Category Archives: individual

Obama, Horses, Delusions, and other debate-related items

Gonna do a column/post/article/op-ed round-up today, ’cause there’s several good ones out there and it’s highly unlikely too many of you will have a chance to get to ALL of them.

I mean, let’s face it: that’s why you have us.

First up is Newt Gingrich writing on the debate performances for Obama and Romney. From Human Events:

After a disastrous performance in the first debate — the worst by an incumbent president in the 62 year history of presidential debates — Obama shifted to a much more aggressive and energetic style for the second and third debates.

Americans have been trained by American Idol, Dancing with the Stars and other TV shows to judge performances. They have also learned to distinguish important nuances.

In both the second and third debate Americans said Obama was a better ‘performer’. Yet in both debates people said they were more likely to vote for Romney as a result of the debate.


Next is Allahpundit over at, who fired off this post late Tuesday night. It follows the most recent news on Benghazi and begins to tighten the snare around this Administration, as well as the consistent inconsistencies with which they’re trying to distract us:

If I understand the White House’s Benghazi narrative in its current form, it boils down to this. There was no protest, but the attack was still kinda sorta spontaneous insofar as it was inspired by what was happening at the embassy in Cairo. And it wasn’t an official Al Qaeda or Ansar al-Sharia operationeven though members of AQIM and Ansar al-Sharia — including the founder of the latter group — were on the scene and/or participating.

Essentially, the White House wants you to believe that members of two prominent jihadist paramilitary groups were kicking around on September 11 when one of them turned on the TV, heard about the Mohammed movie from coverage of the Egyptian embassy assault, and decided to quickly pull together a complex, heavily-armed attack on the local U.S. consulate involving 20 or so people. Never mind that there had been harassment of, and attacks on, western interests in the city for months; these guys apparently had no serious designs on Chris Stevens or his compatriots until they heard about the YouTube video and hulked-out in the form of an organized armed raid.

The only thing that makes this story plausible is that security for Stevens at the compound was so disgracefully poor that hardened jihadis probably could have drawn up a play in the dirt outside the building and gotten to the ambassador.

That’s Obama’s defense here, essentially — that the consulate was so easily breached thanks to threadbare protection for Stevens that it’s quite possible the whole thing was put together by amateurs, without planning.


Bob Gorrell, a political cartoonist, had this over at I, along with quite a few others, was happily sending it around the Twittersphere last night, since it is such an accurate portrayal:


There was an excellent blog post on Obama’s “Horses and Bayonets” debate wisecrack that pretty much destroys any-and-all credence to which he was clinging. Written by retired US Naval intelligence officer J. E. Dyer, on her theoptimisticconservative blog:

The key question implied in all this is what kind of operation you envision, as you consider which military forces to develop and buy. (In August 2001, no one envisioned the US military needing horses for special operations in Afghanistan.)

The president’s statements about our inventory of naval combat ships imply much the same question.  Obama’s statement suggests that aircraft carriers and submarines (“ships that go underwater”) have made the surface combatant – the cruiser, destroyer, and frigate – less necessary.  If we have only as many of them as we had in 1916, that’s not a problem, in Obama’s formulation, because technology changes.

If you want to control the seas, you still need surface combatants.  And since the seas are the pathway to most of what we do outside our borders, there is no such situation as one in which we will only need to do what aircraft carriers do, or only what submarines do, or only what minesweepers or oilers or merchant ships do.  If we do not control the seas, we do not control our security conditions or our strategic options.


Our fourth and final post concerns perhaps the most important choice we’re making this year: the choice between the ever-growing State and the individual. We’ve covered much of the same ground last week here, but leave it to John Hayward (aka ‘Doctor Zero’) to bring his inimitable flair to the topic:

But none of that “free market” stuff for America!  On the really important issues – health care, energy production, televising billion-dollar puppet shows – only the judgment of the State can be trusted

Obama sees the marketplace as a barren tundra prowled by predators, and equates freedom with abandonment.  The public can only be allowed to frolic within carefully controlled spaces, where failure is not an option, and excessive success will be punished.  Obama’s faith in the wisdom and intelligence of free people to increase the general wealth of the nation, by discovering and exploring opportunity on their own, is virtually undetectable. 

To him, ensuring “access” to something means forcing other people to pay for it.


Be sure to check out the entire posts with these, if you can. There’s obviously a lot more there than just what we included.

How to ACTUALLY end Poverty

(***Sincere thanks to Dapper Dan over at Principles, Not Men blog for alerting us to this***)

As much as I read, I was not hip to this guy. A brief bio:

Rev. Robert A. Sirico received his Master of Divinity degree from the Catholic University of America, following undergraduate study at the University of Southern California and the University of London. During his studies and early ministry, he experienced a growing concern over the lack of training religious studies students receive in fundamental economic principles, leaving them poorly equipped to understand and address today’s social problems. As a result of these concerns, Fr. Sirico co-founded the Acton Institute with Kris Alan Mauren in 1990.

The rest of his bio can be found HERE.

This clip is only two minutes long, but it highlights what we already know: if we truly want to end dependency and reduce relative poverty, we have to make people self-sufficient. The most charitable man in the world can’t end poverty by giving stuff away.

Hey, Uncle Sam: Are you listenin’??


The Memorial of American Freedom

***Courtesy of BlackMettle blog*** …. An early Memorial Day “home run” from BlackMettle.

***Courtesy of BlackMettle blog*** …A small change of pace with this one, to show what we can still do in America with just a pinch of ingenuity and some good ol’ fashioned hard work. Hats off to this young lady and to BlackMettle for the post.

Essential Viewing #2: Bill Whittle

Got several requests for more vids of Mr. Whittle, so I’ll try to remember to include his new stuff on occasion. With that in mind, here’s another clip that you have likely not seen.

And even if you have, it’s worthy of a second viewing.

(Courtesy of pajamasmedia)

A Titantic Insult …

Now I think I’ve heard it all.   Luxury liner MS Balmoral embarked on April 9 for a twelve-day cruise that will trace the route of the doomed ship RMS Titanic which hit an iceberg and sank off the coast of Newfoundland 100 years ago today.  Aboard are 1,309 passengers, the exact number (not including crew) from the original ship.   History buffs and some descendants of Titanic victims are reported to be among the guests on board, who will experience a voyage much like that of the fated ship–minus the actual collision.

I understand that there is a certain awe and significance in round numbers.  Centennial celebrations or memorials make sense.  We should acknowledge a terrible maritime tragedy, in an “on-this-date-in-history” way.  We should even do all we can to learn from it.

Continue reading


(The above cartoon is courtesy of

I was reading an article from the Washington Post‘s Charles Lane last night, and he gave some solid data regarding the financial trouble we’re in, along with some suggestions for the immediate future. It’s well worth a read.

And it got me thinking……

There are a plethora of different debates which are blathered about endlessly: the pros and cons of welfare; is healthcare a “right”; economic “fairness”; etc.,…  The common denominator in all of these is government, or more accurately: GIVERnment. We have seen from the last several administrations the promotion of D.C. being (or attempting to be) THE central player in almost everything: student loans, energy exploration, commerce, …and the list goes on.

Is this the way to prosperity?

When we find ourselves in debt up to our grandchildren’s eyeballs, and our elected leaders vilifying even the attempt to rein in the profligacy, shouldn’t we allow some consideration to assessing where our current trajectory will invariably take us?

Yesterday I wrote about the self-delusional aspect of our current energy strategy, which seems to depend on ignoring the vast natural resources at our disposal. This could just as easily be applied to our national spending. The followers of John Maynard Keynes may bellow, “but the government NEEDS to spend even MORE”, but this has been proven false time and again, with the 2009 Stimulus being just the most recent example.

The United States became the greatest nation on Earth based upon the work ethic and pluck of her citizens. Some worked, some invented, some risked, some supplied. Charities sprang up and people gave their time and treasure of their own freewill. It worked. That social compact, however, is now in danger. Critics have increasingly warned against the imminent government-centric approach to our lives ever since Obama was elected, and in any society, the bigger the government becomes, the smaller the individual can be.

For the record, that is NOT what our founders intended.

We can make a difference if we don’t sit idly by and wait for someone else to defend our freedoms. The price for freedom is dear, as these men illustrated.

It’s now time for all of us to do our part….. and electing someone OTHER than Obama will be a crucial first step.