The Daily Gouge, Friday, July 27th, 2012

On July 26, 2012, in Uncategorized, by magoo1310

It’s Friday, July 27th, 2012….and here’s The Gouge!

We lead off the last edition of the week with Kimberly Strassel’s thoughts regarding….

Four Little Words

Why the Obama campaign is suddenly so worried.

 

What’s the difference between a calm and cool Barack Obama, and a rattled and worried Barack Obama? Four words, it turns out.

“You didn’t build that” is swelling to such heights that it has the president somewhere unprecedented: on defense. Mr. Obama has felt compelled—for the first time in this campaign—to cut an ad in which he directly responds to the criticisms of his now-infamous speech, complaining his opponents took his words “out of context.”

Taken out of context?  Really?!?

That ad follows two separate ones from his campaign attempting damage control. His campaign appearances are now about backpedaling and proclaiming his love for small business. And the Democratic National Committee produced its own panicked memo, which vowed to “turn the page” on Mr. Romney’s “out of context . . . BS”—thereby acknowledging that Chicago has lost control of the message.

The Obama campaign has elevated poll-testing and focus-grouping to near-clinical heights, and the results drive the president’s every action: his policies, his campaign venues, his targeted demographics, his messaging. That Mr. Obama felt required—teeth-gritted—to address the “you didn’t build that” meme means his vaunted focus groups are sounding alarms.

The obsession with tested messages is precisely why the president’s rare moments of candor—on free enterprise, on those who “cling to their guns and religion,” on the need to “spread the wealth around”—are so revealing. They are a look at the real man. It turns out Mr. Obama’s dismissive words toward free enterprise closely mirror a speech that liberal Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren gave last August. (Actually, as detailed below, both of them were uttering the ideas of another.)

Ms. Warren’s argument—that government is the real source of all business success—went viral and made a profound impression among the liberal elite, who have been pushing for its wider adoption. Mr. Obama chose to road-test it on the national stage, presumably thinking it would underline his argument for why the wealthy should pay more. It was a big political misstep, and now has the Obama team seriously worried.

And no wonder. The immediate effect was to suck away the president’s momentum. Mr. Obama has little positive to brag about, and his campaign hinges on keeping negative attention on his opponent. For months, the president’s team hammered on Mr. Romney’s time at Bain, his Massachusetts tenure, his tax returns. “You didn’t build that” shifted the focus to the president, and his decision to respond to the criticisms has only legitimized them and guaranteed they continue.

The Obama campaign’s bigger problem, both sides are now realizing, is that his words go beyond politics and are more devastating than the Romney complaints that Mr. Obama is too big-government oriented or has mishandled the economy. They raise the far more potent issue of national identity and feed the suspicion that Mr. Obama is actively hostile to American ideals and aspirations. Republicans are doing their own voter surveys, and they note that Mr. Obama’s problem is that his words cause an emotional response, and that they disturb voters in nearly every demographic.

It’s why Mr. Obama’s “out of context” complaints aren’t getting traction. The Republican National Committee’s response to that gripe was to run an ad that shows a full minute of Mr. Obama’s rant at the Roanoke, Va., campaign event on July 13. In addition to “you didn’t build that,” the president also put down those who think they are “smarter” or “work harder” than others. Witness the first president to demean the bedrock American beliefs in industriousness and exceptionalism. The “context” only makes it worse.

This gets to the other reason the Obama campaign is rattled: “You didn’t build that” threatens to undermine its own argument against Mr. Romney. Mr. Obama has been running on class warfare and the notion that Mr. Romney is a wealthy one-percenter out of touch with average Americans. Yet few things better symbolize the average American than a small-business owner. To the extent that Mr. Romney is positioning himself as champion of that little business guy and portraying Mr. Obama as something alien, he could flip the Obama narrative on its head.

It would be all the more potent were Mr. Romney to use “you didn’t build that” to launch his own economic narrative. One unexpected side effect of “you didn’t build that” is that it has emboldened the GOP to re-embrace and glory in free enterprise (so abused since the financial crash). And the president’s disparaging attack on business has also made voters more open to a defense of it.

Meaning, it’s a perfect time to marry emotion with some policy. Mr. Romney has explained why the president doesn’t get it. The next step is to explain why his own tax policies, regulatory proposals, and entitlement plans are the answer for those who actually do the building. The president is on defense. We’ll see if Mr. Romney can keep him there.

We hope he has better luck than he attempting to ingratiate himself with the Brits!

Romney causes London stir over Olympic readiness remark

 

Atta boy, Mitt; in the finest traditions of George Allen and The Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight, open mouth, insert foot.

Meanwhile, as our next item details, courtesy of Bill Meisen and Gateway Pundit, The Dear Misleader continues to live down to his scornful sobriquet:

Busted… Team O Plants 3 “Surprised” Veterans at Out-of-the-Way Diner to Speak With Obama – Then Releases Their Bios 

 

What a coincidence! Obama just happened to find three friendly veterans in a booth at a Portland diner this week. It was a “surprise stop.” At least, that’s what local King5 told us:

Customers at a Northeast Portland restaurant were surprised to see President Barack Obama walk in Tuesday, and some even chatted with him over their morning coffee.

The President made an unscheduled stop at the Gateway Breakfast House on 114th and NE Halsey just after noon. The neighborhood greasy spoon is known for its huge portions and great service.  He greeted diners and bantered about what he was going to eat and how everyone was doing, according to Jeff Mapes, an Oregonian political writer traveling with the president as part of the media pool.

President Obama sat at a table with three veterans, Dean Dilley of Portland, Mark Peterson of Portland and Thomas Foeller of Oak Grove. They appeared to talk about health care issues and expenses and at one point the president said emphatically with a smile, “That one we can do right away. You heard it from the Commander in Chief.””

But then the truth eked its way out — The three veterans were not regulars. They just happened to be sitting in a booth at the diner when Obama popped in. In fact, the Obama Campaign even had a copy of their bios on hand. And, one of the veterans just happens to be an Obama for America volunteer!

What a complete surprise. It was all manufactured – just for Obama.

….Like every other aspect of his artificial persona.  Not only didn’t the three men know each other, but earlier that morning, all three were met by a White House staffer and driven to the restaurant so as to arrive shortly before The Great Prevaricator.

Remember, nothing this man does is unrehearsed, no photo-op unstaged and no speeches delivered audiences not pre-screened and pre-approved….like every other aspect of his artificial persona.  It’s all there in John 8:44.

Next up, Larry Elder weighs in on the aspect of gun ownership no on the Left, which includes the MSM, want to acknowledge, let alone discuss:

Yes, Guns Kill, But How Often Are They Used in Self-Defense?

 

About the tragedy in Aurora, Colo., rapper/actor Ice-T made more sense — and has a better understanding of the Second Amendment — than gun-control proponents. Asked by a London news anchor about America’s gun culture, Ice-T said: “Well, I’d give up my gun when everybody does. Doesn’t that make sense? … If there were guns here, would you want to be the only person without one?” (If?  There ARE guns in Britain….but just for the cops and the robbers!)

Anchor Krishnan Guru-Murthy, Channel 4 News: “So do you carry guns routinely at home?”

Ice-T: “Yeah, it’s legal in the United States. It’s part of our Constitution. You know, the right to bear arms is because that’s the last form of defense against tyranny. Not to hunt. It’s to protect yourself from the police.”

Anchor: “And do you see any link between that and these sorts of (Aurora-type) incidents?”

Ice-T: “No. Nah. Not really. You know what I’m saying, if somebody wants to kill people, you know, they don’t need a gun to do it.”

Anchor: “It makes it easier, though, doesn’t it?”

Ice-T: “Not really. You can strap explosives on your body. They do that all the time.”

Anchor: “So when there’s the inevitable backlash of the anti-gun lobby, as a result of this instance, as there always is–“

Ice-T: “Well, that’s not going to change anything. … The United States is based on guns.”

Security experts say a determined killer, willing to give up his own life, cannot be stopped. The odds, however, can be shifted in favor of the victims and would-be victims. How?

In Pearl, Miss., a gunman who killed two students and wounded seven at a high school was stopped by an assistant principal, who rushed to his car and got his gun. The assistant principal, running back with his .45, spotted the rifle-carrying shooter in the parking lot. Ordering the teen to stop, the vice principal held his gun to the shooter’s neck until police arrived.

In Salt Lake City, a man purchased a knife in a grocery store, walked outside and stabbed and critically injured two men. He was threatening others, when a store patron with a concealed weapons permit drew his gun, forced the attacker to the ground and held him until police arrived.

In Grundy, Va., a disgruntled student on the verge of his second suspension at Appalachian School of Law shot and killed the dean, a professor and a fellow student. Two students, both off-duty peace officers, ran to their cars, retrieved their guns and used them to halt the attack.

No one knows whether Aurora would have turned out differently had there been an armed patron or two inside the theater. But at the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting, where 32 people died, there was a no-guns policy — just as, apparently, at the movie theater in Aurora.

For a guaranteed blank stare, ask gun-control proponents how often Americans use guns to defend themselves. They can’t tell you, because they don’t ask. (Furthermore, they don’t really care.)

Suppose a guy goes to a baseball game. “Honey,” his wife asks afterward, “who won the game?” The husband says, “The Dodgers scored four runs.” What’s missing? Obviously, the wife still knows nothing about the outcome because she knows only one-half of the equation. Well, how can one responsibly discuss “how many people die because of guns” without discussing the other half of the equation — how many people would not be alive without their defensive use of a gun?

So, how often do Americans use firearms for self-defense?

Criminologist Gary Kleck estimates that 2.5 million Americans use guns to defend themselves each year. Out of that number, 400,000 believe that but for their firearms, they would have been dead.

Professor Emeritus James Q. Wilson, the UCLA public policy expert, says: “We know from Census Bureau surveys that something beyond 100,000 uses of guns for self-defense occur every year. We know from smaller surveys of a commercial nature that the number may be as high as 2 1/2 or 3 million. We don’t know what the right number is, but whatever the right number is, it’s not a trivial number.”

Former Manhattan Assistant District Attorney David P. Koppel studied gun control for the Cato Institute. Citing a 1979-1985 study by the National Crime Victimization Survey, Koppel found: “When a robbery victim does not defend himself, the robber succeeds 88 percent of the time, and the victim is injured 25 percent of the time. When a victim resists with a gun, the robbery success rate falls to 30 percent, and the victim injury rate falls to 17 percent. No other response to a robbery — from drawing a knife to shouting for help to fleeing — produces such low rates of victim injury and robbery success.”

When asked if additional gun laws would be beneficial or have no effect, most Americans, like Ice-T, get it. They oppose shifting power to the criminal. And they don’t need the National Rifle Association to tell them: The only people willing to abide by additional gun laws are the law-abiding.

If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns; a category which will include a significant number of government employees supposedly….

….on our side.  Though a few former residents of Ruby Ridge, ID and Waco, TX might beg to differ.

Here’s the juice: the problem with the debate on gun control is the vast majority of those offering opinions don’t know a breech from a barrel.  They are talking out of their back-sides using fabricated figures, meaningless statistics and ignoring the very existence of guns as the only legitimate form of self-defense.

Case in point; to the Brady Bunch and their unyielding supporters in Congress and the MSM, this….

….is an “assault rifle”, while this….

….is a hunting rifle.  One more time; to those not interested in fact-based, honest debate, this….

….is a weapon or war which should be kept out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, while this….

….is acceptable for hunting.

Problem is, in both cases, absent certain minor modifications and cosmetic touches, they’re the same weapon, the former being a Ruger Mini-14, the latter a Remington 870 Wingmaster.  The entire concept of banning “assault weapons” is a red herring, as so-called “assault weapons” are used in less than 1% of crimes in which guns are involved. (http://gunsafe.org/position%20statements/Guns%20and%20crime.htm)

Most importantly, the 2nd Amendment wasn’t about hunting or personal self-defense; those were both givens in 18th-century America.  No, the Right to Bear Arms wasn’t purposefully enshrined in the Constitution to permit us individual protection, but to provide a meaningful, common defense against government tyranny.

In the words of Thomas Jefferson, “Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not.”  And that applies to enemies, both foreign AND domestic!

Speaking of the government seeking to exert control beyond its legal boundaries,….

Legal eagles cry fowl over pols’ plan to block Chick-fil-A

 

As Chicago became the latest city to tell Chick-fil-A it isn’t welcome because its president doesn’t support gay marriage, legal experts said the communities don’t have a drumstick to stand on.

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel became the second big-city mayor to blast the company over president Dan Cathy’s comment last week that he is “guilty as charged” for supporting the traditional definition of marriage. Emanuel spoke up after Alderman Proco Joe Moreno announced he intends to block the chain from opening its second Chicago location over his stance.

But barring the popular fast-food restaurant over the personal views of Cathy is an “open and shut” discrimination case, legal scholars told FoxNews.com. “The government can regulate discrimination in employment or against customers, but what the government cannot do is to punish someone for their words,” said Adam Schwartz, senior attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois. “When an alderman refuses to allow a business to open because its owner has expressed a viewpoint the government disagrees with, the government is practicing viewpoint discrimination.”

The ACLU “strongly supports” same-sex marriage, Schwartz said, but noted that if a government can exclude a business for being against same-sex marriage, it can also exclude a business for being in support of same-sex marriage.

“But we also support the First Amendment,” he said. “We don’ think the government should exclude Chick-fil-A because of the anti-LGBT message. (WHAT “anti-LGBT message”?!?  Cathy said he’s against redefining marriage, not killing queers.) We believe this is clear cut.”

Jonathan Turley, a professor at the George Washington University Law School, said Moreno’s intentions raises “serious” constitutional concerns. “It’s also a very slippery slope,” Turley told FoxNews.com. “If a City Council started to punish companies because of the viewpoints of their chief operating officers, that would become a very long list of banned companies.” If Moreno did indeed put such a plan into action, it would be “excessive and likely unconstitutional,” Turley said.

Wilson Huhn, a professor and associate director of the Constitutional Law Center at The University of Akron School of Law, echoed Turley’s stance, saying that a denial on behalf of Moreno regarding a second Chick-fil-A restaurant in Chicago’s Logan Square neighborhood would “absolutely” violate the First Amendment. “It would be an open and shut case,” Huhn said. “You can’t do that. They cannot be denied a zoning permit based upon the viewpoint of their CEO.”

Moreno and Emanuel can express their personal opinion on the matter, Huhn said, including the organization of boycotts and protests against the fast food chain. “But if official action were taken against Chick-fil-A based upon their opposition to same-sex marriage by denying them permits or to prevent their restaurant from expanding, that would absolutely be viewpoint discrimination,” Huhn said.

We don’t know about you, but all this makes us want to do is….

And in the Environmental Moment, all NASA gets for its latest effort to push the green agenda is another black eye for the increasingly irrelevant organization:

Skeptics put the freeze on NASA ‘hot air’ about Greenland ice

 

NASA’s claim that Greenland is experiencing “unprecedented” melting is nothing but a bunch of hot air, according to scientists who say the country’s ice sheets melt with some regularity. A heat dome over the icy country melted a whopping 97 percent of Greenland’s ice sheet in mid-July, NASA said, calling it yet more evidence of the effect man is having on the planet.

But the unusual-seeming event had nothing to do with hot air, according to glaciologists. It was actually to be expected. “Ice cores from Summit station [Greenland’s coldest and highest] show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time,” said Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data.

But rather than a regular 150-year planetary cycle, the new NASA report calls the melt “unprecedented,” the result of a recent strong ridge of warm air, or a heat dome, over Greenland — one of a series that has dominated Greenland’s weather since the end of May. “Each successive ridge has been stronger than the previous one,” said Thomas Mote, a climatologist at the University of Georgia. This latest heat dome started to move over Greenland on July 8, and then parked itself over the ice sheet about three days later. By July 16, it had begun to dissipate, along with the ice, NASA said.

Climate skeptics said the NASA report itself was the only “unprecedented” item. NASA should start distributing dictionaries to the authors of its press releases,” joked Patrick J. Michaels, a climatologist and the author of the World Climate Report blog.

“It’s somewhat like the rush to blame severe weather and drought on global warming,” Anthony Watts, a noted climate skeptic and the author of the Watts Up With That blog, told FoxNews.com. “Yet when you look into the past, you find precedence for what is being described today as unprecedented.”

It’s the latest hot water for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, which critics say has shifted focus and priorities from space and aeronautics to the earth we live on — and the planet’s changing climate.

….NASA ice scientist Tom Wagner told the Associated Press researchers don’t know precisely how much of Greenland’s ice had melted in this latest event, but it seems to be freezing again.

You mean….like….because it’s getting….colder?!?  Yet another startling scientific discovery by the group that brought us the Apollo I fire, the Challenger disaster, the Mars Lander misadventure, the Hubble blunder and the Columbia calamity.

You have to love an organization whose egregious, unforced errors cost taxpayers billions of dollars, not to mention 17 lives, yet like the FBI and ATF teams at Ruby Ridge and Waco, nary a head rolled nor a job lost.

On the Lighter Side….

Finally, we’ll call it a week with two feline-oriented videos; first, the cutest little kitten….

….followed by an complete pussy:

Enjoy the weekend!

Magoo



Archives