Dana Radio Guest Post

In a humbling turn of events, I was asked to help cover the Dana Loesch Radio Show blog while she takes a much-needed break from writing. See my first guest post here on the SB 1070 Supreme Court ruling.

SWAT Nonsense. Again.

Earlier today, Aaron Worthing was given the go-ahead to speak publicly about domestic terrorist Brett Kimberlin. Within hours, men with automatic weapons arrived at Worthing's front door, on an "anonymous" tip that he had shot his wife.
If you think those things aren't connected, there's a bridge I could sell you.

In recent weeks, SWATting has become all the rage. If you annoy the wrong people, chances are someone will call in a tip about you or one of your family members, sending police with riot gear to your home in force.

At best, this is a waste of resources. Those SWAT teams are being paid, sometimes overtime, by taxpayers who would prefer to see their money go to something...useful.
At worst, this puts lives at risk. Not just the lives of the people being SWATted - because what if a policeman misreads the situation and shoots someone in the house - but people who call 911 and have to wait because the SWAT team is out chasing a unicorn.

It's not the cops' fault - they're just doing their jobs. And most of the people who have been SWATted would likely agree.
But I, for one, would like to see some real charges filed against the people who are doing this. Reckless endangerment. Attempted homicide.

War on Religion, Continued...

Academia takes another stab at religion, this time through a supposed link between religion and crime rates.

The article published discusses a study that compared data concerning belief in heaven and hell with the crime rates in the countries where those beliefs were prevalent. They found that people who believed in a "forgiving God," or heaven, were more likely to commit crimes, while people who believed in a "punishing God," or hell, were less likely to commit crimes.

The end result was the conclusion (which was danced around but never stated outright) that Christians commit more crimes than non-Christians.

But I would submit that the study was flawed.They never once mention the people who believe in the God in the Christian Bible, who is both punishing AND forgiving. Their study only covered people who believed in one aspect of God or another, not His entire being.

To truly link Christianity to crime rates, one would have to know the hearts and minds of the people involved. And while I would submit that the study may indeed be accurate (though not in the way the academics might think) simply because no one can obey God's law perfectly, there is no way for an academic study to judge that. Academia may have the desire to measure and judge the hearts and minds of Christians, but they do not have the authority or the ability.

Send Your Gifts to Obama 2012

Are you getting married this year? Expecting a baby? Celebrating a major anniversary? If so, the Obama Administration wants to help take some of the pressure off.

How, you ask? Simple.

No longer do you need to spend hours poring over store registries imagining your dream kitchen. No longer will you be forced to select a color scheme for your master bath. No longer will you have to rub your growing belly while agonizing over the perfect carseat, stroller, or bassinet sheets for your coming bundle of joy.

Well, actually, you WILL still have to do all of these things. But with a little help from the Obama Administration you won’t just be able to do those things – you’ll also have the immense satisfaction of paying for them yourself instead of living with the guilt of receiving any of them as gifts.

And you know this administration is all about personal responsibility … Unless your state wants you to be personally responsible for procuring a photo ID. Unless you are a homeowner who borrowed more for your home than you can afford to pay back. Unless you are a student who borrowed $60k to get a degree in a field that will never net you more than $25k a year. Unless you want, through free birth control, to be exempt from the consequences of your own stupidity.

I could go on.

Regardless, the Obama Administration offers you this opportunity to allow your friends to give you a gift that “we can all appreciate” that “goes a lot further than a gravy bowl”: a donation to the 2012 Obama Presidential Campaign.

I’m sure we can all appreciate leadership that repeatedly does things that the people don’t want while telling us that we only don’t want it because we’re stupid.

I’m sure we can all appreciate a President who sets an example for his “transparent” government by refusing to publish his school transcripts, his senior thesis, or anything real related to Fast and Furious.

I’m sure we can all appreciate leadership that at least tacitly supports groups that engage in violent protests and the vandalism of public and private property.

And as for “going a lot further than a gravy bowl,” well, maybe that’s part of the problem.

If I get a gravy bowl, it only affects me and anyone who eats at my table. The rest of America can go on unconcerned with my gravy bowl.

If I get a gravy bowl and I don’t like it, it won’t take an act of Congress to get rid of it.

But more important than any of those things: If I get a gravy bowl and my kids don’t like it, they, their children, and all of their friends won’t be forced to pay for it.

Surrender Your Forks!

President Obama spoke earlier today at a conference for NALEO, the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials. In a move that was surprising enough that it bore repeating and a clarification of "I'm serious," the powers that be demanded that all in attendance finish eating and turn over their forks prior to the President's entrance.


Apparently, the practice of removing knives and forks from the table is not uncommon. However, the practice of having an obviously uncomfortable emcee tell everyone in the room to eat fast so they could remove all the forks is somewhat less common.

Whether or not the forkless luncheon is par for the course, the "please surrender anything you could use as a weapon" speech is a little bit insulting.

The only question I have is this: When Romney spoke to the same group just yesterday did he make the people surrender their silverware? Tweezers? Fingernail clippers?

Eric Holder: Obama's October Surprise?

Right now it looks as though "executive privilege" has become part of the Fast and Furious narrative because the White House has something to hide. That could mean that the President himself was involved or at least aware of things. That could mean that releasing the rest of the documents could implicate other members of the administration. Or it could simply mean that the Obama Administration is willing to pull out all of the stops in order to protect their pet Attorney General, Eric Holder Jr.

Theories abound as to why Eric Holder would be worth protecting. Perhaps the administration will benefit from a justice department that refuses to prosecute the New Black Panther Party for obvious voter intimidation. Perhaps the administration will benefit from a justice department that will actively fight the racism inherent in voter ID laws. I don't know. But whatever the reason, it has to be big for the President to place himself in the likely line of fire.

What if it is big? What if, instead of a move to cover Eric Holder or other administration ties to Fast and Furious, the use of executive privilege was a move to buy time?

The Obama Administration is aware, I am sure, that Fast and Furious is a scandal big enough to destroy anyone who can be legitimately tied to it. And because of people like Katie Pavlich (author of Fast and Furious: Barack Obama's Bloodiest Scandal and the Shameless Cover-Up), CBS's Sharyl Atkisson, and Breitbart.com's Mary Chastain, it is unlikely that anyone tied to Fast and Furious will escape unnoticed for long.

But Obama really only needs the executive privilege to buy him a few months. If the stories break now, he looks bad. And it's likely that a few people will remember that he himself, or at the very least, members of his administration were involved. 

But...

If he can keep the stories from breaking until October, he can make it look like he extended privilege unaware of the extent of Holder's involvement. Then, throughout the course of an internal White House investigation, he finds enough to make him realize that he needs to cut Holder, and possibly others, loose. Suddenly Obama is the victim of an Attorney General who lied to him as well as the American public, and by throwing Holder under the bus he gives himself that very important October boost. Suddenly he's the honest President who got fooled by the devious lawyer. It humanizes Obama, and demonizes someone who is not Obama. Which is exactly what an incumbent President facing a tough election (mostly because of an obvious disconnect between him and "normal Americans") needs.

Presenting for your viewing pleasure: Attorney General Eric Holder Jr,  President Obama's October surprise.

Nancy Knows Best

Yesterday the committee headed by Rep. Darrell Issa voted along strict party lines to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt for his refusal to cooperate with investigations into his role in the Fast and Furious scandal. The White House complicated matters by jumping in front of Holder and shielding him behind Executive Privilege.

Most people took that to mean that the Obama Administration was protecting its own - that perhaps they knew more about Fast and Furious than they had previously admitted and allowing those documents to be made public would expose others within the administration, possibly even including the President himself.

The contempt of Congress vote was taken because no one is above the law, not even the President. And covering up administration involvement at any level in a program that resulted in the murder of two American border agents and an unknown number of Mexicans is reprehensible. Darrell Issa's committee seeks to uncover any wrongdoing and, in doing so, to provide justice to the families of the victims.

But House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, as usual, knows better. She says that the contempt vote was a political move that was intended to keep Holder from stopping "voter suppression." "Voter suppression" is most likely code for the Voter ID laws that could pass in some states prior to the 2012 presidential election. Which means that only racists would support such a move, since Voter ID laws target minorities and only Eric Holder stands between rampant racism and the gross injustice that would likely occur if the average voter had to meet the same qualifications as someone who would like to buy cigarettes, alcohol, or a plane ticket. (Wait, does that mean the TSA is racist too???)

Thanks, Nancy, but I think we'll just take this one at face value. The contempt citation is simply the result of Eric Holder's failure to serve the American people honestly. Brian Terry's family deserves more.