The Downward Spiral

The Red Ranger: I am not referring to the masterful album from Nine Inch Nails with the title of our latest post, but to the current direction of the US.

Two of today’s top items on the news wires relate to the continued degradation of life within the United States.  Our esteemed Attorney General, Eric Holder, announced today that he is changing the sentencing requirements for low-level, non-violent drug offenders.  So it seems that drug dealers will no longer face mandatory minimum sentences.  I guess the administration is trying to lower the barriers to entry for drug dealers.  Is this part of Obama’s new job initiative to have more drug dealers on the street?  The only problem with this is that drug dealers do not usually file income tax returns reporting their drug profits so the government does not make any additional tax revenue.

Second, it seems that a lot of immigrants are flooding the border near San Diego claiming political asylum.  I guess there are certain rules that ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) follows when people are claiming this at the border that allow them to get into the country and then slip away.  There have been so many claimants recently that ICE has had to pay to put these people up in hotels.  What a great country when we treat non-citizens better than legal citizens.

So combined we are paving the way for illegal immigrants to enter the country to become drug dealers.  What a place we are becoming.

Nattering Naybob: I am somewhat in agreement with you on the first part of your screed, Red Ranger. I am a little queasy about letting drug dealers, no matter how small-time, off the hook. They should at least be subjected to some kind of rigorous, verifiable, accountable form of community service. I have to learn more about exactly what the plan is, although I am generally supportive of any effort to overhaul the prison system. From the sound of it, it seems like nothing is carved in stone yet. I know that Eric Holder falls into the same category for Republicans that President Obama does, that is, anything he does will be precipitating the fall of all Mankind, no matter what it is. Republicans also have, and have had, the same feeling toward Van Jones, Susan Rice, and Michelle Obama. Do I notice a trend on the part of my Republican “friends”?

Regarding the immigration issue, you are already assuming that illegal immigrants all become drug dealers when you have absolutely no basis to back that up and so have no right to make such an insulting, incendiary claim. The vast majority of immigrants, whether legal or illegal, work very hard at occupations that most “real” Americans would think beneath them, such as busboy or day laborer. If you want to talk about drug dealing and abuse, there is already plenty of that committed by All-American white teenagers and young adults in the suburbs. And just in case you are (again) implying that Obama is soft on illegal immigration, that too is a falsehood because Obama has a more stringent record of deportations than his Republican predecessor in office.

The Red Ranger: Yes, you have identified the trend, your Republican friends do not like those who are trying to avoid the laws and constitution of this great land.  I hope you are not relying on that old liberal trick of calling anyone who disagrees with them either a racist or a bigot.

My last comment was meant to be more tongue in cheek drawing the two issues together.  I realize that most illegal immigrants will not become drug dealers as that is a job that any “real” American would want.

Nattering Naybob: Oh I get it, The Red Ranger, you are using subtlety and irony on me with the illegal immigrant / drug dealer comment. Those sophistications are way over my head today apparently. I am going away for a much-needed mini-vacation to recharge my batteries.

What can Scott Brown do for you? Nothing.

Nattering Naybob:  Pardon the appropriation of the UPS catchphrase, but I thought it was fitting, since Massachusetts is the Red Ranger’s adopted State. Here I was, all along, thinking that Scott Brown was a semi-sane Republican who at least could be counted on to reject some of the more extremist tendencies of the Modern Republican Party. How mistaken I was.

The question of whether Elizabeth Warren can credibly claim that she should be considered “Native American” may be open for debate. Warren says she was told by both of her parents for years that she her family genealogy included members of the Cherokee and Delaware Indian tribes, thus she was justified in considering herself part Native-American on a questionnaire in the mid-Nineties. Warren says that she never “checked” whether her parents’ claims were correct, that she just accepted them as fact… and that this same practice is followed by most people whose parents tell their children that their ancestors shared a specific ethnicity.

Some assert that Warren’s political opponents are justified in questioning her motivation for “checking the box” when asked if she were a minority. But here’s what I think Scott Brown’s reply should have been to Warren’s claim:

“To be totally honest, I cannot cite the accepted protocol for determining the validity of someone’s stating that they are, or are not, a member of a certain ethnic group. Regardless, if Elizabeth Warren says that she is a Native American, I should and will accept this at face value. But whether she is Native American or not, is totally irrelevant to the campaign at hand to choose the next Senator of Massachusetts. Voters of Massachusetts should make their choice on November 6th not on the ethnicity of either candidate, but on our positions on the issues and our respective visions for the future.”

Instead, Scott Brown chose a different road. Last week at a campaign rally, members of Brown’s own staff– including his deputy Senate Chief of Staff– gleefully performed the “tomahawk chop” and mimicked the clichéd “war whoops” featured in Grade B Hollywood Westerns of the first half of the 20th century (and later). Brown issued the standard “I don’t condone the actions of my supporters”, but his disavowal of these acts strains credibility and credulity, both. Are we really to believe that these people took it upon themselves to put on such a sickening display, without at least the tacit approval of their boss? I think I can predict your answer, but tell me anyway.

The Red Ranger: I know that you Libs always want people to ignore the prior actions of your comrades and shrug them off as just some small inconvenience or minor misstep. However, what people have done in the past is a good reflection of what they will do in the future. I believe that Obama’s association with Bill Ayers and Eric Holder’s participation in an armed takeover at Columbia University in 1970 presented a clear insight into what their mindsets are and how they are governing today.

As far as Elizabeth Warren, I believe her statement in one of Scott Brown’s TV ads sums her up best, she was asked by a reporter if there is anything else that will come out about her and instead of definitively stating no, she says, “I don’t know, we will have to wait and see”. Basically, admitting that there is probably more but someone will have to dig it up rather than being honest about her past. In fact, it is highly likely that she has practiced law in MA without a law license in MA.

How come you are so ready to burn Scott Brown at the stake for the actions of his campaign staff which you admit he did not condone but you are loathe to hold Obama accountable for anything that has happened since he became President.

Nattering Naybob: First, I am not ready to “burn Scott Brown at the stake”. I offered him free advice, did I not? Since you reside in Massachusetts, I think you are probably too familiar with the Salem Witch Trials. But more importantly, what on Earth does Eric Holder or Bill Ayers have to do with the fact that the Senate staff of Scott Brown led a campaign event (if it can be called that), that demeaned Native-Americans with offensive ethnic stereotypes, for no reason other than Elizabeth Warren (his opponent) claims Native American ancestry? Stop trying to deflect the issue.

May I remind you that Eric Holder was appointed in 1988 as a Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia by Ronald Reagan, who last time I checked, is the man that all your Republicans want to install as the fifth face on Mount Rushmore. So apparently any events from Holder’s past “participation in an armed takeover” (of an abandoned ROTC office) did not dissuade Ronald Reagan from appointing him to the Federal Bench.

When someone from the Tea Party shows up with the rest of his or her yahoo anarchist lunatic friends who chant about overthrowing the government, and that person carries a firearm to express their so-called “solidarity” with the Second Amendment, is that person guilty of taking part in “a protest whose purpose is an armed takeover of the United States government”?

What are these people thinking?

Nattering Naybob: A recent national poll by Public Policy Polling has revealed the frightening level of ignorance demonstrated by many voters who control who is our next President. The question was “Who do you think deserves more credit for the killing of Osama bin Laden: Barack Obama or Mitt Romney?” The results showed that 62 percent of Republicans in Ohio, and 71 percent of Republicans in North Carolina, believe that Romney deserved more credit, or that they were not sure who deserved more credit between Obama and Romney. 

Please note that the other choice than Obama, was not George W. Bush, but Romney. Although I would not agree with the theory that George Bush deserved more credit (especially since he famously once said in a press briefing, “I don’t really worry that much any more about Osama bin Laden”), there at least is a rudimentary rationale for choosing “Bush” over “Obama”, perhaps by virtue of the perceived planning or groundwork supposedly previously laid by the Bush administration. But Mitt Romney had absolutely no connection whatever to any arm of Government, the CIA, or the Defense Department during the time that the raid on bin Laden’s compound was being planned. 

Red Ranger, I know you are a stickler for documentation, so below are the exact results of how Republicans answered:
 
Ohio
Obama: 38%
Romney: 15%
Not sure: 47%
 
North Carolina
Obama: 29%
Romney: 15%
Not sure: 56%

I submit that if a Republican President had taken the same action, and under that President”s overall command, the Navy SEALs had achieved the same success, that Republicans in Congress and on Fox News would be clamoring for an additional head to be carved onto Mount Rushmore. Check out this article from the New York Times  that discusses these poll results

I cannot help but be reminded of the classic segment that Rachel Maddow did during the 2010 Senatorial race between Lisa Murkowksi and Joe Miller (remember him?) when she asked some Miller supporters why they were supporting Miller. The two people she spoke to were absolutely convinced that Attorney General Eric Holder and President Obama were out to get their guns, except for one small detail: They could not explain what evidence they based this on. This exchange typifies the brand of mis-information that continues to be propogated by Americans who hate Obama. Your reaction.

The Red Ranger: The level of ignorance is equal on the Democratic side.  Please view this video and go to the last couple of minutes to see where these people get their information from. [Note: Some of the user comments contain adult language, as they, regrettably, frequently do on YouTube]

It is truly unfortunate that the vast majority of voters in this country do not take the time to educate themselves on the issues at hand. It is amazing how little people know about basic facts of this country and how it operates.

Nattering Naybob: Nice try, these “Obama voters” were all obviously actors recruited by Andrew Breitbart before his death, and paid for by Karl Rove’s SuperPAC.