Classic: Herman Cain circa 1994 puts the hurt on Bill Clinton’s arrogance and health plan


Herman Cain - GOP 2012 Presidential hopeful (Pic: Harold Daniels, The Atlantic)

On the heels of Herman Cain’s good performance in Thursday’s debate and his landslide victory in the Florida straw poll on Saturday, much attention is being focused on him.

That focus includes this 1990’s era video depicting Cain, the former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, asking a question about healthcare costs at a Bill Clinton townhall when Clinton was President. This exchange took place in 1994 during Clinton’s big push for the disaster government health plan that was “Hillarycare”.

Herman Cain certainly puts the hurt on Bill Clinton’s health plan in this video.  Not only that, watch the entire video and you see the arrogance of Clinton and his viewpoint ( and most big government liberals)

Basically Herman Cain discusses how Clinton’s healthcare initiative for business was not doable and, without going into it, how it can not be sustained without job losses and some businesses leaving the market entirely.

(If the video doesn’t play, you can go to the video here.)

What is interesting is how Clinton professes to tell Cain that if all businesses have to endure the extra cost of Hillarycare, then they’ll essentially all be in the same boat.  Cain quite clearly and respectfully states how that thinking is inaccurate and, for his business alone, would require 3 times the “top line sales” to meet the costs and maintain their meager profit.

The Atlantic article on Cain from March, 2011 actually goes further basically calling Cain the saboteur of Clinton’s ill-informed healthcare aims:

 In 1994, Cain, then still CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, participated in a town-hall meeting that Bill Clinton held to drum up support for his flagging health-care plan. He challenged the president’s claim that restaurateurs would bear only a marginal new cost. Clinton objected, but Cain wouldn’t relent. “I’d had my financial people run the numbers,” he told me. The Wall Street Journal published them, and after Clinton’s plan collapsed, Newsweek identified Cain as one of its “saboteurs”—a badge of honor, especially among conservatives today.

This video is good for many reasons:

1) It shows the business understanding and knowledge of Herman Cain.

2) It shows the arrogance of Bill Clinton and, thus, his wife who tried and failed at a healthcare takeover.

3) It gives a good reminder why we don’t need either Clinton, Bill or Hillary, ever running this country again.

4) It gives a clear view of the liberal mindset on big government.  i.e. Force the business to provide healthcare they can’t afford and just ask the business to raise their prices “like everyone” else in order to cover the mandated government cost.  No thought to job loss, market dynamics, profit margin, nor the choices of the company….government should have the say.  That’s how these people think.

Frankly, it occurred to me while watching the video…Clinton dares to tell a CEO that they can simply charge more for their services (in so many words) which inevitably leads to more money out of the pockets of consumers.  It doesn’t matter if it’s a pizza company or a semiconductor business….the price of products have a great chance of increasing when government makes mandates on that company.

So, why have the government involved at all?  Clinton believes that consumers can bear those extra costs for products and services.  So why doesn’t he just ask the consumer to pay for their own healthcare?  Of course, Clinton is not taking into account any market dynamics that will change when costs are raised….but if he really thinks the consumer has that much “extra cash” couldn’t they just buy their own healthcare, if they wish, in the free market and forget all of the regulations on the business?

We all know the answer.  Hillarycare, just like Obamacare, was all about government controls, not about affordable healthcare.  Funneling that “extra cash” through the business via government mandates is THE solution in the mind of a liberal.  Better yet, funneling that extra cash to the government is ideal in the liberal’s world.

It never occurs to the liberal that the consumer pays either way….and what a cost it is!

Little Miss “We have a right to disagree with any administration” now asks Obama administration critics “Whose side are you on”?


GAWD…this woman just disgusts me….I have never understood how a so-called lawyer who rode the coattails of her husband’s Presidency, then carpetbagged to become Senator of New York…has any qualifications for the position of Secretary of State.   Fact is, she doesn’t.

She is just another partisan posing as “smart power” while nearly everything she says and does falls squarely on the side of “dumb“, much like her boss, Obama.  Those who call her qualified and the “smartest woman in the room” confuse brains for an “I’m no Tammy Wynette” uber-liberal-feminist-corruptocrat-opportunist portraying a man.

Hillary Clinton has now asked those who oppose President Obama’s actions in Libya — “Whose side are you on“?

But the bottom line is, whose side are you on? Are you on Qadhafi’s side or are you on the side of the aspirations of the Libyan people and the international coalition that has been created to support them? For the Obama Administration, the answer to that question is very easy.

Whose side are we on?  Well, how about the side of the rule of law?

From HotAir.com:

This is really just the cherry on top of the sundae that is our Libya mission, isn’t it? First, the guy who became famous for opposing “dumb wars” launches a new mission in Libya.  Then he fights tooth and nail to avoid getting congressional approval, going so far as to ignore his own lawyers as to whether operations there are legal.  Then his own secretary of state — who spent years trying to make amends to the anti-war crowd for voting to invade Iraq — turns around and kinda sorta questions the loyalty of administration critics.

Never mind that this Libya war kinetic military action was begun with NO  Congressional approval (unlike the Iraq war) and Obama has declared that he does not need to follow the War Powers Act in Libya which is the law of the land.   BTW – President Bush had Congressional approval and many in this country and outside of this country who believe that Saddam had WMD.  All legitimate basis to go to war.  And the result has been a country that has been saved from the grips of its tyrant and, while still somewhat vulnerable, is a fledgling democracy.

But, apparently, Miss Whitewater thought it patriotic to offer dissent on legal wars, just not the illegal ones that she supports.

Well, here is Miss Testosterone’s words in 2003 when she wished to disagree with the actions of then President Bush (Warning: SCREECH alert!)

 “I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you’re not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration.”

Hypocritical Screeching….a Hillary Clinton staple.

The Koran, General Petraeus, Dhimmitude, and American Values


Terry Jones of the Dove Outreach Center plans to burn Korans on 9-11-10 (CBS photo)

Terry Jones, pastor of a small church in Florida, is planning a “Koran burning” this Saturday to commemorate the 9th anniversary of the 9-11 attacks on America.

While it is certainly the First Amendment right of Pastor Jones to do so, I believe that it is entirely inappropriate to do so.   No doubt about that.   And  Christians/Americans in this country have repeated this sentiment in LARGE numbers.

However, the response to this pastor’s efforts really bothers me on many fronts.

  • Why has this become such a worldwide news item? 
  • Why do those in the highest levels of our government feel the need to speak out? 
  • Why are many of those same people hypocritical on this issue vs. the Ground Zero Mosque (GZM)? 
  • Why do we cater to a religion that threatens death to our troops and Americans if a Koran burns, but Americans opposed to the GZM have simply protested and been labeled “bigots’ (by our leaders and others) because of it? 
  •  Is it the place of General Petraeus to address this issue? 
  • Why all the chatter about “offending” Muslims with our First Amendment rights? 

I’ll start with Petraeus comments on Jones’ Koran burning:

It could endanger troops and it could endanger the overall effort in Afghanistan,” said Petraeus of the plan.

“It is precisely the kind of action the Taliban uses and could cause significant problems. Not just here but everywhere in the world we are engaged with the Islamic community,” the general said in an emailed statement.

I agree with Petraeus.  It is likely, because of those who threaten and kill in the name of Islam, that this incident will further inspire their murderous tendencies.    Free Speech usually has that effect on them.

What I question is the appropriateness of Petraues’ speaking out on the issue.  I lean more towards the view of  Ben Stein on this:  

Of course, as one might expect, some Muslims are infuriated by this plan and I don’t blame them. It’s infuriating. But it’s still protected by the Constitution as an exercise of religious freedom.

Now comes General Petraeus, who says that people are rioting over this in Afghanistan, which is true, and that the church should not go ahead with its planned burning because it will make Muslims angry at the U.S. and they will take it out on U.S. troops.

Now, I am sure General Petraeus has a good point here. But, here is a bigger point: we are not supposed to have military men telling American civilians what they can and cannot do in their houses of worship. Yes, General Petraeus is an important figure. By the way, he’s also the soldier who said American support of Israel made Muslims angry at U.S. troops and I don’t think Generals are supposed to be making foreign policy either. But certainly, generals, even with a lot of stars on their epaulets, are not in charge of free speech and religious observance here.

What is disturbing is the length that our leaders, including Petraeus, will go to accommodate the threats of radical Islam.  Where does  this type of dhimmitude end?

The  enemy Petraeus is fighting in Afghanistan is composed of “radical” Islamists who want us dead.  They hate us for our Constitution, our freedom, our Christianity, and more. 

Michelle Malkin makes this point best:

But what’s in the Koran is far more of an inflammatory threat to American soldiers than any match with which to light it. What’s in the Koran has inspired decades of bloody warfare by Muslim operatives targeting our troops, civilians, and Western infidels around the world.

Isn’t it Petraeus’ job to fight the enemy for all they stand for?  Those who “protest” Jones’ actions with murder should be the targets of our military around the world.

Muslims praying in the streets of New York. (Source: Atlas Shrugs Blog)

Exactly, Michelle….we should be fighting what they stand for and defending what we stand for.

And for all of the talk of “radical Islam” and its conquering tendencies what do you call “moderate” Muslims taking over the streets of Paris, New York, and Dearborn, Michigan.  They should be arrested in the US for disorderly conduct.   Where is the press and the Obama administration on that?   At what point do we stop this infiltration of a religion (radicals and so-called moderates) that wishes to conquer the world?

More from Stein:

Really, it’s even worse than that. He is saying that freedom of religion in America makes his job more difficult. But free exercise of religion comes way before how difficult his job is.

Exactly…..perhaps instead of (or in addition to) Petraeus’ speaking the obvious about the enemy we fight, why not mention that our First Amendment rights are the very thing he seeks to defend?  Instead of speaking out against Jones’ right to burn the Koran, why not defend his right to do so where the Afghans (and Muslims around the world) hear it loud and clear?  

It seems to me that hearing our military leaders defending the rights and freedoms of Americans would go a long way in helping our enemy understand our values.  Instead, the message they received from Petraeus was one of asking Americans to cower under the threat of an enemy….and, as we know from history, weakness fuels the fire under our enemies around the world.

Stein again:

And, yes, we don’t want to offend Muslims, but why would we even consider sacrificing our freedom of religious expression to cater to them? And what kind of war is won by kowtowing to the people who hate us?

I could not have said it better.

 But just why has this become such a worldwide news item?  This is a small church with a pastor previously unknown to most of the world.  I read about this pastor’s plans a few weeks ago and thought not much about it.  My first reaction was that it seemed a really questionable thing to do but I didn’t consider it worthy of worldwide news.   Small, peaceful protests of one kind or another happen almost everyday in this country, but they don’t get the attention of this one.  Why?

Jones’ efforts have taken on a life of its own.  Why is that?   Why is this now a worldwide issue instead of a local one?  Why do we have a General, the Vatican, and the Obama administration, among others, speaking out on Jones’ actions?

As is usual, I think the media has run with the story, because it is “politically correct” and it fits the leftist message of anti-Americanism, anti-Christian, and pro-Islamism so rampant in our institutions today.    

As some have pointed out, the burning of religious books/documents is not a new phenomenon in the world.   And, I’m sure this won’t be the last.

It may be a stupid and tasteless thing to do, but it is Mr. Jones’ right to do so. 

Which leads me to the Ground Zero Mosque (GZM)…..wasn’t it just weeks ago we had this same debate about rights vs. proper judgement?    This issue is similar.  The imam has the right to build a mosque at Ground Zero, where 3000 Americans were murdered in the name of his religion.  But it is NOT the right thing to do.  It is classless, tasteless, and, some would say, an attempt for the imam and his followers to dance on the grave of the Americans murdered there in the name of Islam.

Mr. Jones certainly has the right to protest by burning Korans, but it is NOT the right nor smart thing to do.  It certainly does nothing to honor and remember those murdered on September 11, 2001.

But ironically, many of those in the Obama administration and Congressional leaders spoke up that the  GZM was “pro-American” and  proper.  Now the Obama administration believes that Jones’ free expression is “un-American”?   Why the discrepancy? 

The Administration and Pelosi on the GZM:

Barack Obama: …..As a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America. And our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country and that they will not be treated differently by their government is essential to who we are. The writ of the Founders must endure.  

Nancy Pelosi: There is no question there is a concerted effort to make this a political issue by some. And I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded,” she said.

Where is Nancy Pelosi’s demand for investigations into who ginned up the press and the world against the actions of Jones?  Where is her concern for the threats against our soldiers and Americans from those who wish us harm?

Contrast these views the administration’s current view regarding Jones:

PJ Crowley, Clinton State Dept spokesman : “We think that these are provocative acts,” ……. “We would like to see more Americans stand up and say that this is inconsistent with our American values; in fact, these actions themselves are un-American.

Eric Holder, Obama’s DOJ    ….idiotic and dangerous…..           

While I agree that Jones efforts are idiotic and wrong, freedom of expression is NOT un-American, just as the building of a mosque in America is not un-American.  They are just both very wrong.   Why the discrepancy in the Obama administration?  Why defend the Islamic right to express with a symbol of conquer, but not Jones’ right to express his disdain for murder in the name of Islam?

Perhaps part of the answer lies in the words of General Petraeus regarding the Koran burning…..Jones’ actions are not just stupid, but they do pose a danger. 

While Americans peacefully protest the mosque at Ground Zero, the Islamic world will threaten and murder because of Jones’ actions.   American troops and Christians around the world will be targets.  The teachings of Islam   and the  irrational responses of radical Islam makes Jones’ action a dangerous act.  

An interesting side note regarding free speech and religion, the military, the press, and our leaders…. in 2009 it was reported that the military destroyed BIBLES in Afghanistan that belonged to and were private property of a soldier.  The Bibles were translated in the local Pashto and Dari languages.   While I understand rules are instrumental to military success, it is quite questionable whether the military had the right to destroy the Bibles. 

Why not just reprimand the soldier if rules of proselytizing in the area were broken?  (But there was no proof the Bibles were ever used to evangelize)

Why not simply return the Bibles to the US? 

To what extent does our military go, General Petraeus, in order to ‘convert’ the Afghans to an understanding of our freedoms?  To not “offend the sensibilities” of the enemy?

Does burning the Bible of Christianity really aid in that effort or play into their hands? 

What do we teach them when burning the Bibles of a soldier is OK, but burning the Koran, in a free country, is not?

Where was the press on the Bible burning issue?  Where were the statements of our military leaders?  The Vatican?  The Obama administration? 

Think about those things.

 And don’t forget that just this year the Pentagon/Army disinvited well-known evangelist Franklin Graham to the National Day of Prayer breakfast simply for speaking out against the brutally of Islam in many areas of the world. 

What message does that send about America to our enemies? 

Did that change any hearts to our direction or embolden those who preach, kill, and maim in the name of Islam?

The Obama administration has frittered away our tax dollars by giving millions to the GZM imam so that he can PROMOTE/evangelize Islam around the world…..but if one soldier dares to possess a Bible in the local Afghan languages, with no proof they were ever used to proselytize, those very books must be destroyed.  And a prominent Christian minister who spreads love, hope, and help throughout the world is disinvited by our government leaders because he dared to tell the truth about those who brutalize in the name of Islam.

I don’t know about you, but my tax money going to promote Islam around the world, particularly at a time when the Left is doing all it can to make America a country free FROM Christianity, offends MY sensibilities….but it seems our leaders don’t care about that.

What good is a war where we are more concerned about the thoughts of our enemy than the rights of Americans? 

As much as I dread and/or feel sadness each time I hear of an American killed in the war, couldn’t it be argued that their sacrifices are in vain when Americans are pressured to forego their rights in order to cater to the  “thoughts” of the very enemy against which they died fighting?

We live in a time of uncertainty in America.  I believe many Americans are uncertain not only about their economic future and prosperity, but also about the future of their freedoms and the destruction of our Constitution.

Our Constitution and freedoms should be defended at all cost…and the very values they promote should be spread throughout the world, not demeaned “in the name of war” by our very own leaders.

Queer Eye for the Oval Office Guy


Oh my, the Villainous one has outdone herself on this one — Queer Eye for the Oval Office Guy

A funny review of the Oval Office makeovers of the recent Presidents.  View them all here….

Let’s highlight the three most recent inhabitants.

Obama’s new makeover:

The current denizen of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave recently brought Change to the Oval Office in the form of monochromatic beige-and-cream. Apparently Mr. Excitement is not a big risk taker. But if you find yourself bored by all the creamy wonderfulness, you can always occupy your time by reading the Presidential rug:

…..This is fare for troubled times, and the White House is, uh, very transparent about it all. The carpet-bound philosophies are:

• “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” (Franklin D. Roosevelt)

• “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” (Martin Luther King Jr.)

• “Government of the people, by the people, for the people.” (Abraham Lincoln)

• “No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings.” (John F. Kennedy)

“The welfare of each of us is dependent fundamentally upon the welfare of all of us.” (Theodore Roosevelt)

Love that last one…

Well I was just wondering where the prayer rug is hidden and where does that framed copy of his birth certificate reside when he isn’t wearing it on his forehead?

George W. Bush:

The Shrub’s decor is likewise restrained – no irrational exuberance here. It’s hard to see in the photo but the drapes pick up the pale gold stripes on the Martha Washington chairs and both coordinate with the blue and gold border on the rug, pulling the room together nicely. Her only criticism is the cream pillows on the cream sofa. Booooooooor-ing! She would have found a snazzy blue-and-gold braid or silk cord to sew around them and thrown one or two small accent pillows on the sofa.

Well, I actually kind of like W’s office myself…but then I always was partial to Federal Blue, Remington’s work, Churchill’s bust (the bronze kind), and pro-American Presidents.   Classy is as classy does.

And who can forget Mr. William Jefferson Clinton?:

Looking at the Clinton Oval Office, it’s easy to see why the Chimperor-in-chief opted for the relatively sedate azure and gold scheme. The eye popping colors are enough to make a guy choke on his pretzel and that dark blue rug is just… wrong. The candy striped sofas, while undeniably perky (not to mention reminiscent of interns), are a tad much when combined with a bright blue rug and bright gold curtains. Hard on the eyes………Sometimes, less is more.

My first thought was:  “As any mother knows….the stripes on the couches are great….they hide stains.”

The Clinton-inspired, Blue Dress Democratic style is so not vogue now, but darn practical for all of those evenings with the interns, I tell ya.

Ammo shortage: Gun Grabber End-Run


UPDATE:  More at Confederate Yankee

UPDATE: Apparently, this  issue has been resolved with the help of two Senators and a straightening out of DOD bureaucracy.  See GBS comments below.

While Bill Maher blames ammo sales on racism, those doing their homework have discovered what may be the cause for more ammo shortages….apparently the DOD is cancelling contracts for expended military brass to weapons manufacturers.

What will this essentially do? It will make materials harder to get for ammo production and ammo will become more expensive…thus making consumer ammuniton in short supply and expensive.

Here is what they had to say at The Shootist, who has a run down on this recent finding:

Now it has come clear…now we know what they intend to do.

It is an end-run around Congress. They don’t need to try to ban guns–they don’t need to fight a massive battle to attempt gun registration, or limit “assault” weapon sales.

Nope. All they have to do is limit the amount of ammunition available to the civilian market, and when bullets dry up, guns will be useless.

The rest of the post by The Shootist:

Think we jest?

Here are copies of two letters sent to Georgia Arms just Thursday evening–effectively cancelling a contract he had to purchase 30,000 pounds of expended military brass in .223, 7.62mm, and .50 caliber:

Dear Valued Customer:

Please take a moment to note important changes set forth by the Defense Logistics Agency:
Recently it has been determined that fired munitions of all calibers, shapes and sizes have been designated to be Demil code B. As a result and in conjunction with DLA’s current Demil code B policy, this notice will serve as official notification which requires Scrap Venture (SV) to implement mutilation as a condition of sale for all sales of fired munitions effective immediately. This notice also requires SV to immediately cease delivery of any fired munitions that have been recently sold or on active term contracts, unless the material has been mutilated prior to sale or SV personnel can attest to the mutilation after delivery. A certificate of destruction is required in either case.
Thank you,
DOD Surplus
15051 N Kierland Blvd # 300
Scottsdale, AZ 85254

March 12, 2009

Larry Haynie
Georgia Arms
PO Box 238
Villa Rica, GA 30180
Re: Event 7084-6200:
Dear Larry Haynie,

Effective immediately DOD Surplus, LLC, will be implementing new requirements for mutilation of fired shell casings. The new DRMS requirement calls for DOD Surplus personnel to witness the mutilation of the property and sign the Certificate of Destruction. Mutilation of the property can be done at the DRMO, if permitted by the Government, or it may be mutilated at a site chosen by the buyer. Mutilation means that the property will be destroyed to the extent prevents its reuse or reconstruction. DOD Surplus personnel will determine when property has been sufficiently mutilated to meet the requirements of the Government.
If you do not agree with the new conditions of your spot sale, please sign the appropriate box provided below stating that you do not agree to the new terms and would like to cancel your purchase effective immediately. If you do agree to the new terms please sign in the appropriate box provided below to acknowledge your understanding and agreement with the new requirements relating to your purchase. Fax the signed document back to (480) 367-1450, emailed responses are not acceptable.

Please respond to this request no later than close of business Monday, March 16th, 2009.

Sincerely,

Government Liquidation.

Got that? From now on, remanufacturers of military brass will not be able to buy surplus brass from DOD–actually from Government Liquidators, llc.–the corporation that sells surplus materials for the U.S. government. At least, not in any form recognizable as once-fired brass ammunition.

Now all brass ammunition will have to be shredded, and sold as scrap.

Georgia Arms, who brought this to our attention, is the 5th largest ammunition manufacturer of centerfire pistol and rifle ammunition in the U.S.

“We’re right up there behind Hornady,” Larry Haynie told me.

He also told me with the cancellation of his contract to purchase this brass, and the ending of his ability to purchase any more expended military ammunition, he will have to severely curtail his operation–laying off approximately half his 60-person work force.

Haynie further pointed out this move is a stupendous waste of taxpayer money–reducing the worth of the brass some 80%–from casings, to shredded bulk brass.

He stated most of this will now go to foundries where it will be melted down, cast in shippable forms, and likely be sold to China, one of the largest purchasers of U.S. metals on the open market.

Haynie was manufacturing over 1 million rounds of .223 ammunition every month, which he sold on the civilian market to resellers, and to law enforcement agencies across the country.

He will start tomorrow sending cancellations of orders for .223 to law enforcement agencies all over the country.

You can expect this to affect every bullet you purchase in the future–with no reloaded ammunition available, the already strained new manufacturers will be unable to meet demand. They are already turning out everything they can build for the military market. The civilian market is stressed to the point even reloading components have become hard to find.

Now, with this hit, ammunition prices will go through the roof in the next year.

Your quality piece, sitting in your gun rack, will become a very expensive wood and steel, or plastic and steel club.

Also from the Shootist:

What can you do?

Google “contact members of Congress” or simply type in www.congress.org.
When you reach that site, type in your zip code–it will give you all your representatives, senators, and their web pages.

Or you can find the addresses and e-mails of your own senators and congressmen by going to www.senate.gov and www.house.gov. Both pages have locator aids at the top of the page.

Here is a letter I just sent to Representative Bill Cassidy, Congressman from the 6th District of Louisiana, and Senator David Vitter of Louisiana. I will be sending it to every member of our congressional delegation. Feel free to copy it and paste in your own e-mail, sending it to your legislators.
We have to stop this now!
The Honorable Bill Cassidy


Member of Congress from Louisiana
Dear Congressman Cassidy:
It has come to my attention that the Department of Defense has issued a directive that all expended military brass (fired cases) will now be shredded and sold for scrap material, rather than resold by Government Liquidators LLC to the civilian market for remanufacture.
You may not be aware of it, but there is a severe shortage of ammunition available for sale to the public across the country, causing problems for shooters, hunters, and reloaders everywhere.

Now, apparently the Obama administration, realizing they cannot move against private firearms ownership since the landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Washington D.C./Heller case, has made their move in another way.

By cutting off the resale of expended military ammunition to remanufacturers, they have put a stranglehold on the nation’s ammunition supply.

Further, they have reduced the return to the government on expended brass by 80%. What was sold for remanufacturer at a fair return to the government, will now cost the taxpayers untold sums of money as the cost of scrap brass is far below the price per pound for expended military ammunition.

In addition, the use of remanufactured ammunition is a huge asset to law enforcement agencies across the country who buy millions of rounds of reloaded ammunition a year from these manufacturers for practice rounds.

With this market gone, law enforcement will no longer be able to purchase inexpensive reloaded ammunition, and with the continuing combat status of military forces across the Middle East, original manufacturers of new ammunition are turning out everything they can make to the government, thus exacerbating the shortage of new ammunition in both the civilian and law enforcement market.

Lastly, in these harsh economic times, does it not strike you as cold and calculating that the Obama administration has no compunction against ruining an industry that employs thousands of American citizens in the remanufacturing of sporting and military ammunition. One major resupplier, Georgia Arms, the fifth largest manufacturer of centerfire pistol and rifle ammunition has informed me he will have to quickly lay off half his 60-person workforce, as he has had to cancel contracts with dozens of police agencies who had contracted with him to supply them with remanufactured .223 ammunition.

Georgia Arms has been practically put out of business by this directive that all expended military brass must be shredded. His current contracts have been canceled, and he is notifying his customers across the country he can no longer supply their ammunition needs.

Please look into this immediately. This move by the Obama administration is nothing but a back-door strike against firearms ownership in this country–if shooters can’t buy ammunition, the guns are little better than steel clubs–and this is obviously the intent.

Thank you for your time and efforts in this serious attack against the Second Amendment rights of the American citizenry.

Sincerely,

Gordon Hutchinson

Author “The Great New Orleans Gun Grab”

Firearms Columnist for Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Mississippi Sportsman magazines. 

 

 

 

If this move doesn’t represent an end-run on gun owners, then it is must simply be a stupid idea that loses jobs and de-values the metal sold. I believe it is likely the former, but either way, it has to stop…Write your Congress-critters today!

(Hat tip: Cdr Salamander)

Obama foreign policy: Juvenile, Bizarre, Senile, and Dangerous


First the Juvenile and Bizarre:

Hillary Clinton gives Russia a big RED “Reset” Button

Can we get one of those buttons in red, white , and blue and reset this entire Presidency and Congress so that what will instantly appear are grown-ups that believe in American tradition, the Constitution, Capitalism, and Freedom?

The Senile:

Tongue-tied Clinton in Europe

Of course, she will never be misunderestimated by our media…she is the “smartest” woman alive.

and the appeasing stupidity that is dangerous:

Obama announces he is open to appeasing the Taliban

How is it that President Obama (and his wife) can manage to piss-off our allies needlessly and coddle American-murdering terrorists all in the span of a couple of days?

If their performance so far is any indication, I  hate thinking about what this administration’s “smart diplomacy” will do to us in 4 years….

SOS Clinton seeks to “improve US Image” with Muslims abroad


Hey, Mrs. Clinton, how’s about turning that around and working on that image of Muslims in the US?  Perhaps they may have some responsibility for American attitudes toward Muslims? Ya think?

Clinton, remember this?

Clinton, remember this?

Could it be that the atrocity of 9-11 and Muslims celebrating in the streets was not exactly the kind of relations you seek between us?  Of perhaps the Muslims in our country who couldn’t bring themselves to denounce this savage act of murder?

Or perhaps it might  even be those “moderate” Muslims, even on our own soil, who murder their wives by beheading —  all for “honor”? 

Or maybe, just maybe, it is just barbaric, self-mutilation in the name of Allah that keeps that bond a little loose between Americans and the Islamic World?

Headline From MyWayNews – Clinton seeks to improve US image with Muslims:

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton pledged a new American openness to ideas from abroad, especially the Muslim world, during a visit Wednesday to Indonesia…..

……Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim nation, is the second stop in Clinton’s inaugural overseas trip as the top U.S. diplomat. She said that was “no accident,” with the trip designed to show support for the country’s hard-won democracy as well as its efforts to fight terrorism while respecting human rights.

Steps were already being taken to improve relations, she said, announcing at a joint press conference with Foreign Minister Hassan Wirajuda that Peace Corps operations were expected to resume here after a long absence….

….

Though most of the country’s 190 million Muslims practice a moderate form of the faith, public anger ran high over U.S. policy in the Middle East and the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush administration, fueling a small but increasingly vocal fundamentalist fringe.

According to Clinton and the pacifist Left’s view, we must improve OUR image with the MODERATE Muslims who think the US is evil for establishing freedom and democracy for millions oppressed by a savage dictator we chased into a foxhole, tried, and hanged…. and a barbaric group called the Taliban….

And then there’s this.  The foreign minister in Indonesia, where Clinton visited today, says this:

Wirajuda agreed, saying, “We have proven here democracy, Islam and modernity can go hand in hand.”

The next paragraph explaining just how well that’s going with those “moderates” in Indonesia:

The militant group Jemaah Islamiyah has carried out a series of suicide bombings targeting Western interests in Indonesia since 2002, killing more than 240 people, many of them foreign tourists. But experts say a crackdown has severely weakened the movement; the last attack occurred more than three years ago.

And even during Clinton’s visit, that Islamic harmony was apparent:

Security was tight for Clinton’s visit, with 2,800 police deployed in the capital along with members of the army, according to local police. Witnesses saw scattered protests and at least five people were detained by police following a rowdy rally by 200 Muslim university students in front of the U.S. Embassy.

Some protesters sets tires on fire in a city on the capital’s outskirts and others screamed “Hillary is terrorist.”

Oh, and Clinton has a rule to bash Bush  at least once in every country she visits.  Indonesia was no exception:

One of Clinton’s goals in Indonesia is to stress the growing importance of a region that often felt slighted by the Bush administration.

I guess the following examples don’t count….but then again, we are increasingly a country of “those feeling slighted” ourselves despite billions of dollars of debt-financed “help” being thrown our way.

But what did we expect from an Obama Presidency and Clinton State Department?  It’s as if we were never attacked….9/10 appeasement Lefties in a post 9/11 world. 

God Be With Us!

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 252 other followers