Acknowledging the Father of our Country

“Guard against the postures of pretended patriotism.”

I'd like to take a moment and veer away from the politics and pop culture of the day to acknowledge a man who, once upon a time, had a holiday commemorating his birth.  It wasn't that long ago when, arguably, the greatest and most important American there ever was rightly had a day set aside in his honor. In an era where honoring George Washington (and Lincoln, too) has been replaced with an all encompassing scotch-tape and spit weekend-extender holiday that tips the hat to ALL presidents who ever served (including the venerable Franklin Pierce) - a holiday best known for mattress sales, car bargains and corny jingles built around "Hail To The Chief" - a holiday that means exponentially LESS than even EARTH DAY, I'd like to acknowledge yesterday's 283rd birthday of George Washington with some of my favorite quotes. 

-

Nothing is a greater stranger to my breast, or a sin that my soul more abhors, than that black and detestable one, ingratitude. – Letter to Governor Dinwiddie, 29 May, 1754

Remember that it is the actions, and not the commission, that make the officer, and that there is more expected from him, than the title.    -Address to the Officers of the Virginia Regiment, 8 January, 1756

The ways of Providence being inscrutable, and the justice of it not to be scanned by the shallow eye of humanity, nor to be counteracted by the utmost efforts of human power or wisdom, resignation, and as far as the strength of our reason and religion can carry us, a cheerful acquiescence to the Divine Will, is what we are to aim.   - Letter to Colonel Bassett, 25 April, 1773

Every post is honorable in which a man can serve his country.- Letter to Benedict Arnold, 14 September 1775

Let us therefore animate and encourage each other, and show the whole world that a Freeman, contending for liberty on his own ground, is superior to any slavish mercenary on earth.- General Orders, Headquarters, New York, 2 July 1776

The General hopes and trusts that every officer and man will endeavor to live and act as becomes a Christian soldier defending the dearest rights and liberties of his country.- General Order, 9 July 1776 George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress, 1741-1799

The time is now near at hand which must probably determine whether Americans are to be freemen or slaves; whether they are to have any property they can call their own; whether their houses and farms are to be pillaged and destroyed, and themselves consigned to a state of wretchedness from which no human efforts will deliver them. The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the courage and conduct of this army. Our cruel and unrelenting enemy leaves us only the choice of brave resistance, or the most abject submission. We have, therefore, to resolve to conquer or die.- Address to the Continental Army before the Battle of Long Island, 27 August 1776

My brave fellows, you have done all I asked you to do, and more than can be reasonably expected; but your country is at stake, your wives, your houses and all that you hold dear. You have worn yourselves out with fatigues and hardships, but we know not how to spare you. If you will consent to stay one month longer, you will render that service to the cause of liberty, and to your country, which you probably can never do under any other circumstances.- Encouraging his men to renlist in the army, 31 December 1776

While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian.- General Orders, 2 May 1778

Example, whether it be good or bad, has a powerful influence.- Letter to Lord Stirling, 5 March 1780

You will, by the dignity of your Conduct, afford occasion for Posterity to say, when speaking of the glorious example you have exhibited to Mankind, had this day been wanting, the World had never seen the last stage of perfection to which human nature is capable of attaining.- Response to the first Newburgh Address, 15 March 1783

If men are to be precluded from offering their sentiments on a matter which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences that can invite the consideration of mankind, reason is of no use to us; the freedom of speech may be taken away, and dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.-Address to officers of the Army, 15 March 1783

To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.-First Annual Address, to both Houses of Congress, 8 January 1790

A people… who are possessed of the spirit of commerce, who see and who will pursue their advantages may achieve almost anything. - Letter to Benjamin Harrison, 10 October 1784

All see, and most admire, the glare which hovers round the external trappings of elevated office. To me there is nothing in it, beyond the lustre which may be reflected from its connection with a power of promoting human felicity.-Letter to Catherine Macaulay Graham, 9 January1790

It is better to offer no excuse than a bad one.
- Letter to his niece, Harriet Washington, 30 October 1791

We have abundant reason to rejoice that in this Land the light of truth & reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition, and that every person may here worship God according to the dictates of his own heart. In this enlightened age & in this Land of equal liberty it is our boast, that a man’s religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the Laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining & holding the highest offices that are known in the United States.- Letter To the members of the New Church of Baltimore, 22 January 1793

When one side only of a story is heard and often repeated, the human mind becomes impressed with it insensibly.- Letter to Edmund Pendleton, 22 January 1795

Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice?” –Farewell address, 26 September 1796

“…….the name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism…” - Farewell address, 26 September 1796

-Andrew Roman

About Last Night (Flash Impressions from the State of the Union)

by guest blogger Andrew Roman

Who was the President speaking to last night? Did it even appear as if he were addressing the newly elected Republican-majority congress? Or even the American people? Did anyone else get the sense that President Obama felt he was doing the elected officials before him a favor by showing up and gracing them with his presence? Did anyone else get the sense that the whole speech was nothing more than a Campaign-2016 primer?

And what planet does he reside on? Because after that little performance, I am more than ready to pack up all my things and head off into the delicious rose-colored world he clearly believes we live in. (Just imagine how many more acts of terrorism there would have been if not for President Obama and his brilliant foreign policy strategies).

I won’t invest a lot of time analyzing last night’s State of the Union address, but allow me to briefly throw together some flash observations:

-There really was nothing in this speech about the actual "state" of the union, save for the declaration that the "shadow of crisis"  - whatever that is - has apparently passed. However, the state of Obama's campaign persona remains very strong.

-Obama’s modus operandi was on full display: He says he will work with Republicans.... but has already promised to veto whatever they send him.

-He says he wants to put money back in the pockets of working people. But why take it out in the first place?

-The myth of women continuing to be victims of not receiving equal pay for equal work still breathes. It’s a wonder that corporations run by money-grubbing humans with penises aren’t hiring anything BUT women, seeing as they are all so attainable on the cheap.

-Why propose tax cuts for families with two working parents and not for those with stay-at-home parents?

-Like it or not, Mr. President,  the reduction in gas and oil prices is, in large part, the result of fracking. (This supply and demand thing really seems to confound him at times).

-A few nano-seconds were spent on foreign policy – mostly a self high-five on how well his strategies are breaking down the terrorists. (That sound you heard was the terrorists laughing their collective asses off).

-Obama says that Iran’s progression toward nuclear weapons has been halted, but it is entirely false. The November, 2013 agreement in no way keeps them from converting their already existing stockpile (one that has been steadily growing under Obama’s leadership) into a nuclear weapon.

-There was nothing on corporate tax reform…as companies continue to flee the nation with the highest corporate tax rates on the globe.

-Apparently, there still isn’t enough free stuff out there, so it is necessary to punish Americans once again by way of tax hikes on “the rich.”

-The President decried divisiveness across the political landscape – this coming from the man who, at one time or another, called Republicans “hostage-takers,” and “cowards.” I think he even called them terrorists. 

I’m sure there’s probably more I could touch upon, but I’ve got a clog in my bathroom sink to tend to – entirely more entertaining and fulfilling.

___

Gay 'Jim Crow' in Waiting?

by Andrew Roman
____________________

In Arizona, there already exists a law that's been on the books since 1999 called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The fact of the matter is that just about any place of business in that state already has the legal right to discriminate against gays, if they choose to. 

The fear now sweeping the country in this all-gay all-the-time era we live in is that if Governor Jan Brewer signs Bill 1062 into law – which is a modification to the existing law, a clarification – a new age of intolerance and grotesque homophobia will be ushered in. Presumably “No gays allowed” signs will start popping up across the landscape, homosexuals will be denied access to goods and services everywhere and gay-bashing will become institutionalized - all because of this law.

It's just what the bible thumpers have been waiting for!

Let’s be clear.  These latest modifications to the already existing law are not needed if business owners felt like saying "no" to gay customers. A Gay Jim Crow era would already exist without this bill, if this country were so inclined.

Indeed, there are some communities in Arizona that have local statutes in place against the existing state law, but the fact remains that denying services to gays could (and would) already be a reality most everywhere else if service providers really wanted to do so. The law is already on their side.

What is so hard to understand about this?

In much of the United States - from deep in the heart of Alabama to the northern reaches of New England - service providers already have that right to deny gays services.

The reality is: It just ain't happening. Anywhere.

There is no 21st-Century Gay Jim Crow era waiting to explode across the map as the world waits for Governor Brewer to launch it with a stroke of her pen.

I know the agenda pimps hate to hear this, but no one is turning away gays for being gay.

Why would they? How could they?

In fact, it would be contrary to the religious beliefs of Christians and Jews to deny services to homosexuals. How many of the great ignorant masses realize that? Plus, it would be heartily unwise from a business standpoint.

Seriously, why aren't these homophobes denying hamburgers, clothes, radial tires and Slushies to gays now? 

What the bill does is confirm the right of a religious person to not have to participate in a given event that specifically contradicts their religious beliefs - a same-sex wedding, for instance. 

These modifications would not be necessary if not for judges with agendas who have access to countless penumbras.*

Let’s be even more clear. The people in question - photographers and bakers who have refused to work same-sex weddings - have said time and time again they are more than happy to serve gays as individuals. What they are specifically refusing to do is serve a same-sex wedding, which directly contradicts religious conviction.

It should be noted that no business anywhere has ever - and I mean, ever - used the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to defend not serving gays.

The modifications to the law are completely misunderstood by the left, the media (redundant) and politicians of all stripes afraid of bad press.

On one hand, the bill is meant to clarify in no uncertain terms that that any association, including for-profit corporations, are covered in the already existing law. Indeed, that was the intent of the law when originally constructed (by both Democrats and Republicans). However (sadly), the Hobby-Lobby and Conestoga Woods Specialties lawsuits against ObamaCare's birth control mandate made it clear that judges could twist and distort the original intent to meet their own agendas. Arizona decided to wipe away any ambiguity and state once and for all that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act most definitely applies to corporations as well.

That's the gist of it. I guess it's obvious to see how such a contemptible modification could spark a 21st Century Jim Crow backlash against gays across the map.

The bill also clarifies that the government does not have to be a party to a given case. In other words, an entity can assert a religious freedom violation whether or not the government is involved.

That's all. 

Quick, break out the fire hose. Armageddon is coming. Let's beat back the gays!!

On the other hand – and this is critical - the bill could actually make it more difficult for one to claim a religious freedom violation - not easier. According to the bill, one asserting a violation must show three specific things:

"1. That the person's action or refusal to act is motivated by a religious belief.

2. That the person's religious belief is sincerely held.

3. That the state action substantially burdens the exercise of the person's religious beliefs."

These points could arguably make it more burdensome for, say, a devout Christian to prove that he or she is within his or her rights to deny gays services based on religious convictions. Denying a gay person a new dishwasher, for instance, because of what he or she does in the privacy of the bedroom is simply not defensible based on normative Judeo-Christian beliefs.

Refusing to service a same-sex wedding, however, is absolutely defensible on religious grounds and well within the rights of those doing so. 

The sad thing is…if the bill passes, I have little doubt that Arizona may suffer somewhat economically, especially if the newly-annointed socially-conscious arbiters of justice – the National Football League – pull the Super Bowl from Phoenix.

More's the pity.

I wonder how many Arizona gays will be affected economically because of it.

____________

*Editor's note: "penumbra" refers to SCOTUS Justice William O. Douglas' opinion in Griswold v. Connecticut, that there are Constitutional rights not enumerated in the Constitution, like a specific "right to privacy", which then generates indistinct shadows or "penumbras" under which Constitutional rights (like abortion) may be construed.

A Kinder, Gentler Brand of Taunting

by Andrew Roman

________________

The National Football is considering the institution of a penalty for the use of the word “nigger” on the football field during a game.  More accurately, a 15 yard infraction would be issued as a “first offense” while a repeat violation would result in the player’s banishment from that particular game.  It’s a proposal that will be on the docket during next week’s NFL Competition Committee meeting. Homophobic slurs will be considered as well. 

One would have to assume – or at least demand (in the name of the Left's most treasured value: equality) – that this sort of rule would apply to any and all slurs of an ethnic, racial or sexual orientation nature. Thus, in theory: No “kikes” on the field, no “spicks” on the sideline, no “fags” in the backfield, no “towelheads” in the end zone, no “white boys” at midfield.  (My educated guess is that "white boy" has been uttered more often on the gridiron than "kike," but I illustrate the point...)

Believe me, I would not weep if I never heard any of these words or phrases again. Arguably, the only thing more stupid than racism (yes, stupid) is making full length motion pictures out of old television series.

Still, there are microphones everywhere on a football field, so it won’t be difficult to zero in on the haters.  After all, the word "nigger" is a racial epithet ... even when used by the race it is meant to degrade, right? A bad word is a bad word.

Come to think of it, maybe this is the stepping stone that proponents of eliminating the word “redskins” have been waiting for. How can we allow such a hateful and racist term as “redskin” to subsist if the n-word is officially punishable with a 15-yard walk-off?

I wonder ..... what if the “slurs” are not ethnic or race based?

Can someone get flagged for calling someone a “girl?”

“Hey, (replace ethnic slur with player's first name), you tackle like my sister!”

Ouch! That'll show 'em!

Sexist maybe?

And what about insulting an opponent’s mother? Certainly, that is inexcusable.

And when the new threshold has been defined and implemented, how long until that line becomes “intolerable?”

And does this ban extend to the music played in the locker room before and after games as well? Will PG-13 lyrics become the new standard in locker rooms from coast to coast?

Obviously, no one is advocating - or even defending - the use of disgusting language. That isn't the point. No one is saying that teams shouldn’t be able discipline its own players in any way they see fit (assuming they have their own rules about such language). But let’s be perfectly honest. If the word “nigger” is used by players toward other players in a way not intended to slur them, the point of this politically correct exercise is what? Exactly what does the use of a racial slur – or any disparaging language – on the field of play have to do with the game itself? Why should the use of the word “nigger” in the middle of a 50-yard game winning drive suddenly affect the actual structure of the competition on the field with a flag? Calling someone a "nigger" should have MORE of an impact on the game than a face mask call? Or a pass interference?

Is this really a problem?

Taunting is as old as the game.

So, now we regulate a kinder and gentler brand of taunting?

________

Art Appreciation Day

Just a shade over two weeks ago, we announced the arrival of John Cox, whose art graces the pages of my commentary.


Some of you have made comments, all favorable, and some of you have visited John's site. Today, take just a minute, if you don't mind, and tell John directly on this post what you think of how he's classed up the place, and then, click over to his site and see some of the other good stuff and 'toons he has over there.

Oh, and Andrew Roman has a new post up yesterday: Thou Shalt Not Offend: The Word "Redskin" . Stop by, enjoy the piece and let Andrew know how you liked it. For what I pay these guys, I want to make sure they know they're well loved...

Thou Shalt Not Offend: The Word "Redskin"

by Andrew Roman
_________________________________

The issue is a burning one.

In a sea of debt ceiling debate and ObamaCare Rollout disasters, the real question plaguing the collective American mind: Is the name Washington "Redskins" offensive? Is it debasing? Insensitive? Racist?

Indeed, Syria takes a back seat. Benghazi is old news. The IRS thing is just right wing paranoia. Forget the NSA. Right now, it’s all about the word “redskin” and the moth-eaten, primordial mindset that allows such a hateful phrase to continue to exist.

Run a Google search on the subject.

Is it reprehensible? Hateful?

The overwhelming vast majority of posts, articles and commentaries say it is. And if you just happened to arrive from, say, the Planet Zaytox a billion light years away and didn't know any better, you'd think just about every single human being in America is outraged by the name.

And if they aren't…well, they damn well ought to be.

Some web sites, in fact, are so progressive, so forward in their thinking, so wholly sensitive to the pain the name apparently inflicts, they refuse to actually use the word “redskins” when referring to the Washington football squad – like Slate.com, for example (that Mecca of professional football analysis and insight).

At least someone is looking out for us.

Even NFL commissioner, Roger Goodell, recently said, “If one person is offended, we have to listen.”

They have to listen.

Let’s see … I’m offended the pledge of allegiance isn't said before football games anymore. I'm offended by the Jacksonville Jaguars silly looking two tone helmets. I'm offended at uniforms where the tops and bottoms are the same color (save for road whites). They look like pajamas.

Anyone in the NFL front offices listening now?

Quite literally, on a dime, this "Redskin" thing is suddenly a hot national issue.

In an era when supporting traditional values means one hates gays, or displaying a Christmas tree in public is a Constitutional infraction, this media-contrived hyper-sensitivity to anything – and I mean anything - that could even remotely be perceived as offensive is so out of control and ridiculous that it is impossible to overstate it.

Thou Shall Not Offend: the commandment that should have been.

To even the most casual observer, it must truly seem to be the mission of the predominantly liberal media to continue to point out  - and prove - at every turn, that racism and bigotry still permeate this country.

It's much like the man who believes that restaurants are unsanitary and dangerous. He eats at a different place every day for seven years until he actually gets sick from something. Then, he proclaims, "See? I told you that people get sick eating in those germ factories!"

The fact is… only modern-day progressives, ever on the hunt for social injustices in every nook and cranny of society, operating on the rabble-rousing fumes of political-correctness, would truly believe that a National Football Team would name and brand itself with a symbol they did not honor or take genuine pride in. And since these champions of social consciousness are the ones who essentially drive the media complex in this country, this ridiculous non-issue has suddenly bubbled up (again) as a pressing national controversy….even though the overwhelming vast majority of Americans (and Native Americans) aren’t offended in the least.

What exactly is there to be offended about?

I ask this in all seriousness.

What makes the word “redskin” an epithet, worthy of mention in the same breath with genuine racial epithets?

It is gravely disingenuous – and intellectually vacuous – to bandy about examples of incontestably offensive nicknames to illustrate the (so-called) callous insensitivity of the name “Redskins”: the Washington Kikes, the Washington Niggers, the Washington Spicks, etc…  Those words have always been used as pejoratives, as insults, as demeaning labels. Such terms were meant to diminish, to belittle, to revile. Those terms were born and cultivated through racism and bigotry.

Not so for the word “redskin.”

The history simply doesn’t bear it out. The culture doesn’t reflect it. The attempts to equate the word with hateful slurs are, at best, products of college dorm-room logic and professorial mumbo jumbo. There’s no foundation in it.

The only thing the word "redskin" is associated with is… football.

For example, person one - let's call him, Hank - meets up with person two - let's call him Trucker - and says the following: "Hey, dude. Guess what? I just ran into a redskin at the mall!"

What do you think Trucker is thinking? Is he thinking Hank just met a Native American? Or is he thinking that maybe Hank met Robert Griffin III and got an autograph?

Or better yet….Hank proclaims, “I HATE the Redskins!”

Is Trucker thinking, “I wonder if he’s referring to the Sioux Nation or the professional football franchise?”

Again I ask: How exactly does the word offend? Because it sounds like it should offend someone?

And who is offended exactly? American Indians?

No, not really.

The sellout crowds that come to see the Redskins play?

Clearly, no.

Those who buy the merchandise and adorn the team colors and logos?

Not.

On the other hand, if, in fact, a team were called the Washington Niggers, who would come? Who would buy the merchandise? Who would want to? Would such a name be born out of respect, honor and admiration?

Come on now....turn on your common sense meters.

After considerable research, it was just about impossible to find the term “redskin,” outside of a football context, in use anywhere over the past hundred years or so. The accounts of racial bias against Native Americans where the word “redskin” was used were nonexistent. (Actually, bias against American Indians at all was practically nonexistent).

There is simply no “R” word legacy to speak of.

The word “redskin” isn’t even Western in origin. It doesn't come from the "white man."

In an article posted at Breitbart.com earlier this year:

A longtime chief of a major Virginia Native American tribe said he would be offended if the Washington Redskins DID change the team name and said society has gotten too "politically correct" and "touchy" these days.

Speaking on Sirius XM NFL Radio's "The Morning Drive" …. Robert "Two Eagles" Green, whom CBS notes "retired from his presiding role over the 1300-member Patawomeck Tribe in March," said most members of his tribe "don’t find" the Redskins name to be "offensive.”

“I’ve been a Redskins fan for years and to be honest with you, I would be offended if they did change it," Green said.

Chief Green said his research indicated the term came from Indians, and it is "not a term that the white man created." He said Native Americans used the term to refer to themselves in negotiations with white settlers and noted "we have people in this country that try and gin up problems that don’t exist.”

ESPN columnist Rick Reilly, who has been earnestly excoriated by those who populate the “tolerant left” for publishing a well-crafted, thoughtful and well-researched article on the subject, writes:

“I definitely don’t know how I’ll tell the athletes at Wellpinit (Wash.) High School — where the student body is 91.2 percent Native American — that the “Redskins” name they wear proudly across their chests is insulting them. Because they have no idea.

“I’ve talked to our students, our parents and our community about this and nobody finds any offense at all in it,” says Tim Ames, the superintendent of Wellpinit schools. “‘Redskins’ is not an insult to our kids. ‘Wagon burners’ is an insult. ‘Prairie n—–s’ is an insult. Those are very upsetting to our kids.

But ‘Redskins’ is an honorable name we wear with pride. … In fact, I’d like to see somebody come up here and try to change it.”

…

...it’s not going to be easy telling the Kingston (Okla.) High School (57.7 percent Native American) Redskins that the name they’ve worn on their uniforms for 104 years has been a joke on them this whole time. Because they wear it with honor.

“We have two great tribes here,” says Kingston assistant school superintendent Ron Whipkey, “the Chicasaw and the Choctaw. And not one member of those tribes has ever come to me or our school with a complaint. It is a prideful thing to them.”

“It’s a name that honors the people,” says Kingston English teacher Brett Hayes, who is Choctaw. “The word ‘Oklahoma’ itself is Choctaw for ‘red people.’ The students here don’t want it changed. To them, it seems like it’s just people who have no connection with the Native American culture, people out there trying to draw attention to themselves.

“My kids are really afraid we’re going to lose the Redskin name. They say to me, ‘They’re not going to take it from us, are they, Dad?’”

If the name truly were offensive – if it was meant to highlight the inferiority of a given race or culture – why on earth would a sports franchise use it?

Again, let those common sense meters buzz loudly.

Let's try and wrap our brains around the logic here with a few silly, yet illustrative, examples…

Would a white supremacy group form a softball team called the “Jews?”

Would a militant black group create a team called the “Whiteskins?”

Absurd, yes....but absurdity is often the best way to highlight absurdity.

The sad thing is: Once someone like Daniel Snyder (owner of the Redskins, who claims he will never change the team's name) is labeled in the press as "bigoted," or "insensitive" or some sort of "phobe" - and once the bandwagon is so bogged down with emotional stragglers from all sectors of American society that it is planted firmly in the mud of political correctness, and once our favorite actors and musicians start sounding the bugle of corporate greed, racism and hatred that must be behind this ongoing injustice - the argument will be lost with no way to win it back.

Daniel Flynn of the American Spectator gives America a little lesson on the history of the name:

“The history of the “Redskins” nickname appears less about Native Americans and more about the economic realities of the early NFL. The $9 billion behemoth was once the latest in a long line of failed attempts at professional football. As I discovered in researching my forthcoming book, The War on Football:  Saving America’s Game, NFL owners — then a motley collection of gamblers and the nouveau-not-so-riche — attempted to market their product as an offseason diversion for fans of the national pastime once that game’s season had gone past its time. So, the team that shared Wrigley Field with the Cubs became the Bears, the team that shared the Polo Grounds with the Giants became the Giants, and the team that eventually shared Tigers Stadium with the Tigers became the Lions after their move to Detroit.

The Redskins started life as the Boston Braves, sharing Braves Field with the Major League Baseball team of that name. After their first year, the football Braves moved about a mile east to Fenway Park. Seeking a name to go with the baseball team with whom they shared a field, the Braves ownership changed their name to the “Redskins.” Get it: Red Sox, Redskins. Even when they moved south and occupied Griffith Stadium along with the Senators, the Redskins remained the Redskins.”

Give it time ... concerned atheists, who have already fought (successfully) to remove a cross from the seal of the City of Los Angeles, will amass in New Orleans and protest the Saints' name;  something about the separation of church and state, I'm sure.

I was asked once: "How would you feel if there was a football team called the 'Brooklyn Jews.' "

I said, "Are you kidding? After millennia of what the Jews had to endure, it would be an amazing honor to have a sports franchise called 'The Jews.' I would LOVE it."

A Work crew of seven men was needed to extract his bottom jaw from the pavement.

_

The Clinton Surplus Myth

By Andrew Roman
______________

Back in 2010, when I had my own blog - and the disaster of what would become the Obama presidency was still largely ahead of us - I was commenting on an article from Reuters (of all places) that predicted a national debt of nearly 20 trillion bucks by the year 2015. 

Prophetic, yes, if not a little too conservative in estimate.

As I wrote then:

An exasperated blogger at Reuters, who goes by the name of johnchick, posted the following rhetorical question: “How can any Administration raise the debt by 20-30% in a couple years?”

To which another blogger responded with the following: 

"You should ask George Bush, Cause he was the first to do it. And he is largely the origin of the current fiscal mess that the U.S. is in. Bushie inherited a surplus from the Clinton Administration and quickly turned that into the largest yearly deficits that the U.S. has ever seen. And his Conservative ideology ruined the American Economy in the process. The U.S. is now going the way of the DoDo. And the world will be a better place for it."

At the time, a million questions and comments came to mind: Bush a conservative? Really? The world would be a better place with a failing United States economy? Bush inherited a surplus? Huh?

The focus of my article then went on to dispel that myth - and that's EXACTLY what it is: a bona fide piece of fiction.

Here's what I wrote then:

Let’s be perfectly clear, there was never a true surplus under President Bill Clinton.

Indeed, it flies in the face of conventional wisdom, but the numbers do not, in any way, back up such a claim.

For example, the surplus announced in 2000 – $230 billion – was really a nifty bookkeeping stunt. It was not a genuine surplus, because only the “public debt” was accounted for.

Remember, there are two components to the national debt: public debt - which includes such things as savings bonds and treasury bills - and intergovernmental holdings, which includes income tax revenues and governmental borrowing from itself.

During the last years of the Clinton administration, the public debt did go down, but intergovernmental debt increased by a greater amount.

Not once during Clinton’s time in office did the national debt decrease.

It is not possible, by definition, to have a surplus if the national debt keeps increasing.

First of all, the official Clinton “surplus” numbers, which can be seen here, via the Congressional Budget Office, are as follows:

-Fiscal Year 1998 – $69.3 Billion surplus.

-Fiscal Year 1999 – $125.6 Billion surplus.

-Fiscal Year 2000 – $236.3 Billion surplus.

Please note that these very numbers were also reported by CNN.

Now, if you go to the Bureau of the Public Debt website, which is part of the United States Department of Treasury, you’ll find a link that reads “See the U.S. Public Debt To The Penny.” (You may need to scroll down a bit)

Once you click on that, you’ll be brought to page that gives you the current total national debt (divided into two subgroups: “Debt held by the Public” and “Intrgovernmental Holdings”) along with a search application that enables you to type in the dates of your choosing to see what the total national debt was on that given date.

The important thing to check are the FISCAL YEAR parameters. (The fiscal year always begins on October 1st and runs through the end of the following September).

For instance, if you type in “October 1, 1999″ in the first box and “September 30, 2000″ in the next box, you will be asking to see the total national debt figures for Fiscal Year 2000. You’ll note, after typing in those parameters, that if you scroll all the way to the bottom, the total debt held by the public at the end of Fiscal Year 2000 was “$3,405,303,490,221.20.” You’ll also notice that Intragovernmental Holdings total was “$2,268,874,719,665.66.”

These are official Department of Treasury numbers.

Adding those two numbers together gives you a grand total of “$5,674,178,209,886.86.”

That is what the total national debt was at the end of FISCAL YEAR 2000. The National Debt is thus calculated by adding the Public Debt and Intragovernmental Holdings together.

Compare the total public debt of FY2000 to that of FY1999.

President Clinton did technically pay down the PUBLIC NATIONAL DEBT from FY1999 to FY2000.

FY1999 PUBLIC DEBT: $3,636,104,594,501.81

FY2000 PUBLIC DEBT: $3,405,303,490,221.20

It was paid down by a total of $230,801,104,280.61 – amazingly close to the announced $236 Billion surplus for that year. But it was done so by borrowing from the Social Security Trust Fund (primarily) which ran a surplus that year. The Social Security Administration is required by law to buy government securities with its surpluses (convenient, isn’t it?). That money was thus used by the government to do its business without having to get it from the public. Hence, the public debt was “paid down.”

I fully concede the point that President Clinton paid down the PUBLIC debt, but not the national debt.

Unfortunately, that $230 Billion “pay down” does not take into account Intragovernmental Holdings, which is as much part of calculating surpluses and debts as the Public Debt is.

Intragovernmental Debt ROSE in FY2000.

FY1999: $2,020,166,307,131.62

FY2000: $2,268,874,719,665.66

That’s an increase of $248,708,412,534.04

The difference between how much of the public debt was paid down compared to the growth of the Intragovernmental debt was: – $17,907,308,253.43

That means FY2000 resulted in a true deficit of almost $18 Billion under Bill Clinton.

Those pesky facts.
___

This Was Your Best Shot?

by Andrew Roman

_______________

I’m disappointed as all hell in President Obama – and not for the reasons you might think. From the man who sumptuously positioned himself between two Greek columns at the dawn of the Hope-And-Change era promising fundamental transformation to this nation came one of the lamest attempts at political histrionics on Wednesday that I have seen in a long time.

What a letdown.

I was expecting so much more.

The anti-constitutional metrosexual from the great Stacker of Wheat who, in that teleprompted imperial voice of his, once told us that we were the ones we’d been waiting for fell painfully – embarrassingly - flat.

It was astonishingly weak. A real yawn.

This was the best he could do? Surrounding himself with children while signing a bunch of stupid, ill-conceived, do-nothing knee-jerk unconstitutional executive orders?

Really?

Frankly, the Obama of old - back when the promise of the post-stimulus age was still ahead of us, when smooches with the New Jersey governor didn’t seem possible, when all of us believed Justice John Roberts knew what a tax was - would have done it much better.  

After all, this was a watershed moment for him and his like-minded reactionary, guns-are-evil non-thinking confederates. He was executing a slew of orders to show the world that he was doing something – anything.

Childlike naivety appropriately requires actual children as props, I suppose.

But this wasn’t an Obama moment for the ages. There was nothing particularly memorable here. There were no Kodak moments. No foreign heads of state to bow down to. No anti-American Korean rapper to be seen with. No apologies for America to be made on foreign soil. No troop withdrawal dates to announce. No murders of American citizens to avoid addressing.

Nothing.

It was amateur hour.

Seriously, were there no "product of gun violence" wheelchair-bound kids available to be used as visual aids? Were there no wounded "drive-by shooting" children from the streets of a big city like, say, Chicago handy? No one on the Obama Propoganda Team could round up a nine year old amputee? Or the sibling of a murdered child? Or perhaps a kid blinded by gunfire requiring the help of an aide to read his or her heartfelt letter aloud? Grieving parents? Outraged actors? Maybe Steve Carrell could have been on stage with him, wheeling around pre-pubescent victims of assault weapon madness?

There's lame, and there's lame.

Remember when Obama could exploit with the best of them?

The President is slipping.

This is the man who invented the Office of President Elect.

This is what he came up with?

Pretty pathetic, Bam.

______________

The Foreign-Policy Disaster Maker

by Andrew Roman

_______________________

So, while the American left obsessively spent most of the last thirty six hours or so trying to divert attention away from the continuing disaster that is Barack Obama in the White House, my thoughts were focused on matters that are actually relevant to the real world.

Islamic rage was all the rage late last week. It continued into the weekend and right on into this week at points all across the globe. From the assault on our embassy in Cairo to the murder of four Americans in Libya, from the fires set at our embassy in Tunisia to mobs burning our flag in London, there was no respite.  We were told that an obscure video negatively depicting the Prophet Mohammed was responsible for triggering this latest edition of Muslim fury. The shock waves of this insult even found its way onto American shores when two college campuses were shut down and evacuated last Friday due to threats from some entity identifying itself as Al Qaeda. The nuclear facility at the University of Texas was also evacuated.

On Monday, we heard of new waves of protests breaking out in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Yesterday, we heard about an Iranian submarine being deployed in the Persian Gulf.

And while we were reminded by the First Lady last week that the greatest threat to national security is, in fact, obesity, anyone who may have been holding their breath waiting for the President (or anyone in this administration) to use the words “terrorist” or “terrorism” - or heaven forbid it, an “act of war” – regarding the attacks on our consulate and embassies has long since keeled over. (Just imagine if the terrorists had stormed the consulate brandishing twinkies and Doritos). Equally, anyone who may have been hoping for a strong showing from the leader of the free world in the wake of terrorist acts against American interests on the eleventh anniversary of the worst single act of terrorism in this country’s history had better find a new place to channel that hope.

The lamestream media did not see the immediate need, nor recognize the immediate relevance, in asking this President of the United States why security was not beefed up at American embassies in hostile territories for the 9/11 anniversary, but have had no problem utilizing every nanosecond of air time over the past day and a half to turn its collective focus on Mitt Romney and comments he made about non-income-tax-paying Americans.   (Had Obama been a Republican is there any doubt he’d have been hammered with this obvious question?) They didn’t bother to inquire as to why he, as Commander-In-Chief, did not (and still does not) feel the need to attend the majority of his own intelligence briefings. They didn’t even ask how he and fellow Democrats can claim that Mitt Romney was playing politics with the events overseas when President Obama himself flew to a Las Vegas fundraiser that same day.

Fortunately for us, the White House on Friday assured the public that the anti-American violence was not directed at the United States.

Repeat: Not directed at the United States.

It must have been the storming of the American embassies, the torching of American flags and the burning of President Obama in effigy that confused me.

Jay Carney, White House Press Secretary, wasted no time espousing the administration’s view that the inane little anti-Mohammed YouTube video being “credited” for triggering all of this terroristic upheaval – the one unseen and unheard of by just about every living human being on earth – was officially judged to “be reprehensible and disgusting.”

Thank heaven that was cleared up.

So, in the wake of Americans being murdered and our interests remaining under assault overseas, while our embassies were being attacked, while American flags were being burned, while protests were spreading, and while the entire region teetered on the brink of full explosion, our President wanted to let the bad guys know that we think the film that supposedly made all of them mad is disgusting?

Leadership.

Meanwhile, those of us who recoil and wince at this ongoing projection of American weakness and appeasement do not give a rat’s earlobe how offended or insulted radical murderers become. The instant the decision was made  to trade insults for innocent lives, their feelings about anything became irrelevant. The fact that Americans were murdered because of an amateurish internet movie that no one saw, followed by an official stance of “I’m sorry” by our pathetic Clinton-run State Department was – and is – enough to make me sick. Meanwhile, I’m still waiting to hear which adjectives the White House will muster to describe the breeches of American sovereignty through these terrorist acts overseas. Surely, Obamacrats are aware that embassies actually do represent sovereign states - that an attack on an embassy is, by definition, an attack on the country itself.

Oh wait, these events transpired last week. It's old hat. It's immaterial today because that lout Mitt Romney had the nerve – the unmitigated gall – to talk about the 47% of Americans who do not pay income tax….their fair share, to quote a phrase.

To his credit, Carney did concede that the ever-escalating acts of protest and violence overseas were “fairly volatile.”

Fairly volatile.

Yet the movie was reprehensible.

I cannot help but ponder: How many dead Americans move that word from the “fairly volatile” column to the “reprehensible” column.

Indeed, there are times when it is impossible to determine whether or not this administration is actually as incompetent and clueless as they portray themselves, or whether they are commandeering a calculated effort to make sure that no one alive (save for Christians and Republicans) is ever offended again – as if to be loved is (or should be) the United States’ purpose on this globe. On a daily basis, I watch how this President handles himself, this country and world at large, and almost daily I am astounded at the absolute ineptitude I see.

How, for instance, can the President of the United States look so ridiculously indecisive – I mean embarrassingly bad - when asked if Egypt is an American ally? 

How can he possibly say that Mitt Romney “shoots before he aims” when the President himself jumped the gun (if not the entire arsenal) when declaring the Cambridge, Massachusetts police department stupid in what was a nonexistent case of racism in the matter of Professor Henry Gates? Or commenting on the Trayvon Martin killing before knowing any of the facts (wasting no time interjecting his race into the matter).

This is the man who has, time and time again, spoke ill of his own country on foreign soil and has bowed to foreign heads of state. He has adopted an apology-first approach in dealing with the world-at-large – his I’m- sorry-we’re- so-big-and-powerful motif - that has done nothing but alienate long-time friends and allies while emboldening America’s enemies. It quite literally sickens me.

He continues his hell-bent pursuit of reducing America’s relevance and influence in the world, while proffering a position of moral equivalence – the How-can-I-ask-Iran-To-Not-Pursue-Nukes-When-We-Have-So-Many approach.  He is almost obsessed with being as inoffensive as he can to those who would – and do – commit evil acts on innocents (the “t” word), but has absolutely no problem unleashing his wrath on American entrepreneurs and innovators with his “you didn’t build that” message.

The man who won the Nobel Peace Prize for doing absolutely nothing and for saying that he was uniquely qualified to bring stability to American-Muslim relations – the man who predicted that his living in a Muslim country as a boy would be a useful tool in promoting international Kumbaya, saying, “I truly believe that the day I’m inaugurated, not only does the country look at itself differently, but the world looks at America differently. If I’m reaching out to the Muslim world, they understand that I’ve lived in a Muslim country, and I may be a Christian, but I also understand their point of view” – must now be wondering what has gone wrong. Everything was in place for a complete transmutation of a pre-Obama world into a post-everything age of peace, stability and fuzzy bunnies. 

Surely, this unrest cannot be because of him - the leader of a fundamentally transforming United States - or his policies. It must be - has to be - that lousy filmmaker. After all, President Obama has a half-Indonesian sister.

This is the man who apologized in Cairo for his country employing interrogation techniques that saved countless innocent lives and ultimately contributed to the killing of Osama Bin Ladin. This is the man who has called his own country arrogant and dismissive. This is the man who condemned his own nation for “too often” making decisions “based on fear rather than foresight.” This is the man who publically announced military withdrawal dates from war zones, thus lightening the load for our enemies. This is the man who said nothing while Iran’s government killed innocents during uprisings there. This is the man determined to make dangerous and drastic cuts to our defense budget.

So, in a world where angry Muslims seem to be dictating the terms – a world where French fear is prompting the closure of twenty of its embassies worldwide because of a cartoon – the President of the United States continues to believe that peace through softness is the correct course. In a world where our collapsing exit strategy in Afghanistan is making things exponentially more unstable and chaotic, the President finds time for $40,000-a-plate fundraisers in New York and fun-loving sit-downs with David Letterman. In a world where video cameras just happened to be present as police found and took into custody the two-bit movie maker in the middle of the night (for other reasons, of course), President Obama parties with Jay-Z and Beyonce.

Meanwhile, the press continues its assault on Mitt Romney, that heartless bastard.

Welcome to the future, Mr. President.

You did build this.

-