JULY 29,2012


Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell



Similar things have happened repeatedly, going all the way back to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, which was blamed on a hostile right-wing atmosphere in Dallas, even though the assassin had a long history of being on the far left fringe.


By Thomas Sowell

Since so many in the media cannot resist turning every tragedy into a political talking point, it was perhaps inevitable that (1) someone would try to link the shooting rampage at the Batman movie in Colorado to the Tea Party, and that (2) some would try to make it a reason to impose more gun control laws.

(White House says Obama could address gun control issue; Chicago Tribune, July 24, 2012)

Too many people in the media cannot seem to tell the difference between reporting the news and creating propaganda.

NBC News apparently could not resist doctoring the transcript of the conversation between George Zimmerman and the police after the Trayvon Martin shooting. Now ABC News took the fact that the man arrested for the shooting in Colorado was named James Holmes to broadcast to the world the fact that there is a James Holmes who is a member of the Tea Party in Colorado.

The fact has since come out that these are two different men, one in his 20s and the other in his 50s. But corrections never catch up with irresponsible news broadcasts. The James Holmes who belongs to the Tea Party has been deluged with phone calls. I hope he sues ABC News for every dime they have.

This is not the first time that the mainstream media have tried to create a link between conservatives and violence. Years ago, the Oklahoma City bombing was blamed on Rush Limbaugh, despite the absence of any evidence that the bomber was inspired by Rush Limbaugh.

Similar things have happened repeatedly, going all the way back to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, which was blamed on a hostile right-wing atmosphere in Dallas, even though the assassin had a long history of being on the far left fringe.

But, where the shoe is on the other foot — as when the Unabomber had a much marked-up copy of an environmentalist book by Al Gore — the media heard no evil, saw no evil and spoke no evil. If people in the media cannot decide whether they are in the business of reporting news or manufacturing propaganda, it is all the more important that the public understand that difference, and choose their news sources accordingly.

As for gun control advocates, I have no hope whatever that any facts whatever will make the slightest dent in their thinking — or lack of thinking. New York’s Mayor Bloomberg and CNN’s Piers Morgan were on the air within hours of the shooting, pushing the case for gun control laws.

You might never know, from what they and other gun control advocates have said, that there is a mountain of evidence that gun control laws not only fail to control guns but are often counterproductive. However, for those other people who still think facts matter, it is worth presenting some of those facts.

Do countries with strong gun control laws have lower murder rates? Only if you cherry-pick the data.

Britain is a country with stronger gun control laws than the United States, and lower murder rates. But Mexico, Russia and Brazil are also countries with stronger gun control laws than the United States — and their murder rates are much higher than ours. Israel and Switzerland have even higher rates of gun ownership than the United States, and much lower murder rates than ours.

Even the British example does not stand up very well under scrutiny. The murder rate in New York has been several times that in London for more than two centuries — and, for most of that time, neither place had strong gun control laws. New York had strong gun control laws years before London did, but New York still had several times the murder rate of London.

It was in the later decades of the 20th century that the British government clamped down with severe gun control laws, disarming virtually the entire law-abiding citizenry. Gun crimes, including murder, rose as the public was disarmed.

Meanwhile, murder rates in the United States declined during the same years when murder rates in Britain were rising, which were also years when Americans were buying millions more guns per year.

The real problem, both in discussions of mass shootings and in discussions of gun control, is that too many people are too committed to a vision to allow mere facts to interfere with their beliefs, and the sense of superiority that those beliefs give them.

Any discussion of facts is futile when directed at such people. All anyone can do is warn others about the propaganda.


See fellow SLOB take on Colorado shooter, over at Doo Doo Economics Blog: “James Holmes is a homegrown terrorist not simply a “nut job”.”


John Kass Chicago Tribune, July 18, 2012
 When President Barack Obama hauled off and slapped American small-business owners in the mouth the other day, I wanted to dream of my father.

But I didn’t have to close my eyes to see my dad. I could do it with my eyes open.

All I had to do was think of the driveway of our home, and my dad’s car gone before dawn, that old white Chrysler with a push-button transmission. It always started, but there was a hole in the floor and his feet got wet in the rain. So he patched it with concrete mix and kept on driving it to the little supermarket he ran with my Uncle George.

He’d return home long after dark, physically and mentally exhausted, take a plate of food, talk with us for a few minutes, then flop in that big chair in front of the TV. Even before his cigarette was out, he’d begin to snore.

The next day he’d wake up and do it again. Day after day, decade after decade. Weekdays and weekends, no vacations, no time to see our games, no money for extras, not even forMcDonald’s. My dad and Uncle George, and my mom and my late Aunt Mary, killing themselves in their small supermarket on the South Side of Chicago.

There was no federal bailout money for us. No Republican corporate welfare. No Democratic handouts. No bipartisan lobbyists working the angles. No Tony Rezkos. No offshore accounts. No Obama bucks.

Just two immigrant brothers and their families risking everything, balancing on the economic high wire, building a business in America. They sacrificed, paid their bills, counted pennies to pay rent and purchase health care and food and not much else. And for their troubles they were muscled by the politicos, by the city inspectors and the chiselers and the weasels, all those smiling extortionists who held the government hammer over all of our heads.

I thought about this after I heard what Obama told a campaign crowd the other day, speaking about business owners and why they were successful.

“You didn’t get there on your own,” Obama said. “I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

“If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.”

If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that? Somebody else made that happen?

Somebody else, Mr. President? Who, exactly? Government?

One of my earliest memories as a boy at the store was that of the government men coming from City Hall. One was tall and beefy. The other was wiry. They wanted steaks.

We didn’t eat red steaks at home or yellow bananas. We took home the brown bananas and the brown steaks because we couldn’t sell them. But the government men liked the big, red steaks, the fat rib-eyes two to a shrink-wrapped package. You could put 20 or so in a shopping bag.

“Thanks, Greek,” they’d say.

That was government.

We didn’t go to movies or out to restaurants. Everything went into the business. Uncle George and dad never bought what they could not afford. The store employed people, and the workers fed their families and educated their children and put them through college. They were good people, all of them. We worked together and worked hard, but none worked harder than the bosses.

It’s the same story with so many other businesses in America, immigrants and native-born. The entrepreneurs risk everything, their homes, their children’s college funds, their hearts, all for a chance at the dream: independence, and a small business of their own.

Most often, they fail and fall to the ground without a government parachute. But some get up and start again.

When I was grown and gone from home, my parents finally managed to save a little money. After all those years of hard work and denying themselves things, they had enough to buy a place in Florida and a fishing boat in retirement. Dad died only a few years later. You wouldn’t call them rich. But Obama might.

Obama’s changed. Gone is that young knight drawing the sword from the stone, selling Hopium to the adoring media, preaching an end to the broken politics of the past. These days, he wears a new presidential persona: the multimillionaire with the Chicago clout, playing the class warrior, fighting for that second term.

And he offers an American dream much different from my father’s. Open your eyes and you can see it too. He stands there at the front of the mob, in his shirt sleeves, swinging that government hammer, exhorting the crowd to use its votes and take what it wants.


Romney Edging Past Obama Nationally

It has been joked that we (America) “nuked” the Japanese twice and it just seems to have made them stronger.

The same might prove to be the case with Mitt Romney.

We are in the “kitchen sink” phase of the campaign, when the President’s people are throwing every thing they can at the Republican candidate. It has even been suggested that Mitt could be a (possible) felon!

Despite the blizzard of attack ads run by the Democrats, Mitt is now edging up over Obama in the newest polls.

The New York Times/CBS News poll released Thursday shows Romney with a 45-43  percent lead over President Obama.

What should be even more disturbing for the President and Democrats are the number of Undecided: 4%.

Dick Morris, veteran pollster, believes that undecided voters always tend to break for the challenger.

Obama has been President for 31/2 years. The American voters know what they are getting from another Obama term as President. If someone is undecided, its only because he is waiting to see if Mitt Romeny is a decent replacement. (Which explains the Obama strategy of throwing every charge they can against Romney, regardless of the veracity, hoping to convince the undecided voter that Romney is an out-of-touch elitist who bullied gay kids back in Middle School, hates American workers and abuses his dog!)

Morris’ point is well taken; and can be seen clearly when applied to your personal life. If someone were to ask you, “Are you going to divorce your wife?”; you would only say, “I’m undecided” if you were considering it! A happily married man or woman would respond with, “No! Of course not!”

Which is why Obama is in such trouble.

If you add the 4% undecided to Romney’s total, his lead is beyond the margin of error.

Factor in also a poll taken by The Hill, that showed that a substancial number of Americans think Obama is transforming America FOR THE WORSE! This includes 20% of Democrats polled!

Are those 20% of Democrats likely to pull the lever for a man they think is screwing-up their country? Likely not. They may stay home; or they may vote for a change: Mitt Romney.  

It is still early, despite the election being only 110 days away. But at this moment in time, momentum is shifting to Romney. Having spent millions of dollars and several months shooting everything they can Romney’s way, the Obama people might be thinking: We’ve nuked him, and it just seems to have made him stronger!

Read more:

Staples vs. Solyndra

Mr. Romney helped create Staples, a start-up that worked and created tens of
thousands of jobs. Mr. Obama financed Solyndra, which did not work. Neither did Abound Solar. The many Obama alternative-energy ventures play in different market segments, but they struggle for the same reason: They serve political agendas more than customers.

(Reblogged from Wallstreet Journal Online)


Mitt Romney needs to make a better argument for Bain capitalism.

Can a President seeking re-election with a stagnant economy and high unemployment really be winning the jobs argument against a man who backed hundreds of thriving businesses? Can a President who sank taxpayer dollars into green-energy failures now succeed by attacking an opponent who funded winning start-ups with his own money?

Yes, President Obama’s attacks on Mitt Romney and the company he founded, Bain Capital, are deceptive and hypocritical. But Team Romney is compounding the damage from this character assault by conceding too much of the Obama critique.

When attacked for “outsourcing jobs,” the Romney camp responds by saying that Mr. Obama does it, too. Or the Romney campaign suggests that their candidate had already left the firm to save the Olympics when Bain was doing all the really bad stuff. Thus the trivial back-and-forth over when he really, finally, left Bain for good.

Tuesday’s Romney response was that Mr. Obama has collected more than $100,000 in contributions from Bain employees even as he has viciously attacked them.

This is a fair (if still insufficient) point, and the Romney campaign could add that the President may have benefited himself from Bain capitalism. Firms like Bain may have helped pay Mr. Obama’s salary when he taught law at the University of Chicago. While he was a professor there, the school ramped up its investments in private equity, enjoyed outsize returns and, according to a 2000 article in Pensions and Investments magazine, was a limited partner in more than 80 private-equity funds. The school won’t say whether Bain funds were among them.

But the next time Mr. Obama talks on the campaign trail about his rise from humble roots, he might also express some gratitude to the Mitt Romneys whose private-equity investments helped to build university endowments and thus helped underwrite Mr. Obama’s career in academia. Those same endowments have also helped pay for the education of thousands of middle-class students.

In any event, hitting Mr. Obama for his hypocrisy still won’t win the argument, if both men merely share the blame for acts of capitalism committed by Bain. Instead, Mr. Romney should enthusiastically defend Bain, and the job-creating contrast with Obamanomics that it represents. Did Bain have to cut some jobs as it built companies that ultimately created many more jobs? Yes, but its companies created more than they lost, and this dynamic spirit of improvement and enterprise represents a far better path to prosperity than the government-directed, political investing of Mr. Obama.

Mr. Romney can happily claim credit for Bain’s entire impressive history, rather than just the period through 1999. He has every right to do so as the company’s founder. And it will help illuminate the basic difference between his Bain career and the President’s 3.5 years running America’s economic policy to deliver 8.2% unemployment.

Mr. Romney’s Bain worked so well that it became the model for an entire industry. Mr. Romney helped create Staples, a start-up that worked and created tens of thousands of jobs. Mr. Obama financed Solyndra, which did not work. Neither did Abound Solar. The many Obama alternative-energy ventures play in different market segments, but they struggle for the same reason: They serve political agendas more than customers.

Mr. Romney has attacked Mr. Obama’s Solyndra investment in particular, but he hasn’t linked it consistently to the President’s failed model of government-led investing or contrasted it with the successful culture Mr. Romney built at Bain.

What Bain did is what all successful organizations do: Seek to deliver products and services that are better, faster, cheaper. In some instances that means fewer employees, even if Mr. Obama still can’t or won’t grasp the concept that we live in a competitive world. How many readers of this editorial have jobs today because the founders of their companies figured out how to spend more money on a slower manufacturing process to create goods of lower quality?

Overall, Bain capitalism means more successes than failures, and many more jobs. In March of this year, the managing directors of Bain Capital wrote to their investors and reported that, over the firm’s 28 years, companies backed by Bain have grown their revenues more than twice as fast “as both the S&P and the U.S. economy.”

The managers went on to note that after Bain invested, companies have grown their revenues by more than $105 billion globally, including $80 billion in the United States. Bain-backed companies, they added, have opened more than 5,000 stores and facilities during their ownership.

Mr. Romney may have thought that debating Bain was a distraction from focusing on the failed Obama economy. But with Mr. Obama using Bain as his main argument against Mr. Romney’s record as a job creator, the Republican has no choice but to fight back or he’ll lose the election. Americans will choose Bain capitalism over Solyndra crony capitalism, if Mr. Romney makes the case.

A version of this article appeared July 18, 2012, on page A14 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Staples vs. Solyndra.


Documentary filmaker Alexandra Pelosi, daughter of Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, has made a video that has liberal’s hair on fire!

Recently screened in March on “Real Time With Bill Maher”, the video interview of people waiting to go into an urban welfare/employment office. The results are both humerous and sad:


When President Obama says that the most productive of our citizens are not doing “their fair share”, he should pause to reflect upon the lack of any contribution on the part of folk at the bottom end of the productivity curve.

These interviews are examples of why so many hard-working Americans resent paying more taxes so that these folk can loiter on the street, living off of our labor!


(Allegedly By John Cleese: British writer, actor and tall person)

The ENGLISH are apparently feeling uneasy due to recent events in the Middle East and elsewhere; and have therefore raised their security level from MIFFED to PEEVED.”

Informed sources report that security levels may be raised yet again to IRRITATED or even “A BIT CROSS“.

The English have not been A BIT CROSS since the BLITZ in 1940; when tea supplies nearly ran out.

Terrorists have been re-categorized from “TIRESOME” to “A BLOODY NUISANCE“.

The last time the British issued a “Bloody Nuisance” warning level was in 1588, when threatened by the Spanish Armada (and the Spanish Inquisition).


The SCOTS have raised their threat level from “PISSED OFF” to “LET’S GET THE BASTARDS!!”  They don’t have any other levels. (Which explains why they have been the “shock troops” of the British army for the last 300 years!)



The FRENCH government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from “RUN” to “HIDE“. The only two higher levels in France are “COLLABORATE  and “SURRENDER“. The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France’s white flag factory, effectively paralyzing the country’s military capability.


ITALY has increased the alert level from “SHOUT LOUDLY and EXCITEDLY” to “ELABORATE MILITARY POSTURING“. Two more levels remain: “INEFFECTIVE  COMBAT OPERATIONS“; and “CHANGE SIDES“.



The GERMANS have increased their alert state from DISDAINFUL ARROGANCE” to “DRESS in UNIFORM and SING MARCHING SONGS.” They also have two higher levels: “CONQUER the WORLD” and “THEN LOSE.”


The BELGIANS, on the other hand, are all on holiday (as usual). The only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels.



AUSTRALIA, meanwhile, has raised its security level from “NO WORRIES” to “SHE’LL  BE ALRIGHT, MATE!”  Two more escalation levels remain: “CRIKEY! I THINK WE’LL NEED to CANCEL the BARBIE this WEEKEND!” and “THE BARBIE is CANCELLED! BUGGER!” So far no situation has ever warranted use of the last final escalation level.