Now that the White House has lashed out at Bob Woodward for daring to point out that the sequestration was Obama’s idea, other reporters are coming forward to reveal similar confrontations with White House press representatives.

The second link above takes you to a New York Post article where reporters reveal being called bitch, c@nt, and a$$4ole. Now, I don’t care what you think about these terms in general. Use them or don’t. But when these words are used in official representation of our White House to the press, I am outraged. This is nothing less than outright intimidation of the press corps. We all know that the press has been in the progressive, Democrat, liberal tank for at least 40 years, and the moment they choose to even question that side of the political spectrum, our own government chooses to call them a$$4oles?!

I have been ashamed to have Obama as president for many years. He is a disgrace to the office. But treating people like this, arguably political allies like this – well he’s just a disgrace. Any decent person would have thrown people out on their asses for speaking to anyone like this as a representative of the United States government. Letting it persist is shameful, dishonorable, disgraceful.

I’m waiting with baited breath to see how the media ultimately reacts to this. Will they finally see the ugliness of the liberal regime and allow themselves to be free of their ideological bonds, or will they shrink back into their shells, unable to stomach just how ugly their side has become.

The sequester has taken front seat in recent discourse, but with its passage, I’m sure we’ll see a renewal of the discussion about “immigration reform.” Mixed in among the arguments for closing the border, more patrols, and more funding for immigration personnel, are those pushing for amnesty, a portion of whom think borders are stupid anyway. These “Open Borders” advocates support a completely unchecked movement of people and product across any border, effectively making borders merely a gesture.

Open borders might be ok if 100% of the human race were benevolent, desiring only to do good things. But we all know that’s a ridiculous notion. Besides, what’s “good” to you might not be “good” to me, so even if 100% of the human race had good intentions, things just wouldn’t work out “all good.”

So I propose the following exercise when confronted by an Open Borders advocate (or some variation thereof):

Approach the Open Borders advocate area

Find an unattended backpack (purse, duffel, etc)

Proceed to rifle through the contents until someone notices and says something like,

“Hey! That’s my backpack!”

To which you respond,

“No it’s not.”

“Yes it is! That’s my backpack!”

Hand the backpack over and respond, “No, it’s not! It’s a border. It’s a boundary around things you want to keep safe, and private, and together. It’s a border around things that are important to you.”

And watch as their Open Borders foundation falls out from under their feet.

As you may have already heard, the House passed the renewal of the Violence Against Women Act today. Isn’t it great how with just a strategically designed name, it becomes caustic to vote against a bill? “Oh my gosh! You voted against the Violence Against Women Act?! I can’t believe you don’t want to prevent violence against women!”

How ludicrous.

First of all, I thought women and men should be treated as equals. Yes? No? Oh, you mean women should be treated as equals as far as the workplace, but not when it comes to violence? Really? Well let me throw you a curve ball – how about workplace violence?

Tell you what. I support a Violence Against Children Act. I mean, isn’t violence against children important to prevent? But wait, children are also available in different sexes and we’ve declared that violence against women needs specific attention, so we need a Violence Against Female Children Act. Ok, good.

But wait! Some children are more susceptible to violence, like those who are physically smaller than their peers or who have disabilities, so let’s do a Violence Against Children Who May or May Not Be in the Lower 25th Percentile in Height Compared to Their Peers and Who Also May or May Not Be Physically and/or Mentally Disabled. Whew! Done!

Oh crap, wait! We forgot to include a sexual distinction in that last one so we need another one to Violence Against Female Children or Male Children Who May or May Not Be in the Lower… And on, and on, and on, and on.

It’s VIOLENCE people. VIOLENCE. Violence is bad, period. It’s not worse when it’s committed against a particular type of person. Is violence against men not as bad as violence against women? Then why do we need a completely separate effort to combat it?

I’ll tell you why. Because it’s a convenient political trick to divide us and demonize politicians who don’t believe that one type of violence deserves more attention than another. If you consider that administration of multiple efforts against violence actually dilutes the effectiveness of them all, those drafting, lobbying for, and voting for a non-universal anti-violence act are simply making things worse.

Furthermore, we already have an anti-violence mechanism, it’s called a justice system. Violence should be punished and efforts should be made to prevent it. Instituting something in addition to a justice system has the effect of taking resources away from one anti-violence effort and handing them to another, in the process adding layers upon layers of inefficiency and bloat.

Justice is swift, except when it gets bogged down in identity politics. Legislation such as the Violence Against Women Act does just that.

All these arguments about gun control focused on the 2nd Amendment. Forget the 2nd Amendment. Bring up the reports finding that gun control doesn’t improve safety.* Demonstrate that the most violent communities are those with the most restrictive gun laws.** Reiterate that all but one mass shooting since the 1950’s have taken place in “gun free zones.”***

Then ask a gun control proponent, “Why do you want more murder and mayhem? In the face of all this data demonstrating that more stringent gun control causes more harm and death, why do you want more stringent gun control? Why do you want society to be less safe? Why do you want the entire country to be like Chicago, where 516 people were murdered in 2012?”

Make gun control advocates own it. Make it perfectly clear to the entire world that they are advocating for more harm, more death. Yes, I think the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to prevent government from restricting access to guns, but to argue about the meaning of the 2nd Amendment is to miss the bigger point…

Gun control advocates support policy that fosters murder and mayhem. They can rant and rave and demonize all they want to. Focus on the data. The data exposes the truth.

* “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International Evidence” Kates/Mauser, 2006 (An extract: “In this connection two recent studies are pertinent. In 2004 the U.S. National Academy of Sciences released its evaluation from an review of 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications and some empirical research of its own. It could not identify any gun control that had reduced violent crime, suicide or gun accidents. The same conclusion was reached in a 2003 study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control’s review of then extant studies.”)

** Chicago, DC, New York City

*** A quote from an interview by National Review of John Lott after the Newtown shootings, “With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.”

Today we had some of the strongest winds I can remember encountering in my lifetime.

I became worried that we might lose some of our trees, so I stepped out into the yard.

As the wind pushed me around, I watched the trees bend and sway, but they did not fall.

I was amazed at their strength.

I realized that the trees were like us.

People fighting for freedom, on the battlefield, in the courtroom, the classroom, the office.

The trees stood against a force so powerful it seemed it would rip them from the ground.

Perhaps someday, history will remember how we stood against powerful forces poised to take freedom away, and we stood.

Like the mighty trees.

Recently a confidential memo was leaked, exposing possible strategic initiatives of an organization called Blueprint NC. This organization is a non-profit founded for the purpose of organizing and magnifying the power of the left as a vehicle of intimidation and coercion of North Carolina political opponents. The official mission of Blueprint NC sounds quite noble, including passages such as “…dedicated to achieving a better, fairer, healthier North Carolina…better access to health care, higher wages, more affordable housing, a safer, cleaner environment, and access to reproductive health services.” However, when you read the leaked memo, the methods they intended to use to achieve these goals don’t share quite the same moral high ground.

Consider the following, “Eviscerate, Mitigate, Litigate, Cogitate and Agitate.” Sounds wonderful doesn’t it? Really gives you a feeling that if we just gave Blueprint a few minutes to tell us about their initiatives we’d just fall all over each other to adopt them. I’d like to ask, “If your initiatives are so superior, if your ideals so wonderful, why do you have to ‘Eviscerate, Mitigate, Litigate, Cogitate and Agitate’ to get them through the political process?” The answer is clear, because the initiatives and ideals of Blueprint NC and the entire “progressive” movement are so destructive they would reflexively be rejected if not cloaked in a veil of misinformation and distraction.

It’s much easier to forward an agenda of “better access to health care” when you can accuse opponents of wanting “worse access to health care.” No one but the most vile person would want to pursue anything other than better access to health care, but even if the progressive approach is completely impractical (force everyone to buy insurance or pay a penalty, demand certain insurance inclusions, ignore tort reform, ignore fraud, ignore emergency room care abuse, e.g. “Obamacare”), if you simply characterize any other approach as not wanting better access, these other approaches, even if more viable, can be universally demonized.

Now I have another question, “Why would you want to demonize an approach that would actually improve access to health care?” Because it’s not about improving access to health care, it’s about winning. It’s about moving your agenda forward regardless of practicality, because it’s your idea. Progressives are incapable of allowing alternative viewpoints into the debate because they are incapable of allowing their ideas to be discredited. In the end, ego trumps all.

Progressivism, leftism, statism, whatever you want to call it is social INjustice writ large. There is no additional justice for society through progressive initiatives. There is only power for their members, and pain for their opposition.

I’ve wanted to use Obama’s statement about making electricity prices skyrocket in a debate for some time. He’s back in the news talking about it again, so here is my take…

In 2008 then candidate Obama made the statement, “Under my cap and trade plan, electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket.”

When a man goes on record as making such a statement, what does that say about that man? Either he is a fool, or he is incredibly wicked, and I don’t think Obama is a fool.

Who purchases electricity? Do poor people purchase electricity? Why would Obama want electricity prices to skyrocket if it would make electricity more expensive for poor people?

Do manufacturers purchase electricity in order to make things? If it costs more to make things won’t the prices go up? Of course! Do poor people buy things? Then why would Obama want to make things more expensive for poor people?

Obama’s not stupid, he is wicked. He understands the implications of electricity prices “necessarily” skyrocketing. He knows it will stress the poor much more than it will stress the rich, but he’s willing to make it happen because he cares more about demonizing and destroying “the rich” than he does about the poor. He cares more about appealing to his environmentalist voting bloc than he does about making food and staples more affordable to manufacture and sell.

Obama’s statement reveals something further about his persona. He understands that the administrative power of the federal government has been perverted beyond any reasonable intention and he is perfectly comfortable using that power to artificially and arbitrarily implement change. He has no hesitation unilaterally enacting policy to affect his wishes, against any and all resistance.

Obama is an administrative dictator. He knows it, and he told us in 2008 that he is perfectly fine with that. Poor people be damned.

Colorado Senators,

The passage of Colorado House Bill 13-1226 compels me to write this letter. I am not a Coloradoan, but my daughter attends college in Colorado. As such, I must express my absolute disgust with this and any legislative attempt to reduce her safety by limiting her access to means of protection.

Colorado Democrats* either don’t fully grasp the darkness of the criminal mind, or are so frightened by it they prefer to ignore it, hiding behind the illusion of legislated safety. Unfortunately for those who legislate against protection, reality will always trump fantasy.

Following some incredibly irresponsible statements during discussion of HB 13-1226, rape has received a great deal of media attention. Considering that 89 rapes were committed on Colorado campuses in 2011**, and being a father of a young woman in your university system, rape is a legitimate concern. In a pathetic attempt to downplay the issue, Colorado Democrats have decided that a woman does not have the right to choose an effective means of protection because apparently women are unable to accurately determine that they are indeed being raped, and are unable to safely or responsibly manage a deadly weapon.

I am not a woman, but if I were I would be insulted. Insulted that Colorado Democrats have limited my access to an effective means of protection, instead advising me to blow a whistle and urinate. I guess as long as I have access to birth control I shouldn’t be concerned about a strange man forcing himself on me. It’s not like I’ll have to carry his baby, right?

The passage of HB 13-1226 signals that Colorado Democrats prefer to spare a rapist the pain of getting shot rather than spare a woman the pain of having a man force himself on her, that a rapist’s life be spared while a woman’s life is destroyed. To that I ask, “Would you rather live with the fact that you shot a man, or live with the fact that a man forced his body into yours, over, and over, and over again; breathing, panting, drooling, smirking; then left you to wipe off the remnants and try to go on living as normal?”

Well?

Colorado Democrats prefer to imagine a rapist as an innocent college boy who had a little too much to drink and just wanted to have some fun. Being drunk does not excuse violent assault, nor the consequences of that assault, and using your imagination to characterize a rapist as an otherwise squeaky clean collegiate is childish and dishonest.

Consider a man. A powerful, lustful man. Sexually frustrated. Sexually desperate. How dark his mind would have to be to grab, strangle, threaten, rip, tear, thrust, finish, then get up and walk away. Rape is not an alcohol fueled sex romp gone awry. It is a vicious use of power and violence, it is the destruction of a soul, the beginning of a lifelong nightmare.

As a student in Colorado, I want my daughter to have access to whatever she feels is necessary for her protection. She might never carry a gun, but the fact that Colorado Democrats would choose to deny her that option disgusts me. The fact that Colorado Democrats would question her ability to determine whether or not she is being raped disgusts me. And the fact that Colorado Democrats belittle the monumental decision she would make in choosing to use deadly force disgusts me.

I hope – with all of the hope available to me – I hope my daughter never gets raped. But if she does, I want each of you, if you vote for these protection-limiting bills, to know that I will hold you personally responsible. I want each of you to know that you will go to bed every night for the rest of your life with the knowledge that there is a man out there who holds you personally responsible for the living hell his daughter must now endure.

If you don’t want that responsibility, I suggest you vote down any and all anti-gun, anti-protection, anti-freedom legislation, now and forever. It’s easy to vote for legislation that feels good. It’s much more difficult to accept responsibility for the pain afterward.

And responsible you will be.

* As per openstates.org: 33 Democrats votes for, 28 Republicans and 3 Democrats voted against, for a 33-31 passage

** As per statistics provided by the US Department of Education through The Campus Safety and Security Data Cutting Tool (Queried for all Colorado institution data for “Criminal Offenses – On-campus” and “Criminal Offenses – On-campus Student Housing Facilities” reported instances of “Sex Offenses: Forcible”)

I don’t necessarily agree that the Republican party will cease to exist if it doesn’t change it’s behavior. I think that’s impossible to predict, however, I do think Republicans will find the future difficult if they continue a policy of “Democrat-lite” through compromise, because Democrats simply don’t compromise. It seems a stretch to think you’ll survive by compromising with an opposition hell bent on your destruction.

Rather than being on a path to inevitable doom, I think the stage is set for a Republican resurgence and perhaps dominance, given one, decisive change, becoming explicitly “Anti-Democrat”.

The Democrats believe they are in control of the American body politic. They think the 2012 reelection of Obama is a signal that they are politically indestructible, and in reaction have brazenly rallied around what was always their party platform – control.

Democrats are all about control. The more rules and regulations the better, and when they can’t get these things through the legislative process, they simply bypass the legal process through administrative or executive action. It’s their way or the highway and if you don’t like it, that’s cute but too bad since you can’t do anything about it – peasant.

The Democrats have attached themselves so firmly to a policy of control that an anti-Democrat mantra instantly and automatically positions you as a champion of freedom. If the Democrats want to be the party of control, let them. Take the opposite side, the side of freedom. The bumper stickers practically write themselves…

Republicans believe in you
Democrats don’t

Republicans fight for freedom
Democrats fight for control

Vote Democrat
Who doesn’t want more rules?

Republicans: It’s all about you
Democrats: It’s all about me!

I don’t consume much “mainstream media” because I grew tired of the liberal bias and character bashing, but I was on the road yesterday flipping stations and happened upon a “news” channel, so I listened for a bit.

There was a segment previewing the coming Martin/Zimmerman case where Travon Martin was characterized as a “child” and George Zimmerman was called a “creepy neighborhood guy,” followed by a call in segment with Ann Coulter. The final minute of the call was devoted to Benghazi, and how Republicans are blocking the confirmation of Hagel and Brennan until better answers are provided in explanation of the situation in Benghazi and the deaths of four Americans. The radio hosts insisted that the Republicans are playing politics. When Coulter countered that the people who died at Benghazi might have been saved, the hosts resolutely said that they could not have been saved, that a rescue mission was irrelevant because a rescue was impossible.

I found myself asking, “Who cares?!” Who cares if a rescue was deemed impossible, try it anyway! At least try to get those guys out of there!

And then it struck me just how relevant Hillary Clinton’s infamous remark is:

What difference does it make?

So I’d like to pose a theoretical situation to the radio hosts…

Let’s say you are an American diplomat stationed far away from home. One night, a group of people start shooting into your compound, launching grenades, throwing bottles filled with diesel fuel bursting into flames.

You call your home office and say, “We’re under attack! They’re shooing at us! The place is catching fire!” The home office asks, “Who?! Who is attacking?!” You, “I don’t know! Just get us out of here!”

Now, if you were the diplomat, what would you want your government back home to be doing right now? What would you want to happen right now? Would you want someone to get on the phone and scramble some jets? Someone to tell you, “Ok! We’re on it. Just hold out for a little bit!” Or would you rather a committee gather around a conference table, find that the computer model says you can’t hold out long enough for help to arrive, and decide to do nothing?

I ask again, what would you want to happen if your foreign base was under attack? Would you want your home base to launch a rescue mission in spite of the odds? Or would you want them to call it too risky, too many questions, and leave you to die?

I think I know the answer.

So – If the Obama administration had scrambled the fighters, and the gunships, and the SEAL team, don’t you think they’d be bragging about it? Don’t you think they’d have been on every news program, in every magazine, on every social website trumpeting the fact that they made the “gutsy call” to go in when the experts said there was no way – no way you were getting those guys out of there? Don’t you think the Obama administration would be shouting at FULL VOLUME how awesome they were as they told the bean counters to go to HELL, we’re getting our boys OUT!

You better believe they would.

So why aren’t they?

Because they left those men to die.

The experts said there’s no way and the Obama administration left them to die.

So I ask again, if you were the American diplomat and your base was under attack, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE if some committee says a rescue is impossible? You’d want the rescue attempted anyway. You’d want to be told, “Help is on the way!” As you look down at your casket and see your dead body half exposed, you’d want to know that your boss did everything they could, that they tried, that you were worth the “gutsy call.”