On a morning when Mitt Romney should be celebrating his big win yesterday’s Florida primary, his campaign is instead trying spin remarks he made in an interview CNN’s Soledad O’Brien:

I’m in this race because I care about Americans. I’m not concerned about the very poor, we have a safety net there. If it needs repair I’ll fix it. I’m not concerned about the very rich, they are doing just fine. I’m concerned about the very heart of America, the 90-95 percent of Americans who are struggling.

Ouch, talk about squandering your victory lap.

Even taken in context Gov. Romney’s remarks are cringe inducing, his reasoning plays directly into the Democratic Party’s ‘Republicans don’t care about the poor’ narrative. Not that the context even matters, the only thing people are to take away from that interview, the only thing people are going to remember is Mitt Romney saying “I’m not concerned about the very poor.”

The campaign ads practically write themselves.

Frankly, Jonah Goldberg is right:

“… the under-emphasized dynamic in this race isn’t that Romney isn’t conservative enough (though that’s obviously a real concern out there) it’s that he’s simply not a good enough politician. He may be the most electable on paper. He’s certainly a nice guy, decent father, smart, successful etc. But, every time he seems to get into his groove and pull away he says things that make people think he doesn’t know how to play the game.”

And that more than anything else is why I think he’s the wrong candidate, for all his strengths, he has the uncanny ability to look and sound like a frighteningly bad caricature of a disconnected, elitist country club Republican.

Overall, this gaffe probably isn’t fatal, but it’s worrisome — make no mistake this gaffe is going to come back haunt him. This is still Romney’s campaign to lose, he’s going to have to sharpen his focus and make sure he doesn’t fall into the class-warfare trap. This election is about the economy, the focus should be on fixing the economy so that everyone benefits not pitting one group of Americans against another, the way Barack Obama has.

I can’t say it any better than Tina Korbe:

No matter what measure you use, government spending has increased since 1965. Total government spending has more than doubled. Federal spending per household has increased from $11,431 in 1965 to $29,401 in 2010, for an increase of nearly 162 percent. That would all be fine if revenues had kept pace — if, in the same time period, the United States hadn’t also acquired more than $15 trillion in debt.

Under the Obama administration, the deficit and debt has only increased — and, to make matters worse, for all three years of Barack Obama’s presidency, the federal government has indulged in high levels of spending without an official budget. What could possibly be the result of such directionless spending other than unprecedented deficits and increased debt?

The Democrat-controlled Senate is directly to blame for the lack of a budget. Even when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House, the Congress didn’t bother to pass a plan. Now that Republicans control the House, the House has passed a comprehensive budget plan — but the Senate has still done nothing. The Senate is the true do-nothing chamber, but the president will almost assuredly blame the House as the inactive chamber.

I’m honestly at loss for words here, as Ms. Korbe points out Pres. Obama and Senate Democrats will undoubtedly try blame House Republicans for the lack of a budget, but the reality is they did their job and passed a comprehensive budget plan last April.

It’s Harry Reid, and Senate Democrats who have failed to fulfill one of their most basic responsibilities and it’s they who should be held to account.

Ms. Miller decided to buy a gun after she was the victim of a home invasion while dog and house sitting for friends in 2010:

I want a gun. I don’t feel safe living in Washington, D.C. and want to protect myself. I’m starting today by going down to City Hall to find the gun permit office to tell them, “I want a gun.” This series will follow me as I navigate the city bureaucracy and outdated rules in order to legally buy a firearm.

My desire for a gun started when I had to face down over a dozen criminals on an empty cul de sac in Washington, D.C., armed only with a Blackberry.

It was New Year’s Day 2010, and I’d been staying in the house to dog sit for friends who were on vacation. I’d returned from walking the dog when I saw a man coming from the house. “What are you doing?” I asked, sensing something was off with the situation. The Golden Retriever just stood next to me with a slack leash.

“We’re here to clean the pool,” the man said. He looked nervous and his eyes were blood-shot.

I was pretty sure my friends hadn’t called in a swimming pool emergency during the middle of winter. “No, we didn’t call for you,” I said.

“Oh, then it must be the house next door,” he said, smiling nervously. He turned and walked away quickly.

I’d left the front door unlocked since I was walking the dog for less than ten minutes. (I know, lesson learned.) After the man left, I was still suspicious so I went inside, grabbed my Blackberry and clicked on the icon for the camera. I walked down the street, and as I turned the corner, I saw about 15 scruffy young men standing around two pickup trucks. We were at the end of a woody, dead-end road.

I nervously held up my Blackberry to take a quick photo of them and the license plates. Suddenly, the blood-shot-eyed guy darted out, blocking the shot. “What are you doing?” he asked. I looked around at all the men staring at me and was suddenly scared. “Nothing, I’m um, just going now,” I said as I put my Blackberry down instead of taking the picture around him and went home.

To me the single most striking thing about Ms. Miller’s experience, is that the process just buy a pistol in our nation’s capitol is virtually identical to the process for obtaining concealed carry permit in most other jurisdictions. There’s simply no logical reason for making that difficult just to legally purchase a firearm.

I’m all for reasonable restrictions like background checks, waiting periods, but forcing someone to go through a complex multi-step process, that takes months to complete and is virtually identical to the one for obtaining a concealed carry permit almost anywhere else is insane. The reason for it to discourage law-abiding citizens from exercising their Constitutionally protected rights… And let me clear about this, this isn’t simply a second amendment issue, everyone one of us has a God-given right to feel safe in our own home and to protect ourselves, our families and our property from those who would do us harm. There’s an old cliché to says when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

It’s true if you live in densely populated urban area the average response time to a 911 call around 7 minutes… But rural areas it can often take 20 minutes or more for police to arrive.

Anyway, Ms. Miller recently reached something of milestone in quest to legal obtain a handgun: She put done her money and ordered a Sig Sauer P229 in 9mm. Now all she has to do is a few more hoops before she can legally take possession of her pistol:

And, that is the “but” in this story. Although I have paid and ordered the gun, I can’t take possession of it until it is transferred to Mr. Sykes, and I get an approved registration certificate.

In order to get this certificate, I still have to do the following: take a written test on the city’s firearm laws; get Mr. Sykes to fill out the application form; have the eligibility form notarized; get two passport photos and prove that my eyesight is better or equal to the driver’s license requirement (20/70 in best eye and field of vision of at least 140 degrees).

Next, I have to take all the forms to the registry office; pay $60 in fees; wait five days for the application to be approved; wait an additional five days for Mr. Sykes to be able to release my gun; and take the gun to the police for a ballistics test.

Finally, if I pass all of these steps, I should be able to take possession of the gun that I already bought.

The sad truth is, Washington D.C. is one of  America’s most violent cities. The district’s arcane, restrictive gun laws haven’t made anyone safer, in fact one could argue that all the district’s decades old de facto gun ban has accomplished is to insure that criminals have largely defenseless population to prey upon.

Have a very Merry Christmas and a Joyous New Year everyone… I hope you find health, happiness and peace during this holiday season and through out the coming year!

Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. -Ephesians 1:2

Let me preface is this by saying I’m a big fan of Mythbusters, but like many of you I’ve been expecting something like this would happen for quite some time… Accidents happen, but what happened Tuesday, while Mythbusters co-hosts Tory Belleci, Kari Byron and Grant Imahara were working on either proving or debunking myths related to the ability of stone cannonballs to break through castle walls was a foreseeable and preventable accident.

First of all firing a cannon anywhere near  a residential neighborhood is spectacularly bad idea. Second this isn’t the first time they’ve had a cannonball get away from them or caused property damage, remember the matchstick cannon and neon orange bowling ball?

A lot of what they do — working energetic materials is inherently dangerous, and things can go horribly wrong. Look I don’t want this to sound like I’m bashing the Mythbusters team, they have admirable safety record — eight plus years without a Class A or even a Class B mishap is a record to be envied. That said, the Alameda County Sheriffs Department bomb disposal range  is not an appropriate or safe location to be firing cannons. The incident with the matchstick cannon bouncing a projectile 1,500 feet up a hill should have made that clear.

One hopes that in the future they’re conduct experiments involving cannons at a more appropriate location such as an artillery range or other remote location that isn’t closely bordered by densely populated residential or commercial areas.

Related

• Mythbusters cannonball ‘myth-fires’ – The Register
• ‘MythBusters’ cannonball stunt goes awry – Houston Chronicle
• ‘MythBusters’ Hosts, Adam Savage and Jamie Hynerman, Visit California Home Damaged by Cannonball – Foxnews.com
•  ‘MythBusters’ cannon ball accident caused by ‘unforeseen bounce’ – Washington Post
• ‘MythBusters’ hosts: Sorry about that cannonball – San Francisco Chronicle
• MythBusters aren’t Jackasses. Let’s keep that in mind. – Entertainment Weekly
• The ‘Mythbusters’ cannonball run as seen on a map – CNET News

Anthony Miranda's booking photo courtesy of the Chicago Police Dept.

It’s a good thing this happened in Chicago, where strict “gun control” laws ensure convicted felons, like Anthony Miranda, don’t have access to firearms:

Robbing a man who turned out to be an ultimate fighter proved to be a bad decision for a convicted felon, who is now in bad shape as he is held on bond.

Police say around 11:30 p.m. Friday, Anthony Miranda, 24, walked up to a car parked at 55th Street and Kenneth Avenue, just a few blocks from Midway International Airport.

Miranda asked the driver for a lighter, and the driver said he didn’t have one. Then Miranda pulled a handgun and demanded that the driver hand over his money, police said.

I guess no one ever told Mr. Miranda, you don’t bring a gun to a fistfight… Especially when the other guy is an experienced mixed martial arts fighter.

According to media reports by the time police arrived on the scene the victim had pinned Mr. Miranda down, and well lets just say Mr. Miranda looks like he lost the fight… Badly. He was taken to Holy Cross Hospital for treatment (and hopefully career counseling).

From CNN:

Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank, a 16-term Democrat, will announce Monday he does not intend to seek re-election in 2012, according to a statement from Frank’s office.

Good riddance, don’t let the door hit you on the way out Congressman.

H/T: Weasel Zippers.

Update: Matt Mackowiak tweets:

With Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) retiring, next in line on the Dem side of the House Financial Services Committee is Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA).

Ouch, would it be wrong of me to say I hope Rep. Frank reconsiders?

Oh this is rich, Former House Speaker Nancy “We have to pass the health care bill so that you can find out what is in it” Pelosi, the woman who shut the American people out of the debate over health care reform is now calling for transparency?

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Wednesday that Supreme Court arguments over President Obama’s healthcare law should be televised.

“When the Affordable Care Act is placed before the highest court in our country, all Americans will have a stake in the debate; therefore, all Americans should have access to it,” Pelosi said in a news release.

Right, will all due respect to Rep. Pelosi, it would have been nice if she had included the American people in the debate in the first place. Instead what we got were closed door meetings and an op-ed column calling protests against Obamacare “un-American”.

Call me suspicious, but I suspect the only reason she’s backing C-Span’s request to televise the hearings is because she think Democrats will be able to use portions of the video as a weapon against Republicans during the 2012 elections.

H/T: Doug Powers.

From CNSNews.com:

House Republicans are set to vote later this week on a balanced budget amendment (BBA) that would not cap federal spending as a percentage of GDP or require a supermajority to raise taxes.

Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said the vote would probably take place this Friday.

Cantor said that this version of a BBA, H.J. Res 2 — rather than one that would cap federal spending, H.J. Res 1 — was the version “overwhelmingly” favored by House Republicans.

What is it with the Republican leadership and self-defeating Kabuki theater?  This bill is a spectacularly bad idea for several reasons… First, Minority Whip Steny Hoyer is actively whipping against the bill, so it’s an open question whether this turd will even pass in the House. But if buy some miracle it does, the odds of getting the 67 votes needed to pass in Harry Reid’s Senate are about the same as the Miami Dolphins winning the Super Bowl this season.

Second it gives political cover to vulnerable Democrats, who can claim they voted for a Balanced Budget Amendment even though know it has no chance of passing.

Third it paints House and Senate Republicans who favor a tougher version of the amendment, H.J. Res 1, into a political corner. Democrats and their willing allies in the media will trumpet the fact that Republicans have come around to a “reasonable” compromise on the balanced-budget amendment that would have passed save for the objects of few radical extremists.

Finally, and most importantly, under Speaker Boehner’s amendment, federal spending could easily rise to 25% or more of GDP as long as the budget is balanced. This is a recipe for disaster that will ultimately lead higher taxes… We’ve seen this game played out time and again in states that have balanced budget amendments without spending caps — politicians keep spending and raise taxes to pay for it because their state constitution say they have to balanced the budget.

This is how Republicans lose elections, they were winning the debate on fiscal policy, but then they lost their focus and started putting political symbolism over substance. They badly misjudged President Obama’s willingness to cut spending and allowed budget debate to move to secret supercommittee where Democrats will almost certainly torpedo negotiations in and effort to gain a re-election advantage. And now they put forth a hollow balanced budget amendment that Democrats will gladly feign support for, but that has no chance of actually reducing spending or preventing future tax increases… Instead it virtually assures them.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has already suspended indefinitely implementation of the CLASS act — Obamacare’s Long-Term-Care Entitlement because it was financially unsustainable.

And as Jonathan Adler and Michael Cannon explain in today’s Wall Street Journal Obamacare has yet another major flaw that threatens its basic functioning:

Even if ObamaCare survives Supreme Court scrutiny next spring, its trials will be far from over. That’s because the law has a major glitch that threatens its basic functioning. It’s so problematic, in fact, that the Obama administration is now brazenly trying to rewrite the law without involving Congress.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act offers “premium assistance”—tax credits and subsidies—to households purchasing coverage through new health-insurance exchanges. This assistance was designed to hide a portion of the law’s cost to individuals by reducing the premium hikes that individuals will face after ObamaCare goes into effect in 2014. (If consumers face the law’s full cost, support for repeal will grow.)

The law encourages states to create health-insurance exchanges, but it permits Washington to create them if states decline. So far, only 17 states have passed legislation to create an exchange.

This is where the glitch comes in: ObamaCare authorizes premium assistance in state-run exchanges (Section 1311) but not federal ones (Section 1321). In other words, states that refuse to create an exchange can block much of ObamaCare’s spending and practically force Congress to reopen the law for revisions.

The Obama administration wants to avoid that legislative debacle, so this summer it proposed an IRS rule to offer premium assistance in all exchanges “whether established under section 1311 or 1321.” On Nov. 17 the IRS will hold a public hearing on that proposal. According to a Treasury Department spokeswoman, the administration is “confident” that offering premium assistance where Congress has not authorized it “is consistent with the intent of the law and our ability to interpret and implement it.”

Mr. Adler and Mr. Cannon rightly point out the law’s proponents confidence is misplaced… Federal agencies can create rules — but they cannot amend or ignore statutes and the text of the law is perfectly clear, it does not allow premium assistance in federal exchanges.

Simply put without congressional authorization, the IRS lacks the authority to dispense tax credits or spend money… Not that has ever stopped Washington’s regulators from ignoring the will of Congress – just look at Avenal Power Center, L.L.C. v. EPA.

Anyway, the odds that a Republican controlled House will fix a fatal flaw in Obamacare are somewhere around slim and none… the odds aren’t much in the Senate either where many Democrats are facing tough reelection fights and aren’t going to want to go anywhere near one of the most unpopular and polarizing pieces of legislation in recent memory — especially after the trouncing they took in the mid-terms.

Bottom line, the Obama Administration will undoubtedly try to push through their regulatory fix for this flaw only to see it almost instantaneously tossed out in a court challenge.

Related:

• More Americans than not want health law repeal: poll – Reuters