Obaka knows that he has to win over these three elements in order to stay in office:

• Ignorant Blacks;
• Ignorant Mexicans;
• Ignorant Kids;

This week, he’s determined to place the Kid Vote above the Black and Mexican Vote. With that in mind, if I’d voted for Obama last time, I’d think: what am I? Pickled herring? Placing young GOWPs over Blacks and Mexicans? Consider this, my dearest multi-kulti Young Leftists.

That said, Mr Obama — (CAN I GET AN ‘A-MEN‘??) — should have been wearing a white collar whilst preaching on his re-election tour this week, pandering to Ignorant Kids at various colleges. He says that Ignorant Kids shouldn’t have $24,000 of loan debt.

However, it seems to me that he has FAILED to mention the $869 BILLION dollars in student loan debt overall (US National Debt Clock.org), as well as the $51 THOUSAND DOLLAR debt that he has saddled EACH American with. The mention of this debt seems to be conspicuously absent in his verbal dribblings. Huh. Imagine that.

When ObakaKare passed, the federal government also took over student loans. Your federal government is now in charge of all college loans. Right now the interest rate is 3.4%. Come July 1, that rate is scheduled to increase to 6.8%. That would add, roughly, $1,000 per year to student loans in interest. But it is this president’s economy that has resulted in economic destruction, including potential post-college jobs. Marginal costs, like the looming ObakaKare, are facing individual businesses. And those businesses are still — and rightly so — hedging their bets in an uncertain future.

Want to actually halt and/or reduce college costs? Eliminate government student loans. Eliminate specialized student loans. Make students and parents pay — or NOT PAY — the going fare. Create another track for high school graduates to the various necessary TRADES in lieu of seeking a dead-end collegiate (And massively expensive!) path.

Because, when their CASH is reduced, colleges and universities WILL “come in line” in terms of their ability to charge exorbitant rates. When their potential customer base is reduced, the tuitions will also necessarily reduce. It’s simple economics.

Are student loans the “next bailout“? There is evidence to indicate this, if Mr Obaka has his way. Mr Obama destroyed your market, college graduates. And what kind of an economy are you graduating into, pray tell? Yes, I say: one created and promoted by Your One.

The funny thing is, major Ivy League professors, for example, make over $300,000. Even the Governor of Fornicalia, our Leftist Jerry Brown, “only” makes $174,000.

Oddly enough, a recent Fornicalia bill (SB 1368) was defeated in committee — which would have limited every state worker to the governor’s wage of $174K. The bill was defeated — you guessed it! — by every Demorat in Sacramento.

And who earns more than the governor? Why yes, that’s correct — “educators” in the UC and CSU systems.

Another recent Fornicalia StateWorker opinion poll came in slightly ahead — 49% saying state workers’ salaries should be capped at the governor’s rate — as opposed to 48% who said no, capping state salaries is wrong.

If I may, I’d like to begin to wrap up. In this fashion: to those of you — like my nephew and nieces — who voted for Mr Obaka: the debt he created is on YOU and not on me. I’ll be dead and gone before his debt actually horribly negatively affects me.

And, in the meantime, YOU will be responsible for every dollar he’s “magically” promised you. And those promises are empty. Completely empty. You’ll pay for your support much later, after your parents have died and their estates taxed to the max, leaving you nothing. Because, after all, there is no Free Cheese. Though you may think so now.

You’ll vote for Obaka this time, Ignorant Ones.

Just as I will vote the GOP ticket. So let me make this abundantly clear, to my Conservatives:

It isn’t just a matter of “keeping the House.”

It’s a matter of taking the Senate AS WELL AS taking the White House.

It is a matter of taking EVERY level of government, in order to stem the terrible rift in logic and budget.

And things, in general at this point, are NOT looking quite so stunning for Our Incumbent.

BZ

From CNSNews.com:

Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) took to the Senate floor today to draw attention to a video of a top EPA official saying the EPA’s “philosophy” is to “crucify” and “make examples” of oil and gas companies – just as the Romans crucified random citizens in areas they conquered to ensure obedience.

Inhofe quoted a little-watched video from 2010 of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) official, Region VI Administrator Al Armendariz, admitting that EPA’s “general philosophy” is to “crucify” and “make examples” of oil and gas companies.

In the video, Administrator Armendariz says:

“I was in a meeting once and I gave an analogy to my staff about my philosophy of enforcement, and I think it was probably a little crude and maybe not appropriate for the meeting, but I’ll go ahead and tell you what I said:

“It was kind of like how the Romans used to, you know, conquer villages in the Mediterranean. They’d go in to a little Turkish town somewhere, they’d find the first five guys they saw and they’d crucify them.

“Then, you know, that town was really easy to manage for the next few years.”

“It’s a deterrent factor,” Armendariz said, explaining that the EPA is following the Romans’ philosophy for subjugating conquered villages.

Really? Further:

In his Senate speech, Sen. Inhofe said the video provides Americans with “a glimpse of the Obama administration’s true agenda.”

That agenda, Inhofe said, is to “incite fear” in the public with unsubstantiated claims and “intimidate” oil and gas companies with threats of unjustified fines and penalties – then, quietly backtrack once the public’s perception has been firmly jaded against oil and natural gas.

It is roundly hated when any kind of a plan or tactic is somehow blasted onto the internet.

With the above exception.

Take the information in the vein in which it was intended.

BZ

And, at first blush, this isn’t even a story. An ammunition manufacturer fulfilling a contract with the United States government? While we still have military forces in Iraq and Afghanistan? Big deal. Move on. Nothing to see here.

Except that there is everything to see here.

From MarketWatch at the Wall Street Journal:

–ATK Wins Five-Year, Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity Contract for .40 Caliber Ammunition from DHS, ICE –Additional .40 Caliber Ammunition Contract with 450 Million Round Potential Demonstrates ATK’s Leadership in Ammunition Manufacturing

ANOKA, Minn., March 12, 2012 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ — ATK ATK -0.33% announced that it is being awarded an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) agreement from the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (DHS, ICE) for .40 caliber ammunition. This contract features a base of 12 months, includes four option years, and will have a maximum volume of 450 million rounds.

ATK was the incumbent and won the contract with its HST bullet, which has proven itself in the field. The special hollow point effectively passes through a variety of barriers and holds its jacket in the toughest conditions. HST is engineered for 100-percent weight retention, limits collateral damage, and avoids over-penetration.

All well and good, yes? Except, in this instance, let’s attempt to apply what I have historically called “the logical extension.”

Why 450,000,000 rounds? And why in .40 caliber? For the US government?

Let’s make some things clear up front: this delivery isn’t for the US military. These rounds will not be going to Iraq or Afghanistan or to any US military forces.

Because, number one, the Geneva Convention forbids hollow-point ammunition in war.

And, number two, the .40 caliber round is a somewhat common civilian law enforcement stock for those departments, in my opinion, too timid to approve a .44 or .45 caliber round and handgun.

Meaning: this contract is fulfilling a perceived federal government need for stocking its civilian forces, and not its military.

The military predominantly uses .9mm for its M9 Berettas (the perennial NATO round, adopted for the US in 1985), 5.56 for its current M4s, .308 and .50 cal for MGs and specialty long guns. The .40 caliber round is not approved, utilized or endemic in the US military. At all. Save for some very “special” units whose operators may personally wish to go there. But they don’t need 450 million rounds. There aren’t that many operators who embrace the .40 cal.

That said, this ATK order is for the civilian portion of the US government. Plain and simple.

There is only one purpose for this round. Let me make this quite clear: to be used against the American public. Not on foreign enemies, not on foreign soil.

Against Americans, on domestic soil.

450 MILLION rounds. Half a BILLION rounds.

Compare this to, for example, the war in Iraq. Where 5.5 million rounds per month were fired at its height. That equates to 66 million rounds per year in wartime. This then, further, equates to roughly seven years of war against US citizens at an “Iraq-type” expenditure.

Obama’s NDAA already exists. It is extant. And it doesn’t stand for the North Delaware Apartment Association. It stands for a diminishment of your civil liberties. It provides Mr Obama the power to detain Americans at will.

What is the further “logical extension”?

That is this: your federal government seems to be anticipating a MASSIVE shooting war against its own citizens.

I can feature no other reason for such a staggering purchase of handgun rounds by the federal government.

If you have any other considered scenarios, then, please weigh in.

Elucidate me. Please tell me where I’m wrong.

BZ

P.S.

And finally, a brief summary of federal gun control:

1791
The Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment — “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” gains final ratification.

1837
Georgia passes a law banning handguns. The law is ruled unconstitutional and thrown out.

1865
In a reaction to emancipation, several southern states adopt “black codes” which, among other things, forbid black persons from possessing firearms.

1871
The National Rifle Association (NRA) is organized around its primary goal of improving American civilians’ marksmanship in preparation for war.

1927
Congress passes a law banning the mailing of concealable weapons.

1934
The National Firearms Act of 1934 regulating only fully automatic firearms like sub-machine guns is approved by Congress.

1938
The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 places the first limitations on selling ordinary firearms. Persons selling guns are required to obtain a Federal Firearms License, at an annual cost of $1, and to maintain records of the name and address of persons to whom firearms are sold. Gun sales to persons convicted of violent felonies were prohibited.

1968
The Gun Control Act of 1968 – “…was enacted for the purpose of keeping firearms out of the hands of those not legally entitled to possess them because of age, criminal background, or incompetence.” — Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms The Act regulates imported guns, expands the gun-dealer licensing and record keeping requirements, and places specific limitations on the sale of handguns. The list of persons banned from buying guns is expanded to include persons convicted of any non-business related felony, persons found to be mentally incompetent, and users of illegal drugs.

1972
The Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms is created listing as part of its mission the control of illegal use and sale of firearms and the enforcement of Federal firearms laws. ATF issues firearms licenses and conducts firearms licensee qualification and compliance inspections.

1977
The District of Columbia enacts an anti-handgun law which also requires registration of all rifles and shotguns within the District of Columbia.

1986
The Armed Career Criminal Act (Public Law 99-570) increases penalties for possession of firearms by persons not qualified to own them under the Gun Control Act of 1986.

The Firearms Owners Protection Act (Public Law 99-308) relaxes some restrictions on gun and ammunition sales and establishes mandatory penalties for use of firearms during the commission of a crime.

The Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act (Public Law 99-408) bans possession of “cop killer” bullets capable of penetrating bulletproof clothing.

1989
California bans the possession of semiautomatic assault weapons following the massacre of five children on a Stockton, CA school playground.

1990
The Crime Control Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-647) bans manufacturing and importing semiautomatic assault weapons in the U.S. “Gun-free school zones” are established carrying specific penalties for violations.

1994
The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Public Law 103-159) imposes a five-day waiting period on the purchase of a handgun and requires that local law enforcement agencies conduct background checks on purchasers of handguns. (ATF’s Brady Law web site.)

The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322) bans all sale, manufacture, importation, or possession of a number of specific types of assault weapons.

1997
The Supreme Court, in the case of Printz v. United States, declares the background check requirement of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act unconstitutional.

The Florida Supreme Court upholds a jury’s $11.5 million verdict against Kmart for selling a gun to and intoxicated man who used the gun to shoot his estranged girlfriend.

Major American gun manufacturers voluntarily agree to include child safety trigger devices on all new handguns.

1998 – June
A Justice Department report indicates the blocking of some 69,000 handgun sales during 1977 while Brady Bill pre-sale background checks were required.

1998 – July
An amendment requiring a trigger lock mechanism to be included with every handgun sold in the U.S. is defeated in the Senate.

But, the Senate approves an amendment requiring gun dealers to have trigger locks available for sale and creating federal grants for gun safety and education programs.

1998 – October
New Orleans, LA becomes the first US city to file suit against gun makers, firearms trade associations, and gun dealers. The city’s suit seeks recovery of costs attributed to gun-related violence.

1998 – November 12
Chicago, IL files a $433 million suit against local gun dealers and makers alleging that oversupplying local markets provided guns to criminals.

1998 – November 17
A negligence suite against gun maker Beretta brought by the family of a 14-year old boy killed by an other boy with a Beretta handgun is dismissed by a California jury.

1998 – November 30
Permanent provisions of the Brady Act go into effect. Gun dealers are now required to initiate a pre-sale criminal background check of all gun buyers through the newly created National Instant Criminal Background Check (NICS) computer system.

1998 – December 1
The NRA files suit in federal court attempting to block the FBI’s collection of information on firearm buyers.

1998 – December 5
President Clinton announces that the instant background check system had prevented 400 illegal gun purchases. The claim is called “misleading” by the NRA.

1999 – January
Civil suits against gun makers seeking to recover costs of gun-related violence are filed in Bridgeport, Connecticut and Miami-Dade County, Florida.

1999 – May 20
By a 51-50 vote, with the tie-breaker vote cast by Vice President Gore, the Senate passes a bill requiring trigger locks on all newly manufactured handguns and extending waiting period and background check requirements to sales of firearms at gun shows.

1999 – August 24
The Los Angeles County, CA Board of Supervisors votes 3 – 2 to ban the the Great Western Gun Show, billed as the “world’s largest gun show” from the Pomona, CA fairgrounds where the show had been held for the last 30 years. (Typical Gun Show Rules & Regulations here.)

Decreed and proudly Socialist US Senator Bernie Sanders (I-DS -Vt) is in complete agreement with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

From CNSNews.com:

(CNSNews.com) – House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on Thursday endorsed a movement announced by other congressional Democrats on Wednesday to ratify an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would allow Congress to regulate political speech when it is engaged in by corporations as opposed to individuals.

The Leftists are clearly insane on this matter. Continuing, from CNSNews:

In 2009, when the Supreme Court first heard oral arguments in the Citizens United case, Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart told the court that the administration believed the Constitution allowed the government to ban a corporation from using its general treasury funds to publish a book if the book advocated voting for something.

“Take my hypothetical,” Chief Justice John Roberts said to Stewart as he asked him about what kind of books the Obama administration believed it could constitutionally ban, “… This [book] is a discussion of the American political system, and at the end it says: Vote for X.”

“Yes,” said Deputy Solicitor General Stewart, “our position would be that the corporation would be required to use PAC funds rather than general treasury funds.”

Roberts followed up: “And if they didn’t, you could ban it?”

“If they didn’t, we could prohibit the publication of the book using corporate treasury funds,” Stewart answered.

Read that again, if you will. Then take a moment or two to realize the monumental and unprecedented slashing of your freedom of speech that would occur should the Leftists actually acquire this goal.

And Chief Justice Roberts properly wrote in his concurring opinion in re Citizen United v. FEC:

The government urges us in this case to uphold a direct prohibition on political speech,” wrote Roberts. “It asks us to embrace a theory of the First Amendment that would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet, and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concerns.”

This proposal or amendment wants to do away with the freedom of speech for, essentially, every venue except the individual citizen. That is to say, corporations would lose their freedom of political speech.

At first blush, those evil corporations deserve to be censored, do they not?

Except that corporations own book publishing companies. Corporations own newpapers. Corporations own television and cable news outlets. Corporations own internet sites operated in an adjunct fashion to their companies. Corporations own most every communications venue except individual blogs. Like mine. Like yours. Blogs like mine and yours depend on a massive number of CORPORATE news sources in order to sift and aggregate what we believe is actually happening in our nation and the world.

Because — I *sigh* at having to state the obvious — if Corporations didn’t own the host of media venues then the Government WOULD. There is no “third alternative.”

The NationalReviewOnline weighs correctly in:

The phrase “stunning development” is used far too often in our politics, but here is an item that can be described in no other way: Nancy Pelosi and congressional Democrats, frustrated by the fact that the Bill of Rights interferes with their desire to muzzle their political opponents, have proposed to repeal the First Amendment.

That is precisely what the so-called People’s Rights Amendment would do. If this amendment were to be enacted, the cardinal rights protected by the First Amendment — free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom to petition the government for redress of grievances — would be redefined and reduced to the point of unrecognizability. The amendment would hold that the rights protected by the Constitution are enjoyed only by individuals acting individually; individuals acting in collaboration with others would be stripped of those rights.

In conclusion:

Nancy Pelosi proposes to amend the Constitution the way the iceberg amended the Titanic. The First Amendment has served us well. Nancy Pelosi has not, but she has led her Democrats to a disturbing place in their quest to secure power, even at the cost of cashing in the Bill of Rights.

• Conservatives wish to expand personal rights and diminish government power.
• Leftists wish to diminish your personal rights and expand government power.

Simple as that.

BZ

P.S.

And MINORITY House of Representatives Leader Nancy Pelosi said, in re Americans not paying income taxes: “I wish they would earn more so they can pay more.”

So “they can PAY MORE.”

Because, after all, government spends what it currently receives SO EFFICIENTLY.

This is simply insanity built upon insanity and buttressed by insanity. How I and other clear-thinking individuals envision Ms Pelosi:

Applauding for the elimination of your rights as lawful, sovereign, natural-born Americans.