The Most Transparent White House in History

From the Washington Examiner:

President Obama and his successors in the Oval Office are not obligated to make public the names of individuals visiting the White House, according to a decision of the federal Circuit Court for the District of Columbia made public Friday. 

The case was brought by Judicial Watch, the government watchdog nonprofit that has been fighting a long legal battle seeking to force release of the White House visitor logs as public records under theFreedom of Information Act. 

But in a decision that is drawing intense criticism from across the ideological spectrum, the circuit court said the president has a "constitutional perogative" not to tell the American people who he or his staff meets with in the White House.

So much for it being the People's House, especially since Obama's "sequester" has closed the White House to the public.

A Black Man and a White Man Discuss Race

Today I did something that I very, very rarely do - I confronted a friend about race on Facebook. This wasn't just any friend, either. This was a person who used to be one of my closest friends - someone who Kristi and I both have known and loved for a long time. In fact, it's fair to say that without this person Kristi and I may never have gotten married. But now this is someone whom I'm considering unfriending.

So yeah - this hurts.

This friend is a black man and has long been a voice for inclusion and diversity. He celebrated his blackness, and that was pretty cool. But lately, his posts have become more polarizing and less inclusive. He's always been focused on race, but usually in a very educational and philosophical manner. But then something happened. His posts started to get more confrontational and one-sided and divisive. But he's my friend and he's entitled to his opinion.

But today he linked to a story about some New Jersey teens who did a great thing the right thing and paid for some merchandise, even though the store was closed. Great story. But he interjected race into it and it just made my blood boil. I am firmly of the belief that there's enough racial tension in this country and that inserting race into everything is one of the things that's tearing out country apart.  So I called him on it. This is that conversation: (click on the image to enlarge it)

...and that's where I left it.

I don't mind having an honest conversation about just about any topic, but what infuriated me was his complete unwillingness to even slightly admit that he might be wrong in interjecting race into this. Well, that and his condescension.

Friends, I meant everything I said in the discussion. If we want to live in a world where race doesn't matter, then let's all let it not matter... together.

And for my friend, I pray that someday you'll see how hurtful you've been and how you're actively involved in setting the clock backwards on race relations, especially since you're in a position to influence young minds.

Obama Goes After Guns Again

From the AP:

Striving to take action where Congress would not, the Obama administration announced new steps Thursday on gun control, curbing the import of military surplus weapons and proposing to close a little-known loophole that lets felons and others circumvent background checks by registering guns to corporations.

Would not, could not... big difference there. 

Four months after a gun control drive collapsed spectacularly in the Senate, President Barack Obama added two more executive actions to a list of 23 steps the White House determined Obama could take on his own to reduce gun violence. With the political world focused on Mideast tensions and looming fiscal battles, the move signaled Obama's intent to show he hasn't lost sight of a cause he took up after 20 first graders and six adults were gunned down last year in an elementary school in Newtown, Conn.

In the words of President Obama - "we won. Move on." But no. Here we go again. But thins while the nation is waiting to see of President Obama is going to decide to strike Syria. Shouldn't he be doing that, instead? I get the feeling he's been waiting months for this moment - a moment when everyone's attention was turned elsewhere. Laying in wait... like a snake.

And what kind of weapons were used to kill the people at Newtown? Handguns - not "assault rifles. There was a rifle found in the trunk of the shooter's car - in the parking lot. But it wasn't used in the shooting. Here we go again with the "assault rifle" nonsense. "Assault rifles" are responsible for only two percent of gun crimes.

One new policy will end a government practice that lets military weapons, sold or donated by the U.S. to allies, be reimported into the U.S. by private entities, where some may end up on the streets. The White House said the U.S. has approved 250,000 of those guns to be reimported since 2005; under the new policy, only museums and a few other entities like the government will be eligible to reimport military-grade firearms.

That's rich. The administration that brought us Fast and Furious is worried about weapons that we sent to other countries ending up on American streets.

And hold on just a minute - why would "surplus" arms be sold (or donated) to other countries and then bought back from them by the military? Wouldn't that mean that they weren't surplus, after all? Sounds a bit like the way money laundering works to me.

The Obama administration is also proposing a federal rule to stop those who would be ineligible to pass a background check from skirting the law by registering a gun to a corporation or trust. The new rule would require people associated with those entities, like beneficiaries and trustees, to undergo the same type of fingerprint-based background checks as individuals if they want to register guns.

Wouldn't this require some sort of a database of people within the organization (potentially hundreds of thousands of people, depending on the size of the corporation)? And then wouldn't that database then have a record of the guns owned by those within the corporation? This sounds like a sneaky first step to gun registry to me.

Although Obama and Biden have said the fight is not over, there is scant evidence that there is more support for gun control legislation than there was in April, when efforts died in the Senate amid staunch opposition from the National Rifle Association and most Republican senators.

And the overwhelming majority of American people. And the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution. Let's not forget about those very important things that are against gun control.

"Sooner or later, we are going to get this right," Obama said that day in the White House Rose Garden, with the families of Newtown victims and former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords — herself a victim of a gunman — at his side. "The memories of these children demand it, and so do the American people," the president said at the time.

Let's breathe for a moment and also remember that Representative Giffords was shot with a handgun - not a rifle. And the gun used wasn't surplus or reimported into the United States. It was purchased legally.

These days, Obama mentions gun control with far less regularity than when it appeared the Senate was poised to take action, although Obama did meet Tuesday with 18 city mayors to discuss ways to contain youth violence. And with immigration and pressing fiscal issues dominating Congress' agenda, the prospects for reviving gun legislation appear negligible.

I wonder if Rahm Emanual, the mayor of Chicago, was among those whom the president met with. You know - the gun control Mecca where gun crime and homicides are out of control.

I Told You So, Miley.

Following Miley Cyrus's er... performance last night at the VMAs, I just have to take this opportunity to say... I'm so glad I went with my gut years ago and banned her music from my house.

Not that I'd let my 10-year-old daughter watch the VMAs (or that I would either, for that matter), but I'm so glad that I don't have to explain to her why her former favorite singer was behaving like a full out stripper on television.

The train wreck that is Miley Cyrus is complete.

Go hang out with Lady Gaga, Miley. You're done.

Possibilities

Great new ad from Nike.

"It Wasn't Racial."

I didn't blog about it. Purposefully. It was too soon. We didn't have all the facts. And we didn't know anything about the three teens who murdered Australian student Chris Lane in cold blood last Friday.

But now things are starting to come to light.

After the killing, people all over the internet began wondering aloud what the reaction would be to this killing by those who said that Trayvon Martin was a racial hate crime. They were, for the most part, silent on the issue. People who for weeks and months have been raising holy hell on Facebook and Twitter and in blogs and changing their status profiles to pictures of hoodie-wearing people suddenly have nothing to say. Well, most people, anyway. I did see a few pop up here and there to say something along the lines of "this was just a killing. It wasn't a hate crime. It wasn't about race."

Yeah. Well now there's this from the Daily Caller:

One of the teens charged with first-degree murder in the shooting death of Australian baseball player Christopher Lane in Duncan, Okla., previously posted anti-white statements on his Twitter feed.

Not about race, huh? Not a hate crime? Notice that James Edwards is the one using the word hate in the hashtag of his tweet. Not anyone else. To me, that screams hate crime.

So, Oprah, Al Sharpton, President Obama et al, where are you now? You hypocrites.

[edit: It seems that people are giving Jesse Jackson credit for speaking out on this matter because he tweeted on the matter. Let's be clear - that's not speaking out. That's just saying something. But good for him, anyway, for sayting something, even if it was weak.]

School "Security" Gone Too Far... Again

From CBSDFW:

For some it’s the end of a tradition that has taken place for generations. Security enhancements at many North Texas schools this year may keep parents at the curb. 

All of the extra security is in response to what happened nearly nine months ago at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. It was December of last year when a gunman opened fire at the school, killing 20 students and six adults. 

But there’s a new rule waiting for parents like Tamara Moore and Angela Shamblin.  It deals with access to their youngsters and both mothers have a certain view about the rule. 

“I really want to take my son to class. Since it’s his first time in school,” Moore said protectively. “They may have security, but I want to know where my kid is going at all times.” 

Shamblin had a different viewpoint as she dropped off her little one. “As long as I can see him walk in that building, that will be fine. Because once he’s in that building they’ll take care of him.”

That's right - they'll take care of him.  They'll lead him to class and he'll be perfectly safe there in the hall and in the classroom with no parents around that might cause harm.

Nevermind that it wasn't a parent that shot up the school at Sandy Hook.

Nevermind that the gunman killed teachers and students that were already in their classrooms.

Nevermind that at Sandy Hook they already had a video security system and locking doors that the gunman managed to get through or around... somehow.

Once again, this is solving a "problem" with a solution that doesn't even fit the issue at hand. How does  prohibiting parents from walking kids to class eliminate the threat that happened in Sandy Hook? If some parent had snapped after taking little Timmy to class, I could understand, maybe. But that's not even remotely what happened.

"Well, it takes additional people out of the school who might wish to do harm. That way there are only those in the school who are supposed to be there," you might say.  That makes no sense at all.

What they're doing is taking other adults, other parents - people who have a vested interest in there being a safe environment at their child's school - out of the hallways. Those parents are a deterrent. Gunmen are cowards. Every time they are met with resistance, they fold or kill themselves. Every time. Those additional parents in the hallways walking their kids to class are almost insurance that some sicko isn't going to come into a school and start shooting.

What we need is a security officer in the school. An armed, trained security officer. We don't need to b further elevating the government (the school district and the school is still the government) as the protector of our children by further stripping rights from parents.

This is the school looking at parents as potential victims should a gunman invade the school. I saw that's the wrong way to look at the world. That's the doom and gloom way. That's the pessimistic way. People are not sheep, especially when their children are concerned. If I were walking my son or daughter to class and someone came in shooting, you can bet your life that I would do everything I could to stop that gunman. I bet almost any parent would.

They're relying on teachers and administrators to keep the halls safe. Ask yourself this - in the event of a gunman, what is a teacher going to be most concerned with (and let's use Sandy Hook as an example)? They'll be concerned with getting their class and any other kids to safety. That's engrained in them. But while they're doing that, who's trying to stop the gunman?

No one is.

Just as in Sandy Hook, a gunman is probably going to take out the front office staff first. They're the most likely to call the police. Most classrooms don't have phones with an outside line. So that means that teachers and kids are helpless targets for a gunman who has freedom to roam a school. And hopefully someone survived to call the police. It'll take them a few minutes to get there. Meanwhile, it's a target shoot for the gunman.

No - I'd rather go down like the passengers on United flight 93 on September 11 - by taking my life into my own hands and actively trying to stop whomever is trying to kill me and others. Especially if those others are my kids.

I have more to say, but I won't. You get the idea.

Don't be sheeple. Oppose any government entity that strips your rights in the name of "security," even if it's the local school board or the principal at your kids' school.

Colorado Has Had Enough

From the Washington Times:

Voters in several rural Colorado counties will be asked whether they want to form a new state tentatively named Northern Colorado in the November election, a reaction to the Democrat-controlled state legislature’s “war on rural Colorado.” 

The Weld County Commissioners voted unanimously at Monday’s meeting to place a measure on the Nov. 5 ballot asking voters whether they want the county to join other rural counties in forming another state. 

“The concerns of rural Coloradans have been ignored for years,” William Garcia, chairman of the Weld County Commissioners, said in a statement. “The last session was the straw that broke the camel’s back for many people. They want change. They want to be heard.” 

Three other rural counties — Cheyenne, Sedgwick and Yuma — also plan to place the 51st state referendum on the fall ballot. At least three more counties plan to consider the proposal this week at their commission meetings, said Jeffrey Hare, spokesman for the 51st State Initiative. 

Known for its agriculture and oil and gas production, Weld is the largest of the Colorado counties exploring a break with the state after the legislature’s sharp turn to the left with bills restricting access to firearms and doubling the state’s renewable-energy mandate for rural areas. 

Democrats control both houses of the legislature and the governor’s office. Two Democratic state senators — Angela Giron and John Morse — are facing Sept. 10 recall elections in response to the legislature’s gun control votes.

Even if it doesn't work, it's still a small step in the right direction - that is, the people standing up to the politicians to take back their country when they feel they aren't appropriately represented or that they are being misrepresented.

I also like that they're not talking about seceding from the union, but rather want to form a new state that better reflects their beliefs and values within the United States.

Power to the people. The residents of Destructoville, despite being firmly located in Texas, stand with you.

You're Welcome, Matt.

The 1st Amendment Don't Live in Missouri

Outrageous.

Occupy thugs foul things up for weeks in cities across the nation and nothing happens. But two guys try to protest on an overpass in Missouri and it's the freaking end of the world.

What have we come to?

Shenanigans!

From CNS News:

The Treasury Department's Financial Management Service (FMS), which publishes both the federal government's official Daily Treasury Statement and its official Monthly Treasury Statement, is reporting that in July the federal government ran a deficit of $98 billion but that the federal government's debt remained exactly $16,699,396,000,000 for the entire month.

The FMS said that the deficit went up $98 billion ($97,594,000,000) in the Monthly Treasury Statment for July, which it released on Monday.

At the same time, the FMS said the debt stayed at exactly $16,699,396,000,000 in its Daily Treasury Statements, which are published every business day. The Daily Treasury Statements show the daily value of the federal government debt that is subject to a legal limit set by Congress.

At the static $16,699,396,000,000 level that the Treasury reported for every day of July, the debt was just $25 million below the legal limit of $16,699,421,000,000 that was set in a law passed by Congress and signed by President Barack Obama.

If Treasury's daily statements were to declare that the government had borrowed an additional net $98 billion to cover the $98 billion deficit the Treasury declared in its monthly statement for July, the Treasury would be conceding that the government had already surpassed the legal limit on the debt--and has been violating the law by continuing to borrowing additional money.

Noting to see here. Move along...