Khalid Sheik Mohammed was water boarded.  As a result of that procedure, he started to talk.  Eventually he gave up the name of Osama bin Laden’s couriers.  That is just how these things work.  If there had been no waterboarding, we would have learned nothing from Khalid Sheik Mohammed.  Only in the delusional world of the liberal left do terrorists give up this kind of information because we are nice and kind.  But once he started talking, he eventually gave up information that really mattered.

For years the CIA watched for this name.  Then in 2010, the courier made a phone call.  The U.S. intelligence agencies were waiting.  It is important to note that this was part of the program implemented by President Bush, over the strenuous objections of Democrats.  Just prior to the 2008 elections, Barack Obama promised to end warrantless wiretaps:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9845595-7.html

“For one thing, under an Obama presidency, Americans will be able to leave behind the era of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and ‘wiretaps without warrants.’”

But Obama already knew these wiretaps were necessary, that is why he voted for the FISA Amendment legislation in the summer of 2008 approving these wiretaps.  Senators Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer and Hillary Rodham Clinton voted against this legislation:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/09/blogtalk-obamas-fisa-vote/

It has recently been reported that almost immediately upon being elected, Obama learned of a credible assassination plot against him.  While a mere threat National Security was apparently not enough to get him excited, a personal plot aimed at him got his attention.

Prior to 9-11, the United States tried to treat terrorism as a criminal activity.  After 9-11, President George Bush realized that we were in a war and that treating terrorism as a criminal activity had been a terrible mistake.   That is also the conclusion reached by the 9-11 commission.  That is why he bypassed the FISC courts, and started wiretapping on calls made from within the United States to suspected terrorists overseas. 

Osama bin Laden was living in a house in Abbottabad that the CIA had known about for years.  They didn’t care, because they assumed that Osama bin Laden would be surrounded by armed security.  They were wrong.  In 2010 that courier finally made a mistake.  He called someone the NSA was monitoring.  As a result of this phone call, the CIA was able to finally locate him.   It does not take much imagination to realize that this was one of those people wiretapped by the evil George Bush.  This courier eventually led them to the house in Abbottabad:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/how-did-the-cia-find-bin-laden-a-phone-call-a-courier-and-years-of-detective-work/

The CIA thought they had found bin Laden in August of 2010.  It certainly was the best lead in years.  One would think that this was enough information to send in a team.  The United States has numerous Special Forces units fully capable of handling such an assignment.  I suspect that President Bush would not have hesitated to authorize that mission.  But Obama demanded proof positive.  As Bill Clinton pointed out in Obama’s self-congratulatory campaign commercial, Obama was concerned that if the Navy Seals were killed, or captured, it might make him look bad.  Think about that.  There was this house, clearly designed to hide someone significant, and one of the few people in the world who knew how to contact Osama bin Laden went there.  That should have been more than enough.  I suspect we have sent our guys over on far more dangerous assignment s with much less intelligence.

But even though it was obvious that someone important probably bin Laden, was in that house, Obama demanded more proof.  So the CIA organized a fake vaccination program in an elaborate scheme to get DNA from someone in that house.  The following article describes this adventure:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/11/cia-fake-vaccinations-osama-bin-ladens-dna

Perhaps I am wrong, but it sure looks like a really stupid and high-risk plan.  Here we had a strong lead, with regard to the location of bin Laden, and the President waffles demanding more proof. In desperation, the CIA develops this fake vaccination plan.   It is a miracle that Osama bin Laden was not tipped off by this bizarre scheme. 

By the way, this scheme will cost thousands of lives.  There are world-wide humanitarian efforts to wipe out small pox and polio.  In some countries, kids are even dying from measles.   One of the big barriers to achieving this goal has been the reluctance of people in places like Pakistan to let their children get vaccinated.  There are myths commonly repeated in the radical Muslim movements that these vaccines are a western plot to poison children.  As a result of the use of humanitarian efforts to try and find bin Laden, parents all over Pakistan are refusing to let their children get immunized: 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/13/bin-laden-vaccine-plot-cia

The story is crystal clear.  Obama was far less worried about killing Osama bin Laden than about his own political future.  That is why there was such a long delay in authorizing the raid.  It is also why he went on national TV to gloat about the great success.  It is why he is now running this tasteless commercial.  It exposes an incredible lack of character in the President of the United States.

 TDM

Hosea 8:7  “For they sow the wind and they shall reap the whirlwind.”  In 2014, Obama care requires every employer in the United States, with more than 50 employees, to provide “qualifying health insurance.”  If employers fail to comply, they will pay a tax of $2,000 per employee ($3,000 if employee receives coverage through an exchange).  The plan was to force businesses to provide health care to employees.  That is far from true. 

The people who dreamed up this puppy probably thought this would force everyone into a government run single payer health care system before anyone realized it was happening.  The fine is clearly inadequate to cover health care costs, so this is a classic bait and switch operation.  In a very short period of time the employer fine would have been increased to cover actual costs, but employees would have lost employer sponsored health care in the meantime.

However, the negative impact of this mandate will send shock waves through the economy long before 2014.  The people who wrote this are absolutely clueless with regard to how business operates in the U.S.  Most companies with a lot of employees are publicly held and many of them are also unionized.  As a CEO of a publicly held corporation, you are required to maximize equity for stockholders.  Since many of these companies are paying up to $12,000 per employee, per year for health care, they will be required to cancel their employee sponsored health care and pay the fine.  Failure to do that would result in massive litigation from attorneys filing D & O claims.  Directors & Officers liability claims are already a major problem for publicly held corporations.  Even if the CEO thinks this will be devastating to employees, they will still do it, because they have a non-delegable duty to stockholders. 

If the firm has a significant number of union contracts, the problem becomes worse and the problem develops much sooner.  If a union contract comes up for renewal now, and the contract will last through 2014, the CEO of the company will have to address the issue now.  We should expect to see union contracts negotiated with a stated intent by the company to cancel employee sponsored health care in 2014.  A lot of people who are more than happy with their employer sponsored health care plans are in for a very rude awakening.

Obama care also appears to be designed to eliminate Medicare Advantage programs. 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gracemarieturner/2012/04/27/obamacare-a-dozen-more-damaging-disclosures/

This year Medicare Advantage was already cut, but the Government Accounting Office used $8.3 billion from a slush fund to make up the difference.  That is because if Medicare Advantage programs were cancelled during an election year the results would be catastrophic to Obama.  Of course this is exactly what will happen in the near future.

Many people are terribly concerned by the blatant attempt to shove socialist medicine down our collective throats by Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.  Remember that Obamacare passed without a single Republican vote.  Even then, it required the illegal prosecution of Ted Stevens, the re-writing of the law in Massachusetts, the Cornhusker Kickback and the Louisiana Purchase to get enough votes to pass this monstrosity.  The Democrats own Obamacare, lock, stock and barrel.   It is now obvious that Democrats have made an enormous blunder.  The problem is that when liberals gain power is that they have no clue with regard to the real world.  Obamacare is so flawed that it is about to implode under its own weight.   Yes, they definitely planned to force us into socialized medicine.  But they are hopelessly incompetent and that is becoming increasingly obvious.

So far very little of Obamacare has been implemented.  People are still concerned because of the “predictions” by opponents.  That is about to change.  Obamacare is far worse than anyone is reporting and the impact will be even more devastating.  It will soon become impossible to disguise the enormous failure of this monstrosity.  Obama’s only hope of re-election is to delay the negative impact of this legislation until after the election.  That is why they “borrowed” $8.3 billion for Medicare Advantage.  But they are out of time and they are also out of money.  This is so bad that the Supreme Court overturning Obamacare may be the best thing to happen to Obama. 

TDM

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

If the following article is accurate, then the main stream media is guilty of gross negligence in the reporting of the death of Trayvon Martin.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-26/news/os-trayvon-martin-zimmerman-account-20120326_1_arizona-iced-tea-suv-unarmed-black-teenager

Unfortunately, the usual suspects, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, rushed for a microphone in a desperate attempt to exploit what appeared to be a racist incident.  Even President Obama weighed in on the controversy.  We were told by everyone, including Fox News, that an angry white male shot an innocent black teenager for no reason.  At a minimum, there was a lot more to the story.

A few years ago one of our neighbors shot someone to death just around the corner from our home.  This was an upscale gated community.  We were shocked.  What happened is that another neighbor had a nephew visiting who got hopped up on PCP.  This guy started to stab his uncle while in the house, but the uncle ran outside trying to escape.  His nephew followed him and continued to stab him in the middle of the street.  The uncle’s wife yelled from the front porch for help.  Help came—from their next door neighbor–with a gun in hand.  He fired a warning shot and then shot the young man, high on PCP, killing him.  (Unfortunately, the uncle died, as well.)

The first thing the cops did when they arrived was to arrest the neighbor who did the shooting.  Earth to liberals:  Even in places like Sanford, Florida, if the police arrive and find a dead person and someone else with a gun, the person with the gun usually gets arrested.  At a minimum, he gets handcuffed and asked a lot of tough questions.  Our neighbor was taken to the police station, but was released because it was an obvious case of self-defense; in fact, the police noted that with the act of shooting the nephew, it was highly possible that more lives were saved. 

In the Trayvon case, it is becoming really obvious why the police didn’t arrest George Zimmerman.  He had a broken nose, his back was soaked from the ground, and he had cuts and bruises on the back of his head where Trayvon Martin was slamming his head against the ground.  It is entirely possible that if Zimmerman was not armed, he would be dead.

But the truth is never a barrier to a run-a-way main stream media with a juicy story like this.  They are anti-gun and convinced that innocent people are frequently shot by out-of-control and poorly trained amateur gun owners.  Add in a hint of racism and they were off to the moon.

Unfortunately, we are likely to see a lot of irresponsible behavior and possibly violence in response to the malpractice by the mainstream media.  George Zimmerman is unlikely to be even charged with a crime.  If he is charged, he is even more unlikely to be convicted.  But, he was already tried and convicted by CNN, ABC, NBC and even Fox News.  The Black Panthers even put a bounty on him.

This irresponsible behavior by the media, by Jesse Jackson, by Al Sharpton and particularly by President Obama will do grave damage to race relations in this country.  However, I wouldn’t expect a correction or even an admission of error.  Instead, they are already off looking for some other situation to exploit.

It is a real tragedy that a 17-year-old black man lost his life.  It is also a tragedy that George Zimmerman was assaulted and had to shoot someone in self defense.  But the greatest tragedy is the enormous damage done by the rush to judgment by those who could not resist an opportunity to exploit the opportunity to claim racism.

TDM

The following interview of Bill Maher by Jake Tapper from ABC News is extremely revealing:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/four-questions-for-bill-maher/

This is so typical of liberals, who consider themselves brilliant in spite of all evidence to the contrary.  The most telling moment is when Maher admitted that calling Sarah Palin the “c” word was always one of the biggest laughs in his act.  I am sure that is true because Bill Maher has zero skills as a real comedian, and the only way he can get laughs is to make rude, profane and disgusting remarks about conservative republicans.  All he has to do is mention George Bush, Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann with some sarcastic remark and the crowd goes wild.  There is a consistent minority of liberals who find this juvenile and disgusting behavior to be hysterically funny.  It is this extremely small audience that keeps Bill Maher on the air.

The reality is that if Bill Maher was trying to make a living by smearing liberal women, the way he smeared Sarah Palin, he wouldn’t have any audience.  Conservatives are not amused by cheap personal attacks of this nature, regardless of the target.  Rude and disgusting should always be considered rude and disgusting.

Even Democrats are only amused if the target is a conservative female, like Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann.  George Bush used to be the favorite target, but lately that doesn’t work anymore.  This is probably because George Bush has a higher approval rating than Obama.

Can you imagine Bill Maher making the same type of slams about Hillary Clinton, or Nancy Pelosi.  The liberal left would go nuts.  They would have demanded Maher be fired long ago.  On the other hand, if someone makes any remark about a liberal that could possibly be misinterpreted as racist or sexist the liberal left goes ballistic. 

Perhaps the problem is that liberals just aren’t that bright.  There is a reason conservatives dominate talk radio.  Liberals aren’t smart enough to be funny.  That is why liberal talk show hosts can only build an audience by making outrageous and cheap personal attacks on conservatives.  The part of the audience that eats that stuff up loves it, but everyone else is quickly bored.

In the meantime, it appears that liberals forgot about video.  Just about the time they were salivating over the opportunity to finally drive a stake intp Rush Limbaugh’s heart, they were confronted with all those clips from people like Bill Maher and Ed Schultz.  Suddenly, Limbaugh looks like a choir boy in comparison.  Casting stones at Limbaugh for calling Ms. Fluke a slut is the classic example of why people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. 

And oh, by the way, Limbaugh is a lot smarter than either Maher or Schultz.  Unlike them, he can keep an audience without resorting to the lowest form of potty language humor.  Ultimately, neither Maher nor Schultz is likely to stay on the air if they have to rely on their non-existent skills to hold an audience.

TDM

There was an amazing article on MSNBC.com today.  It basically is an admission that the Obama Presidency is a major failure.  Of course, MSNBC tries to spin this as the result of problems outside of Obama’s control, but that will not work.  This is like excusing a coach for a losing record by complaining that the other team is deliberately trying to defeat his team.  Duh!   Following is the article:

http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/13/10666856-analysis-obama-tested-by-events-outside-control

All of the Republican candidates for President have been talking about reining in the Fed.  So it should not have been a surprise that the Fed gave a rosy report today about the economy.  They have to know they are in for a tough ride if Romney, or any of the other Republicans, get elected.  It seems the stock market soared in response.  Obama and his legion of main stream media supporters immediately began singing his praises. 

However, I can’t imagine this working, or lasting.  The situation in Europe is dire.  Even China is showing strain with an increase in the trade deficit.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/9137130/China-has-biggest-trade-deficit-for-20-years.html

Today, President Obama accused China of breaking global trade rules by restricting exports of rare earth elements.  He is probably right, but his timing, as always, is absurd.  It will be quickly recognized as a political stunt.  China is already feeling the pinch because of the failing world economy.  Obama is naïve to think China is about to expand the export of rare earth elements so other countries can compete more effectively with Chinese manufacturers.  He also made a major mistake by publicly embarrassing China.  Odds are high that they will not respond well.

Gas prices are skyrocketing, as Obama promised.  This is hardly a surprise since he has done everything possible to prevent further drilling.  The only increase in oil production has come from leases signed by Bush or from development on private property.  Obama’s real energy policy is to force people to stop using gas by making it so expensive that there will be no alternative.  Gas is headed toward $5 and possibly $6 per gallon.  This may appeal to naïve liberals who live in New York and don’t even own a car, but doesn’t play well in Peoria.

Afghanistan is in full meltdown.  The only solution left is to withdraw our troops now, while we can.  This is one of the worst foreign policy blunders in American history.  Obama came into office promising to show Bush how it was done by winning the “necessary” war in Afghanistan.  In June 2009, we had less than 30,000 troops in Afghanistan.  Two years later, in June, 2011, we had 90,000 troops.  But Obama also implemented new rules of engagement that made it much more difficult for our troops.  Two thirds of all combat deaths in Afghanistan happened during Obama’s watch.  He is far from winning the necessary war.  Instead, he is about to leave with his tail between his legs, probably apologizing all the way to the exit.  Then, of course, he will blame everything on Bush.

In reality, Obama has made everything worse, and it is becoming impossible to ignore.  The MSNBC article is an admission of this.  Of course they are trying to shift the blame.  Ultimately, when a team continues to lose, the coach gets fired. 

Democrats are so desperate that they are trying to repeat the 2008 smear campaign against Sarah Palin.  But Palin is not even running.  Smearing her name may be great fun, but it won’t save Obama.  Recently there have been numerous main stream media pundits moaning and groaning about how we came so close to electing someone as unqualified as Sarah Palin to be Vice President.  They shudder at the thought of someone so naïve and inexperienced only a heartbeat away from the Presidency.   Well, earth to liberals:  I actually agree that Sarah Palin did not have the experience necessary to be President, but she was far more experienced than Barack Obama.  America did elect someone too naïve and inexperienced to be President.  The results have been increasingly difficult to ignore.  That is why even an Obama campaign outlet, like MSNBC, is doing failure analysis.

TDM