearned rewards.  He was the first person with zero accomplishments elected President of the United States.  He even won the noble peace prize for doing nothing.  For the first four years of his presidency, Republicans were afraid to say no.  They were continually battered by self-inflicted wounds earned in battles they were afraid to fight. 

His demands with regard to sequestration were so absurd that even the spineless RINO Republicans were forced to say no.  The results have been immediate and earthshattering.

Like most spoiled brats who are finally told no, Barack Obama threw a hissy fit.  He campaigned around the country trying to blame Republicans for the sequestration plan that was actually his idea.  But a miracle happened.  This time even the main stream media didn’t buy his nonsense.  This time it was Barack Obama who had to back down.  Then Rand Paul stood alone on the Senate floor, unarmed and unafraid and said no again.  While RINOs like John McCain and Lindsey Graham tried desperately to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, it was Barack Obama who had to back down. 

Suddenly, almost without warning, the “Anointed One” has lost his force field.  Barack Obama looks all too human and more than a little vulnerable.  The rest of the world figured this out a long time ago.  Republicans have finally figured it out too.  I suspect a whole lot of people are asking themselves why they ever feared him.

I cannot predict what will happen next.  But I can predict that we are going to see a whole lot more:  “BO  NOs.”  Barack Obama will remain President of the United States for nearly four more years, but he is already a lame duck President and the ship of state is leaking power like a sieve.   

 “BO NO”s.  A beautiful thing

TDM

Last night, Rand Paul changed american politics.   His filibuster was a stroke of genius.  While Lindsey Graham and John McCain were dining with Obama, Rand Paul reminded us all of the power of principle over politics.  He simply and eloquently said you either believe in the constitution or you don’t.  He did this so well that liberal and progressive Senators were stunned.  Dick Durbin even asked him questions that made the impact of the filibuster more signficant.  By acknowledging that Rand Paul was asking a seriious question and by engaging in a serious conversation with him, Durbin made Rand Pauls comments impossible to ignore.  It is hard to argue with his point that the President of the United States doesn’t have the power to just kill American citizens in the United States just because he thinks it’s a good idea.

Rand Paul did not shout.  He did not make outrageous attacks.  He even said a couple of nice things about Obama.  Yet, with his quiet, but reasoned performance, he delivered a devastating rebuke to the Obama administration.  The quieter he spoke, the louder he was heard.  Even die hard liberals are having a hard time arguing with Rand Paul this morning.

But an even more important star emerged with the public unveiling of Ted Cruz.  I thought Ted Cruz was just another Tea Party candidate.  The main stream media has painted him as another light weight swept into power by over enthusiastic Tea Party supporters.  But after I watched Cruz eviscerate Eric Holder during his cross examination I decided it was time to research this man.  It turns out that Ted Cruz is one heck of an attorney.   Cruz graduated from Yale and Harvard and unlike Obama his academic performance at Harvard is well documented.  He “earned” a position as editor of the Harvard Law Review, he was an executive editor of the Harvard Law & Policy Review and he founded the Harvard Latino Law Review.  He is also a brilliant debater and twice was voted the speaker of the year at national debate conferences.  As a private attorney he argued cases in front of the U.S. Supreme Court and he was the Solicitor General for the State of Texas.  That is the kind of position you give to a real attorney, rather than the political position of Attorney General.  This is one of the most intellectually capable people in the United States Senate and no one should make the mistake of underestimating him.  Eric Holder finally came face to face with a real live capable attorney and the result was devastating.

Both John McCain and Lindsey Graham responded by ripping Rand Paul this morning in speeches to the entire senate.  It was a huge mistake:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2013/mar/7/graham-mccain-blast-paul-filibuster/

The Republican Party hasn’t seen this kind of talent in decades.  Ronald Reagan was the great communicator, but Ted Cruz is a great communicator who gradued Magna Cum Laude with a JD fromHarvard.  Rand Paul is a medical doctor, a man of principle with a rare ability to make arguments that are compelling even to political opponents.  While McCain and Graham were dining with the President, liberal Senators were being mesmerized by the rarest sight in Washington, a man standing firm and alone, on a matter of principle refusing to be intimidated.  McCain and Graham would have been wise to applaud such courage rather than to try and suppress it.

Lindsey Graham and John McCain are acting this way because they know they have just been pushed off the public stage by Rand Paul and Ted Cruz.  When politicians have to try and explain to people why they are important, it is because they aren’t.  The torch has been passed.  The RINO leadership of the Republican Party was blown off the national stage by the soft but eloquent words of Rand Paul and Ted Cruz.  It’s a beautiful thing.

UPDATE.  While Lindsey Graham and John McCain were explaining why Rand Paul was so naive and stupid, Eric Holder was busy caving, because it worked:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2013/03/07/letter-from-holder-to-sen-paul-on-drone-authority/

Graham and McCain just embarrassed themselves.

TDM

Rand Paul has just moved into my top ten list of American politicians .  He is now into his eight hour of filibuster regarding the nomination of John Brennan to be CIA director.   Who knows how long he will last.  Strom Thurmond, the current record holder, spoke for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957.

I do not know how long this will last, but I do know that he has focused attention on this issue and he is making a compelling argument.  Even liberals are paying attention when he warns against an administration that believes it can kill American citizens without even pretending to follow due process.  At a minimum, the main stream media will have to cover this story.

It will be interesting to watch how this plays out.  It is just possible that Rand Paul will single handedly energize the entire Republican Party.  It has been a long time since we have seen such a raw and powerful example of leadership.  You may like Rand Paul.  You may hate Rand Paul.  You may even be indifferent to Rand Paul.  But after this performance today, it is going to be increasingly difficult to ignore Rand Paul.

As for me, I just hope he keeps droning on.

TDM

I must admit that I found the term “pluperfect subjunctive” to be more than a little perplexing.  The more someone who actually understood the concept tried to explain it to me, the more confusing it became.  I ultimately decided that no one else actually understood it either, so on several occasions, for pure entertainment purposes, I would comment that a particular phrase was the classic example of the pluperfect subjunctive.  No one ever challenged me, probably because they either didn’t really care or more likely because no one wanted to admit they were also clueless.

Now we have political theater with regard to Senator Menendez that may actually make the pluperfect subjunctive more than a little appropriate.  A subjunctive is basically a verb that is used to express contingent or hypothetical rather than real action.  Since the action is viewed subjectively, it is called subjunctive.  Pluperfect actually means past perfect and it is used to describe an action that took place prior to some other past action.  An example would be:  “when I got to the dock, the ship had already sailed.”  In this case the Washington Post is saying that when they arrived, the prostitute who previously said Menendez did now said he didn’t.   A word to the wise, it would probably have worked out better if they got the right girl.

The Washington Post and the Daily Caller are now engaged in screaming at each other about who did the worse job of reporting.  A couple of things should be obvious.   For one, someone was paying $60,000 for Menendez to spend a couple of days in the Dominican Republic.  If you think Menendez, or his bff spent that kind of jingle for a nice beach and some great margaritas, rational thinking is probably not your strong suite.  But more important, the Senator’s conduct reeks of political corruption and payback.  Frankly, the sex party is probable the least important of his problems.  It is impossible to read this story without realizing that the Senator was bought and paid for big time.  There should be bi-partisan disgust with such blatant corruption on display.

Perhaps I am wrong, but I suspect that if Menendez was a Republican, the Washington Post would not have bothered sending a reporter down there to check this out.  They would have just assumed he was guilty as sin.  If nothing else, he would have been guilty of being a Republican.

Now Menendez is claiming that this horribly flawed Washington Post article is proof positive of his innocence.  That is like O.J. Simpson claiming that because Mark Fuhrman lied about using the N word O.J’s DNA magically appeared on the knife used to kill his ex-wife.  Oops…that actually worked.

Like I said:  “pluperfect subjunctive.”

TDM

LBJ understood the problem with liberals:

“The differences between Liberals and cannibals,” he said, “is that cannibals eat only their enemies.”

I sense that President Barack Obama is about to learn that first hand.  The problem is that Liberals believe things that are not true, that have never been true and that never will be true.  Therefore, by definition, Liberals are doomed to disappointment.  In the deluded world of the Liberal left we are separated from utopia only by the failures of our leaders.  Liberals rely on thoughts and emotions and ignore inconvenient facts.  When liberalism fails, as it always does, Liberals turn on their leaders.  They are always heartbroken by another lost opportunity.

Obama is now viewed as a loser by the liberal left.  They are absolutely shocked that Republicans stood up to him with regard to sequestration.   It is not too late for Republicans to once again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, but right now Obama is the big loser.   Liberals never handle political defeat very well and they are humiliated by being stopped by Tea Party Republicans who they consider to be dumber than plant life.  Since they will never consider the possibility that they are wrong on any issue, they will blame Obama.  This could be really ugly.  LBJ was wrong about a lot of things, but I think he nailed it with liberals.  Watch out Mr. President.  They may find you delicious in a whole new way.

TDM        

The main stream media still loves Barack Obama.  They still think all liberals are brilliant and that conservatives descended from Neanderthals.  But, they no longer think that Barack Obama is a winner.

Barack Obama is officially a loser.  We know this because he told us.  He told us that sequestration is a disaster and that it will cause a lot of pain.  He told us that it was a really bad terrible idea invented by Republicans to reward their rich friends and hurt poor people.  He also told us that he was powerless to stop it.  Forget the inconvenient truth that sequestration was Obama’s bad idea.  What really matters is that Barack Obama said it is really bad and that he was powerless to stop it.  He is looking and acting like a loser.

Winners NEVER complain about their opponents.  When winners are defeated, they just become more determined to win the next time.  Winners never lose; they just run out of time. 

Barack Obama is officially a loser and regardless of the reporting by the main stream media, that is a hard reality.  That is why his approval ratings are now in the 40s and falling like a stone.  The American people love a winner and they hate a loser.  They particularly hate a loser who blames everyone and everything but himself.  I believe that Barack Obama has made an enormous error and I am not sure he can recover.  He has handed republicans a prize worth more than rubies.  He has admitted that he has lost and that he doesn’t know what to do. 

We have hard dark days ahead.   When the President of the United States is a loser, we are all losers.  I fear we will pay a terrible price for his failures.  But regardless of what happens from here on in, one thing is certain.  Barack Obama not only has an expiration date on his forehead, he is already yesterday’s news.  Even liberals will start deserting him, not because they disagree with him, but because they no longer believe in him.  It will not happen overnight, but it will happen.  I do not know who or what will replace him.  But I know a loser when I seen one and I see one now.  I do not know who will win the sequestration battle, but I already know the biggest loser.

TDM

I watched a small portion of President Obama’s Press conference today and it was beyond pathetic.   President Obama just ignores the White House press pool.  He is famous for bypassing them and giving interviews to local reporters who are guaranteed to not ask any tough questions.  Just recently he ditched them so he could play golf with Tiger Woods.  Yet, incredibly, the White House press corps is still totally in the tank for this president.   He “finally” gave a press conference and yet no one asked a single significant question:   President Obama started by blaming EVERYTHING on republicans: 

OBAMA: And let’s be clear: None of this is necessary. It’s happening because a choice that Republicans in Congress have made. They’ve allowed these cuts to happen because they refuse to budge on closing a single wasteful loophole to help reduce the deficit.

As recently as yesterday, they decided to protect special- interest tax breaks for the well-off and the well-connected, and they think that that’s apparently more important than protecting our military or middle-class families from the pain of these cuts.

This was so bad and so obvious that one reporter timidly asked if President Obama accepted any responsibility himself:  He responded by asking them what they would recommend.  Following is the answer to his question: 

QUESTION: Mr. President, to your question, what could you do. First of all, couldn’t you just have them down here and refuse to let them leave the room until you have a deal?

OBAMA: You know, the — I mean, Jessica (ph), I — I am not a dictator. I’m the president. So, ultimately if Mitch McConnell or John Boehner say, “We need to go to catch a plane,” I can’t have Secret Service block the doorway. Right?

It just doesn’t get any worse than this.  No one even mentioned that the whole sequestration deal was his idea and that he lied about it.  No one pointed out that every wage earner in the United States got a tax increase effective January 1, 2013 and they have all had to cut their spending.  Yet the President of the United States cannot possibly manage to cut expenses by 2.5% without making drastic cuts to essential services.   

I remember those great press conferences with Jack Kennedy where he sparred with reporters.  Presidents used to actually get asked real questions and they gave real answers.  The main stream media has always been liberal and they have always cut Democratic presidents a lot of slack, but they at least used to pretend to be reporters.  Now Obama gives this rambling monologue and the only question they can think to ask is why he can’t lock republicans in a room until they agree with him.  I don’t know when I have been more appalled and more disgusted. 

TDM