02 May 2011
BGB is Moving!
Both Guns Blazing is moving to twitter.com. Follow my more concise posts, rants, opinions, and other musings at @2gunsblazing. I'll be lighting it up in 140 characters or less!
20 October 2009
It's What Was Promised
Seems foolhardy to continue with this analysis, BUT, when we are given more proof day in and day out, how can people continue to be so blind to the radical intentions of this administration?
Roger Kimball has an excellent piece on this burgeoning far-left activity coming from all the unelected czars and appointees of our transcendant, ecumenical president. Kimball sums it up nicely:
"This is the point: last November, the American people thought they were electing a “post-partisan,” “post-racial” President who would work to restore unity and self-confidence to the country. They woke up on November 5, however, to find that they had elected someone who was deeply ambivalent about America, who distrusted its founding principles of limited government, individual liberty, and local responsibility. Like his radical friends — Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Van Jones, Anita Dunn — Barack Obama wishes to transform the United States according to a model whose basic shape was supplied by the utopian schemes of the 1960s.
That’s why Anita Dunn said that Mao was one of the thinkers she most often turned to for wisdom about big-think political problems. It’s not that she admires his penchant for industrial strength homicide: rather, she admires his success at fomenting an egalitarian revolution. It’s not what we bargained for when we elected Barack Obama. But that’s what we’ve got.
The question is how much worse will things have to get before the penny drops, before the scales fall from the collective eyes of the electorate? When will voters begin that long countermarch through the institutions in order to take back the country? If not now, when?"
You can expect more aggressive actions from these fools as more people oppose their policies. They will force them through, damning the consequences and risking their own political futures while betting that administrations to follow won't have the guts to repeal their agenda. As many have observed recently, this is a center-right country. People want Washington corrected... not redirected.
(hat tip: Doug Ross)
_____
Roger Kimball has an excellent piece on this burgeoning far-left activity coming from all the unelected czars and appointees of our transcendant, ecumenical president. Kimball sums it up nicely:
"This is the point: last November, the American people thought they were electing a “post-partisan,” “post-racial” President who would work to restore unity and self-confidence to the country. They woke up on November 5, however, to find that they had elected someone who was deeply ambivalent about America, who distrusted its founding principles of limited government, individual liberty, and local responsibility. Like his radical friends — Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Van Jones, Anita Dunn — Barack Obama wishes to transform the United States according to a model whose basic shape was supplied by the utopian schemes of the 1960s.
That’s why Anita Dunn said that Mao was one of the thinkers she most often turned to for wisdom about big-think political problems. It’s not that she admires his penchant for industrial strength homicide: rather, she admires his success at fomenting an egalitarian revolution. It’s not what we bargained for when we elected Barack Obama. But that’s what we’ve got.
The question is how much worse will things have to get before the penny drops, before the scales fall from the collective eyes of the electorate? When will voters begin that long countermarch through the institutions in order to take back the country? If not now, when?"
You can expect more aggressive actions from these fools as more people oppose their policies. They will force them through, damning the consequences and risking their own political futures while betting that administrations to follow won't have the guts to repeal their agenda. As many have observed recently, this is a center-right country. People want Washington corrected... not redirected.
(hat tip: Doug Ross)
_____
15 October 2009
A New Plan for Rush Limbaugh
We have reached a point in this country where it is next to impossible for a white male to discuss an issue that involves race. Even if you are talking about an issue, perhaps even one that has been talked about by others - notably minorities, somehow it makes the white male a racist.
Here's what Rush Limbaugh should do:
Step 1.) Start an underground dog-fighting ring.
Step 2.) After you have drowned that last dog for not winning its fight, put on some sweat pants, grab your gun, and head out to the club.
Step 3.) While at the club, make it "rain" for the strippers.
Step 4.) Once it stops "raining" (money or bullets), get good and drunk, and get in your Bentley to go for a spin.
Step 5.) While driving, make sure you run over and kill someone. Be certain not to report it.
If Limbaugh follows this simple 5-step plan, he will be accepted into the NFL just like the other NFL "employees" who have done these very same things. Evidently, the only thing that is frowned on by the NFL is being a white conservative.
Side note: Where were all the minority leaders when defenseless 16-year old honor student & football player Derrion Albert was being beaten to death with a railroad tie because he wouldn't join a gang? What about HIS chances to be a part of the NFL? Where were Al Sharpton and Shelia Jackson-Lee then? For that matter, where are they NOW? Is there no money to be made in black-on-black crime? No race-hustling that can gain you a spotlight?
Get your own hypocritical house in order, Mr. Sharpton. Your, and the rest of the Left's selective outrage sickens me... especially when you have NO facts to substantiate your racist claims. That doesn't just make YOU a racist, it shows you are willfully ignorant of the truth. Yet, you still choose to repeat and spew lies to advance your own twisted agenda. Without it, you become irrelevant, and the racial divide from which you so gladly profit, might actually begin to narrow.
(hat tip: Patrick S.)
_____
Here's what Rush Limbaugh should do:
Step 1.) Start an underground dog-fighting ring.
Step 2.) After you have drowned that last dog for not winning its fight, put on some sweat pants, grab your gun, and head out to the club.
Step 3.) While at the club, make it "rain" for the strippers.
Step 4.) Once it stops "raining" (money or bullets), get good and drunk, and get in your Bentley to go for a spin.
Step 5.) While driving, make sure you run over and kill someone. Be certain not to report it.
If Limbaugh follows this simple 5-step plan, he will be accepted into the NFL just like the other NFL "employees" who have done these very same things. Evidently, the only thing that is frowned on by the NFL is being a white conservative.
Side note: Where were all the minority leaders when defenseless 16-year old honor student & football player Derrion Albert was being beaten to death with a railroad tie because he wouldn't join a gang? What about HIS chances to be a part of the NFL? Where were Al Sharpton and Shelia Jackson-Lee then? For that matter, where are they NOW? Is there no money to be made in black-on-black crime? No race-hustling that can gain you a spotlight?
Get your own hypocritical house in order, Mr. Sharpton. Your, and the rest of the Left's selective outrage sickens me... especially when you have NO facts to substantiate your racist claims. That doesn't just make YOU a racist, it shows you are willfully ignorant of the truth. Yet, you still choose to repeat and spew lies to advance your own twisted agenda. Without it, you become irrelevant, and the racial divide from which you so gladly profit, might actually begin to narrow.
(hat tip: Patrick S.)
_____
09 October 2009
A Nobel Prize in Every Box!... and Other Moon-battery
The useful idiots who award the Nobel Peace Prize have outdone themselves again. In the process, they have solidified the irrelevant nature of their once prestigious award. Somehow, President Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize, not for anything he's done, but for what he might do... oh, and maybe a couple of speeches he's given. But then again, the consensus is that this is more about a statement against former President Bush than it is anything about Obama's rhetorical accomplishments.
From the AP: "Unlike the other Nobel Prizes, which are awarded by Swedish institutions, the peace prize is given out by a five-member committee elected by the Norwegian Parliament. Like the Parliament, the committee has a leftist slant, with three members elected by left-of-center parties. Jagland said the decision to honor Obama was unanimous." When you share such an award with the other useful idiot, Jimmy Carter (now the 2nd worst president in US history), and Al "the science is settled" Gore, I'm not sure the prestige of present company is all that stellar.
By comparison, from TIME, regarding another nominee: "Compare this to Greg Mortenson, nominated for the prize by some members of Congress, who the bookies gave 20-to-1 odds of winning. Son of a missionary, a former army Medic and mountaineer, he has made it his mission to build schools for girls in places where opium dealers and tribal warlords kill people for trying. His Central Asia Institute has built more than 130 schools in Afghanistan and Pakistan - a mission which has, along the way, inspired millions of people to view the protection and education of girls as a key to peace and prosperity and progress."
Let's not forget the deadline for his application was 12 days into his presidency... 12 days.
In a related over-hyped lack of government accomplishment, can anyone explain to me why NASA feels compelled to spend $79 MILLION dollars to crash a toy into the moon? The official word from the space cadets and rocket scientists is that they hope to find evidence of water on the moon. So the REAL $79 million question is, and let's play their game for a minute, if there IS water on the moon... THEN WHAT? Are we going to colonize? Perhaps import trendy water from the moon instead of France? Maybe setup a lunar Wet N' Wild?
I'll go on record today as saying that no one in my lifetime needs to live on the moon. No one in my lifetime will need water from the moon. There has not been, and will not be, evidence of life on the moon (other than our astronauts). The moon is a giant dustball. I'm no astronomer, but seems to me that all the craters on its surface, resulting from it being pelted by wayward space rocks, tell us that it's as dry as the Mojave desert. Good enough for me. I venture to guess that a vast majority of Americans simply would rather have those tax dollars to spend here on earth... but that's just one man's $79 million opinion.
I'm just not certain which of these is more surreal to me...to believe that a first-term, unaccomplished president can be arrogant enough to file a Nobel Peace Prize application 12 days into his presidency hoping to win (and one doesn't just file unless one wants to win); or that our government who, with hundreds of millions of hard-earned tax dollars, continues to placate grown children who don't have enough toys here on earth to tinker with. And how do we continue to spend as much as we do on a space program that has yet to provide any measurable, reasonable, or rational return-on-investment?
One thing is for sure... if there is intelligent life out there (that drinks water or not), given the continued insanity of news days like this, they certainly aren't looking for us.
_____
From the AP: "Unlike the other Nobel Prizes, which are awarded by Swedish institutions, the peace prize is given out by a five-member committee elected by the Norwegian Parliament. Like the Parliament, the committee has a leftist slant, with three members elected by left-of-center parties. Jagland said the decision to honor Obama was unanimous." When you share such an award with the other useful idiot, Jimmy Carter (now the 2nd worst president in US history), and Al "the science is settled" Gore, I'm not sure the prestige of present company is all that stellar.
By comparison, from TIME, regarding another nominee: "Compare this to Greg Mortenson, nominated for the prize by some members of Congress, who the bookies gave 20-to-1 odds of winning. Son of a missionary, a former army Medic and mountaineer, he has made it his mission to build schools for girls in places where opium dealers and tribal warlords kill people for trying. His Central Asia Institute has built more than 130 schools in Afghanistan and Pakistan - a mission which has, along the way, inspired millions of people to view the protection and education of girls as a key to peace and prosperity and progress."
Let's not forget the deadline for his application was 12 days into his presidency... 12 days.
In a related over-hyped lack of government accomplishment, can anyone explain to me why NASA feels compelled to spend $79 MILLION dollars to crash a toy into the moon? The official word from the space cadets and rocket scientists is that they hope to find evidence of water on the moon. So the REAL $79 million question is, and let's play their game for a minute, if there IS water on the moon... THEN WHAT? Are we going to colonize? Perhaps import trendy water from the moon instead of France? Maybe setup a lunar Wet N' Wild?
I'll go on record today as saying that no one in my lifetime needs to live on the moon. No one in my lifetime will need water from the moon. There has not been, and will not be, evidence of life on the moon (other than our astronauts). The moon is a giant dustball. I'm no astronomer, but seems to me that all the craters on its surface, resulting from it being pelted by wayward space rocks, tell us that it's as dry as the Mojave desert. Good enough for me. I venture to guess that a vast majority of Americans simply would rather have those tax dollars to spend here on earth... but that's just one man's $79 million opinion.
I'm just not certain which of these is more surreal to me...to believe that a first-term, unaccomplished president can be arrogant enough to file a Nobel Peace Prize application 12 days into his presidency hoping to win (and one doesn't just file unless one wants to win); or that our government who, with hundreds of millions of hard-earned tax dollars, continues to placate grown children who don't have enough toys here on earth to tinker with. And how do we continue to spend as much as we do on a space program that has yet to provide any measurable, reasonable, or rational return-on-investment?
One thing is for sure... if there is intelligent life out there (that drinks water or not), given the continued insanity of news days like this, they certainly aren't looking for us.
_____
06 October 2009
Can Feingold Get Containment?
Given that Feingold is typically to the left of the Left, do we really think this is a serious venture or just an end-around the end-around? We'll see...
_____
Senate will hold hearing to probe Obama czars
By: Susan Ferrechio, Chief Congressional Correspondent
10/05/09 5:22 PM EDT
A Senate Judiciary subcommittee on Tuesday will scrutinize the "czar" system used by President Obama and previous administrations.
Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., who heads the Senate Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee, said he wants to explore whether the dozens of czars appointed by the Obama administration constitute "an end run around the advice and consent process."
Feingold said his probe does not involve Senate-confirmed czars such as the Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair. "I am most interested in those advisors who have been given important portfolios without undergoing Senate scrutiny," Feingold said.The witness list includes Matthew Spalding, of the Heritage Foundation and University of Virginia Law School's John C. Harrison.
Among the czars appointed by Obama this year was green jobs czar Van Jones, who ended up resigning after controversial past statements surfaced as well as a petition he signed accusing the Bush administration of purposely ignoring warnings of Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Other top advisors not vetted by the Senate include Afghanistan czar Richard Holbrooke and environment and energy czar Carol Browner.
_____
_____
Senate will hold hearing to probe Obama czars
By: Susan Ferrechio, Chief Congressional Correspondent
10/05/09 5:22 PM EDT
A Senate Judiciary subcommittee on Tuesday will scrutinize the "czar" system used by President Obama and previous administrations.
Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., who heads the Senate Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee, said he wants to explore whether the dozens of czars appointed by the Obama administration constitute "an end run around the advice and consent process."
Feingold said his probe does not involve Senate-confirmed czars such as the Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair. "I am most interested in those advisors who have been given important portfolios without undergoing Senate scrutiny," Feingold said.The witness list includes Matthew Spalding, of the Heritage Foundation and University of Virginia Law School's John C. Harrison.
Among the czars appointed by Obama this year was green jobs czar Van Jones, who ended up resigning after controversial past statements surfaced as well as a petition he signed accusing the Bush administration of purposely ignoring warnings of Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Other top advisors not vetted by the Senate include Afghanistan czar Richard Holbrooke and environment and energy czar Carol Browner.
_____
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
