Green Birthdays

I've said it before, and I'll say it again...I'd be a lot more likely to jump on board the 'green' movement if it all went down like this (trust me when I tell you this is much more satisfying to watch full-screen):

Oh, and in case anyone's looking for a last-minute birthday gift...look no further!

:)

A Fork In The Road

I really like this opinion piece from Mark Alexander at the Patriot Post.  It provides some excellent long-term perspective on where we are in American history, and what this time means for the future of our nation.  Read the whole thing:

Sunset or Sunrise on Liberty?

By Mark Alexander · Thursday, May 12, 2011

The Current Crisis and the Opportunity of a New Dawn for Liberty

"These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman." --Thomas Paine

A few decades ago, one of the national service opportunities I pursued required a battery of examinations including a comprehensive personality profile. After three days of psychological tests, a career profiler compiled my assessment. In a later interview with said profiler, he looked at me and declared with candor, "You are crazy!"

That decree got no rise out of me. I have received that appraisal numerous times, but he did put a fresh perspective on it. He continued, "Not crazy in the pathological sense, but crazy in that you are one of very few people I have profiled who actually thrives in the midst of crisis and conflict." Apparently, most "normal people" try to avoid crisis and conflict. He labeled my folder, "Warrior."

In light of this assessment and its outcome, my penchant for what Sam Adams called "the animated contest for freedom," I offer the following opinion about the future of American Liberty.

On occasion I have been critical of Barack Hussein Obama, a phony "community organizer" con man, who, with the help of his Leftist puppeteers, masterfully duped 69 million Americans into giving him the most expensive public housing and benefits in the nation.

I am most critical of this charlatan's political endeavor to demolish free enterprise with a debt bomb, and from the economic rubble, resurrect a transformed USSA subject to tyrannical rule under the oppression of Democratic Socialism.

Obama built his presidential campaign around the "change" theme: "This is our moment, this is our time to turn the page on the policies of the past, to offer a new direction. We are fundamentally transforming the United States of America."

His former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said infamously, "Never allow a crisis to go to waste," which was the basis for Obama's assertion, "this painful [economic] crisis provides us with an opportunity to transform our economy to improve the lives of ordinary people."

By no means will the full implementation of Democratic Socialism "improve the lives of ordinary people." As I have noted previously, Democratic Socialism, like Nationalist Socialism, is nothing more than Marxist Socialism repackaged. Likewise, it seeks a centrally planned economy directed by a single-party state that controls economic production by way of regulation and income redistribution.

The success of Democrat Socialism depends upon supplanting Essential Liberty -- the rights "endowed by our Creator" -- primarily by refuting such endowment.

Indeed, Obama's mission is transformation, and economic crisis is the horse he rode in on. It can also be the horse that he and his socialist cadre are chased out on.

Truth be told, I want to "fundamentally transform" what our nation has become after years of incremental encroachment upon Rule of Law by socialist predators, the most brazen offender in history being Obama. Indeed, I do not want the current economic "crisis to go to waste," and see it as a great opportunity to "change" our economy in such a way as to improve the lives of all Americans.

Of course, the opportunity I see in the current crisis is diametrically opposed to that which Obama and his Leftist cadres envision. I see a new dawn for Liberty on the horizon.

For all Patriots, steadfast in our devotion to Freedom, the sun is rising on one of two options to preserve the legacy of Liberty for this and future generations. The first and more desirable option is the transformational restoration of constitutional Rule of Law and the second is the transformational reformation of government, in fulfillment of Thomas Jefferson's contention, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

The current economic crisis, which manifested in 2006 with the surprisingly ubiquitous collapse in real estate values and subsequent banking crisis, poses an ominous threat to Liberty. The Obama administration used the cover of this crisis to implement its so-called "stimulus plan," which primarily stimulated the growth of central government at an enormous cost.

The result was accelerated accumulation of crushing national debt, now approaching $15 trillion, which has placed our economy on a collision course with catastrophic collapse, short of bold intervention.

The economic indicators foretelling that collision abound.

The Commerce Department reports that the American economy grew at an annualized rate of 1.8 percent in the first quarter of 2011. (You might have missed that report amid all the political campaigning over OBL's demise.)

Home values fell three percent in the first quarter and it is estimated that more than 28 percent of homeowners now owe more than the value of their property.

Energy and commodity costs are highly volatile, in large measure due to abysmal domestic economic and energy policies plus weak foreign policy. One way to devalue outstanding debt is inflation, and there are plenty of indicators that inflation is underway.

Imports are up and exports are down. The International Monetary Fund estimates that China's economy will surpass ours by 2016.

Unemployment inched back up to 9 percent last month, but the "real" unemployment rate, those who have given up the search and part-time workers seeking full-time employment, is almost 16 percent.

More Americans are dependent upon government assistance payouts than ever before. More than 18 percent of total personal income was redistributed in the form of "government benefits." Almost one in seven households receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance (food stamps).

The declining status of the U.S. dollar as the world's safest fiat currency is a metaphor for the decline of our standing as the world's beacon of liberty, the decline of "American exceptionalism."

Having a good recollection of the Carter administration, I invoke Yogi Berra's sentiment, "It is like déjà vu all over again."

Despite the considerable barriers these indicators pose to economic recovery, there is still time for a transformational restoration of constitutional Rule of Law and the consequential rescaling of our central government to comport with the limits placed upon it by our Constitution. But as noted above, that will require bold intervention, and it will require that a majority of the members of Congress honor and abide by their oath of office.

At present, there are outstanding plans on the table to put prosperity over poverty, including the Republican Study Committee Budget for FY 2012 and Heritage Foundation's comprehensive plan to restore prosperity.

House and Senate leaders are stepping out with bolder propositions to cut government spending. As a prerequisite to raising the national debt ceiling to avoid default, Speaker John Boehner has drawn the line, and may even hold it: "Without significant spending cuts and reforms to reduce our debt, there will be no debt limit increase, and the cuts should be greater than the accompanying increase in debt authority the president is given. We should be talking about cuts of trillions, not just billions."

Conservative Senate leaders are calling for a Balanced Budget Amendment as a condition to any agreement on increasing the national debt limit.

Of course, Obama, the consummate socialist, trotted out the class warfare card in response: "Their vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America, [pitting] children with autism or Down's syndrome against every millionaire and billionaire in our society."

Then, in his fatuous display of faux bipartisan, Obama insisted the budget talks must "start by being honest about what's causing our deficit."

Apparently, Obama thinks the budget deficit is caused by a lack of government spending and regulation, as he is proposing a lot more of both.

So, given the current crisis and the long odds against the restoration of Rule of Law, would you concede that this portends a Sunset or Sunrise on Liberty?

Call me crazy -- that profiler certainly did -- but I clearly see a new dawn for Liberty, whether it be transformational restoration of constitutional Rule of Law or the transformational reformation of government. Count me in for either option.

I believe, as did my mentor, President Ronald Reagan: "America's best days are yet to come. Our proudest moments are yet to be. Our most glorious achievements are just ahead."

But I also know, as did he, that "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States when men were free."

That extinction will arrive only if we "shrink from the service of our country," so as Paine also said, "If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace."

I think Alexander is right, and that we are living in very consequential times; I believe the future of our nation is quite literally at stake.  The next two or three election cycles will determine the course that our nation takes, and I believe we will be on that course for a number of years.  The key is that we will all be propelled forward on this course, even if only a small percentage of us dictate what the course will be.  If you don't speak up, others will.  If you don't speak up now, it may soon be too late.

So...which course would you prefer America take concerning liberty?  Sunrise, or sunset?  And what will you do about it?

Idiotic Idiots Acting Stupid (i.e. Congress Being Itself)

Seriously?!

As if Congress had nothing more important to do, ABC News brings us word that Congress will hold hearings on the use of the code name Geronimo as a reference to Osama Bin Laden.

"The hearing was scheduled well before the Osama bin Laden operation became news, but the concerns over the linking of the name of Geronimo, one of the greatest Native American heroes, with the most hated enemies of the United States is an example of the kinds of issues we intended to address at Thursday's hearing," Loretta Tuell, the committee's chief counsel, said in a statement.

"These inappropriate uses of Native American icons and cultures are prevalent throughout our society, and the impacts to Native and non-Native children are devastating," Tuell said. "We intend to open the forum to talk about them."

Some of you are wondering if we can send SEAL Team 6 to Congress. I would never wonder that. I just wonder how exactly Congress ever hopes to improve its dazzling popularity rating when it plays on the hypersensitive humorlessness of lefties race warriors.

Got any ideas of just how 'dazzling' that popularity rating is?

9%.

Offhand, I'd say there's not much reason to debate why.

Does This Set Off Quiet Alarm Bells For Anyone Else?

Just stop and think about this:

A new national alert system is set to begin in New York City that will alert the public to emergencies via cell phones.

Okay, so far so good.  Sounds perfectly reasonable, especially for a city like New York that's a constant high-profile target.  Let's keep reading.

Presidential and local emergency messages as well as Amber Alerts would appear on cell phones equipped with special chips and software.

The Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Emergency Management Agency said the system would also warn about terrorist attacks and natural disasters.

Verizon and AT&T, the nation's largest cell phone carriers, are already on board. Consumers would be able to opt out of all but those presidential messages.

Errrrrmmmm...okay.  I'm less than thrilled about being forced to pay attention to 'presidential messages', but I assume those would be pretty rare.  Let's go a little further into the article.

For now, the system is capable on certain high-end cell phones but starting next year, all cell phones will be required to have the chip that receives alerts.

By the end of the year, the new system will be in place in New York City and Washington and in cities around the country by the end of 2012.

ALERT! ALERT! ALERT!

I get off this train at the part where 'all cell phones will be required to have a chip'.  I wouldn't want to have a cell phone with a required chip controlled by the government that cannot be disabled no matter what administration is in power, much less the current one that has made no secret about trying to take over vast swaths of the American business sector, health care, banking, insurance, and the Internet.  What else is hiding in those required permanent chips?  Tracking code or GPS features?  Are they listening in on our conversations or reading our texts (a la Carnivore and Echelon)?  Can they actually take control of the phone itself?

These are not trivial questions, and someone needs to start asking them.

Move Along...There's Nothing To See Here...

That's the message of the White House and its full-time propaganda wing, the mainstream media, in regard to the single biggest issue facing most Americans today: the economy.

They're in full gutsy swing over Obama's manly-man decision to take out Osama bin Laden. So much so, in fact, that most people aren't really hearing much about what's going on with the economy. Let's take a few moments to correct that, shall we?

First of all, unemployment is back up to 9% despite about 244,000 jobs being added in April. Huh?? If you're like me, you don't see how those numbers go together. Here's an explanation:

The economy added 244,000 jobs but the unemployment rate went up to 9 percent. Is this a political problem for President Obama — as the economy improves, more enter the workforce and the unemployment rate looks horrible?

It’s actually even worse than it looks. The unemployment rate went up because of a divergence of the surveys, not an increase in the number of people looking for jobs. In the household survey, which determines the unemployment rate, we lost 190,000 jobs in April, and only 15,000 new people entered the workforce. Hopefully, the two?????? surveys will both indicate robust job growth soon, but not this month.

Hot Air also throws in this bit of trivia:

What was the highest unemployment rate, post-Great Depression, for which an incumbent President won re-election? 7.2% in 1984.

If there was any recovery going on -- personally I don't believe there was -- this is a sign of that recovery slowing down. This is why the Obama administration is desperate to get the economy off the front pages as often as possible. The more people are thinking about the economy, the less likely Obama (and many other Dems with him) will get re-elected.

But it doesn't just stop with unemployment. Remember all those dire warnings about real estate going into a double-dip recession? Now we've got it. World food prices are shooting up partly due to the fact that the U.S. is now experiencing inflation because of Obama's policies, and dragging the rest of the world along with it. Tighter budgets are forcing California schools to consider shortening their school year (though given what the schools in California teach, that may actually be a good thing). Pennsylvania school districts are considering 4-day weeks. About 1 in 7 Americans receive food stamps. And just wait'll you hear the latest on energy. It deserves its own post and is coming soon.

Anyway, these are the results of liberal economic policies. Their solution? More taxes, this time on the mileage you put on your car:

Among other things, CBO suggested that a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) tax could be tracked by installing electronic equipment on each car to determine how many miles were driven; payment could take place electronically at filling stations.

And you thought driving was expensive now, and that government was already too intrusive...just wait, it gets better!

All of this has earned Obama new low poll numbers on the economy, with Americans disapproving of his policies almost 2:1.

The real question is: how is the GOP responding? It's kind of hard to tell. They sound good...

How much room will Boehner have in negotiating [on the coming debt ceiling debate]? Declaring himself “a regular guy with a big job,” Boehner declares tax hikes “off the table.” Lauer tries offering a misleading statistic to force Boehner to defend the Bush tax cuts, using unemployment numbers from June 2001 and comparing them to today’s rates. The tax cuts to which Democrats object passed in 2003, not 2001 (which lowered the top rate to its current 35% and reduced capital-gains tax rates), and unemployment at the time had gone into the 6% range. It resulted in an explosion of job growth that only ended in 2008 with the housing bubble’s collapse.

Boehner has declared tax hikes “off the table,” but says everything else will be up for discussion — everything else necessarily being spending cuts, especially in entitlements.

Mm-hmmm. But we've heard all this before, the last time being just a few weeks ago when the GOP swore they'd settle for nothing less than $100 billion cut out of the budget...right before settling for about $350 million cut out of the budget. Am I the only one skeptical of their ability/will to see this tough talk through? If they did, it would be a major surprise, albeit a welcome one.

I suppose it's progress to even get them talking this way. After all, on the other side of the debate is Barack Obama, who is too busy inviting rappers who glorify cop-killing and the assassination of George W. Bush to the White House for parties to even do that much.

We'll be lucky to survive another year and a half of this bunch; even if we do, it will be years before we clean up the mess they've made, and that's only if we get exactly the right people into office for the next two or three election cycles.

God help us!

The Obama/Osama Chronicles

It's time to post a follow-up to my previous post about the successful raid against Osama bin Laden's hideout a few days ago. On the one hand, it's a tremendous success for our military and a devastating morale blow to our enemies. On the other hand, it's yet another instance where our infantile President has narcissistically sought to take credit for something he actively campaigned and fought against for years when Bush was advocating it; in fact, he only grudgingly signed off on the operation in the first place. Oh, also, the media is fawning over his 'gutsiness' in a shameless display of verbal and emotional emetic. Finally, there has been so much...um...strangeness...around the whole thing that in some ways it's hard to take the victory seriously. Allow me to explain.

Less than 24 hours after OBL was killed, he was given a burial at sea and a nice Muslim funeral ceremony. I personally find the idea of honoring this mass murderer of innocent civilians with a burial in accordance with Sharia law -- which is directly antithetical to the concepts of liberty and freedom -- incredibly offensive, and I find the reasons given for such actions to be incredibly lame, but what's done is done.

Apparently, the U.S. government knew of the hideout since last August...but Obama refused to take action for months. The intelligence was 'solid' by mid-February, but still he wouldn't take action. Why? My bet is that, as time wore on and the case became more and more ironclad, there were simply too many people who knew that we knew where OBL was, and that if Obama didn't take action he would be forever tainted as the man who let the architect of 9/11 slip through his fingers. He was forced to give the order through circumstance.

And here's where it gets muddy. The White House initially stated that the goal of the mission was to kill OBL, not capture him. Then that was reversed, and the White House said they wanted to capture him, but only if he was unarmed (but he wasn't). Initial reports also said that OBL used his wife as a human shield, and that she was killed. Then she wasn't. The story was also reversed on whether or not OBL and the other people at the house were armed. Then the story was reversed on whether or not there was resistance to the raid. There was also confusion on whether or not OBL was killed in an active gun battle or shot in the head as a captive. The point is that the White House looked like a bunch of crazy chickens running around sans heads.

There is apparently a fair amount of suspicion that Pakistan was knowingly protecting OBL from American forces. They're unhappy about the U.S. not including them in the planning of the raid, but it's unclear what (if anything) they're going to do about it. Or what we're going to do about them doing something about it...

As I mentioned before, President Obama and his entire staff made it clear he was the one responsible for making the call to go get him. What great leadership. Speaking of leadership, the mythical SEAL Team 6 (a legend in counter-terrorism circles) was not confirmed to be involved in the raid...until VP Joe Doofus Biden opened his big yap. Congratulations, America, we've got Captain Infant and his loyal sidekick Bozo the Clown running the country.

Then came the debate about whether or not the White House would release photos of OBL's dead body. They needed proof to show the world that we got him, but they're squeamish about showing such vivid details of our enemies for fear of reprisals. I would point out that when your enemies have sworn to see your death simply because you exist, it's hard to imagine them being any more angry at you just for showing a few pictures, but that's just me. Anyway, the White House vacillated back and forth for several days, and eventually decided not to release the photos. Ironically, they have no problem taking naked pictures of law-abiding American citizens with airport scanners, but they feel it's inappropriate to show America's Public Enemy #1 dead. Go figure. Anyway, eventually both OBL's daughter and Al Qaeda officially acknowledged OBL's death, putting the issue to bed. There is some speculation that OBL's final location was given up by his own deputy to help him take over the whole kit and kaboodle, but I suspect we'll only find out more about that as time goes on.

Al Qaeda is, of course, promising retribution of all kinds. Interestingly, OBL left a video encouraging his own children not to join Al Qaeda. Apparently the holy calling of jihad wasn't all it was made out to be. Or maybe it had something to do with living in squalor and fear for the past decade. Eh, whatever; if they feel the need to martyr themselves against American military might, then (in the words of good ol' Rummy) we'll oblige them.

I think the most interesting aspect of all this is how the enhanced interrogations conducted at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, those secret CIA prisons around the world, and operations in Iraq were critical in locating OBL. Even Obama's man admitted as much. Ooooh...you know liberals from Obama on down are having difficulty swallowing that one! Still, facts are facts, and if George W. Bush hadn't authorized and fought for those measures, OBL would still be alive today. My, how history has a way of thrashing liberals for their hypocrisy and stupid politically-correctness-driven policies (that's why they try to ignore history so much)! Regardless, it's a clear vindication of Bush's policies and actions, and an equally clear repudiation of the vehement opposition of those policies and actions by Obama and the Left...even if the liberal elites refuse to admit it.

One of the major long-term victories in this whole thing was the recovery of several computers and a huge cache of information. Treasure troves like this are what intelligence operatives love to see, and will hopefully prove incredibly useful in dismantling huge swaths of Al Qaeda and its affiliates. Taking out OBL is the PR victory; this data could be the real key to tearing apart one of America's deadliest enemies.

All of this begs the question: precisely how much credit should Barack Obama take? Well, let's back up and look at the big picture. Essentially everything that Obama has done on the basis of his own beliefs and world view -- the stimulus, Obamacare, foreign policy in general, deficit spending, etc. -- has demonstrably failed or is at the minimum directly opposed by most of the American people. On the other hand, everything he's done right -- mainly, this OBL thing, and continuing the fight against the War on Terror -- are an extension of policies implemented (at significant political cost) by George W. Bush. I think we can all do the math on that question.

Let's just hope Obama doesn't use this success as justification to wind down the war on terror at large. I suspect he'll do just that, but I really, really hope I'm wrong. There is no lack of danger when it comes to radical Islamic terrorists still alive and kicking, and we would be foolish to think anything otherwise. Time will tell, of course, whether or not Obama will push forward with his dangerous and reckless liberal policies on terrorism or continue many of the policies Bush implemented (and Obama fought against) that have landed America with this major victory. The questions involved are completely legitimate, and need to be answered.

Quite predictably, the Left is already gleefully announcing the results of the 2012 election based on this one event.

Of course, his poll numbers have gotten a temporary bump...but will that last through to the election? Don't count on it, says Rush Limbaugh:

See, I got a question real quickly for those of you who are a little worried (maybe, oh, paranoid) that the Osama Bin Laden kill operation will give Obama a bump in the polls. Ceremony question: Were Obama's poll numbers falling -- were they, in fact, in freefall -- because he had not gotten Osama? No. They were in freefall for purely domestic, primarily economic reasons. Have circumstances changed in that regard? No. ...

Now, get this. This is quite telling. Washington Post Pew poll out now that says Obama has had his approval for the way he handled terrorism boosted to an all-time high of 69%. Washington Post Pew poll, Obama, all-time high in approval of how he handles terrorism, 69%. ... Weirdly, though, on the economy, Obama still sits at 40% approval, a career low. How is that possible? It's because you can't put Osama Bin Laden's blood in your gas tank. It's because you can't take Osama Bin Laden's turban to Walmart and exchange it for a box of crispies. ... the point is we come together on issues we all agree on. But we are not unifying around liberalism here, folks. We are not unifying around Obama.

Every narcissist's dream is to have the world agree with them and adore them but that's not our dream here, that's not what this unity is all about. No, the American dream concerns our families, our life goals, jobs, homes, those that still have them, our disposable income, those that still have that, and the liberty, those that still have that. I mean there's really nothing to leverage here. The celebration over Osama's assassination isn't transferable to a domestic political agenda. But they're trying. You see, the American people know what to celebrate. We did that. We know what not to celebrate, too. And that's liberalism. We don't do that no matter how it's positioned. And asking us to set aside our principles as a means of showing unity is absurd. Transparently absurd, but that's what they're doing.

And in the meantime, while the media and the White House are trumpeting Obama's gutsiness and heroism in single-handedly taking out Osama bin Laden, the economy continues to tank. More on that coming soon...



Additional Links:
How it took years to find him but just minutes to kill him
Meet SEAL Team 6, the guys who killed OBL... (even though they don't exist)
...and their titanium-fanged dog...
...and the 'Beast of Kandahar'
Europe talks about 'war crimes'?!

Hilarity Ensues

A while back some very good friends of ours introduced us to a tremendously talented guy named Jim Gaffigan who had a strange and inventive perspective on Hot Pockets. It was quite unforgettable, and our kids still offer up a melodious 'hot pockeeeeeet...!' every now and then. Gaffigan is a top-notch comedian, and one of the most hilarious people I've ever watched. He has a way of capturing the minutiae of real life from a quirky perspective that lends itself well to hilarity. Here's a small sample:

There's much, much more. If you have a Netflix subscription, he's got at least two full DVDs that you can get right away, and both are hysterical from start to finish. Check 'em out, and enjoy!

PS - you'll never look at Hot Pockets -- or cake, or bacon, or polar bears -- the same way again...

To Get Bin Laden, Obama Relied On Policies He Decried

Throughout all the media frenzy on just how awesomely awesome and gutsily gutsy Barack Obama was for authorizing the operation that killed Osama bin Laden, this excellent article by Michael Barone is something we need to keep in mind:

Let's cheerfully and ungrudgingly give credit to Barack Obama for approving the military operation that resulted in the death of Osama bin Laden.

In my Washington Examiner column last Sunday I criticized Obama's foreign policy, which was characterized by one of his advisers in an interview with the New Yorker's Ryan Lizza as "lead from behind." That criticism still stands.

But in tracking down and nailing bin Laden, Obama led from behind the right way -- behind the scenes he made a right but risky decision, without any leaks to the press, to achieve an objective sought by two presidents and thousands in the American government and military since Sept. 11, 2001.

The decision was risky because the operation could have failed, like Jimmy Carter's Desert One operation to rescue American hostages in Iran failed in April 1980.

But this time, even though one helicopter was lost, the operation succeeded. There was evidently a lot of redundancy in the plan and a lot of flexibility on the ground. A lot of good people did a lot of good things right.

While we may not know all the details about and behind this operation, it's fascinating to see how many of the things that made the success of this operation possible were not so long ago decried by many of the president's fans and fellow partisans.

For one thing, it apparently would not have happened without those infamous enhanced interrogation techniques -- "torture," according to critics of the Bush administration.

The enhanced interrogation techniques reportedly led to identification of the courier who eventually led our forces to bin Laden's hiding place. Critics of waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques assured us that "torture" could not produce reliable information.

They were probably right that sometimes such techniques yield false information. But the bin Laden operation shows that they can also produce actionable intelligence.

You may remember that many Democrats called for criminal prosecution of CIA interrogators who were acting under orders vetted by legal counsel. Attorney General Eric Holder actually considered bringing such prosecutions.

Fortunately he decided not to do so -- fortunately for the individuals involved but fortunately also for his own reputation. Who would want to be known for prosecuting the people who helped track down bin Laden?

It has also been reported that in hunting down bin Laden our forces relied on intercepted communications. I wonder if any of them included contacts between suspected terrorists abroad and persons in the United States.

This was the "domestic wiretapping" revealed to great acclaim by the New York Times and presented as an intolerable infringement of civil liberties. Given what we know now, it's a good thing our folks were tuning in.

Obama deserves credit also for employing the Navy SEALs who are part of the Joint Special Operations Command. It was fashionable a few years ago to call the JSOC Cheney's death squad and Cheney's assassination team.

The assumption behind such criticism was that Bush administration officials were using what they termed the war against terrorism as a smokescreen for persecuting domestic dissidents. But there is not a scrap of evidence that either the Bush administration or the Obama administration were doing anything of the kind. They were too busy trying to protect us.

There was criticism as well of the idea of targeting particular individuals for assassination. But in ordering the raid on bin Laden's compound Obama authorized the killing of bin Laden. And no Miranda warnings first.

Bin Laden's death removes the possibility of any debate about where he would be confined or tried. On this Obama has already been forced to keep the Guantanamo detention center open and Holder has had to concede that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will not be tried in a civilian court in Manhattan.

Finally, let us note that this was a unilateral operation. Obama didn't go to the United Nations Security Council. He didn't, so far as we know, consult NATO allies. He took care not to inform the government of Pakistan, some elements of which obviously knew that bin Laden was ensconced in a house 800 meters away from Pakistan's military academy.

For years we heard supposedly enlightened people excoriate our leaders for torture, lawlessness, unilateralism -- the list goes on and on. Now the president they have wanted has used the tactics and methods they excoriated to get bin Laden. Good for him.

Yes, good for him. Now, how about we stop listening to these 'supposedly enlightened' liberal dolts the next time they side with our enemies, hm? In fact, let's go one step further and remind them of these facts, and hopefully shame them into silence? Yeah, that sounds good to me.

How To Build A Better Password

As technology becomes more and more ubiquitous, so do the problems inherent with reliance on that technology.  Identity theft is on the rise, and most of us have probably had some experience with e-mails getting hacked (or know someone else who has).  One of my accounts got hit a few weeks ago, in fact.  I had been thinking for quite some time that I hadn't changed the password on that account for several years and that it was time to do so...but since that account was one I didn't use much, I hadn't gotten around to it.  Oops.  Fortunately, since it was an account I didn't use much, there was really no damage done.  I changed the password and then, just for good measure, I backed that account out of every website I could think of, and pretty much shut it down.  I also took the opportunity to update many of my other passwords, too.

For non-geeks, all this password protection and hacking and other techno-babble can get really intimidating.  You may be wondering how you can protect yourself without having a computer science degree under your belt.  Well, have no fear!  Here's a great article on how you can create an iron-clad password without too much mental effort:

Your e-mail password is your last line of defense when it comes to online privacy and security; if a hacker cracks that, they could potentially reset the passwords of and gain access to your social networks, your bank account and even your identity by taking advantage of the ubiquitous "I Forgot My Password" button.

It's tempting to use the same password for all of your online accounts, but doing so renders every account vulnerable if any one of them gets hacked. But given some recent massive security breaches, now's a good time to update your passwords and make sure each is unique.

There are a few great password management programs like KeePass that will store all of your passwords in one encrypted database and allow you to access them with one master password, allowing you to carry every password you'll ever need on a single thumb drive. A multi-platform password manager with browser support like LastPass is even easier to use because it will automatically sync between different computers and browsers, letting you access your encrypted database from any device, though you sacrifice the security of keeping your password list confined to a single hard drive.

Using a password manager is a great way to improve your personal security online, but it's not perfect; the perfect password is the one you never write down, a unique string of letters, numbers and symbols that not even you know until the moment you enter it. That may be beyond our grasp, but you can get awful close by using a few simple mnemonic tricks.

One Password To Rule Them All

It's actually fairly easy to create strong, unique passwords by following a few simple rules. First, we need a password "base" with a mix of upper and lower case letters, numbers and even a symbol or two to spice things up. Pick a phrase that will be easy to remember, and feel free to be as creative as you like. For simplicity's sake I'm going to use one of my favorite dishes, chicken adobo, as our example.

Make sure your passphrase is at least eight characters and avoid obviously memorable topics like proper names, birthdays and hometowns. You should also avoid picking a single word and changing some of its characters to symbols--hacker tools are sophisticated enough to foil that trick. Go for a passphrase--multiple words strung together--rather than a password; this makes it harder for hackers working to crack your password by trying every word in the dictionary.

Now that we've picked a passphrase, we need to mash that phrase into a single string (chickenadobo), then sprinkle in a few capital letters that are simple to remember (ChickenAdobo). Next, let's pepper our password base with a few random characters to keep things interesting (Ch!cken@dob0).

Now that we have our base password, we're going to memorize and use it as a skeleton key that will unlock our account on any Website as long as we hold fast to a few simple rules. To create the strongest password possible, we're going to invent a simple naming pattern as a mnemonic device that will help us generate a unique password for every Website we visit.

For example, let's say I decided to always use the first and fourth letter of a Website's domain name in the middle of my passphrase, capitalizing the former while leaving the latter lower-case. That means my Facebook.com account would have the unique password Ch!ckenFe@dob0, while my about.me account would require the password Ch!ckenAu@dob0.

See the pattern? Make up a something similar and you'll have a unique alphanumeric password for every website you visit, one that's easy to remember but nearly impossible for hackers to figure out. No password is perfect, but knowing your own unique passphrase and a few mnemonic tricks will go a long way towards keeping your online privacy intact.

The Internet has become so login-heavy that I've followed the practice of using a password file for years.  There's no possible way I'll remember all the logins and passwords I've got for all the websites/tools/memberships I've got, but remembering only a single master password -- even a long, nasty, unbreakable one -- is no problem.  Personally, I like having a local copy of my password information, so I like KeePass and use it for both my home stuff and my work stuff.  I also don't want to rely on having Internet access to be able to access my password information.  Time Warner Cable has created that foible for me.  Anyway, I also like KeePass's export feature that lets you dump all the information in your database to an Excel file for backup purposes (but be careful with that, since the exported file will NOT be password-protected!).  Best of all, there's a version of KeePass that can run off of a USB flash drive, so I can take all of my passwords with me wherever I go, and access them on any computer.

The point of all this security is, of course, protecting your data and yourself.  To do that, you just need to take a little bit of time and effort to create a single master password, and the method above is a great way to do that without much fuss.  Once that's done, you can keep track of all your other stuff with minimal hassle and maximum security.

Just make sure you don't write your master password down on a Post-It note stuck to your monitor...

On Green Energy...

Gotcha!

It took a while, but finally...

Osama bin Laden, hunted as the mastermind behind the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil, has been killed, President Obama announced tonight.

The president called the killing of bin Laden the "most significant achievement to date" in the effort to defeat al Qaeda.

"Justice has been done," Obama said.

The details:

Long believed to be hiding in caves, bin Laden was tracked down in a costly, custom-built hideout not far from a Pakistani military academy. The stunning news of his death prompted relief and euphoria outside the White House and around the globe, yet also fears of terrorist reprisals against the United States and its allies.

"Justice has been done," President Barack Obama said in a dramatic announcement at the White House.

The military operation took mere minutes, and there were no U.S. casualties.

U.S. helicopters ferried troops from Navy SEAL Team Six, a top military counter-terrorism unit, into the compound identified by the CIA as bin Laden's hideout — and back out again in less than 40 minutes. Bin Laden was shot in the head, officials said, after he and his bodyguards resisted the assault.

Three adult males were also killed in the raid, including one of bin Laden's sons, whom officials did not name. One of bin Laden's sons, Hamza, is a senior member of al-Qaida. U.S. officials also said one woman was killed when she was used as a shield by a male combatant, and two other women were injured.

The U.S. official who disclosed the burial at sea said it would have been difficult to find a country willing to accept the remains. Obama said the remains had been handled in accordance with Islamic custom, which requires speedy burial.

Cue the happy throngs of rejoicing!

The man who staked much of his Presidency on battling bin Laden, George W. Bush, has finally seen resolution:

Former President George W. Bush, whose entire presidency was defined by the September 11th attacks, said in a statement tonight that President Obama called him to inform him of the news of bin Laden’s death.

Bush called the operation a “momentous achievement” that “marks a victory for America, for people who seek peace around the world, and for all those who lost loved ones on September 11, 2001.”

“I congratulated him and the men and women of our military and intelligence communities who devoted their lives to this mission. They have our everlasting gratitude,” the former president said in a statement. “The fight against terror goes on, but tonight America has sent an unmistakable message: No matter how long it takes, justice will be done.”

I'll have more analysis on this as more details come out, but at the moment, I think it's safe to say that this is a HUGE development in the war on terror. Not only is it chopping the head off of our enemy, but it's a gigantic blow to their morale, as well. The fact that bin Laden was able to hide and avoid American and international forces was a source of hope and inspiration for jihadists everywhere; now that hope has been destroyed. It is also a major signal that America still has the guts to fight through to victory on a long-term objective, something that bin Laden himself questioned on more than one occasion.

I don't think most wars end with the enemy's leadership being captured or killed, but the fact that that has happened just adds even more significance to these events.

While it disgusts me to see President Obama try to take credit for this success -- despite him and all the other Democrats' constant badgering, heckling, and insulting George W. Bush about it over the years -- we must give credit where credit is due and remember that he did continue the military operations that George W. Bush started and fought so hard for. So, kudos to you, Mr. President.

I just find it intellectually dishonest how he is constantly whining about how he 'inherited' a bad economy, but wants to be the sole champion of this huge success.

Oh well, don't trifle a liberal with facts.

The bottom line is that Osama bin Laden is gone, and we got him. It wouldn't have happened at all without the thousands of dedicated, hard-working, brave, and heroic men and women in the U.S. (and international) military and intelligence services. To them, my hat is off, my gratitude is profound, and in them my pride is unlimited.

More to come as details and analysis unfold.

Birthers And Trump

Sorry for the last few days' of delinquency. Work has been quite literally insane, evenings have been packed, and I got a new computer that I've been trying to put into shape. Blogging just hasn't been in the cards, but I'll try to get back into the swing of things.

One of the biggest things that has happened in the last couple of days is that Barack Obama finally released his long-form birth certificate. As far as I'm concerned, it's pretty much irrelevant -- and became so on January 20th of 2008 -- because whether or not Barack Obama truly is a natural born American citizen (as the Constitution requires) isn't nearly as important as his policies and what he has done as President. Seriously, think about it - what if we find 100% ironclad proof that he was born in Kenya. So what? Just because everything he's done instantly becomes legally invalid doesn't change reality. The fact that we have Obamacare, unemployment near 10%, new trillions of dollars of national debt, government ownership of huge swaths of private insurance/car companies and banks, skyrocketing gas prices, troops in three wars, and absolutely no leadership credibility on any issue of foreign policy...none of that changes one bit, so to me it's an irrelevant question.

But...some people have really gotten fixated on it, and it's remained a political hot button issue. In recent weeks, Donald Trump grabbed the issue and pounded it to pieces. Amazingly, he got results, and for the first time in almost three years Obama has released his birth certificate. It will be interesting to see if there is any professional analysis done on it to thoroughly test its validity. After all, one might reasonably ask why it took them three years to release it. One equally reasonable answer is that, well, it takes time to create a really good forgery. ;)

Anyway, after forcing the issue with the birth certificate, the Donald is now calling for Obama to release his college records. This, too, was quite the controversy, for a couple of reasons. First, Obama's papers, thesis, and other records would undoubtedly prove very enlightening on his philosophy and motivations. Again, this would have been incredibly useful before the election. At this point, we have more than enough real world evidence of Obama's philosophy and motivation, and at this point we really don't need this documentation. The other reason people want this information is that Obama's transcripts and financial records from college might show one very interesting fact: whether or not Barack Obama enrolled and/or sought financial aid as an American citizen or a foreign national.

Again, to me, this is irrelevant now. But hey, go for it, Mr. Trump. If nothing else, it'll be very interesting to watch the fireworks.

The White House is saying it's not going to happen, but the predictably reliable liberals in the media are now attacking Trump, already calling him a racist.

All this is mildly amusing and interesting, but I do think there are a couple extremely relevant things that we can learn here. First, look at a recent Rasmussen poll of what GOP voters think of potential GOP candidates:

Republican primary voters at this early stage of the game now give billionaire developer Donald Trump the edge over presumptive favorites Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee in the race to be the GOP’s presidential nominee in 2012.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Republican Primary Voters finds Trump with 19% support, just ahead of the former governors, Massachusetts’ Romney at 17% and Arkansas’ Huckabee with 15%.

Does that send a shiver down your spine, too? Donald Trump is leading the GOP pack of candidates?? WHAT?! Since when is this guy a Republican, much less a fiscal conservative? The guy declares bankruptcy with his companies as a strategic move whenever he feels it's necessary, and he utilizes every possible loophole and economic foible he can find to make himself more profitable. I read somewhere (unfortunately, I didn't get the link) this week that his history of campaign donations shows vastly more support for Dems than Reps. Good thing this is a way-too-early measure of GOP support, because if this guy ends up being the GOP nominee, we're finished.

But...

We must ask ourselves why Trump is doing so well, right? Sure, he's got huge name recognition, both from his real estate ventures, and from The Apprentice. But I think there's a greater reason: Trump is fighting. He's scolding the media for carrying Obama's water all the time. He's calling a spade a spade, and challenging Obama to prove his claims. He's talking boldly and saying plainly what needs to be said.

Pretty damned refreshing, huh?

Sarah Palin is the only other person who appears willing to do these things, but she's the Left's favorite target and has been for years now, and they can at last partly mitigate what she says through sheer volume of bad press. Trump, however, was one of them until he burst onto the scene with this birth certificate stuff. He's caught them off guard, and is now going to become a target much like Palin.

But the greater issue is that he's fighting. Hey, GOP...are you getting this? Americans are gravely concerned about the direction of this country and the people leading it right now, and they want elected representatives who share that level of concern and are willing to go to the mat for it. Most of you are severely lacking when it comes to fighting on the behalf of the American people, and if that doesn't get fixed fast, this country will never get back on track.

I believe that while Donald Trump would be a horrendously irresponsible choice of nominee for the Republican party, what he's doing right now is exactly what is needed, and should be both heeded and replicated wherever possible.

Just my humble opinion.

Debt, Waste, And More Fairness Talk

First, let me say that I will be hitting some non-political topics this week. I've got a couple really cool things I want to share that have nothing to do with the 'p'-word, so come back soon for a change-up.

For now, though, we need to once again address the economy. I think it's safe to say that one thing we can all agree on is that we should trim government of all unnecessary fluff, right? Yeah, we'll have some disagreements over what exactly is 'unnecessary', but can we agree on unused federal buildings? Huge and unused stockpiles of gold (that just happen to be at historical high prices and are almost certainly on a bubble that is about to pop)? Those things alone would dump hundreds of billions of dollars into the federal Treasury. How about half a trillion dollars worth of unused land grants, or another half trillion in unspent TARP/direct loans? We're talking some serious debt that could be paid off with these unused assets. Why do you and I have garage sales or list things on Craigslist? To get rid of junk that we don't use or want, and to make a little money doing it. Same concept applies here, and the government should get on it right away.

But cutting government waste and excess with things like this -- and other measures that you and I would consider common sense -- will never happen, at least not while liberals are in charge. It's simply not a part of how they view the world. Heritage explains (emphasis mine):

Congress does not have a vault of money waiting to be distributed. Every dollar Congress injects into the economy must first be taxed or borrowed out of the economy. No new spending power is created. It is merely redistributed from one group of people to another.

Congress cannot create new purchasing power out of thin air. If it funds new spending with taxes, it is simply redistributing existing purchasing power (while decreasing incentives to produce income and output). If Congress instead borrows the money from domestic investors, those investors will have that much less to invest or to spend in the private economy. If they borrow the money from foreigners, the balance of payments will adjust by equally raising net imports, leaving total demand and output unchanged. Every dollar Congress spends must first come from somewhere else.

This is the economic reality that conservatives understand, but liberals either can't grasp it or refuse to do so. Here's the bottom line:

Conservatives believe that the federal government should have limited powers and that—beyond providing for the common defense and enforcing contracts— government should stay out of economic affairs as much as possible. Conservatives believe most federal spending is suspect and should be cut if it has not proven to be effective (such as on programs like COPS, FEMA fire grants, and Head Start). Progressives, on the other hand, see the federal government as a giant jobs program so that any cut to any federal program, no matter how ineffective or wasteful, would be a harm to the economy.

That's why liberals will never tolerate cuts to government, reductions in redundant government programs, or anything of the sort. If you've been paying attention, you know that the only sector that has seen significant job growth since Barack Obama and the Democrats took over in 2008 is in government jobs. Everything else is either flat or still declining. And, if you were paying attention to the whole stimulus madness, you know that there really was no actual empirical data backing up the administration's claims of jobs 'saved or created'; instead, the administration simply used a formula like this:

Number of dollars spent = number of jobs saved or created

That's all they needed to think about because that's what their worldview dictates: government increase equals economic increase, and government jobs equals overall jobs. Never mind the reality that government produces nothing and therefore by definition cannot increase economic output, and never mind the reality that that increasing government actually taxes the economic output of the country through increased taxation, regulation, and more people sucking money out of the economy (by working for a non-productive entity, the government)...never mind all that. All liberals want to acknowledge is their demonstrably false idea that more government is a good thing.

The notion of people paying their 'fair share' is repugnant to conservatives because they understand that the 'fair share' being paid by successful and productive citizens is vastly greater than that of the 'fair share' being paid by those working for the government, and especially those relying on government assistance. For example, here's a visual comparing the percentage of income earned to taxes paid for various income groups:

This is fair? It's obviously not. And yet...liberals think the rich should be paying even more!

This is my favorite common sense explanation of how our system of taxation works:

Bar Stool Economics

Suppose that every day ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7.

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. He said, "Since you are all such good customers, I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80."

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes, so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men -- the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share"? They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay! And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).

The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before, and the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"

"That's true!!"shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2 ? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up any more. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

Author unknown

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.

For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

It's not rocket science. Just remember this the next time you hear a liberal whining about how the rich should pay more, or that the rich don't pay their 'fair share'.

Finally, we must once again examine President Barack Obama's policies in relation to the economy. Like it or not, as President he's in the driver's seat for another year and a half, so what he believes about the economy is something that we have to consider. Unfortunately, he doesn't appear to be engaged enough to even know his own economic plan:

When Barack Obama gave a much-anticipated speech on the budget and deficit spending last week, it turned into a disappointing mix of ambiguities and demagoguery. Most people couldn’t discern any “plan” at all in the speech, only hazy promises with few specifics. As it turns out, Obama himself doesn’t appear to be aware of even those few specifics he did offer. In yesterday’s Facebook townhall event, Obama not only mischaracterized the scope of the Republican plan to cut deficits, he also mischaracterized his own:

That’s actually wrong on three counts. First, Obama’s plan doesn’t reduce the national debt at all. It reduces by $4 trillion dollars the amount that Obama originally promised to add to the debt through deficit spending in his earlier budget projections. Obama’s plan adds at least $7 trillion to the national debt by its end, with projections rapidly increasing thereafter. Secondly, Republicans have a plan to cut deficit spending — not debt in the short term — by over $6 trillion, using the far less rosy baseline figures of the CBO over the Pollyannaish predictions of growth coming from the OMB.

And thirdly, Obama promised a twelve-year plan, not a 10-year plan, a point he made repeatedly in last week’s speech ...

And even Democrats are perplexed by this idea of a 12-year plan. I'll let you know if I ever hear of a rational explanation of it; until then, I suspect it's some kind of number-jiggering going on, similar to how they jiggered the numbers on Obamacare to make it appear (using faulty assumptions and irresponsibly optimistic economic projections) to save money over the long haul by starting the higher taxes at the beginning of the 10-year window and only kicking in the 'benefits' in year 4. Still, I think Hot Air's conclusion is dead on:

It’s bad enough to have a President who confuses debt and deficit. It’s worse to have a President who can’t keep his own plan scope straight.

If he can't do that, can we really expect him to make good on it? And can we reasonably expect him to have a well-designed, sound economic plan in the first place?

Uh...no. And the fact that he's a liberal only compounds the problem.