Tag Archives: washington

But Seriously Folks ….

President Barack Obama greets professional gol...

Last Tuesday, the White House announced that it was canceling all public tours of the president’s home because of … wait for it …  the sequester spending cuts.

“Due to staffing reductions resulting from sequestration, we regret to inform you that White House Tours will be canceled effective Saturday, March 9, 2013 until further notice. Unfortunately, we will not be able to reschedule affected tours,” the White House said in an email.

You can, of course, reschedule your WH tour for a small fee of $500,000!

Seriously folks,  how freaking stupid and/or gullible do you have to be to actually believe that the “Sequestration” has forced cancellation of WH tours?  I mean, critically thinking Americans should realize that Obama really cancelled the WH tours over rumors that Bob Woodward was going to take one to try and get close enough to ask him a REAL question.

ABC News has reported that cancelling the WH tours is saving the Secret Service $74,00 a week.  How exactly is that?  Are the Secret Service Agents guarding the WH during tours being given furloughs?  Are they on leave without pay? Are they being laid off?  Or are they just being re-assigned to other duties and therefore … still receiving pay and benefits?  Where is this “supposed” savings?  Enquiring minds want to know!   Obama is simply throwing a petulant, child-like temper tantrum and his actions  dishonor both the Office of the President and the White House!   I mean, come on now!  Since the Anointed One now charges $500,000 per “presidential” audience,  perhaps he could do his “fair share” and help cover the WH tours?   He could set the example for the rest of the nation!!  But no, instead he has kicked “We the People” right out of OUR house!

So let’s get this right!  We can afford to:

  • Pay for Obama’s endless golf games with folks like Tiger Woods
  • Give Pakistan $37 million for trade
  • Give the TSA $50 million for new uniforms
  • Give Egypt’s new terrororist supporting government let by radical Islamist Mohammed Morsi $1.55 billion annually (i.e., $250 million in economic aid and $1.3 billion in military aid … 20 F-16s, Abrams Tanks, etc.)
  • Give the Obama family $1.4 billion in tax payer money for “expenses” in 2012 (In contrast, the British tax payers spent $57.8 million on the Royal Family last year).

Obama is making Washington, D.C. and the White House the laughing stock of the nation!   By shutting down WH tours, our petulant little Messiah, Barrack Hussein Obama, is simply proving what many Americans have already come to understand … that all Washington is good for these days … is serving as a tacky tourist attraction.



Media Matters Founder Wants Armed Protection … just not for you!


The founder of Media Matters, David Brock, recently accepted more than $400,000 from the Joyce Foundation.  This money was specifically earmarked to promote a $600,000 initiative on “gun and public safety issues” which is simply liberal double-speak for “more gun ban efforts.”  However, it seems David Brock walks the streets of Washington protected by a Glock toting personal assistant/bodyguard!  If it weren’t for the hypocrisy of most liberals, this might make it a little awkward for the group the next time it seeks a donation from a gun control advocacy group.

It is also typical that the liberal champion, David Brock, feels his life is certainly worthy of protection under the Second Amendment (hence, the bodyguard armed with a Glock).   It is just you and I whose lives, it seems, Brock deems are not worthy of the very same protection!  I remember comedian Rosie O’Donnell having the same view.  She also felt that the Second Amendment should go away … just as long as she got to travel around with her armed bodyguards.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/16/brock-and-glock-armed-men-guarded-media-matters-boss-as-took-400000-gun-control/?intcmp=obinsite#ixzz1nKMRS200

OMG: Obama Must Go

Image by 401K via Flickr

I now this is not a real letter sent by an employer to his employees.  It is an email “joke!”  But, despite that … it has a great deal of truth in it … it really hits the nail on the head.  So I posted it here.  Read through to end, it makes a lot of sense!

To All My Valued Employees,

There have been some rumblings around the office about the future of this company, and more specifically, your job. As you know, the economy has changed for the worse and presents many challenges. However, the good news is this: The economy doesn’t pose a threat to your job.

What does threaten your job however, is the changing political landscape in this country. Of course, as your employer, I am forbidden to tell you whom to vote for – it is against the law to discriminate based on political affiliation, race, creed, religion, etc.

Please vote for who you think will serve your interests the best. However, let me tell you some little tidbits of fact which might help you decide what is in your best interest. First, while it is easy to spew rhetoric that casts employers against employees, you have to understand that for every business owner there is a back story.

This back story is often neglected and overshadowed by what you see and hear. Sure, you see me park my Mercedes outside. You saw my big home at last years Christmas party. I’m sure all these flashy icons of luxury conjure up some idealized thoughts about my life. However, what you don’t see is the back story.

I started this company 12 years ago. At that time, I lived in a 300 square foot studio apartment for 3 years. My entire living space was converted into an office so I could put forth 100% effort into building a company, which by the way, would eventually employ you.

My diet consisted of Ramen Pride noodles because every dollar I spent went back into this company. I drove a rusty Toyota Corolla with a defective transmission. I didn’t have time to date. Often times, I stayed home on weekends, while my friends went out drinking and partying. In fact, I was married to my business — hard work, discipline, and sacrifice.

Meanwhile, my friends got jobs. They worked 40 hours a week and made a modest $50K a year and spent every dime they earned. They drove flashy cars and lived in expensive homes and wore fancy designer clothes. Instead of hitting Nordstrom’s for the latest hot fashion item, I was trolling through the Goodwill store extracting any clothing item that didn’t look like it was birthed in the 70’s.

My friends refinanced their mortgages and lived a life of luxury. I, however, did not. I put my time, my money, and my life into a business — with a vision that eventually, some day, I too, will be able to afford these luxuries my friends supposedly had.

So, while you physically arrive at the office at 9 am, mentally check in at about noon, and then leave at 5 pm, I don’t. There is no “off” button for me. When you leave the office, you are done and you have a weekend all to yourself. I unfortunately do not have the freedom. I eat, ****, and breathe this company every minute of the day. There is no rest. There is no weekend. There is no happy hour. Every day this business is attached to me like a 1 day old baby.

You, of course, only see the fruits of that garden — the nice house, the Mercedes, the vacations… You never realize the back story and the sacrifices I’ve made. Now, the economy is falling apart and I, the guy that made all the right decisions and saved his money, have to bail out all the people who didn’t.

The people that overspent their paychecks suddenly feel entitled to the same luxuries that I earned and sacrificed a decade of my life for. Yes, business ownership has its benefits but the price I’ve paid is steep and not without wounds. Unfortunately, the cost of running this business, and employing you, is starting to eclipse the threshold of marginal benefit and let me tell you why:

I am being taxed to death and the government thinks I don’t pay enough. I have state taxes. Federal taxes. Property taxes. Sales and use taxes. Payroll taxes. Workers compensation taxes. Unemployment taxes. Taxes on taxes. I have to hire a tax man to manage all these taxes and then guess what? I have to pay taxes for employing him. Government mandates and regulations and all the accounting that goes with it, now occupy most of my time. On Oct 15th, I wrote a check to the US Treasury for $288,000 for quarterly taxes. You know what my “stimulus” check was? Zero. Nada. Zilch.

The question I have is this: Who is stimulating the economy? Me, the guy who has provided 14 people good paying jobs and serves over 2,200,000 people per year with a flourishing business? Or, the single mother sitting at home pregnant with her fourth child waiting for her next welfare check?

Obviously, government feels the latter is the economic stimulus of this country. The fact is, if I deducted (Read: Stole) 50% of your paycheck you’d quit and you wouldn’t work here. I mean, why should you? That’s nuts. Who wants to get rewarded only 50% of their hard work? Well, I agree which is why your job is in jeopardy. Here is what many of you don’t understand …to stimulate the economy you need to stimulate what runs the economy. Had suddenly government mandated to me that I didn’t need to pay taxes, guess what? Instead of depositing that $288,000 into the Washington black-hole, I would have spent it, hired more employees, and generated substantial economic growth. My employees would have enjoyed the wealth of that tax cut in the form of promotions and better salaries. But you can forget it now.

When you have a comatose man on the verge of death, you don’t defibrillate and shock his thumb thinking that will bring him back to life, do you? Or, do you defibrillate his heart? Business is at the heart of America and always has been. To restart it, you must stimulate it, not kill it. Suddenly, the power brokers in Washington believe the mud of America are the essential drivers of the American economic engine.

Nothing could be further from the truth and this is the type of change you can keep. So where am I going with all this? It’s quite simple. If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, my reaction will be swift and simple. I fire you. I fire your co-workers. You can then plead with the government to pay for your mortgage, your SUV, and your child’s future. Frankly, it isn’t my problem any more. Then, I will close this company down, move to another country, and retire.

You see, I’m done. I’m done with a country that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, will be my citizenship.

While tax cuts to 95% of America sounds great on paper, don’t forget the back story: If there is no job, there is no income to tax. A tax cut on zero dollars is zero. So, when you make decision to vote, ask yourself, who understands the economics of business ownership and who doesn’t? Whose policies will endanger your job? Answer those questions and you should know who might be the one capable of saving your job. While the media wants to tell you “It’s the economy Stupid” I’m telling you it isn’t.

If you lose your job, it won’t be at the hands of the economy; it will be at the hands of a political hurricane that swept through this country, steamrolled the Constitution, and will have changed its landscape forever. If that happens, you can find me in the South Caribbean sitting on a beach, retired, and with no employees to worry about.


Your boss,

Michael A. Crowley,
PE Crowley, Crisp & Associates, Inc.
Professional Engineers
1906 South Main Street, Suite 122
Wake Forest , NC 27587
Phone: 919.562.8860 x22
Fax: 919.562.8872

Obama On, “Putting Children First”

Obama’s Education Secretary, Arne Duncan, stated at a discussion on education in Cedar Falls, Iowa that “today… if children don’t have the skills to graduate, we condemn them to social failure and poverty.”   

And … in fact, Obama’s administation has already committed S100 billion to inprove our  American education system.  I wonder who is going to actually get that money … the NEA?

Probably so, because “good old Arne” decided, a few weeks back,  not to admit any new students to the D.C. voucher program; a program which has initially shown itself to be succcessful in allowing low-income children to get a better education by attending private schools … instead of the failed, violent, drug-dealer infested, gang ridden Washington, D.C. public school system.

The  decision … made just a week after 200 families had been told that their children were being awarded scholarships for the coming fall …  was made despite a new study showing some promising initial results for students in the program and before the Senate has had a chance to hold promised hearings on the issue.  

Yet again, it seems that even with all the talk during Obama’s campaign about putting children first; it’s clear that the special interest groups that have long opposed vouchers (for example, the NEA), are getting their way.

Even when I try to find something good to say about Barack Obama and his administration, he invariably pulls the rug out from under that attempt.  

Obama is quickly proving to me that he is truly nothing more than another politically correct, coldly calculating, successful career politician who has simply risen to power on his charisma … a secular humanist bent on creating a new America based on big government, wealth redistribution, and the suppression of individual rights. 

Naturally, this would have to include the right to send your children to a school of your choice … where they might get a good education … and not be preyed on by drug dealers and gang bangers.  

I sometimes wonder why there is not more outrage within the  Black and Hispanic communities at Barack Obama  for his betrayal of these two ethnic groups who voted overwhelmingly for him.  I would think that this is an issue that would be  of real importance to both those communities, as well as the American community as a whole.  Maybe they are still under the influence of the Obama Cool Aid … and still chanting …..

The simple truth is that this Hope and Change president has destroyed the chances of a good education for minority children in high risk areas like Washington, D.C.   Barack Obama’s administration has ended the Hope for Washington, D.C. area children who were able to attend private schools, some of which were on the verge of graduating.  The Change is that they will now be back in the failed public school system.

Some of these fortunate children who had recieved vouchers were even able to attend the Sidwell Friends School, a D.C. area private school where Obama sends his own children.  From his campaign speeches, one might have thought Obama would break the elitist mold … step up … and maybe even lead by example by enrolling his children into the same public schools he is now condemning these children to … since  those vouchers, which  allowed some families to make up the difference and send their children to this $29000 per year private school, are now history.

When Obama signed that Omnibus Spending Bill several weeks back, he put into effect legislation that had been included by several congressional democrats that will effectively end the school voucher program, and send almost 2000 mainly Black and Hispanic school children back to the failed, violent, and poorly-performing D.C. public schools.  He has, in effect, ended one of the  rare federal programs which has actually achieved some success.

It would be interesting to hear Obama’s reasoning for this action.  Obama could have vetoed this pork-laden Omnibus Spending Bill for several reasons.   He could simply have told Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid that he would not allow a program that was achieving measurable success in providing quality education to “at risk” American children to be cancelled.

But … and I guess not suprisingly … Obama went right along with Nancy Pelosi’s radical left-wing anti-American political agenda and signed a bill that took the real  Hope  out of the future of these children.  Why you might ask  … I will tell you why … simply because the powerful teachers unions oppose it and the Republicans had originally initiated it.

The real injustics of this action by Obama and the liberal democratic elitists in congress is that while they seem perfectly willing to send these “at risk” children back to the violent, drug-ridden hell that is the  D.C.  public schools, you can bet your bottom dollar they would never consider sending their own children to those same schools.  They are clearly stating that these schools are good enough for your children … but not for theirs!  I ask you … what happened to “change we need?”

The simple fact is, we stilll have business as usual in Washington.

President Obama has stated he will make the public schools in this country a place where all children can get a decent education, and that this will end the need for any voucher programs.

I call on Barack Obama to prove he’s serious about improving the public school systems throughout America.  I would really like to see him put his money where his mouth is!  He could begin by enrolling his two daughters in a Washington, D.C. public school, and urging those members of Congress who are for shutting down the voucher program to do the same.  At least then, they would have some real motivation to improve those school systems.



Fred Thompson Accuses Bush Administration in Second Amendment Court Case

This post is an overview of an article on RedState, a conservative blog site. A link to RedState can be found on my blogroll under My Favorites.

The article starts by stating that gun rights advocates were “understandably dismayed” by the brief the Bush Administration’s Justice Department submitted in District of Columbia v. Heller. Being a gun owner, I am understandably dismayed as well. This is the biggest Second Amendment case to be argued since 1939.

The Department of Justice’s brief called for a remanding of the case for the reconsideration of D.C.’s gun laws under a “less demanding” constitutional standard. Given the Bush Administration’s stated support for an “individual rights” view of the Second Amendment, I too would find it “incomprehensible” that the Bush Administration would not support the D.C. Circuit Court’s decision holding that Washington, D.C.’s draconian gun restrictions are unconstitutional.

Although I certainly agree that the Department of Justice’s brief is a potentially unwelcome development in the 2008 Presidential race, I do not really think it will have much effect on American gun owners’ support for at least two of the GOP candidates.

I think Fred Thompson’s position on the Second Amendment is crystal clear to everyone:

“I strongly support the Second Amendment of the Constitution, which protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. Gun control is touted as a major crime-control measure. But some of the places with the strictest gun-control laws also have high violent-crime rates. Disarming law-abiding citizens does not prevent crime. The answer to violent crime is smart, effective, and aggressive law enforcement. The real effect of these gun-control measures is to place onerous restrictions on law-abiding citizens who use firearms for such legal activities as self-defense, sport shooting, hunting, and collecting.”

I am committed to strictly enforcing existing laws and severely punishing violent criminals and protecting the rights individual Americans enjoy under the Second Amendment.

Fred Thompson also asks:

“How is it that one man with two handguns could reload time & time again, and go from classroom to classroom on the Virginia Tech campus without being stopped. Much of the answer can be found in policies put in place by the university itself.”

“Virginia allows citizens with training and legal permits to carry concealed weapons. That means that Virginians regularly sit in movie theaters and eat in restaurants among armed citizens.”

“The statistics are clear. Communities that recognize and grant Second Amendment rights to responsible adults have a significantly lower incidence of violent crime than those that do not. Incarcerated criminals tell criminologists that they consider local gun laws when they decide what sort of crime they will commit, and where they will do so.”

“But Virginia Tech administrators overrode Virginia state law and threatened to expel or fire anybody who brings a weapon onto campus. Those “Gun-free Zone” signs don’t mean much to the sort of man who murdered 32 people.”

And … although I personally have some other issues with Mike Huckabee as a candidate, his position on gun control is also pretty clear:

“My position on the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution is as clear for me as the position held by most journalists toward the 1st Amendment. While I do not consider myself a “gun nut,” I proudly own a variety of firearms and enjoy hunting as well as sports shooting. But even if I were not a hunter or did not enjoy shooting, I would still be a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment right of Americans to own firearms for self-protection and as a matter of principle.”

Gov. Mike Huckabee said that he would support legislation in Arkansas for a law like one passed in Florida last year to protect citizens who use deadly force in self-defense against criminal prosecution and civil liability. Huckabee told a caller to his monthly radio show that he has a permit to carry a concealed weapon and believes “there is an absolute right that people have to protect themselves and even their property.”

According to the article on RedState, Fred Thompson is the only GOP candidate that has taken notice of the Department of Justice’s brief (We already know where the Democratic candidates stand). The article states that Fred Thompson has “accused the administration of ‘overlawyering’ the case.”

The author is absolutely correct when he states … if an individual rights view of the Second Amendment cannot prohibit an outright ban on handgun possession, there is certainly not going to be much left of the other rights it purportedly protects.

Fred Thompson stated that he opposed the remand and that he feels the case should simply move forward in the U.S. Supreme Court.

The D.C. District Court, in an opinion written by Justice Silberman, struck down the D.C. ban on the possession (even in one’s own home) of handguns . Silberman ruled that the Second Amendment protected an individual’s right to protect one’s self and one’s home and … that right pre-dates the Constitution.

Good for Justice Silberman … the right to protect yourself, your loved ones, and your property does exist simply as a “God-given” or “natural” right.

The article goes on to say that strict scrutiny would already allow regulations to prohibit arms of mass destruction, simply as a compelling public interest, and that, there is no need for “fact finding.” The article states that “fact finding” is simply a ruse … a delaying tactic. The U.S. Supreme Court can and should decide this issue based on the relevant constitutional principle.

The author stating that, while he himself has never owned a gun, he has always considered it obvious that it is a right granted by God to defend one’s self and family. You know … one of those pesky “inalienable rights” that trouble left-wing secular-progressive liberals so much!

I do not, however, agree with the article that the meaning of the second amendment is debatable from a lot of angles, I think it is pretty cut and dried if you read the writings of many of the Founding Fathers about the Second Amendment:

“The right of the people to keep and bear…arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country…” (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])

“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States….Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America” – (Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789.)

“No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])

“Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good” (George Washington)

“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169)

Those founders who signed the Declaration of Independence would certainly not deny We the People the MEANS to preserve our lives, liberty and pursuit of happiness, and certainly that would be the case if only criminals and our government were armed.

We must, in fact, never let the left-wing liberal elites get by with the claim that only they can tell us what the Constitution means. Left-wing liberal elites do indeed like to construct an edifice of words to make things much complicated than they are simply as a means to give themselves more power.

The U.S. Constitution is not that hard to understand as written … if you take the time to carefully read it. It is not even very long … and I agree that Fred Thompson certainly does get it.

As a humorous (or ironic) side note:

According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, there are 700,000 physicians in the US and the number of accidental deaths caused by them per year is about 120,000, making the accidental death rate per physician 17%.

Using that same logic, there are about 80 million gun owners, and the number of accidental gun deaths per year among all age groups is 1,500. The same calculation reveals the number of accidental deaths per gun owner to be 0.00188%.

In other words, statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners. Yet, I hear no one suggesting we ban doctors.