"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt

One of Salem Oregon's Unofficial Top 1000 Conservative Political Bloggers!!!

Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Under the Weather Again

Sorry, but I'm fighting some kind of illness right now. I'll be out of the blogging world for a few days more-- maybe a week. And it's likely that I'll have to have another surgical procedure soon after (unrelated to this illness which is probably just a bad cold or the flu).

I'll post more when I can.

Yukio Ngaby

UPDATE 3/6/13: Still not feeling great. This bug is a tenacious little cuss, but I am improving. I should be back next week, I think.

In the mean time, check out Thomas Sowell's essay "Will Obama turn the United States into the world's largest banana republic?" I think the answer is he's trying-- or is he trying to turn us into the largest social-democracy... I forget which. And little difference in the long run, except for the annoying pomposity of the leadership classes in social-democracies.

Monday, February 25, 2013

Oregon Legislators Propose Gun Ban, Confiscation & Home Searches

Think I'm kidding?

Check out House Bill 3200

The Hot Air article by Jazz Shaw:

Living in New York, we’re no strangers to really restrictive new gun laws, but you sort of expect that out here. We may have some competition in the race to the bottom, though, if some legislators in Oregon have their way. In fact, if HB 3200 gets passed into law, you may as well pack up and leave the state if you have any interest in Second Amendment rights. Here’s the top line summary.
Creates crime of unlawful possession or transfer of assault weapon or large capacity magazine.
Punishes by maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment, $250,000 fine, or both.
Requires current owners to dispose of or register assault weapons and large capacity magazines.
That should be bad enough on its own, but if you really dig into the guts of this bill, it actually gets worse. After spending quite a bit of ink defining “assault weapons” as pretty much anything with cosmetic attachments which look scary to somebody, we get to the meat of the proposal.
Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall, within 120 days after the effective date of this 2013 Act, without being subject to prosecution:
(a) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state;
(b) Sell the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to a firearms dealer licensed under 18 U.S.C. 923 for lawful sale or transfer under subsection (2) of this section;
(c) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to a law enforcement agency for destruction;
(d) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable;
Oh, wait… did I say that was the bad part. I think I actually meant to refer to this truly tasty treat near the very end. After specifying that even under grandfathering you can only have one “assault rifle” and three high capacity magazines, these high level edicts are handed down.
(3) The department shall create and maintain a registry for owners of assault weapons and large capacity magazines who qualify for registration under section 4 of this 2013 Act. The department may adopt rules concerning the administration of the registry, including but not limited to renewal and revocation procedures and storage requirements for assault weapons and large capacity magazines.
(4) The department may conduct inspections of registered owners of assault weapons and large capacity magazines to ensure compliance with the storage requirements of section 4of this 2013 Act.
SECTION 6. This 2013 Act being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist, and this 2013 Act takes effect on its passage.
For all the talk I hear from gun control proponents this year about how universal background checks won’t lead to some sort of gun registry, it certainly seems like there are a lot of lawmakers who are interested in doing precisely that wherever they can. (Referring to (3) above that is.) And when it comes to (4) what can we say? We are assured on a daily basis that the authorities aren’t coming to kick down the doors of gun owners, but out in Oregon they are clearly opening the door to unscheduled, uninvited visits to people on the list.
And this is so important… so critical.. so vital… that a state of emergency must be declared to exist so the law will go into effect immediately without any period of review or challenges. Now tell me again why we’re all paranoid crazies making up fantasies about the government?

Update (Ed): Patriot Perspective’s Short Timer adds his own thoughts on this topic, and reminds us what Oregon Democrats think of gun-rights supporters:
But remember, Oregon Democrats like Lee Coleman have assured us that this kind of thing is just paranoid delusion from some people in “Kansas or whatever” so “go screw yourself.”
[emphasis mine]

Remember, if you're worried about this you're delusional, evil, and probably a racist.

Also, it's a super super-duper-red-hot-needs-to-be-done-now!now!now! emergency. If anybody's got any complaints it's too late after it's passed. 

Will it pass? I have no idea. Anything seems possible in the manufactured crisis climate that we live in. The Democrats and The Ministry of Truth media have labored mightily to create uncertainty, fear, division and at times outright hatred in this country. Maybe the gun grabbers will be able to strike while normal people are reeling from record unemployment, a dismal economy and a general distaste for all things political.

Monday, February 18, 2013

Gas Prices Up 51 Cents in Two Months

"Back to horses and scythes, I guess."

And does anyone care? If this happened under W. Bush people would be screaming about Big Oil and the "Masters of the Universe" or something. Yet, under Obama, when gas prices have really skyrocketed, we hear crickets.

From the CNS article by Julia Seymour:

Consumers are taking another huge hit in 2013. First, the two percent Social Security tax hike began the year. Now, gas prices are soaring ever closer to $4 a gallon and have jumped 51 cents a gallon since Dec. 20.

According to the Oil Price Information Service, the national average for a gallon of unleaded was $3.21.9 on Dec. 20, 2012. Today, that price is $3.73.0. While there has been a steady increase, prices shot almost 9 cents just over the weekend.

This President's Day also marked a full month of rising gas prices every single business day, following a very small early year drop. Gas prices began rising Jan. 18, from $3.29.3-a-gallon, and have soared since. If this increase continues, gas prices could threaten or even top the all-time high price of $4.11, set in 2008.

February 2013 saw record high gas prices for the time of year according to news reports. CNBC noted the national average was the highest ever for the time of year on Feb. 1. As of Feb. 11, The Los Angeles Times reported that the national average that day ($3.587) was also a record, "7.8 cents higher than the record for Feb. 11, set last year." Today's price is now 17.6 cents higher than 2012.

It took the media some time to catch on to rising gas prices, as "Good Morning America's" Josh Elliot said two weeks after the climb began that "we have just learned that gas prices have skyrocketed."

Those higher pump prices hurt consumers, who were already paying more for gas than in decades. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) reported recently that the average household spent more on gas last year, as a percentage of income, than it had in 30 years.

The Hill's Ben Geman wrote on Feb. 4, "the average household spent $2.912 for gasoline in 2012, which makes up almost 4 percent of pre-tax income, tying 2008 for the highest percentage in roughly 30 years." The media actually forecast falling prices in 2012, during the heated presidential election. Many of those predictions failed.

Gas prices have been at sustained highs throughout much of President Obama's time in office. Although there are many factors to gas prices, Heritage Foundation noted in August 2012, that "after three years of adding regulatory hurdles and blocking exploratory access and development, President Obama's policies are helping keep prices higher than necessary. [emphasis mine]"
Huh. The gas prices rose unexpectedly after the press predicted that they would drop. Color me shocked.

Tuesday, February 12, 2013

Number of Americans on Food Stamps Exceeds the Population of Spain

My bet is that Obama won't mention this statistic in his State of the Union Address. I'm sure he's just too proud of it. Obamanomics in action.

From Elizabeth Harrington at CNS News (via Gateway Pundit):

Since taking office in 2009, food stamp rolls under President Barack Obama have risen to more than 47 million people in America, exceeding the population of Spain.

“Now is the time to act boldly and wisely – to not only revive this economy, but to build a new foundation for lasting prosperity,” said Obama during his first joint session address to Congress on Feb. 24, 2009.

Since then, the number of participants enrolled in food stamps, known as the Supplemental Assistance Nutrition Program (SNAP), has risen substantially.

When Obama entered office in January 2009 there were 31,939,110 Americans receiving food stamps. As of November 2012—the most recent data available—there were 47,692,896 Americans enrolled, an increase of 49.3 percent.

According to the 2011 census, Spain had a population of 46,815,916.
If Obama keeps it up maybe he get the food stamp rolls to exceed the population of Italy (about 60 million) or Britain (about 62 and half million), or maybe even Russia (around 143 million). Dare to dream!

Pew Poll Shows Americans Want Focus on Jobs and Economy; Not Guns, Not Illegal Immigration, Not Global Warming

"I'm your boss and father (according to Chris Rock, at least). I will focus on what I wish... and if that means deficit spending, so be it!"

But Obama's packing the audience with gun violence victims and gun control advocates. Any guesses on what his hyper-partisan State of the Union speech is going to focus on?

But hey, anything to keep Americans from thinking about what a miserable job Obama's done. I mean spending trillions of dollars all to create a crappy economy. Change! No one said it would be cheap!

From the Pew Research Center:

When Barack Obama took office four years ago, reducing the budget deficit was a middle-tier item on the public’s agenda. Only about half of Americans (53%) viewed it as a top policy priority in January 2009, placing it ninth on a list of 20 policy goals.

But as Obama begins his second term, only the economy and jobs are viewed as more important priorities for the coming year. Currently, 72% say that reducing the budget deficit should be a top priority, up 19 points from four years ago.
The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Jan. 9-13, 2013 among 1,502 adults, finds that Americans continue to view other domestic initiatives as important priorities as well, despite their focus on the deficit. Growing numbers give high priority to dealing with education, the problems of the poor, crime and the environment.

Fully 70% say that improving the educational system should be a top priority, up from 61% in January 2009. And 57% rate dealing with the problems of the poor and needy as a top priority; four years ago, 50% viewed this as a top priority.

The survey finds that 52% view protecting the environment as a top policy priority, up 11 points from January 2009. However, dealing with global warming remains at the bottom of the public’s agenda for 2013; just 28% see this as a top priority, little changed from recent years.

Gun control also ranks relatively low on the public’s priority list; just 37% rate it as a top priority, 18th out of 21 policy goals tested. This item was last asked in 2001, when support for gun control was much broader nationwide, and 47% rated it as a top priority. However, reducing crime has become a more important policy priority in the past year; 55% rate this as a top priority, up seven points since last January and the highest percentage since 2007 [emphasis mine].
Yeah, but the media can show hot topic issues like global warming and gun control as immediate and panic-making. SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!!! And then Obama can push through Left's pet issues, despite the fact few people feel it's a priority to even address.

Monday, February 11, 2013

Is Obama Visiting Israel to Warn Them to Not Attack Iran?

Kinda funny how Obama reserves his tough talk for the GOP and American allies

Well, the Jerusalem Post thinks so.

From the article by JPost staff:

The main purpose of US President Barack Obama's visit to Israel in the spring is to warn Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu against attacking Iran, unnamed officials told Army Radio on Sunday.
According to the officials, the urgency of the trip is because in his speech to the United Nations in September, Netanyahu had flagged the spring of 2013 as a significant time in the context of the Iranian nuclear threat.
Therefore, they said, Obama is concerned that the prime minister will decide to attack Iran now when he is backed by a new government and can establish a new security cabinet, without Dan Meridor and Benny Begin, two Likud MKs and alleged opponents of such a strike who lost their Knesset seats in the recent elections.
The officials told Army Radio that the US president subsequently decided to transmit a direct message to Netanyahu: "Don't attack Iran, let me handle matters with the Iranians according to my understanding, and if necessary I will take action, we have capabilities that you do not."

At the weekly cabinet meeting on Sunday morning, Netanyahu said that he and Obama, when they spoke last month about the visit, agreed that it would focus on three central issues: Iran's race toward nuclear weapons; the instability in Syria and how that impacts on regional security, and both Israeli and US interests; and efforts to move forward the diplomatic process with the Palestinians.

Obama hates Israel about as much as he hates Republicans... and for much the same reason. You see Republicans are evil white (of course) people who get in the way of his fundamental transformation of America into his progressive paradise based on racial identity and federal supremacy. Israel is a bunch of evil white (of course) people who get in the way of his strategy of bringing peace to the Middle East by its inconvenient existence.

The American Left truly believes that: (a) Israel is made up of "white" people who stole land from the indigenous "brown" people, (b) that the United States' unpopularity in the Middle East is caused by both the existence and the U.S.'s support of Israel. Therefore the American Left believes that it is both a moral imperative (based on a uniquely American version of racial identity politics and plain old white guilt) and good international policy that Israel should cease to be, or at least be put into such a strategically adverse position that it will likely be overrun.

Don't believe me? Merely pay attention in a few college classes in almost any subject. I was an English major and I was repeatedly exposed to this, not merely in core classes or political science classes, but in narrative theory (often in there), narrative writing and even linguistic classes.

I would be very surprised if the meeting consists of anything more than Obama warning Netanyahu that attacking Iran would net some unspecified but dire sounding "consequences" from the U.S., heaped upon some arrogant crud about the U.S. knowing what's best for Israel.

And they say Bush was an international embarrassment...

Wednesday, February 6, 2013

Ca. Proposes Forcing Gun Owners to Buy Insurance

"It's a just like auto insurance. Or it's a tax. Whatever... Just give up your guns or pay out money!!"
Words of wisdom: when the government is given the power to force citizens to buy something, they'll do it.

From NBC San Diego:

Democratic lawmakers proposed legislation Tuesday that would require California gun owners to buy liability insurance to cover damages or injuries caused by their weapons.

Similar bills have been introduced in other states after the Newtown, Conn., school massacre. They include Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and New York. 
Ting [Assemblyman Philip Ting of San Francisco, who introduced the bill] equated the idea to requiring vehicle owners to buy auto insurance [huh, now where have I heard that argument before *cough* ObamaCare *cough*]. Gomez said it would encourage gun owners to take firearms safety classes and keep their guns locked up to get lower insurance rates.
No state has enacted the requirement despite repeated previous attempts, said Jon Griffin, a policy analyst with the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Some proposals would require buyers to show proof of insurance before they could purchase a weapon. The proposal in California would apply to anyone owning a weapon, Ting said, though the bill's details are still being worked out.
Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California, said most gun owners already act responsibly and can be sued for damages if they don't.

He said the proposal is part of an ongoing attempt to "price gun owners out of existence,'' particularly the law-abiding poor who live in crime-ridden areas and need protection the most. Criminals would ignore the law, he said. [Now Paredes is just being negative. Of course the criminals will buy liability insurance for their guns. Just how silly is this guy to suggest otherwise?]

Moreover, he questioned whether it is constitutional to require someone to buy insurance to exercise a constitutional right.
I'm afraid Sam Paredes will find that this is just another tax leveled by the legislature. Right?

It's just one more reason that I'm glad that I moved out of California...

CBO: 7 Million Will Lose Healthcare Coverage Under ObamaCare

"You didn't really want to keep that insurance plan, did you? Too bad."

Do we all remember Obama telling us that if we liked our health insurance we could keep it? Just another lie, of course.

From Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times:
President Obama's health care law will push 7 million people out of their job-based insurance coverage — nearly twice the previous estimate, according to the latest estimates from the Congressional Budget Office released Tuesday.

CBO said that this year's tax cuts have changed the incentives for businesses and made it less attractive to pay for insurance, meaning fewer will decide to do so. Instead, they'll choose to pay a penalty to the government, totaling $13 billion in higher fees over the next decade.
What?! The feds underestimated the results of a monstrous 1000 page plus law? Say it isn't so.

And as far as all the people losing their health insurance through their jobs... well, I'm sure they didn't want to keep their coverage anyway, And that means that Obama didn't really lie at all. Right?

UPDATE: And slightly related-- Paul Krugman joins the ranks of prominent Leftists insisting on death panels for the future. That ridiculous Sarah Palin...

Friday, February 1, 2013

IRS: Cheapest ObamaCare Plan: $20,000

"Don't worry. The Supreme Court said it was just a tax."

You voted him back in, now own it.

From CNS News:

In a final regulation issued Wednesday, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) assumed that under Obamacare the cheapest health insurance plan available in 2016 for a family will cost $20,000 for the year.

Under Obamacare, Americans will be required to buy health insurance or pay a penalty to the IRS.

The IRS's assumption that the cheapest plan for a family will cost $20,000 per year is found in examples the IRS gives to help people understand how to calculate the penalty they will need to pay the government if they do not buy a mandated health plan.

The examples point to families of four and families of five, both of which the IRS expects in its assumptions to pay a minimum of $20,000 per year for a bronze plan.
“The annual national average bronze plan premium for a family of 5 (2 adults, 3 children) is $20,000,” the regulation says.

Bronze will be the lowest tier health-insurance plan available under Obamacare--after Silver, Gold, and Platinum. Under the law, the penalty for not buying health insurance is supposed to be capped at either the annual average Bronze premium, 2.5 percent of taxable income, or $2,085.00 per family in 2016.

In the new final rules published Wednesday, IRS set in law the rules for implementing the penalty Americans must pay if they fail to obey Obamacare's mandate to buy insurance.
$20,000 huh? I seem to remember Obama and his mouthpieces promising something like $2,500 being the minimum. Wow, the government underestimating costs? Who woulda thunk it?

Oh, well. With 8,500,000 less workers since Obama first took office, there won't be too many able to afford the $20,000 so the IRS will penalize them and that will increase tax revenue and then Obama can go on another $8 million vacation or something.

UPDATE: Oh yeah. Obama said ObamaCare would decrease premiums by 3000%. Don't believe me? There's a video of him saying it here.

Why does anybody ever believe this guy? Seriously.