Porky the Pig strikes again

T-t-t-t-that's all folks! Obama goes into Porky Pig mode again when he was asked a simple question his enormous staff didn't prepare him for.

And yes, he has more paid staffers than McCain. Read it here.

His campaign already has by far the largest full-time paid staff in presidential campaign history, and unlike Republican rival John McCain's, continues to grow by the day.

But back to his meandering answer when asked about the surge...



From Boortz, who transcribed Barak's meandering-in-vain-search-of-a-coherent-thought answer.

No, because keep in mind that question, you wouldn't ... but keep in mind that kind of hypothetical is very difficult to know hindsight is 20-20 ... later ... but I think that what I'm absolutely convinced of is that at that time we had to change the political debate because the view of the Bush administration at that time was one that I just disagreed with.

Barak Hussein Obama

Reminds me of this pivotal scene from Billy Madison:

Breaking down Obama to his core

We've got the media fawning over Obama on his foreign trip, covering his every move as if he were already president or better yet, the messiah.

But this column by Austin Hill totally distills what Barak Hussein Obama is all about:

Think about it. On both implicit and explicit levels, Obama’s rhetoric suggests that the annoyances, the risks, the hardships and insecurities of your existence are the result of various injustices done to you, and that he alone can correct those injustices.

If a business executive earns exponentially more money than you do, this is an injustice and he will correct it. If you bought a house and are now having difficulty making the payments, this is an injustice and he will correct it. If you do not have “free healthcare,” this is an injustice and he will correct it. The fact that nuclear weapons exist in the world is an injustice, and he will correct it. If you purchased toys imported from China that turned out to be defective, that is an injustice and he will correct it (yes, he actually delivered a speech entitled “Safer Toys For Our Children” in Iowa last December, two days after Christmas). And if you believe, as he apparently does, that “rich people” just simply “have too much already,” well that is most certainly an injustice and he will correct it.

Combine these dynamics of entitlement and “justice” with the reality that we live in an era of historical and constitutional illiteracy, and it’s not difficult to imagine how anything short of an Obama presidency could be viewed by some in America as yet another injustice. And if Obama’s inevitable destiny is disrupted by something so trivial as the American electorate, this could be deemed an injustice that trumps all others.

Read the rest of this excellent column here.

Don't these people get it yet?

The Democrats, despite $4 a gallon gas, are STILL dragging their heels on drilling. Guess all that money those bastards get from the Sierra Club and other anti-capitalist, enviro-nut organizations gets them something after all.

"We learned the hard way that oil and water do not mix on our coast," Pelosi told a key committee in 1996 as she made her case for keeping the ban in place before a Congress then controlled by Republicans.

Now, with gas prices soaring, those drilling restrictions are facing their most severe test in years as calls intensify to more aggressively pursue domestic oil. Yet despite increasing pressure from President George W. Bush, a full-bore assault by congressional Republicans and some anxiety among her own rank-and-file Democrats, Pelosi is not budging.

"The president of the United States, with gas at $4 a gallon because of his failed energy policies, is now trying to say that is because I couldn't drill offshore," Pelosi said in an interview. "That is not the cause, and I am not going to let him get away with it."

Her voice carries considerable weight since, as speaker, Pelosi is in a position to prevent a vote on expanded drilling from reaching the floor

And she and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, appear intent on holding the line against calls to approve drilling in areas now off limits. They mount the counterargument that the oil and gas industry is not aggressively exploring large expanses it has already leased on land and offshore. They also have urged Bush to pour some fuel from national reserves into the commercial supply chain in an effort to lower prices.

Read the rest here.

The folly of this is just amazing.

Gun control, ha!

I'm quite thankful for the Supreme Court's recent decision on District of Columbia v. Heller to reaffirm an individual right to bear arms. It was important because:

It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to address directly whether the right to keep and bear arms is a right of individuals or a collective right that applies only to state-regulated militias.

Simple logic shows that the first part of the amendment has nothing to do with the National Guard. Why, would such a right for government need to be enumerated in the Constitution anyhow? The militia in colonial times was ALL of the able-bodied men of the community. If you eliminate that historical context, it's easy to see where some would be misled into thinking the Founders wanted an armed National Guard, not an armed citizenry.

So I was flipping through the channels last night and that 30 Days documentary series on FX was on, done by Morgan Spurlock, director of the anti-fast food documentary "Super-Size Me." The episode was an, ahem, interesting take on the gun control debate. This 39 year old aerobics instructor from the People's Republic of Massachusetts, Pia Lalli, is sent to live with this gun enthusiast straight from central casting with his triple-wide mobile home, ridiculously large collection of firearms (you could have a few guns and use the rest of the money to get a REAL house) and son who seemed brainwashed like he was in some sort of religious cult.
From the show's description on the FX site:

After Pia learned that her friend had been killed by a schizophrenic man wielding a gun in 1996, she became a gun control advocate who has fought to pass stricter gun laws in the U.S. Pia believes that the world would be free from gun violence only by prohibiting the sale of guns to anyone outside of law enforcement and armed services.

For 30 Days, Pia will live in the heart of gun culture in the rural town of Leesburg, Ohio with gun enthusiast Ken Ekermeyer, 39, and his 15-year-old son Zach. Ken is an avid gun collector and rarely leaves home without his gun strapped to his side. Ken believes carrying a gun is his right guaranteed to every American by the Second Amendment. As Pia struggles to understand the Ekermeyer's beliefs and somewhat isolated way of life, she will work at a local gun store and experience what it is like to carry a gun in public, learn to handle and fire weapons and will introduce Ken to other gun control activists who have lost loved ones to gun violence.

Find out more here.

Pia fires a gun and immediately starts bawling. I know why, but it still was tragicomic. She said that every time she heard a gun go off, "she thought of a child dying." Oh Lord.

Also, the two gun control activists tried to browbeat Ekermeyer and put the blame on him and his hobby for the loss of their loved ones.

But the one question these folks, who tried desperately to pawn themselves off as only seeking sensible gun control laws, failed to answer is: who does these laws affect? It certainly isn't Ekermeyer, who follows the laws. It's criminals. It's amazing how this simple bit of logic eludes most liberals.

There was one thing she brought up that I agree with: the honor system on the background check application should not be used. Even though privacy concerns would probably prevent this, I'd like to see an extended stay in a mental institution appear on an FBI background check.

I'd also like to see increased penalties for gun store owners who don't follow the law when it comes to the selling of firearms and for those who purchase guns for others, who then go and commit crimes.

But these people never stop at just that. Reasonable is not what they seek. Pia wants only the government and the military (and by default, criminals) with guns. But in the cities where there is a near-complete ban on firearms, there is a correspondingly high rate of murders and property crime. It's either be a victim or take responsibility for your own self-defense.